• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would it look like if SSM was rolled back?

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Trump announced during an interview the other day that he would "strongly consider" appointing SCOTUS justices who would rule against Obergefell and "leave marriage to the states." I highly doubt even if he was elected that would occur but as a man in a same-sex marriage in a state that has a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, I wonder what would happen. Would my state annul my marriage or refuse to recognize it? If I adopted children before it was rolled back, how would it affect my family? Since marriage would no longer be considered a Constitutionally protected right, could states go back to enforcing other types of bans like for interracial marriage? Would people in my state get to go back to the ballot box and vote to dissolve the legal recognition and protections of my family? Or would my same-sex marriage continue to be recognized and no future ones would be accepted? Would that not lead to different classes of people? How would rolling back same-sex marriage at this point lead to anything but a cluster of problems and what exactly is there to be gained by doing it?
 
Generally when law changes like that those in under the wire are grandfathered.
 
Existing gay marriages would continue, while new ones would be barred.
 
States would, one by one, vote to change their laws to allow for the change in the definition of marriage--just as was happening before the SC stepped in.
 
CriticalThought said:
Trump announced during an interview the other day that he would "strongly consider" appointing SCOTUS justices who would rule against Obergefell and "leave marriage to the states." I highly doubt even if he was elected that would occur but as a man in a same-sex marriage in a state that has a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, I wonder what would happen. Would my state annul my marriage or refuse to recognize it? If I adopted children before it was rolled back, how would it affect my family? Since marriage would no longer be considered a Constitutionally protected right, could states go back to enforcing other types of bans like for interracial marriage? Would people in my state get to go back to the ballot box and vote to dissolve the legal recognition and protections of my family? Or would my same-sex marriage continue to be recognized and no future ones would be accepted? Would that not lead to different classes of people? How would rolling back same-sex marriage at this point lead to anything but a cluster of problems and what exactly is there to be gained by doing it?
Click to expand...

That just shows that Trump knows nothing about constitutional rights.
 
CriticalThought said:
Trump announced during an interview the other day that he would "strongly consider" appointing SCOTUS justices who would rule against Obergefell and "leave marriage to the states." I highly doubt even if he was elected that would occur but as a man in a same-sex marriage in a state that has a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, I wonder what would happen. Would my state annul my marriage or refuse to recognize it? If I adopted children before it was rolled back, how would it affect my family? Since marriage would no longer be considered a Constitutionally protected right, could states go back to enforcing other types of bans like for interracial marriage? Would people in my state get to go back to the ballot box and vote to dissolve the legal recognition and protections of my family? Or would my same-sex marriage continue to be recognized and no future ones would be accepted? Would that not lead to different classes of people? How would rolling back same-sex marriage at this point lead to anything but a cluster of problems and what exactly is there to be gained by doing it?
Click to expand...

It may lead to more conservative Christians voting for trump. He can't make good on it. Only congress can practice jurisdiction stripping.
 
Henrin said:
Existing gay marriages would continue, while new ones would be barred.
Click to expand...

clownboy said:
Generally when law changes like that those in under the wire are grandfathered.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure. It is kind of unprecedented in the country to strip civil rights away once they have been recognized. What do we have to go off here as an example of how it will be treated?
 
Fletch said:
States would, one by one, vote to change their laws to allow for the change in the definition of marriage--just as was happening before the SC stepped in.
Click to expand...

What would happen to existing same-sex marriages that were granted in states that banned it?
 
The worst he could do(maybe) would be to change the status of "Marriage"
Marriage would be the exclusive domain of religious orders,
anything else would require a civil union, thus separating the function of the state from the church.
There is still a legal need for the function of Marriages, it just does not need to be called that!
 
CriticalThought said:
What would happen to existing same-sex marriages that were granted in states that banned it?
Click to expand...

That's what the peoples in each state would have to decide, just how it should have been all along. This would just make that decision more immediate.
 
clownboy said:
That's what the peoples in each state would have to decide, just how it should have been all along. This would just make that decision more immediate.
Click to expand...

I can't really comprehend people voting on fundemental rights. I equate that to saying states should be free to vote on free speech, freedom of assembly, or the right to own arms. The 14th amendment established that we all have a fundemental right to equal protection and deliberately restricted states from enforcing laws which would deny equal protection. Obergefell followed the precise logic of Loving v. Virginia to the extent that you would have to argue that interracial marriage bans are Constitutional if you want to argue same-sex marriage bans are Constitutional. People can worship the 10th amendment all they want but the fact is some things should not be up for a populist vote, hence why the equal protection clause was amended to the Constitution. If the public believes states should have the right to restrict who can and cannot marry, then amend the US Constitution, but let's not pretend that same-sex marriage bans are Constitutional under the current Constitution.
 
longview said:
The worst he could do(maybe) would be to change the status of "Marriage"
Marriage would be the exclusive domain of religious orders,
anything else would require a civil union, thus separating the function of the state from the church.
There is still a legal need for the function of Marriages, it just does not need to be called that!
Click to expand...

Religions do not own the word "marriage", so they cannot justify taking the word marriage itself from legal paperwork, licenses, just to appease some religious sensibilities. Get over it.
 
roguenuke said:
Religions do not own the word "marriage", so they cannot justify taking the word marriage itself from legal paperwork, licenses, just to appease some religious sensibilities. Get over it.
Click to expand...
Nothing to get over, I was hypothesizing about the limits of authority.
 
The better question is why does anyone believe anything Trump says?
 
longview said:
Nothing to get over, I was hypothesizing about the limits of authority.
Click to expand...

They have no authority over it and the court could not rule that way. They really could only rule to allow states to restrict marriage based on sex, even though such a ruling would be stupid and show nothing more than the feelings of the judges and not actually represent the constitution or even the feelings of the people.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am not so sure. It is kind of unprecedented in the country to strip civil rights away once they have been recognized. What do we have to go off here as an example of how it will be treated?
Click to expand...

It's not just civil rights...the fed govt provides benefits and recognizes privileges for the marital contract and relationships.
 
clownboy said:
That's what the peoples in each state would have to decide, just how it should have been all along. This would just make that decision more immediate.
Click to expand...


Do you then believe that American citizens in a same sex marriage would lose all of their rights as a married couple if their employers forced them to move into a state which refused to recognize their marriage?
 
interesting question . . it would be anarchy probably . . i imagine there would be riots and protesting due to the chaos and tryanny of government . . .

anyway the reality is

trump will not be president
equal rights for gays will never role back
gays are actually going to have MORE of their rights protected like the rest of us.
 
Constructively, what would be the point of rolling it back and putting up for state vote (in states that didnt already vote it in)?

What purpose would it serve?
 
AGENT J said:
interesting question . . it would be anarchy probably . . i imagine there would be riots and protesting due to the chaos and tryanny of government . . .

anyway the reality is

trump will not be president
equal rights for gays will never role back
gays are actually going to have MORE of their rights protected like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

i agree, people respond differently to newly won rights being taken away than they do to being deprived to something they never had. It would turn violent, and justifiably so
 
chromium said:
i agree, people respond differently to newly won rights being taken away than they do to being deprived to something they never had. It would turn violent, and justifiably so
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. I know that women would never 'go back' to being treated as 2nd class citizens again, and not be treated as equal to men. (being equal does not = being the same.) We would not tolerate losing our hard-won rights.
 
Lursa said:
Yes I agree. I know that women would never 'go back' to being treated as 2nd class citizens again, and not be treated as equal to men. (being equal does not = being the same.) We would not tolerate losing our hard-won rights.
Click to expand...

Amd the part that I don't think people get is if either of those happened, women or gays it wouldn't just be women or gays fighting for their rights, it would be many other people also. The majority of people who fought for equal rights for gays, by percentage were not gay themselves. Many people understand the fact that a win for equal rights is a win for ALL OF US and to take any of them away hurts ALL OF US and would not tolerate it.
 
chromium said:
i agree, people respond differently to newly won rights being taken away than they do to being deprived to something they never had. It would turn violent, and justifiably so
Click to expand...

Violence is rarely justified. And who would this violence be aimed at? Anyone that you "suspect" voted against your rights?
Just random strangers?
Police? Because they are certainly acceptable targets nowdays.

This is just another attention grabber for Trump, he is following his cycle to say something outrageous to get the gafaws and thumbs up from throwbacks who don't believe "them thar gays" should be protected and "them thar women folk belong in the kitchen".
He's pandering to the archaic days of the GOP and its sad that so many Republicans still eat out of his hand.

On the flip side, it looks like Bernie wants to segregate gun rights by whether you live in a "city" or "hunting area" so it may come down to people deciding which rights they want to give up before its al said and done or to scratch all of the above off as ludicrous and will never happen (this isn't to derail just to show that both sides of the aisle talk about "changing" constitutional rights in what we believe is unrealistic ways).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom