• 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

My apologies, when you asked if voters should be able to pass this law, I was under the impression we were all adults that understand we operate under a representative republic.

So my answer was that yes such laws should be allowed to pass.

What you replied with is childish sophomorics dealing with us not being a direct democracy, which is learned in elementary school.

It seems to me that you are arguing around the point. The point being...yes...we are a representative republic. Why then should we put everything to a popular vote in a ballot initiative?
 
It seems to me that you are arguing around the point. The point being...yes...we are a representative republic. Why then should we put everything to a popular vote in a ballot initiative?

Wow you are dense.

You asked the question of if these laws should be allowed.

My answer is yes, we should allow these kinds of laws.

Right now we elect people to represent us, and those people should be able to make such laws. If we ever moved to a direct democracy, then they should be allowed to make such laws as well.

If the people that ultimately are responsible for defending the government don’t like the government, then we have bigger problems.
 
Due to the fact that the government does legally discriminate regarding gender in some cases (like selective service and drafting), I don't think it's right to say that defining marriage between a man and woman by the state (who legally issues the marriage license) is unconstitutional.

What the ERA would've done would have made Gender on par with race/religion/etc. A Strict Scrutiny type of classification.

The fact it didn't pass however doesn't mean that Gender discrimination can be done willy nilly by the government, nor even that it is a minimum scrutiny status. Constitutional Case law has shown that gender falls inbetween, in what is known as Middle-Teir Scrutiny, which has a higher level of requirements on the part of the state than the minimum tier but not as much as Strict.

Much like I think Disney's own personal views on the matter is causing him to see the situation through rose colored glasses in regards to the potential for an argument on behalf of the state against homosexual marriage, I believe you're doing similar in regards to the chances it'd have in regards to gender. I think there's a fair shot, though not a slam dunk by any chance, that it could be found to be violating based on gender.

I think it's a big stretch to say that homosexuality is protected under the EPC

Again, you're trying to say something is a stretch that has already been established in case law. Various cases have essentially recognized Homosexuality as a minimum tier scrutiny classification at the very least. Inded, really, any classification falls under this minimum tier.

It would be a massive overhaul and in my opinion a trampling upon state's rights (essentially forcing them and dictating what marriage is) for the SCOTUS to say that homosexuality is protected under the Constitution

I disagree, I'd consider it very similar to when it was done in regards to Race.
 
Disney, there are a number of things that are absolutely arguable as legitimate state interests that can be argued with regards to marriage. Creating stable families, encouraging procreation, advocating monogramy in the population, better regulating ownership rights in joint couplings, and even for lack of a more eloquent explanation streamlining the aiblity to set a singular individual as your prime designee in most scenario's.

While various people may disagree with how much of a legitimate state interest those things are, its just not accurate to suggest that there is an issue in coming up with any legitimate government interest the government has in regards to marriage. Indeed, it has been decided...through upholding the governments role in marriage to date...that the government DOES have legitimate interest in regulating marriage.


Same thing for
Where the EPC comes into affect in terms of "gay marriage", and through use of the term you're clearly talking about the class "homosexuals" rather than gender, is not singularly whether or not there's a legitimate state interest at play in the particular instance but also whether or not discriminating against the class in question is "rationally related" to that interest.

It is that rationally related portion of things where potential problem for those against it come to a headway. However, there's still a large question if even something as nebulous as maintaining a traditional culture is enough to qualify as "legitimate" but not "compelling" (Which would be what was needed in Loving).

Considering that homosexuality, at this point, is a classification that falls under minimum scrutiny and the very broad leeway that it bestows upon judges in determining what "legitimate" and "raitonal" means, I don't believe the issue is nearly the slam dunk...when viewed from the mindset of "gay marriage"...as your opinion presents it.

Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families? I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that. Gay families are every bit as stable as straight ones. Eliminating gay marriage won't decrease the divorce rate in straight marriages.

Same thing for "encouraging procreation" First off, I'm not sure that this is a legitimate governmental interest, but even accepting that it is, you would have to limit marriage to people who CAN and WILL procreate for that argument to advance.



Advocating monogamy - gay marriage would HELP that I would argue. But even so. How does banning gay marriage promote monogamy?


Therein lies the problems for opponents of gay marriage which is why many conservative scholars see this as a losing issue in the courts.
 
Wow you are dense.

You asked the question of if these laws should be allowed.

My answer is yes, we should allow these kinds of laws.

Right now we elect people to represent us, and those people should be able to make such laws. If we ever moved to a direct democracy, then they should be allowed to make such laws as well.

If the people that ultimately are responsible for defending the government don’t like the government, then we have bigger problems.

I think you need to go back and follow along in the discussion before you call ME dense. I think you missed the posts where we were talking specifically about these being VOTER laws not Legislative laws.

Its ok though.....feel free to catch up and join in the conversation. I only ask that you do so appropriately.
 
Fair enough. The problem with putting everything to a "popular vote" really pre-empts why we have a legislative and judicial system however. Why not just do away with legislatures and put everything on a ballot then?

Well yes, but you were asking a hypothetical. The reality of the situation is that we're not going to have "everything" or even close to "everything" put to a popular vote in this country and its a strawman to even suggest or imply that doing such is what Christie stated. At worst, Christie is suggesting that massively controversial issues, especially ones that have shown themselves in various states to continue to be heated even after legislatures or courts have decided on it, would be best served being done by a popular vote. Which is still drastically different than "everything" to a popular vote. So you're arguing against a strawman in complaining that it would pre-empt the legislative and judicial system...becuase no one is suggesting that.

Now, if you're actually dealing with the reality of this situation and what's being said here, you'd ask if putting occasionally controversial issues to a popular vote would pre-empt why we have a legislative and judicial system. Very slightly, but not to a troublesome way in the former, and absolutely not in any way in the latter. Popular vote doesn't preclude it from being challenged in court.
 
He is playing to the base, and it could potentially be his downfall just like it has been for GWB, McCain, and Romney.

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?
 
Right, the courts are there to ensure that such doesn't happen. However, to do such...in part...the ocurts act after hte fact. Your question was not whether or not those laws would be upheld and remain in place. Your question was whether or not they should be allowed to be voted on.

That is exactly the point. He was stating that we run the risk of a system being foisted on the public if we don't allow voters to pass these laws. My response was that we don't really run that risk because we have a legislative system that allows representatives to be voted out if you disagree with them and a judicial branch that protects the rights and interests of the Constitution.
 
Well yes, but you were asking a hypothetical. The reality of the situation is that we're not going to have "everything" or even close to "everything" put to a popular vote in this country and its a strawman to even suggest or imply that doing such is what Christie stated. At worst, Christie is suggesting that massively controversial issues, especially ones that have shown themselves in various states to continue to be heated even after legislatures or courts have decided on it, would be best served being done by a popular vote. Which is still drastically different than "everything" to a popular vote. So you're arguing against a strawman in complaining that it would pre-empt the legislative and judicial system...becuase no one is suggesting that.

Now, if you're actually dealing with the reality of this situation and what's being said here, you'd ask if putting occasionally controversial issues to a popular vote would pre-empt why we have a legislative and judicial system. Very slightly, but not to a troublesome way in the former, and absolutely not in any way in the latter. Popular vote doesn't preclude it from being challenged in court.

However, the point Zyph is not really a strawman....the point is, why do we allow certain things to be put to a popular vote? Why not allow the legislative and judicial branches to do their job. We run a serious risk to the rights/liberties of this country when we allow things to be put to a popular vote. Isn't that why we elect our representatives and have the safeguard of voting them out if we disagree with them.
 
Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families? I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that. Gay families are every bit as stable as straight ones. Eliminating gay marriage won't decrease the divorce rate in straight marriages.



Is proof required that what people think are in the public interest actually has the desired outcome? This does not seem to be the case for other areas we get involved in.
 
Whoa....wait there. How does discriminating against gay marriage create more stable families?

Strawman. I never stated that it helps to create more stable families. You stated that they couldn't identify any legitimate state interests. That's pattentedly false. They absolutely can. What they may have issues doing is explaining how discriminating against homosexuals is "rationally related" to serving that state interest.

I agree...THAT is a legitimate public interest, but gay marriage opponenents can't just spout off the interest, they have to be able to argue how a ban promotes that.

They only have to argue how a ban "rationally relates" to that. A relatively broad terminology.

Same thing for "encouraging procreation" First off, I'm not sure that this is a legitimate governmental interest, but even accepting that it is, you would have to limit marriage to people who CAN and WILL procreate for that argument to advance.

First off, "Disneydude disagreeing with it" is not a slamdunk way of establishing that something isn't a legitimate government interest. While you may not agree that it qualifies as such, there absolutely is a legitimate argument to that notion that has at least a reasonable amount of likelihood of being recognized.

Second off, because it need only be "rationally related" there are ways to at leats make the argument that there is a difference between those who are not physically capable with each other (homosexuals) and those who are choosing not to at hte time of marriage but can easily change their mind. The closest equivilent would be those that are physically unable to reproduce, but unlike gay marriage, to identify such a person would require a disclosure of medical records which comes into other constitutional blocks.

Again...while I may not agree with the assertion that they would make, the outright dismissal and arrogant portrayal of the inevitable legal nature of your particular side is what I have issue with. On top of your just factually wrong portions of what you wrote in regards to the need of legitimate state interest being the issue (ironic after you lectured people on understanding the EPC), my issue is with your grossly exaggerated superiority of one sides constitutional case. If it was truly so slam dunk, open and shut as you like to pretend this issue would have been dealt with long ago.
 
Is proof required that what people think are in the public interest actually has the desired outcome? This does not seem to be the case for other areas we get involved in.

In order to pass Equal protection muster, there does not necessarily need to be "proof" per se, but the burden is on the government to show that the proposed ban/discrimination is reasonable crafted and narrowed to meet that interest.
 
I think you need to go back and follow along in the discussion before you call ME dense. I think you missed the posts where we were talking specifically about these being VOTER laws not Legislative laws.

Its ok though.....feel free to catch up and join in the conversation. I only ask that you do so appropriately.


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.
 
That is exactly the point. He was stating that we run the risk of a system being foisted on the public if we don't allow voters to pass these laws.

And he's right. If the state allows for public referendum on issues, and the issue isn't a clear cut, precedence laden, obvious constitutional violation, if you simply FORBID people from voting on a law because you dislike it that creates a situation where you're forcing a system upon the public.

You took that and applied a plethora of phantom words to it and fashioned yourself a strawman to beat as if he was suggesting that somehow because he thinks those laws should be allowed to be voted on that he supports all laws to be voted on by popular vote and that they should not face judicial scrutiny...things he never said or even gave any implication to.

My response was that we don't really run that risk because we have a legislative system that allows representatives to be voted out if you disagree with them d a judicial branch that protects the rights and interests of the Constitution.

Your response was based on a strawman of your own creation, not simply on what he stated.
 
Strawman. I never stated that it helps to create more stable families. You stated that they couldn't identify any legitimate state interests. That's pattentedly false. They absolutely can. What they may have issues doing is explaining how discriminating against homosexuals is "rationally related" to serving that state interest.



They only have to argue how a ban "rationally relates" to that. A relatively broad terminology.



First off, "Disneydude disagreeing with it" is not a slamdunk way of establishing that something isn't a legitimate government interest. While you may not agree that it qualifies as such, there absolutely is a legitimate argument to that notion that has at least a reasonable amount of likelihood of being recognized.

Second off, because it need only be "rationally related" there are ways to at leats make the argument that there is a difference between those who are not physically capable with each other (homosexuals) and those who are choosing not to at hte time of marriage but can easily change their mind. The closest equivilent would be those that are physically unable to reproduce, but unlike gay marriage, to identify such a person would require a disclosure of medical records which comes into other constitutional blocks.

Again...while I may not agree with the assertion that they would make, the outright dismissal and arrogant portrayal of the inevitable legal nature of your particular side is what I have issue with. On top of your just factually wrong portions of what you wrote in regards to the need of legitimate state interest being the issue (ironic after you lectured people on understanding the EPC), my issue is with your grossly exaggerated superiority of one sides constitutional case. If it was truly so slam dunk, open and shut as you like to pretend this issue would have been dealt with long ago.

Two things...I never said "Disneydude disagrees" as an argument....I said that personally I don't see it as a legitimate interest, but accepting that it is.........and then provided my argument.

The fact of the matter is....marriage is not require for procreation and marriage does not ensure procreation. The proposed ban of gay marriage does nothing that can be said to be reasonably related to furthering that interest.
 
However, the point Zyph is not really a strawman....the point is, why do we allow certain things to be put to a popular vote?

Because our system of government, outlined by the Constitution, allows states to choose how they function amongst themselves in matters that are not vested onto the federal government. There is no constitutional power given to the federal government to establish how individual states are allowed to conduct their governmental business in terms of voting on state issues (outside of broader things like racial discrimination, etc).

We allow certian things to be put to a popular vote because if an individual state feels that a system that allows them to do such at certain instances when deemed necessary then they are free to do so.

Why not allow the legislative and judicial branches to do their job.

What the "job" of those branches, how wide ranging that job should be, how supreme those jobs should be, are not subject to some over arching federal mandate. I question you that its not "why not allow them to do their job" but rather "why limit the people of the states to decide how their government should best serve them"?

We run a serious risk to the rights/liberties of this country when we allow things to be put to a popular vote.

I disagree. The risk is no more higher than from letting all laws come from the legislative branch. Both situations have the potential for tyranny of the majority. Both have situations where the rights of the majority may actually be trampled upon by grouping up of the minority. Both have situations where a host of other issues can be. But both have the same limitation in that they are checked for constitutional legitimacy by the courts.

Isn't that why we elect our representatives and have the safeguard of voting them out if we disagree with them.

That is one safeguard we have, and that is one reason we have a representitives. However, we also have safe guards in this country to allow states to determine how they deal with state issues on their own based on what individuals within that state feel is best for them.

Hypothetically, if a state suddenly went to EVERYTHING being by a direct popular vote...yes, that could cause some issues. However, that is as realistic and feasable as a hypothetical as worrying whether or not one of our states would seceed to create a islamic republic. It's ridiculous to use as the basis for an argument.
 
The fact of the matter is....marriage is not require for procreation and marriage does not ensure procreation.

Neither of which concretely negate the arguments that can be made that its a legitimate state interest or that its rationally related to prohibit homosexuals from marrying due to said interest.

The proposed ban of gay marriage does nothing that can be said to be reasonably related to furthering that interest.

Doesn't have to be reasonably related, only "rationally" which is an excessively broad term. Your bravado on the certainty of how slam dunk this issue is in regards to the inability of anti-gay marriage individuals arguing this in court is either born of ignorance of the law and the arguments, self-deception of the honest situation due to your own biases and prejudices, or simply is a utter and completely false bravado born from a desire to beat down and demoralize the opposition rather than present a realistic view point.
 
In order to pass Equal protection muster, there does not necessarily need to be "proof" per se, but the burden is on the government to show that the proposed ban/discrimination is reasonable crafted and narrowed to meet that interest.

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.
 
Because our system of government, outlined by the Constitution, allows states to choose how they function amongst themselves in matters that are not vested onto the federal government. There is no constitutional power given to the federal government to establish how individual states are allowed to conduct their governmental business in terms of voting on state issues (outside of broader things like racial discrimination, etc).

We allow certian things to be put to a popular vote because if an individual state feels that a system that allows them to do such at certain instances when deemed necessary then they are free to do so.



What the "job" of those branches, how wide ranging that job should be, how supreme those jobs should be, are not subject to some over arching federal mandate. I question you that its not "why not allow them to do their job" but rather "why limit the people of the states to decide how their government should best serve them"?



I disagree. The risk is no more higher than from letting all laws come from the legislative branch. Both situations have the potential for tyranny of the majority. Both have situations where the rights of the majority may actually be trampled upon by grouping up of the minority. Both have situations where a host of other issues can be. But both have the same limitation in that they are checked for constitutional legitimacy by the courts.



That is one safeguard we have, and that is one reason we have a representitives. However, we also have safe guards in this country to allow states to determine how they deal with state issues on their own based on what individuals within that state feel is best for them.

Hypothetically, if a state suddenly went to EVERYTHING being by a direct popular vote...yes, that could cause some issues. However, that is as realistic and feasable as a hypothetical as worrying whether or not one of our states would seceed to create a islamic republic. It's ridiculous to use as the basis for an argument.

Fair enough....but just to be clear, I've never argued that States don't have the right to do that, obviously I understand the politics involved, however, what I am questioning is the intelligence in doing so. Take California for example, we have a horrible history of activist groups placing initiatives on the ballot that were clearly unconstitutional...and the state spends millions battling them in the courts. The problem is, more often than not, legislators understand the constitution, drafters of these initiatives do not. Second, you and I both know how easily the electorate is swayed by misleading advertising sound clips. There is often all kinds of hidden stuff in these initiatives that people don't even know about, because it gets whittled down to a 30 second sound bite. Millions are then poured into these ad campaigns to sway people's emotions.

The bottom line....just because you CAN doesn't always mean that you SHOULD. That's all.....
 
Neither of which concretely negate the arguments that can be made that its a legitimate state interest or that its rationally related to prohibit homosexuals from marrying due to said interest.



Doesn't have to be reasonably related, only "rationally" which is an excessively broad term. Your bravado on the certainty of how slam dunk this issue is in regards to the inability of anti-gay marriage individuals arguing this in court is either born of ignorance of the law and the arguments, self-deception of the honest situation due to your own biases and prejudices, or simply is a utter and completely false bravado born from a desire to beat down and demoralize the opposition rather than present a realistic view point.

Let me ask you.....did you read the prop 8 decision and arguments. You call it "Bravado", but the reality is, the proponents of prop 8 had a very difficult time laying out the legitimate state interests involved and the relations. There have been several very conservative scholars that have come forward with the same conclusions...that it is going to be a very difficult argument to make. I don't exactly call that "bravado".
 
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.

How is banning gay marriage even rationally related to the state interest of promoting procreation? People can just as easily procreate whether gay marriage is allowed or not. People don't even need marriage to procreate, nor is marriage designed as a way to encourage it. Good luck in the courts if that is what you are going to rest your laurels on.
 
The bottom line....just because you CAN doesn't always mean that you SHOULD. That's all.....

I can understand where you're coming from on this. I will say however that many of your issues you have with direct votes aren't somehow non-existant from the legislative side of things. Not a one of us can say that we've never heard or or thought or known about a representitive having voted in favor of a bill that they never read, or that had things in it they didn't realize was there, or sometihng of the sort. Or that representitives haven't voted in a certain way due to reasons other than the truthful facts. Or that we don't have our legislatures on the state and federal level passing laws that don't get challenged for eons in the court system. Those pitfalls you speak of in regards to an occasional direct vote aren't inherent to direct votes and occur already even in places where direct votes are uncommon.
 
Let me ask you.....did you read the prop 8 decision and arguments. You call it "Bravado", but the reality is, the proponents of prop 8 had a very difficult time laying out the legitimate state interests involved and the relations. There have been several very conservative scholars that have come forward with the same conclusions...that it is going to be a very difficult argument to make. I don't exactly call that "bravado".

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.
 
I can understand where you're coming from on this. I will say however that many of your issues you have with direct votes aren't somehow non-existant from the legislative side of things. Not a one of us can say that we've never heard or or thought or known about a representitive having voted in favor of a bill that they never read, or that had things in it they didn't realize was there, or sometihng of the sort. Or that representitives haven't voted in a certain way due to reasons other than the truthful facts. Or that we don't have our legislatures on the state and federal level passing laws that don't get challenged for eons in the court system. Those pitfalls you speak of in regards to an occasional direct vote aren't inherent to direct votes and occur already even in places where direct votes are uncommon.

True true....however, my experience here in California is that we spend much more time defending these initiatives then we ever do defending legislative laws.
 
How is banning gay marriage even rationally related to the state interest of promoting procreation? People can just as easily procreate whether gay marriage is allowed or not. People don't even need marriage to procreate, nor is marriage designed as a way to encourage it. Good luck in the courts if that is what you are going to rest your laurels on.

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]
 
Back
Top Bottom