• 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

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.

But even if encouraging procreation was a state interest (legally, it isn't), and even if it were a compelling enough interest (it isn't), the state would still have to prove that preventing same sex couples from marrying would somehow cause them to procreate. The infringements on a right must further the problem trying to be solved by the infringement. Homosexuals do not form relationships and then think to themselves "well, since I can't marry my same sex lover, and I may as well marry some person of the opposite sex and make babies with them". That doesn't happen. So, not only would there need to be a compelling interest in procreation, but denying marriage to same sex couples would somehow have to further procreation, which it cannot possibly do.

So the burden on SSM bans are even higher than you might think.
 
What does it mean when opponents of same sex marriage never seem to post in same sex marriage threads anymore and the only people left to debate the topic are people who support it?
 
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.
Maybe when it comes to selling Big Macs, but not when it comes to marriage.
 
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.
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.

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.
Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?
 
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.

So we should ban divorce and single-parent households, right?
Your opinion says its ridiculous. Meanwhile, actual research shows the opposite. It shows that children of same-sex couples do just fine. You have to do better than saying "it's ridiculous." I personally think allowing children to go to church is ridiculous. Should we ban that? Or would I have to somehow prove that going to church harms children?


Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?

Red herring. No state interest is served by banning same-sex marriage.
 
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.

Many kids are raised in one parent homes and they turn out just fine.. and many kids are raised by two parents and end up screwed up. Just because mom and dad are in the home, doesn't mean its a loving home. How many kids live in two parent homes where they witness domestic violence daily?

What a child needs, one parent or two, gay or straight, is love, stability and security.
 
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.

You are wrong. Your entire view is based on an assumption and an overly broad one.

If there wasn't over 40 years of science showing that children can be raised by same sex couples then you might have a point, but you come across as a person in complete denial when you ignore all that and make over generalized claims that are supported by nothing but your personal opinion.

When are you going to accept it? You want to believe that a child is always best served being raised by their natural parents. It isn't a matter of what is true, it is only a matter of what you want to believe. And when you choose to believe what you want to believe over what is true, you are delusional.
 
Last edited:
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.

No children don't have that right, not with the laws we have now in place. Children can be put up for adoption by their parents. Children can be taken from their parents by the state to be put up for adoption when the parents are deemed unfit. No single parent is required to either stay married to or get married to the other biological parent of a child. Parents can choose how much they contribute to the raising of any child, including absolutely none. Opposite sex couples who are infertile or unable to have children between them are completely allowed to use either a surrogate mother, a donated egg, or donated sperm to have children and the biological parent will have little to no rights to that child.

Your opinion has no basis in actual law.


Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?

You are not making any case here. Nothing you said relates to my argument. The argument is that people in similar situations, in accordance with a particular law, have to be treated the equally under the law. The only way the state can justify not treating those people the same is by proving that by not treating them equally they are furthering some state interest.

Same sex couples are not being treated equally under the law as opposite sex couples who cannot procreate with each other. Of course, procreation alone is not really a state interest to begin with, but rather the raising of children in a two parent household is.
 
Maybe when it comes to selling Big Macs, but not when it comes to marriage.

No idea why you won't respond to me but based off of the ridiculousness of this post it is probably a good thing...
 
So we should ban divorce and single-parent households, right?
Your opinion says its ridiculous. Meanwhile, actual research shows the opposite. It shows that children of same-sex couples do just fine. You have to do better than saying "it's ridiculous." I personally think allowing children to go to church is ridiculous. Should we ban that? Or would I have to somehow prove that going to church harms children?
Wrong. Jump to conclusions much?

Red herring. No state interest is served by banning same-sex marriage.
It's called an analogy.
 
Many kids are raised in one parent homes and they turn out just fine.. and many kids are raised by two parents and end up screwed up. Just because mom and dad are in the home, doesn't mean its a loving home. How many kids live in two parent homes where they witness domestic violence daily?
Yes, I've heard the laundry-list of exceptions ad naseum. So what?
 
You are wrong. Your entire view is based on an assumption and an overly broad one.

If there wasn't over 40 years of science showing that children can be raised by same sex couples then you might have a point, but you come across as a person in complete denial when you ignore all that and make over generalized claims that are supported by nothing but your personal opinion.

When are you going to accept it? You want to believe that a child is always best served being raised by their natural parents. It isn't a matter of what is true, it is only a matter of what you want to believe. And when you choose to believe what you want to believe over what is true, you are delusional.
Again, jumping to conclusions. You all are great at that. When did I say that a child is ALWAYS best served being raised by their natural parents? Obviously, if the child's parents don't wish to raise it, then the child is better off elsewhere. Nonetheless, a child has a right to be raised by both natural parents. Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.
 
When did I say that a child is ALWAYS best served being raised by their natural parents? Obviously, if the child's parents don't wish to raise it, then the child is better off elsewhere. Nonetheless, a child has a right to be raised by both natural parents. Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.

You contradict yourself in the same paragragh.

If the natural parents are not the best to raise the child (for a situation), then you cannot say that the best situation for the child is to be raised by the natural parents.
 
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.

No. Congress got around that through the Defense of Marriage Act which is an amendment to the Constitution without actually amending the Constitution.
 
You contradict yourself in the same paragragh.

If the natural parents are not the best to raise the child (for a situation), then you cannot say that the best situation for the child is to be raised by the natural parents.

Especially if the "natural parents" are A) no longer together, B) not able to financially handle that task and C) would require that the child be raised by a single parent with public assistance. We now have WAY too many children being born by out-of-wedlock mothers 70% of black children, 50% of hispanic children and 30% of white children. Adoption and foster care are not ideal, but are often far better options than being raised by eneducated, non-working single parent that has little likelyhood of changing that situation as the most likely path for their own biological offspring.
 
Last edited:
No children don't have that right, not with the laws we have now in place. Children can be put up for adoption by their parents. Children can be taken from their parents by the state to be put up for adoption when the parents are deemed unfit. No single parent is required to either stay married to or get married to the other biological parent of a child. Parents can choose how much they contribute to the raising of any child, including absolutely none. Opposite sex couples who are infertile or unable to have children between them are completely allowed to use either a surrogate mother, a donated egg, or donated sperm to have children and the biological parent will have little to no rights to that child.
By your reasoning, there must be no right to marry, either - given that one person can choose to divorce the other?

You are not making any case here. Nothing you said relates to my argument. The argument is that people in similar situations, in accordance with a particular law, have to be treated the equally under the law. The only way the state can justify not treating those people the same is by proving that by not treating them equally they are furthering some state interest.
It relates perfectly to your argument. Laws that grant remove/privilges are generally imperfect - your claims of "blatant bias" simply aren't credible. Given that you think "procreation alone is not really a state interest to begin with" - it would seem to make more sense to drop all the talk of childless heterosexual couples and apply the "similarly situated" argument to marriage in general.
 
You contradict yourself in the same paragragh.

If the natural parents are not the best to raise the child (for a situation), then you cannot say that the best situation for the child is to be raised by the natural parents.
Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.
 
Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.

No it isn't, because sometimes the natural parents AREN'T the best situation for the child even though it's possible for them to raise the child.
 
Yes, I've heard the laundry-list of exceptions ad naseum. So what?

What do you mean "so what?" You think it's better for a child to live with two parents who are incapable of showing each other love? I was raised in a broken home...not just once, but several times. I watched my mom get beat like she was a man by damn near every boyfriend/husband she had. Trust me when I say: kids would rather come from a broken home than live in one.

As I said, living together or not, gay or straight, kids need love, stability and security.....and, they need their parents to respect each other (living together or not).
 
Where is marriage given over to the government in the constitution I'm confused?
 
No it isn't, because sometimes the natural parents AREN'T the best situation for the child even though it's possible for them to raise the child.
Ah, I see the confusion. Yes,I seriously doubt that anyone interpreting "possible" so strictly would agree with the statement. Given extreme cases where the parents are negligent, abusive, etc. -- of course you wouldn't want to force the child upon them.

"Possible" also has a "reasonable/practicable/allowable" connotation, which is naturally what was intended. Thus, if the kid's parents are in jail - having the child live with them just isn't possible (even though in the strictist sense of the word, it is).
 
What do you mean "so what?" You think it's better for a child to live with two parents who are incapable of showing each other love? I was raised in a broken home...not just once, but several times. I watched my mom get beat like she was a man by damn near every boyfriend/husband she had. Trust me when I say: kids would rather come from a broken home than live in one.

As I said, living together or not, gay or straight, kids need love, stability and security.....and, they need their parents to respect each other (living together or not).
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...
 
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...

If the best thing for a child is to be raised by a gay couple then denying them marriage in order to make the family as legal and stable as possible is stupid.

Plain and simple.
 
By your reasoning, there must be no right to marry, either - given that one person can choose to divorce the other?

You are just wrong. The rights in the case of children are for the parents, not the children. And it isn't necessarily even the biological parents who have those rights to the children. It could easily be whoever has the actual guardianship/parental rights to the child.

Do you believe that we should not put children up for adoption? Do you think that people should not be allowed to use IVF or surrogate mothers or sperm donations or donated eggs? Do you think that stepparents should never have any rights to their stepchildren, even if they adopt them or are more involved in their lives than the absent bio parent? Do you think we will ever really change these laws even if you just don't agree with them?

What you talk about is kinda close to home for me because of some of my relatives' situations. One where a stepfather was a much better father than the real father. I have female relatives who have children out of wedlock or worse, the husband/father has been in jail or under a restraining order to come nowhere near the mother (he threatened to kill her). I know of a situation where at least one of the children is the result of a woman cheating and the child was still considered one of the husband's own even after he found out. Another situation where something the child was born with caused the mother to abandon her and then her father died, leaving her to be raised by her grandparents and the mother only really became a part of her life after she was an adult, taking care of herself. There are so many family situations out there and many do not fit what you seem to imagine a child's rights are concerning parenting of that child.


It relates perfectly to your argument. Laws that grant remove/privilges are generally imperfect - your claims of "blatant bias" simply aren't credible. Given that you think "procreation alone is not really a state interest to begin with" - it would seem to make more sense to drop all the talk of childless heterosexual couples and apply the "similarly situated" argument to marriage in general.

No it doesn't. There are valid considerations to be made for limiting something by age, which by the way is at a different level of scrutiny than sex. While some people may be better able to make decisions and more mature at 16 or younger than some over 18, this is not true for the vast majority.

And despite your insistence otherwise, there is no valid state interest in procreation occurring for married couples as a reason for only allowing opposite sex couples to marry. If this were true, then there is absolutely no way the federal government or those 5 states could legally recognize those marriages in which the opposite sex couples are only legally recognized if they cannot procreate with each other. They would be completely against the purpose of procreation and legally so.

Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times. There is no obligation to have children with each other or be able to have children with each other in any marriage contract so it cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to marry.
 
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...

It isn't about settling for the next best thing or lower because there is no proof that bio parents are the best thing to begin with.

And, as long as opposite sex couples are allowed to use other people's biology to create their children, even before the conception, then you can't say that the children are being forced to accept the next best thing. They would not have existed to begin with without that couple going through the process of getting other cells, besides their own, to make the child.
 
Back
Top Bottom