• 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!

New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

Well, I still have not seen that reason or how you square it with a libertarian stance. This is a step in the right direction.

I apologize for questioning your sincerity. I will try to refrain from doing that. I have become frustrated with libertarians who give lip service to civil liberties or who are really just embarassed Republicans. I should not assume that describes you.



Why wouldn't I like that one? I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" too. :)

I am not necessarily opposed to polygamy, but it is not equvialent to same sex marriage. The fact that there would be more than two parties to the marriage changes the nature of it and creates numerous complexities for the state in enforcing the contract. For instance, if one party out of five seeks a divorce does that end the marriage of the other four? How is inheritance determined? If one person becomes incapicated and the other parties disagree on care, how is that handled? In terms of access to Federal benefits, this is not just a matter of cultural bias but creates real issues in how the programs are administered and operated. These and other questions would likely require statutory remedy and therefore the courts cannot possibly intervene. I would support polygamy at the state level, but because of the issues I have noted, I might then support a DOMA law specifically dealing with polygamy.



So then you are questioning their sincerity? Okay, but that is certainly not a good reason to show disdain for the fact that innocent citizens are seeking and have received relief.

It really does not matter whether they think they are rights or not. Congress can at anytime change or eliminate the benefits. It simply cannot give preference to certain classes of beneficiaries or deny them to others without a valid reason. I cannot imagine the courts would EVER interfere with Congressional authority in changing or eliminating benefits. There is no right to the benefits only a right of equal access to the benefits.

Anyway, I welcome the decision. More freedom is better. The economic impact is insignificant and does no more damage to my liberty than does a heterosexual marriage if it does any damage at all.

The issue at hand is that consenting adults should be left to handle decisions about divorce, inheritance, benefits, etc. That is why govt needs to get the heck out of people's personal business. If it weren't for government controls on so many other personal matters, this whole brouhaha over gay marriage would be non-existent. This whole issue is the government taking with one hand and giving with the other.
 
What strikes me as astoundingly ignorant is how anyone can say that every piece of legislation ever to be written and adopted in this nation was NOT a product of the popular vote. Whether it be by representation, or by appointment, you are a fool if you do not believe that a law came to be, ultimately by popular vote.

Tim-

Supreme Court rulings are not ruled by popular vote. A Supreme Court decision which says that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional would be a decision that is not left to popular vote, at least not by citizens of the United States.
 
Supreme Court rulings are not ruled by popular vote. A Supreme Court decision which says that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional would be a decision that is not left to popular vote, at least not by citizens of the United States.



And just appoints them to the court? Then ask yourself how the SCOTUS votes along party ideology and then revisit your objective analysys one more time. The majority decision comes to mind does it not?


Tim-
 
And just appoints them to the court? Then ask yourself how the SCOTUS votes along party ideology and then revisit your objective analysys one more time. The majority decision comes to mind does it not?


Tim-

When I think of 'popular vote' I usually think of US citizens deciding law, not a group of court justices.
 
When I think of 'popular vote' I usually think of US citizens deciding law, not a group of court justices.

You're being to short sighted. Yes we vote our representatives into office to hopefully represent our collective views. These reps in turn vote on legislation that more aptly represents our views, and then we vote for a President that suggests supreme court nominees and they are voted on by guess who; our representative government, AND almost exclusively along party lines, or political ideology.

So wanna tell me again why you think the majority does not rule?


Tim-
 
Despite the polls, despite the whining about so-called rights, despite the courts, when the people vote on the issue gay marriage loses. Generation after generation.
 
The issue at hand is that consenting adults should be left to handle decisions about divorce, inheritance, benefits, etc. That is why govt needs to get the heck out of people's personal business. If it weren't for government controls on so many other personal matters, this whole brouhaha over gay marriage would be non-existent. This whole issue is the government taking with one hand and giving with the other.

uhhh yeah... save that for your science fiction book and send me a copy when you are done writing it. I mean, I love to think about off the wall ideas about society but only if they are fully baked.

This is what I am talking about. You have completely misunderstood the argument about getting the government out of marriage.

The issue is that consenting adults often fail to amicably handle decisions about divorce, inheritance, benefits, etc. Because of that the courts have to step in to settle disputes. Therefore, the courts and state do have SOME say in what sort of contracts they will enforce. The say they have should NOT have anything to do with forcing one person to live by the moral standards of another. They should not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, gender or creed. They must be able to reject certain contracts that are impossible to enforce or when enforcement would lead to a perversion of justice. That caveat does not apply to same sex marriage. Enforcing a contract between a man and a man is not more difficult than enforcing a contract between a woman and a man.

Personally, I think if you want to live as man and wife and wife and wife and man you should be free to. But the state need not recognize your contract.

Do you believe the state should allow marriages under Sharia or leave all dissolutions to Sharia courts?
 
But again, if you can come up with some sort of legal framework to allow for polygamy then I say go to it. The courts cannot and so they should NOT intercede into state actions that deny recognition of polygamy. That is not their purpose. They can, will and should invalidate laws that deny equal protection of the laws.
 
You're being to short sighted. Yes we vote our representatives into office to hopefully represent our collective views. These reps in turn vote on legislation that more aptly represents our views, and then we vote for a President that suggests supreme court nominees and they are voted on by guess who; our representative government, AND almost exclusively along party lines, or political ideology.

So wanna tell me again why you think the majority does not rule?


Tim-

Do Supreme Court Justices make decisions based on public opinion? No. They make decisions based on what the Constitution says and based on precedent.
 
Do Supreme Court Justices make decisions based on public opinion? No. They make decisions based on what the Constitution says and based on precedent.

Uh huh and that's why they're always split on the decisions usually down party ideology..

Please, are you fo real dude?


Tim-
 
Do Supreme Court Justices make decisions based on public opinion? No. They make decisions based on what the Constitution says and based on precedent.

Not in the last 12 years they haven't. They are voting according to their own party line. Sometimes they remember what they were hired to do but not often enough.

2000 election
Citizens United
2nd amendment

etc.
 
It's hilarious how Henrin was attacked for his comments in this thread. He was attacked because all too often the people in pro gay circles are taught to use the very powerful rhetoric at their disposal. What I found funny is that he was attacked first for opposing gay marriage (Which he did not), and then he was attacked for not being a libertarian, (However his position is consistent with Libertarian ideaology). :)

Gee I wonder what the pro gay police would say to my views on the topic.. LOL

Tim-

You can address me directly as officer baytobay if you like. :)

Henrin was not at all clear on his position. I questioned his position. I did not intend to attack him. The lines between those are blurry and it does not appear that you are any sort of impartial referee.

I am willing to discuss whatever he or you wish to offer as your positions today, tomorrow or three weeks from now. What is your position?

The position offered by many supposed libertarians (and I do not mean to include any one specific in that) is not consistent with any mature form of libertarian thought.

The courts have to enforce our contracts. That's what they do. If you want to discuss how it might work in a completely stateless society then I would suggest you read David Friedman. But that is so far from where we are it is hardly relevant except amongst libertarians. Further many would argue that even he supports a type of government or state and that argument is not fully without merit.

The libertarian position on DOMA must be in opposition to it. The libertarian position on this ruling should be favorable. There is no consistent and coherent libertarian argument that says the state should be able to prejudicially enforce contracts or deny equal protection of the laws.
 
Last edited:
You can address me directly as officer baytobay if you like. :)

Henrin was not at all clear on his position. I questioned his position. I did not intend to attack him. The lines between those are blurry and it does not appear that you are any sort of impartial referee.

I am willing to discuss whatever he or you wish to offer as your positions today, tomorrow or three weeks from now. What is your position?

The position offered by many supposed libertarians (and I do not mean to include any one specific in that) is not consistent with any mature form of libertarian thought.

The courts have to enforce our contracts. That's what they do. If you want to discuss how it might work in a completely stateless society then I would suggest you read David Friedman. But that is so far from where we are it is hardly relevant except amongst libertarians. Further many would argue that even he supports a type of government or state and that argument is not fully without merit.

The libertarian position on DOMA must be in opposition to it. The libertarian position on this ruling should be favorable. There is no consistent and coherent libertarian argument that says the state should be able to prejudicially enforce contracts or deny equal protection of the laws.

Poppycock!!

Libertarians, like Liberals, and conservatives all draw a line on what is "favorable" and "mature" based on their own goals for society; so please spare me the sanctimony.



In terms of gay marriage, there are logical arguments from both sides. With liberals, the arguments stem from short term inconsequence to society, with Conservatives, their arguments stem from long term consequences to society. Libertarians on the other hand, on the face, care little about consequences in favor of an all or nothing path to unbridled freedom Both liberal and conservative views are potentially correct, however, a libertarian no holds barred approach to freedom, and liberty, is undoubtedly incorrect.


Tim-
 
In terms of gay marriage, there are logical arguments from both sides. With liberals, the arguments stem from short term inconsequence to society, with Conservatives, their arguments stem from long term consequences to society. Libertarians on the other hand, on the face, care little about consequences in favor of an all or nothing path to unbridled freedom Both liberal and conservative views are potentially correct, however, a libertarian no holds barred approach to freedom, and liberty, is undoubtedly incorrect.


Tim-

What are you trying to argue here? The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, and the individual has right to contract.
 
In terms of gay marriage, there are logical arguments from both sides.

Not really. "I don't like gays" carries no merit.

With liberals, the arguments stem from short term inconsequence to society,

No it's more to do with fairness to all, not just some.

with Conservatives, their arguments stem from long term consequences to society.

What "long term consequences?"

Libertarians on the other hand, on the face, care little about consequences in favor of an all or nothing path to unbridled freedom Both liberal and conservative views are potentially correct, however, a libertarian no holds barred approach to freedom, and liberty, is undoubtedly incorrect.


Tim-

Nothing wrong with freedom ... fascist. ;)
 
Unfortunately, SCOTUS is a very partisan collection. Despite this, in a case as obvious as DOMA, the result is obvious. DOMA is a law that equates to slavery or nearly so. Defining a second class citizenship. I am fairly certain that Kennedy, Alioto and Roberts will side with liberals, although for different reasons.


(((OPINION ALERT))
 
Oh, it is quite terrible that it should be this way. We needed to have a completely non-partisan SCOTUS and we definitely got the opposite. Regrettably, this can not be fixed and we must suffer from the results.


In particular, I fear this dynamic is destroying the Republic.
 
What are you trying to argue here? The Marriage License is a government issued and recognized contract, and the individual has right to contract.

Oh gawd not this again?? Show me ANY state issued marriage license and where it says on the license that it is a contract. ANY will do. :)


Tim-
 
Not really. "I don't like gays" carries no merit.

No, but I don't like gay marriage... Because... Does!



No it's more to do with fairness to all, not just some.


And it is this idea of what is fair and what is not, that is at the root of the issue.



What "long term consequences?"


I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time on explaining it to you if you do not already know my well documented views on the subject. To do so would be a massive waste of time. In my experience, people who've made up their minds on this issue, will not change them. Suffice it to say that my argument stems mostly from a breakdown in the family over the last 40 years as leading to the direct result of why our country is as screwed up as it is. Gay marriage would add to that breakdown, it would not solve it, or improve it in any way. Kids need both their mothers and their fathers active in their lives and as direct role models. Uncles and Aunts, and neighbors, or schools do not provide for these needs, and until we decide collectively as a nation to restore these virtues, we're destined to fall even further as a once strong familial based society.



Nothing wrong with freedom ... fascist. ;)

Laws are representative of a societies values on justice and punishment. Libertarians, as I explained, just want to be in the drivers seat, as do conservatives and liberals.


Tim-
 
Oh gawd not this again?? Show me ANY state issued marriage license and where it says on the license that it is a contract. ANY will do. :)


Tim-

It's a contract, you sign it and in doing so agree to terms. A license is a form of contract.
 
No, but I don't like gay marriage... Because... Does!

No it doesn't.

And it is this idea of what is fair and what is not, that is at the root of the issue.

Not really. Anyone can do what anyone else can works fairly well.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend a great deal of time on explaining it to you if you do not already know my well documented views on the subject. To do so would be a massive waste of time. In my experience, people who've made up their minds on this issue, will not change them. Suffice it to say that my argument stems mostly from a breakdown in the family over the last 40 years as leading to the direct result of why our country is as screwed up as it is. Gay marriage would add to that breakdown, it would not solve it, or improve it in any way. Kids need both their mothers and their fathers active in their lives and as direct role models. Uncles and Aunts, and neighbors, or schools do not provide for these needs, and until we decide collectively as a nation to restore these virtues, we're destined to fall even further as a once strong familial based society.

I'd be interested to read these journal articles. Please cite them.


Laws are representative of a societies values on justice and punishment. Libertarians, as I explained, just want to be in the drivers seat, as do conservatives and liberals.


Tim-

Yes. We have a will to power. Nietzsche would be proud.
 
It's a contract, you sign it and in doing so agree to terms. A license is a form of contract.


Hehe. I marriage license is a certificate on record with the cival registar that you both meet the eligibility to enter into a marriage contract. Yes, you meet the terms. The marriage certificate is the contract between you an another party reflecting duties and obligations condition precident to fulfill said contract. A marriage license requires no such quid pro quo duty, or responsibility or obligation to enter into the marriage. A drivers license conversly requires that you meet the terms to be able to drive a car. If you fail to meet the laws for operating that vehicle you are subject to punishment. The drivers license is NOT a contract either. It merely says you're eleigble to drive a car. The contract to drive it safely is with you and the common laws of society.

Any more questions Einstein? :)


Tim-
 
Hehe. I marriage license is a certificate on record with the cival registar that you both meet the eligibility to enter into a marriage contract. Yes, you meet the terms. The marriage certificate is the contract between you an another party reflecting duties and obligations condition precident to fulfill said contract. A marriage license requires no such quid pro quo duty, or responsibility or obligation to enter into the marriage. A drivers license conversly requires that you meet the terms to be able to drive a car. If you fail to meet the laws for operating that vehicle you are subject to punishment. The drivers license is NOT a contract either. It merely says you're eleigble to drive a car. The contract to drive it safely is with you and the common laws of society.

Any more questions Einstein? :)


Tim-

It gains several dynamics for insurance, income, household, medical, etc advantages. It is the method through which marriage is officially recognized, and it comes in the form of contract.

A driver's license IS a contract as well. In order to obtain, I must strike contract with the State and agree to operate within their conditions along with several other dynamics mostly related to drunk driving (such as per say). Most certainly a contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom