• 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!

Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,359
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional - Yahoo! News

A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman discriminates against gay couples because it doesn't give them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.


The court didn't rule on the law's other politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

:2dance::rock:kitty:
 
I'm guessing that last clause will go down also, it seems to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution.

Glad to see some more movement on this.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.


Feel free to move to Iran then because they have it there.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

Nope, sorry your not winning this battle.
 
Hey folks, please do not let people derail the thread with stupid, over the top comments. Just ignore that kind of stuff please.
 
Nope, sorry your not winning this battle.

You know what I find interesting..... The fact that I can willingly claim that a new Constitution would be a good idea to support my viewpoint on this issue, but you folks on the left are still unwilling to indicate that much of your legislative and philosophical agenda should require at least a Constitutional Amendment to make legitimate.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

damn i should move this to my sig. You want to scrap the constitution? Are you serious? After so many conservatives (yourself included i believe) have bashed on Obama claiming things he has done are unconstitutional and should not be tolerated and blah blah blah. And now you want to scrap the constitution? the same thing you bash on him for supposedly wanting to do.
 
You know what I find interesting..... The fact that I can willingly claim that a new Constitution would be a good idea to support my viewpoint on this issue, but you folks on the left are still unwilling to indicate that much of your legislative and philosophical agenda should require at least a Constitutional Amendment to make legitimate.

OK, so let me see if I have this right. If the folks on the left stuck their heads in a bucket of manure, you would do the same, just because they did it? OK, whatever floats your boat. :mrgreen:
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

And of course,you get to dictate MORALITY for everybody.

What criteria should we use to determine this "MORALITY"?
Seems to me more and more people don't seem to have a problem with gays.
 
You know what I find interesting..... The fact that I can willingly claim that a new Constitution would be a good idea to support my viewpoint on this issue, but you folks on the left are still unwilling to indicate that much of your legislative and philosophical agenda should require at least a Constitutional Amendment to make legitimate.

Exactly. Given the current TEMPORARY slant of the SCOTUS many seek to use it in place of constitutional amendment. If the constitution can be "interpretted" to allow this, such as in Roe vs. Wade, then we are left with essentially no constitution at all. What is so sacred about a "partnership" of only two persons in a marraige? If gender is not "important" then why not simply make marraige the same as any business "partnership" contract and allow any number of partners of any gender? Polygamy is much more common than SSM worldwide, and removes all bias and social, moral or religious barriers from a "traditional" marraige contract. Law should say what it means and mean what is says (eliminating the need for most lawyers).
 
Last edited:
:applaud:2dance::cheers::2grouphug
 
Exactly. Given the current TEMPORARY slant of the SCOTUS many seek to use it in place of constitutional amendment. If the constitution can be "interpretted" to allow this, such as in Roe vs. Wade, then we are left with essentially no constitution at all. What is so sacred about a "partnership" of only two persons in a marraige? If gender is not "important" then why not simply make marraige the same as any business "partnership" contract and allow any number of partners of any gender?

This is a complicated issue, but I believe that denying ANYBODY any rights that others have deprives them of equality, which according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes DOMA unconstitutional. But don't take my word for it. 2 out of 3 of the judges who ruled were appointed by Reagan and Bush I, respectively, and are fairly strict constructionists. For this reason, I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling that was handed down today.
 
And of course,you get to dictate MORALITY for everybody. What criteria should we use to determine this "MORALITY"?

How about a couple thousand years of human history, that worked out pretty well compared to the last century and a half which hasn't.

Seems to me more and more people don't seem to have a problem with gays.

Under the current structure neither I nor anyone else can prevent those people from making poor decisions like that.
 
How about a couple thousand years of human history, that worked out pretty well compared to the last century and a half which hasn't.



Under the current structure neither I nor anyone else can prevent those people from making poor decisions like that.

Your choice of the phrase "Those people" tells me everything I need to know about what you are posting here.
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

most Americans would reject a Fascist police-state.
 
Exactly. Given the current TEMPORARY slant of the SCOTUS many seek to use it in place of constitutional amendment. If the constitution can be "interpretted" to allow this, such as in Roe vs. Wade, then we are left with essentially no constitution at all. What is so sacred about a "partnership" of only two persons in a marraige? If gender is not "important" then why not simply make marraige the same as any business "partnership" contract and allow any number of partners of any gender? Polygamy is much more common than SSM worldwide, and removes all bias and social, moral or religious barriers from a "traditional" marraige contract. Law should say what it means and mean what is says (eliminating the need for most lawyers).

DOMA and other bans against SSM violate the 14th amendment. So there.
 
How about a couple thousand years of human history, that worked out pretty well compared to the last century and a half which hasn't.

The last century and a half has worked out pretty damn well.
 
Note, for some who are having trouble with the issue --

This ruling is not based on discrimination by sex (gender).

This ruling is based on discrimination against homosexuality.

This has been true of every ruling.

Can you clarify the significance of your distinction?
 
Can you clarify the significance of your distinction?

How is it not obvious?

There are some who insist the rulings have not been based on discrimination against homosexuality, but on sex-based discrimination against those who wish to marry the same gender.

I'm pointing out that they're wrong.

Do you disagree?
 
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.

Seeing as your morality clearly is completely different from a rational person, don't you think you're a tad biased?
Typical hypocrisy. You can't stand the constitution when it goes against you, but fallaciously use it to defend everything else.
 
This is a complicated issue, but I believe that denying ANYBODY any rights that others have deprives them of equality, which according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes DOMA unconstitutional. But don't take my word for it. 2 out of 3 of the judges who ruled were appointed by Reagan and Bush I, respectively, and are fairly strict constructionists. For this reason, I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling that was handed down today.

How do you square that logic with ANY preference in law based on age, gender, race, ethnic group or difference in income level? To assert that I MAY change my income level, does not deny that it is what it is today. The same applies to age, which seems to be X for law/right A, Y for law/right B and Z for law/right C. How can "separate but equal" laws apply to gender, yet not for race as both are immutable. In many cases we must accept that equivalent (similar) is as close to equal (same) as we may choose to get.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom