• 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!

Chris Christie set to veto gay marriage bill

Zyphlin said:
You realize the prop 8 judge is not a direct and useful mirror of what you're going to see on the Supreme Court? Yes? You also note that the Prop 8 judge decided, seemingly somewhat on his own, to take it in a direction the arguments didn't actually go in...in regards to gender...while even suggesting that there may be a legitimate case in regards to a rational basis argument against it for homosexual marriage based simply on the "appearance" of facts being one way even if they're not REALLY going that direction (I admit, I may be mixing it up with another gay marriage case but I don't think I am).

Prop 8's ruling doesn't in any way make me think its a slam dunk case as it reaches the SCOTUS level, it reenforces my thought that this thing could quite easily go either way. Could it be difficult going? Absolutely. But I think at worst its a 70/30 type of deal either direction. While I'm sure there are some conservative scholars that have stated it's a losing battle, there's also many who think the opposite and its not uncommon in any form of acadamia or constitutional law circle (or even political circles) to find individuals who enjoy being contrarian. Pointing to handful of scholars saying one thing while ignoring all others...again...to me is cherry picking in hopes of defending your attitude of bravado in regards to how unquestionably open and shut this seems to you.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the judicial decision for the holding but rather, I'm talking about the arguments which were raised by the proponents of prop 8. They were grasping for "legitimate state interests" and could not articulate the rational relation. Those arguments aren't going to change much if this makes it to the Supreme Court.

Even as conservative as the US Supreme Court has become, I would not be surprized in a lopsided decision based on how weak the proponents case was argued, unless they get substantially better.
 
ARealConservative said:
The interest is in rewarding procreation while not rewarding promiscuity.

proof that the interest are actually being met is not required.

How the courts will rule is an obvious crap shoot, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume it will go in your favor anytime soon.

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]
Click to expand...

How is banning gay marriage rationally related to "not rewarding promiscuity"?

Are you arguing that banning gay marriage will make straight people all of a sudden monogamous?
 
disneydude said:
How is banning gay marriage rationally related to "not rewarding promiscuity"?
Click to expand...

You asked if procreation is all we are after, why we even care about marriage. The answer is because they also want to prevent encouraging promiscuity.

Are you arguing that banning gay marriage will make straight people all of a sudden monogamous?
Click to expand...

No. you really are have difficulty understanding what you read.
 
ARealConservative said:
You asked if procreation is all we are after, why we even care about marriage. The answer is because they also want to prevent encouraging promiscuity.



No. you really are have difficulty understanding what you read.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but that's would have to be a logical step in order for your argument not to fail.

How does "gay marriage" encourage promiscuity? If anything, it would seem to DISCOURAGE it.

Again....how does "banning gay marriage" rationally relate to discouraging promiscuity? Straight people/gay people are going to continue to be "promiscuous" as long as sexuality exists. Gay marriage does nothing to encourage it and banning it does nothing to prevent or discourage it.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but that's would have to be a logical step in order for your argument not to fail.

How does "gay marriage" encourage promiscuity? If anything, it would seem to DISCOURAGE it.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
 
ARealConservative said:
Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
Click to expand...

Wow....that is certainly backwards reasoning and trying to prove a negative. Its a good thing that the Courts have never engaged in that type of legal gymnastics. First off, marriage, straight or gay, does nothing to "encourage procreation". One could argue that marriage is designed to offer rewards for people who choose to be monogamous and avoid promiscuity, but that same rational would apply to gay marrage as well as straight marriage. Your argument fails horribly because you cannot defend not only HOW the stability of a straight relationship is a legitimate state interest but the stability of a gay relationship is not, but also how denying gay marriage effects the stability of straight relationships, which whether you like it or not, you would have to be able to do in order to pass Constitutional muster. Take a look at the states where gay marriage is or has been allowed. You will see NO/ZERO decline in the stability of straight marriages. So ....once again.....a big FAIL to your argument. Sorry.
 
ARealConservative said:
Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps....lessening the human population might be something of a good idea, considering resources and population, but that is another matter. At issue here it seems, is more the rights we all carry to be happy and free, and less the institution called marriage, which I might point out does not currenty have a very good record of success.
 
disneydude said:
Wow....that is certainly backwards reasoning and trying to prove a negative. Its a good thing that the Courts have never engaged in that type of legal gymnastics. First off, marriage, straight or gay, does nothing to "encourage procreation". One could argue that marriage is designed to offer rewards for people who choose to be monogamous and avoid promiscuity, but that same rational would apply to gay marrage as well as straight marriage. Your argument fails horribly because you cannot defend not only HOW the stability of a straight relationship is a legitimate state interest but the stability of a gay relationship is not, but also how denying gay marriage effects the stability of straight relationships, which whether you like it or not, you would have to be able to do in order to pass Constitutional muster. Take a look at the states where gay marriage is or has been allowed. You will see NO/ZERO decline in the stability of straight marriages. So ....once again.....a big FAIL to your argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage may improve monogamy, but has zero to do with procreation. The mental gymnastics is you trying to tie one in with the other.

And I pointed out from the very beginning that no proof that the interests are being met is required.

As for your views on what marriage promotes, millions disagree
 
tecoyah said:
Perhaps....lessening the human population might be something of a good idea, considering resources and population, but that is another matter. At issue here it seems, is more the rights we all carry to be happy and free, and less the institution called marriage, which I might point out does not currenty have a very good record of success.
Click to expand...

Our debt alone dictates that our interests are to grow the population, not to mention how programs like SS require that we grow in size
 
ARealConservative said:
Our debt alone dictates that our interests are to grow the population, not to mention how programs like SS require that we grow in size
Click to expand...

Easy enough to grow the population: increase legal immigration limits.

In any case, gay marriage should have zero effect on population. Or do you think that gays who can't marry are suddenly going to turn straight and start procreating with the opposite sex?
 
AdamT said:
In any case, gay marriage should have zero effect on population. Or do you think that gays who can't marry are suddenly going to turn straight and start procreating with the opposite sex?
Click to expand...

This is a textbook softball.

Marriage recognized by the federal government has a large cost associated.

So you are correct, gay marriage has no effect on the population. Thanks you just helped my case.

Because although it does nothing to aid in the interests of increasing the population, programs like SS allowing same sex people to cover their spouses creates a larger burden on these programs.

So as you just admitted, it doesn’t help with population increases, but it does create a higher cost for various programs.
 
ARealConservative said:
Gay marriage may improve monogamy, but has zero to do with procreation. The mental gymnastics is you trying to tie one in with the other.

And I pointed out from the very beginning that no proof that the interests are being met is required.

As for your views on what marriage promotes, millions disagree
Click to expand...

You cannot argue that banning gay marriage promotes the legitimate state interest of encouraging straight marriage to promote procreation unless you are able to show how the ban rationally relates to that. That argument fails from the if you aren't able to do that. Sorry, but you wouldn't make it past the first minute
unless and until you are able to do that.
 
ARealConservative said:
This is a textbook softball.

Marriage recognized by the federal government has a large cost associated.

So you are correct, gay marriage has no effect on the population. Thanks you just helped my case.

Because although it does nothing to aid in the interests of increasing the population, programs like SS allowing same sex people to cover their spouses creates a larger burden on these programs.

So as you just admitted, it doesn’t help with population increases, but it does create a higher cost for various programs.
Click to expand...

Um, not necessarily. One thing we know for sure is that there is a marriage penalty at tax time, meaning that most of the time, two people who are married will pay more in taxes than the same two people would if they weren't married. In that sense gay marriage would increase revenue. It's conceivable that the SS cost could offset that, but I think that's unlikely. I think that both people work in the vast majority of couples -- gay and straight.

In any case, your argument is not specific to gays. Would you argue that we should do away with marriage altogether, because it costs the government too much money?
 
Zyphlin said:
The downfall of GWB which lead to him being re-elected by an even larger percentage margin of victory and larger popular vote total than he did in 2000?
Click to expand...

His downfall meaning that the GOP is embarrassed by him and he rarely shows his face or endorses people. You really know better than that.
 
AdamT said:
In any case, your argument is not specific to gays. Would you argue that we should do away with marriage altogether, because it costs the government too much money?
Click to expand...

my role in this thread to date is really that of devils advocate. My actual opinion is that government should not be in the business of granting any perks to anybody, regardless of what group they might currently belong to.

So that would mean marriage has nothing to do with government.
 
digsbe said:
Race and religion are protected within the constitution. Homosexuality and other sexualities are not. I've heard those strawmen arguments many many times. The reason why I believe states have the right to define marriage is because I believe that it's Constitutionally legal to do so and that defining marriage between a man and a woman (which is the wording most states use, not a "ban" on gay marriage) is not a violation of rights outlined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So is sex. And the discrimination here is not based on sexuality, it is based on sex.

Two gay people can get married right now and have their marriage completely and legally recognized by every state and the federal government as long as they are a man and a woman. Just like two people who were attracted to people of a different race could have gotten married in any and every state back in the 60s as long as they were both of the same race.

It is the characteristic being discriminated against that determines where the scrutiny is set. In the case of same sex marriage it is sex, not sexuality that is the characteristic in which the parties cannot equally do something the other can do.
 
ARealConservative said:
Easy to do as the discrimination ban is primarily based on biology.

Rather than require expensive tests to determine if people are fertile, we just discriminate based on the most obvious method of determining viability, sex.
Click to expand...

Why not require test for fertility if the state interest in promoting families is that high? And why recognize opposite sex marriages that are guaranteed to not make children and the law knows it because the couple could not have married if they could make children? (Referring to the states that do not allow first cousins to legally marry if they can have children, yet all those states have anti-SSM laws and all those marriages are legally recognized by the federal government.)
 
ARealConservative said:
You missed the point where I just said it doesn’t matter how the law comes about. Direct democracy, or representative republic, the people responsible for defending the government needs to agree with the government.

So yes, dense.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Enough with the personal attacks.
 
AdamT said:
Um, not necessarily. One thing we know for sure is that there is a marriage penalty at tax time, meaning that most of the time, two people who are married will pay more in taxes than the same two people would if they weren't married. In that sense gay marriage would increase revenue. It's conceivable that the SS cost could offset that, but I think that's unlikely. I think that both people work in the vast majority of couples -- gay and straight.

In any case, your argument is not specific to gays. Would you argue that we should do away with marriage altogether, because it costs the government too much money?
Click to expand...

The federal government did a study within the last 10 years that predicted that legalized same sex marriage would likely benefit the national coffers by a small amount of money.
 
ARealConservative said:
Gay marriage isn’t even part of the equation.

Again, the interest is to encourage procreation, while not encouraging promiscuity. There is no compelling interest to encourage ssm because it has nothing to do with procreation, so the stability of the relationship is not considered a state interest.
Click to expand...

Procreation is irrelevant to state interest. Child rearing is the relevant issue.
 
ARealConservative said:
This is a textbook softball.

Marriage recognized by the federal government has a large cost associated.

So you are correct, gay marriage has no effect on the population. Thanks you just helped my case.

Because although it does nothing to aid in the interests of increasing the population, programs like SS allowing same sex people to cover their spouses creates a larger burden on these programs.

So as you just admitted, it doesn’t help with population increases, but it does create a higher cost for various programs.
Click to expand...

Actually, a bigger benefit of marriage than procreation could ever be (especially since the parents are allowed to divorce or separate whenever they want) is that marriage means that more people are in stable relationships. Stable relationships mean more revenue and more responsible citizens. The sex of the two who are married would make no significant difference at all in these benefits. And, the government has someone who they can require to pay (if the person is financially able at all) for end of life arrangements for an adult. This is particularly important if the adult who has passed had no blood relations or was estranged from his/her blood relations.
 
ARealConservative said:
Our debt alone dictates that our interests are to grow the population, not to mention how programs like SS require that we grow in size
Click to expand...

You do realize that same sex couples can help grow the population too, right? It's called surrogacy. A female same sex couple can use donated sperm to get pregnant and the two women raise the child. A male same sex couple can use one of the two's sperm to impregnate a surrogate mother (with her egg or a donated egg) and they get to raise the baby once he/she is born. Voila, population goes up.

Of course you still have yet to prove that the state really is concerned about population growth from married relationships since they allow other couples who cannot have children to marry. In fact, there is very little doubt that a woman beyond the age of 70 cannot have children without a lot of help.
 
SheWolf said:
His downfall meaning that the GOP is embarrassed by him and he rarely shows his face or endorses people. You really know better than that.
Click to expand...

Well I am not the GOP but and Independent and I think GWB did a hell of a job when you consider the attack on 9/11 and the biggest natural disaster tin the history of this country in Katrina...
 
roguenuke said:
The federal government did a study within the last 10 years that predicted that legalized same sex marriage would likely benefit the national coffers by a small amount of money.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone can say considering all the benefits the gov would have to SSM. and if other classes of people were allowed to marry to the cost would be out of sight
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't know how anyone can say considering all the benefits the gov would have to SSM. and if other classes of people were allowed to marry to the cost would be out of sight
Click to expand...

The budgeting office did the study, not me.

Besides, as someone else pointed out, there are many times when marriage is worse for two people than if they filed as two singles.

Plus, the government benefits in that someone else is agreeing to take some responsibility for another adult. It is like when my mother's best friend married a guy who was paralyzed from the neck down. He was living in a nursing home completely on the tax-payer's dollar because he was divorced from his first wife and had no family willing to pay for him. When they got married, now she agreed to take care of him, including financially. This means that he is no longer being taken care of on the tax-payer's dime and there is someone providing care for him.

Married people must list both of their incomes when applying for government financial aide, while single people only need to declare their own income.

When a single person dies who has no blood relatives willing or able to pay for the person's final arrangements, the government foots the bill. When a married person dies, the spouse must take responsibility for the person's final arrangements, including cost unless they can prove financial hardship in doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom