• 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

Your Star said:
I was not aware of such a case, and besides all you have to do is look at the date and know what the decision is there if such a case exists.

And yes Loving v Virginia does set precedent for SSM, it sets marriage as a fundamental right, and all you have to do is change race to gender and you have the 14th case locked up.
Click to expand...
The part about "just changing race to gender" is why it fails. With respect to marriage, race is nothing but a surface characteristic. The same cannot be said of SSM - such relationships are more consequential to a marriage concept. This is not to say one way or the other whether SSM is deserving of Constitutional protection - just that those protections cannot be rationally deduced from Loving.
 
Taylor said:
The part about "just changing race to gender" is why it fails. With respect to marriage, race is nothing but a surface characteristic. The same cannot be said of SSM - such relationships are more consequential to a marriage concept. This is not to say one way or the other whether SSM is deserving of Constitutional protection - just that those protections cannot be rationally deduced from Loving.
Click to expand...

I would say it is nothing but a surface characteristic. You have two people who love each other, and want to make each other their family. There is no important difference between SSM, and opposite sex marriage.
 
Eh...Let em get married....Employ a down on their luck divorce lawyer...They need the help....


j-mac
 
Taylor said:
Neither of which would preclude a state interest in reproduction.
Click to expand...

But that would mean...changing the definition of marriage...
 
Taylor said:
I suppose the problem is that proponents haven't yet convinced enough people in most states to pass it into law. They were making good progress in winning public opinion, but seem to have put the car in reverse when the emphasis shifted from convincing their communities to convincing the courts.
Click to expand...

Ok, try and keep up: this is a court case, not a vote.
 
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes we need more God in government just like it is in the Constitution. Oh wait.
 
Taylor said:
The part about "just changing race to gender" is why it fails. With respect to marriage, race is nothing but a surface characteristic. The same cannot be said of SSM - such relationships are more consequential to a marriage concept. This is not to say one way or the other whether SSM is deserving of Constitutional protection - just that those protections cannot be rationally deduced from Loving.
Click to expand...

From a legal standpoint, this is inacurate. Please list for me the differences in legal obligations between men and women in marriage.

Loving determined marraige was a fundamental right and that 14th amendment protection followed. This is important. It is one of the reasons why DOMA and SSM bans are not doing at all well in the courts, which seems to be another reality you are trying to avoid.
 
Taylor said:
Not sure I follow. Whether or not something "furthers" a state interest does not invalidate it. A state interest does not imply that the state is obligated to do everything in its power to ensure that people who marry can reproduce.
Click to expand...

There is no part of same sex marriage being banned that furthers any state interest.

But, if they are trying to say, for the sake of argument, that procreation is the state's interest in marriage, then they would have to show how they are furthering that state interest by not allowing same sex couples to legally marry but also how that state interest is still furthered by allowing opposite sex couples who cannot have children to enter into marriage. The reason that they would need to address this with such an argument, particularly the federal government and certain states, is because it shows a blatant bias against only those of the same sex not being allowed to marry due to procreation but no regard for those of the opposite sex who are allowed to marry despite not being able to procreate.

I have addressed this several times in the past, but here it is again. There are certain states that allow first cousins to legally marry only if they cannot procreate with each other. They have to show proof that they are infertile or that the woman is over a certain age in order to be able to enter into a legal marriage. These are all recognized as legal marriages by the federal government. This alone shows that the federal government and at least some states cannot claim that procreation is the main state interest in marriage for them and that is why they are banning same sex marriage because they are legally saying the opposite for certain opposite sex couples.
 
Taylor said:
I suppose the problem is that proponents haven't yet convinced enough people in most states to pass it into law. They were making good progress in winning public opinion, but seem to have put the car in reverse when the emphasis shifted from convincing their communities to convincing the courts.
Click to expand...

According to what are you basing this on? I hope you aren't basing it on referendums being put into place because that is seriously an uninformed thing to do.

For one thing, many areas of the country have different beliefs. We know this. So trying to show how some states started legalizing same sex marriage and then others made sure that they set up bans against it only shows that some people were getting scared because they saw the support for same sex marriage rising.

The problem the supporters of same sex marriage have is not increasing the support, it is getting people out to actually vote against laws banning same sex marriage. Actual support for same sex marriage is increasing and does not show any signs of stopping. In fact, it is showing signs of increasing more rapidly thanks to some celebrities and others publicly voicing their own support this last few months.

Of course this doesn't matter when it comes to the fact that marrying someone of the same sex should be a right. Support for interracial marriage was less than 40% when Loving v VA ruled interracial marriage bans unconstitutional. In fact, Alabama couldn't get enough votes to take the ban itself off the books until 2000, and they did try. In 1998, they were still getting a majority voting for keeping it there.
 
vendur said:
How about social security, which was based on the reproduction rates at the time of inception?
Click to expand...

Which has no need for marriage to increase. If pure reproduction rate alone is the interest, then they don't need marriage.

Plus, since same sex couples can increase the birth rates through artificial means, surrogate mothers and sperm donors, not to mention adopting unwanted children, then they would in fact be contributing to that increase in population in a positive way and legal marriage would likely make same sex couples more willing to do these things if they know they will actually be legally treated as married opposite sex couples who use these same methods to get children in every state.
 
Taylor said:
The part about "just changing race to gender" is why it fails. With respect to marriage, race is nothing but a surface characteristic. The same cannot be said of SSM - such relationships are more consequential to a marriage concept. This is not to say one way or the other whether SSM is deserving of Constitutional protection - just that those protections cannot be rationally deduced from Loving.
Click to expand...

Gender is nothing but a surface characteristic when it comes to legal marriage. There is absolutely no part of any marriage laws in any state that require a couple to have children. In fact, the only laws concerning procreation when it comes to opposite couples being able to marry are just the opposite. They prevent certain couples from legally being able to marry if they can procreate.
 
Redress said:
From a legal standpoint, this is inacurate. Please list for me the differences in legal obligations between men and women in marriage.

Loving determined marraige was a fundamental right and that 14th amendment protection followed. This is important. It is one of the reasons why DOMA and SSM bans are not doing at all well in the courts, which seems to be another reality you are trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
Not sure what exactly you think is inaccurate. Loving did not determine that 14th amendment protections apply to people seeking SSM.
 
Taylor said:
Not sure what exactly you think is inaccurate. Loving did not determine that 14th amendment protections apply to people seeking SSM.
Click to expand...

No. Loving set the basis that marriage was an actual right and that it fell under the protection of the 14th Amendment. It also established that just because the majority wants certain couples restricted from entering into legal marriage does not mean that, in itself, is a good enough reason to prevent those people from entering into marriage. The state has to abide by the EPC and prove that the restriction on marriage, based on sex, furthers a state interest, and since it is sex/gender that must be furthered, then it has to be an important government interest that is substantially related to that interest.
 
Redress said:
From a legal standpoint, this is inacurate. Please list for me the differences in legal obligations between men and women in marriage.
Click to expand...
It's not at all inaccurate from a legal standpoint, and has nothing to do with legal obligations between men and women.

Redress said:
Loving determined marraige was a fundamental right and that 14th amendment protection followed. This is important.
Click to expand...
Loving determined that the part of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act that criminalized marriage between whites and non whites violated the 14th amendment.
 
Taylor said:
It's not at all inaccurate from a legal standpoint, and has nothing to do with legal obligations between men and women.


Loving determined that the part of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act that criminalized marriage between whites and non whites violated the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

It won't be that hard to argue that the state has no role in trying to enforce gender roles. Arguing that non whites should not be allowed to marry whites is not really any different than arguing men can't marry men or women can't marry women. Sex is just as immutable as race.
 
roguenuke said:
But, if they are trying to say, for the sake of argument, that procreation is the state's interest in marriage, then they would have to show how they are furthering that state interest by not allowing same sex couples to legally marry but also how that state interest is still furthered by allowing opposite sex couples who cannot have children to enter into marriage. The reason that they would need to address this with such an argument, particularly the federal government and certain states, is because it shows a blatant bias against only those of the same sex not being allowed to marry due to procreation but no regard for those of the opposite sex who are allowed to marry despite not being able to procreate.
Click to expand...
There are almost no laws granting benefits that precisely match a state's interest - this does not come from "blatant bias" but from recognizing that to do so (screen every instance to ensure the state interest is met) is highly unrealistic. Not to mention creepy.

I have addressed this several times in the past, but here it is again. There are certain states that allow first cousins to legally marry only if they cannot procreate with each other. They have to show proof that they are infertile or that the woman is over a certain age in order to be able to enter into a legal marriage. These are all recognized as legal marriages by the federal government. This alone shows that the federal government and at least some states cannot claim that procreation is the main state interest in marriage for them and that is why they are banning same sex marriage because they are legally saying the opposite for certain opposite sex couples.
Click to expand...
I think that's reading way too deep into something that's never really been challenged in court.
 
roguenuke said:
According to what are you basing this on? I hope you aren't basing it on referendums being put into place because that is seriously an uninformed thing to do.

For one thing, many areas of the country have different beliefs. We know this. So trying to show how some states started legalizing same sex marriage and then others made sure that they set up bans against it only shows that some people were getting scared because they saw the support for same sex marriage rising.

The problem the supporters of same sex marriage have is not increasing the support, it is getting people out to actually vote against laws banning same sex marriage. Actual support for same sex marriage is increasing and does not show any signs of stopping. In fact, it is showing signs of increasing more rapidly thanks to some celebrities and others publicly voicing their own support this last few months.

Of course this doesn't matter when it comes to the fact that marrying someone of the same sex should be a right. Support for interracial marriage was less than 40% when Loving v VA ruled interracial marriage bans unconstitutional. In fact, Alabama couldn't get enough votes to take the ban itself off the books until 2000, and they did try. In 1998, they were still getting a majority voting for keeping it there.
Click to expand...
The only reason there's even a national debate over a "SSM right" is due to changing attitudes. Had that been allowed to continue, I think more states would have legalized SSM with popular support. Constitutional amendments defining marriage are a clear reaction to court decisions -not from fear of "support for same sex marriage rising." Their only purpose is to keep that decision in the hands of the people. If, as you say, "actual support for same sex marriage is increasing and does not show any signs of stopping" then there's nothing to fear from these amendments. People will simply pass another amendment re-redefining marriage.

The court action in California is a good example of putting the car in reverse. It pissed people off. They passed an amendment to reverse the decision. That pissed other people off. They reacted by showing that they could be just as bigoted as anyone else. Now you have two polarized groups, whereas before the court action, you had increasing popular sympathy and support.
 
Taylor said:
There are almost no laws granting benefits that precisely match a state's interest - this does not come from "blatant bias" but from recognizing that to do so (screen every instance to ensure the state interest is met) is highly unrealistic. Not to mention creepy.
Click to expand...

Marriage is mainly a contract between two people. The state only gives benefits/rights because it also gives many of those same or similar rights to blood relatives. Marriage allows for not-closely-enough related adults to become legal family and gain those rights/benefits. It also benefits society in numerous ways, including allowing for children to be raised in a two parent, less-likely to breakup family (although obviously they still do separate) and encouraging stable relationships that have been shown to benefit society greatly even if there are no children involved.

The state interest in having procreation is only that children are more likely to be raised by both parents if procreation happens within a marriage, instead of just a not-so-committed relationship. So that still goes back to the state's interest being married couples raising children, not actually making the children. And same sex couples are just as able to raise children as opposite sex couples are.

Taylor said:
I think that's reading way too deep into something that's never really been challenged in court.
Click to expand...

Then you're not thinking in the way the law works. The state cannot discriminate against one group, same sex couples, for the only reason that keeps them from being just like most opposite sex couples, the ability to procreate with each other, while ignoring the fact that there are many opposite sex couples who cannot procreate with each other (and in some cases are not legally allowed to be able to) who are legally recognized as married. This will be a major argument against any argument made to support same sex marriage bans that are based in procreation. It points out, quite rightly, that the law is not being applied to two similar groups, same sex couples and those opposite sex couples who cannot procreate together, in the same way. That is what equality is all about.
 
roguenuke said:
Gender is nothing but a surface characteristic when it comes to legal marriage. There is absolutely no part of any marriage laws in any state that require a couple to have children. In fact, the only laws concerning procreation when it comes to opposite couples being able to marry are just the opposite. They prevent certain couples from legally being able to marry if they can procreate.
Click to expand...
If gender were nothing but a surface characteristic, SSM would have been the norm thousands of years ago.
 
Taylor said:
The only reason there's even a national debate over a "SSM right" is due to changing attitudes. Had that been allowed to continue, I think more states would have legalized SSM with popular support. Constitutional amendments defining marriage are a clear reaction to court decisions -not from fear of "support for same sex marriage rising." Their only purpose is to keep that decision in the hands of the people. If, as you say, "actual support for same sex marriage is increasing and does not show any signs of stopping" then there's nothing to fear from these amendments. People will simply pass another amendment re-redefining marriage.

The court action in California is a good example of putting the car in reverse. It pissed people off. They passed an amendment to reverse the decision. That pissed other people off. They reacted by showing that they could be just as bigoted as anyone else. Now you have two polarized groups, whereas before the court action, you had increasing popular sympathy and support.
Click to expand...

People want their rights now because they deserve them now. They shouldn't have to wait until bigoted people in certain sections of this country die and the newer generations finally start to see them as deserving of equality under the law.

It only pissed off those people who were already against it or who were lied to about what legalized same sex marriage would mean.
 
roguenuke said:
No. Loving set the basis that marriage was an actual right and that it fell under the protection of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Not really, it was recognized as a fundamental right at least as far back as 135 years ago in Meister v. Moore.

What does that tell you?
 
Taylor said:
If gender were nothing but a surface characteristic, SSM would have been the norm thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't have. Societies take time to grow and discover that their old ways of thinking are unwarranted. The only way to make children long ago was through man/woman sex. Marriage thousands of years ago wasn't even close to what modern marriage is either. Then, it really was more about children and procreation. Now it isn't. Women were considered property up til the 20th Century in many places, including the US. People didn't marry for love as a norm, but rather out of obligation or social status improvements or convenience or family desires.

And we are just starting to really separate the church and religious ways from our government because we are starting to realize that laws that are not based on trying to protect people, but rather stopping sinful or immoral behavior alone end up usually causing someone to be denied rights unjustly.
 
Taylor said:
Not really, it was recognized as a fundamental right at least as far back as 135 years ago in Meister v. Moore.

What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

That judges since then til Loving ignored it or did not consider it important. Maybe they didn't even realize that ruling existed.

Still doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right. And being a right, groups are protected against discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics of individuals, such as sex or religion or sexuality or race, in accordance with the EPC of the 14th Amendment.
 
Redress said:
Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional - Yahoo! News



:2dance::rock:kitty:
Click to expand...
The ruling sounds very fair and reasonable to me.

How can the Federal government justifies federal recognition of marriage between a man and a woman and grant federal benefits to married heterosexual couples while treating same sex loving couples as second class citizens based solely on sexual preference? To do so is clearly unconstitutional.

I understand the Biblical teaching of homosexual behavior being an abomination to God and that God created Adam and Eve in heterosexual marriage. It is all good and well to be followed and practice accordingly in the church and in one's religious life.

Government has no business regulating, sanctioning and beneifiting one group of citizens based on their religious belief and deny the other group of citizens with the same rights and benefits on the ground of that religious belief for the same behavior except the wrong sex combination of the love couplings.
 
vendur said:
How about social security, which was based on the reproduction rates at the time of inception?
Click to expand...

This is about denying gay people marriage because of reproduction. That is a false argument. Gay people exist and marriage or not has nothing to do with the issue of reproduction. Heterosexuals have children outside of wedlock. Orphans exist. Children are given up for adoption. Some gays switch teams after having children of their own. Gay people couple together and successfully raise children.

So... why is denying gay people marriage for the reason of reproduction in said marriage a valid argument against gay marriage?

Nothing Taylor?

If yiou come up with a logical and valid answer it will be the first that I have ever seen that is not bigoted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom