• 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

I know, that is the point. Dude, what the hell?

Well, if that is your point then I misunderstood.

Liberals on this issue alone are enormous hypocrites denying the right to marry for all sorts of people. They just make one more exception than the people you are talking about. Not really that much to cheer about honestly.

But can you explain this then? How are they hypocrites? What exception do they make? Why wouldn't you cheer this ruling?

The "hell" is that you are not making much sense.
 
Last edited:
The liberal position is not taking government out of marriage and that is what I support. While its great they support gays marrying they are not really going about it in a way I approve of.

The liberals are attempting to remove government barriers to marriage via prejudicial licensing laws. That's what the argument you pretend to support is about. It's not about allowing the States, the Federal government and employers to ignore your right to contract.
 
Well, if that is your point then I misunderstood.

Obviously.

But can you explain this then? How are they hypocrites? What exception do they make? Why would you cheer this ruling?

The "hell" is that you are not making much sense.

What I said makes perfect sense. Liberals have been for a few years now pretending to be against restricting people from marriage and even going so far as saying not allowing it is violation of your rights. The problem is that is just dishonest gibberish. They are not for people that want to marry to having the right to marry. They are simply for one more group of people having the right while keeping everyone else that is currently restricted in the exact same place they are in now. They even try to defend this by saying that so and so group that they are against marrying is different for so and so reason, but the fact is that not important. They said we all have a right to marry who we want and its a violation of our rights if the government won't allow it. If it is violation of your rights, its a violation of your rights for EVERYONE, not just one more group that they decided to pick up.
 
Last edited:
The liberals are attempting to remove government barriers to marriage via prejudicial licensing laws. That's what the argument you pretend to support is about. It's not about allowing the States, the Federal government and employers to ignore your right to contract.

No, they support benefits provided by government to be available to people that marry and giving that ability to only one more group. I do not support benefits provided by the state, I do not support a contract with the state in marriage, and I do not support only extending it to one more group. My stance and the liberal stance is not all that similar.
 
No, they support benefits provided by government to be available to people that marry and giving that ability to only one more group. I do not support benefits provided by the state, I do not support a contract with the state, and I do not support only extending it to one more group.


What was the basis of the decision in this particular instance?
 
What was the basis of the decision in this particular instance?

I wonder what you will trigger when I answer?

Anyway, they ruled it was a violation of the equal protection clause to not allow gay couples the "federal benefits" of marriage.

Of course, the "federal benefits" are also unconstitutional. :D
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.

Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.
 
Actually, it's an excellent victory when justice prevails over the tyranny of the masses.

Actually it doesn't even matter what the tyranny of the masses is doing. It matters what is and isn't constitutional. They got it right for the question they were asked. I would love to ask them another question though which would call for a different decision. I bet they would ignore that no such power exists and declare it falls under the welfare clause like they usually do for such questions.
 
I wonder what you will trigger when I answer?

Anyway, they ruled it was a violation of the equal protection clause to not allow gay couples the "federal benefits" of marriage.

Of course, the "federal benefits" are also unconstitutional. :D


Wrong answer - try reading the decision and not just the news story

we conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

Do you consider "equal protection" to be unconstitutional?
 
Right, that still does not explain why you would NOT (left that out in version you quoted above) cheer this ruling.

I think, you are PRETENDING to be libertarian to hold out for some nuclear option. It allows you to pretend to be in favor of marriage equality but not really support marriage equality. I have no idea what specific people you are claiming "liberals" deny the right to marry. But the state is not obligated to honor contracts it finds to impossible to enforce or that pervert justice. For instance, the state is not obligated to enforce a contract entered into under duress or where one party lacked the capacity to consent.

A real libertarian supports equality before the law and extending that wherever possible. As long as the state is providing benefits it should provide them to all without regard to the contract participants gender, race, creed or other traits. The fact that they are providing benefits is not a valid reason to deny someone a FUNDAMENTAL right.
 
Wrong answer - try reading the decision and not just the news story



Do you consider "equal protection" to be unconstitutional?

How exactly was I wrong? I said it violated the equal protection clause. So I didn't say which part violated the equal protection clause. Big whoop. I still was not wrong.

And yes I support equal protection, but I'm not sure what that has to do with my position.
 
Right, that still does not explain why you would NOT (left that out in version you quoted above) cheer this ruling.

Oh god dude, I went over that at least twice already.

I think, you are PRETENDING to be libertarian to hold out for some nuclear option. It allows you to pretend to be in favor of marriage equality but not really support marriage equality. I have no idea what specific people you are claiming "liberals" deny the right to marry. But the state is not obligated to honor contracts it finds to impossible to enforce or that pervert justice. For instance, the state is not obligated to enforce a contract entered into under duress or where one party lacked the capacity to consent.

I think you are trying your best to label me as a false libertarian and doing a piss poor job of doing it. I even made a point to say as long as they consent, but you clearly didn't even read that part or you are ignoring it so you can continue to say I'm not a real libertarian. Try reading, ok?

A real libertarian supports equality before the law and extending that wherever possible. As long as the state is providing benefits it should provide them to all without regard to the contract participants gender, race, creed or other traits. The fact that they are providing benefits is not a valid reason to deny someone a FUNDAMENTAL right.

The liberals find the "benefits" as rights. Do you? Btw, when I make it point to say I'm for the right to marry anyone you wish as long as they consent that is what I mean. Try to understand that.
 
Oh god dude, I went over that at least twice already.

You did not. If your position were sincere I would think you would cheer this decision.

I think you are trying your best to label me as a false libertarian and doing a piss poor job of doing it. I even made a point to say as long as they consent, but you clearly didn't even read that part or you are ignoring it so you can continue to say I'm not a real libertarian. Try reading, ok?

The liberals find the "benefits" as rights. Do you? Btw, when I make it point to say I'm for the right to marry anyone you wish as long as they consent that is what I mean. Try to understand that.

No, I was making a point about the fact that not all contracts have to be honored by the state. You have failed to give any specifics over to whom you believe "liberals" are denying the right of marriage.

No, the benefits are not rights. That is not AT ALL what the courts have held. The right is "equal protection" or equality before the law. You have no right to any state provided benefits. You have a right to equal access to the benefit. The state can't give preference to one group and not the other unless the distinction serves a valid state interest. For instance, you cannot tax a black couple at one rate and mixed race couple at another.
 
You did not. If your position were sincere I would think you would cheer this decision.

I have already gave you my reasons for not cheering the decision and I promise you my position is sincere. Please though go about proving that it's not. Seriously, what complete bull**** to call me not a libertarian. You have zero proof that I'm not but you continue on like you do. Just stop it already.

No, I was making a point about the fact that not all contracts have to be honored by the state.

Yeah, by making it a point to bring up something I already said as if I didn't. Seriously, its a page or so back when I said "as long as all parties involved consent." Can you please read what I'm saying for a change?

You have failed to give any specifics over to whom you believe "liberals" are denying the right of marriage.

Polygamy for one. If all parties consent they should be allowed to marry. This is actually something they refuse to accept because they see it as wrong for someone to marry two or more partners. I personally don't care as long as all parties involved want to be involved. I know you won't like that example, but frankly I don't care. You asked for an example and there you go.

No, the benefits are not rights. That is not AT ALL what the courts have held. The right is "equal protection" or equality before the law. You have no right to any state provided benefits. You have a right to equal access to the benefit. The state can't give preference to one group and not the other unless the distinction serves a valid state interest. For instance, you cannot tax a black couple at one rate and mixed race couple at another.

What part of "liberals find the benefits as rights" did you not get? I didn't say they were rights or that the courts view them as such. You still are not reading.
 
I have already gave you my reasons for not cheering the decision and I promise you my position is sincere. Please though go about proving that it's not. Seriously, what complete bull**** to call me not a libertarian. You have zero proof that I'm not but you continue on like you do. Just stop it already.

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.

Yeah, by making it a point to bring up something I already said as if I didn't. Seriously, its a page or so back when I said "as long as all parties involved consent." Can you please read what I'm saying for a change?

Polygamy for one. If all parties consent they should be allowed to marry. This is actually something they refuse to accept because they see it as wrong for someone to marry two or more partners. I personally don't care as long as all parties involved want to be involved. I know you won't like that example, but frankly I don't care. You asked for an example and there you go.

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.

What part of "liberals find the benefits as rights" did you not get? I didn't say they were rights or that the courts view them as such. You still are not reading.

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.
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.

Civil rights should never be left to popular vote.
 
BaytoBay... I agree with Henrin on pretty much nothing, but he is about as libertarian as they come... and a consistent one at that.
 
Not exactly the mass's...a few

An unprecedented Gallup study involving more than 120,000 interviews finds that 3.4% of U.S. adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; the highest incidence is among those who are nonwhite, younger, and less educated.

Special Report: 3.4% of U.S. Adults Identify as LGBT

The "masses" I was referring to are those opposed to GM. And it was more of an over the top response to a stupid conservative hack comment.
 
The "masses" I was referring to are those opposed to GM. And it was more of an over the top response to a stupid conservative hack comment.

ah ok..gotcha lol...
 
This is the second ruling against DOMA by a federal appeals court




The court's justification for its decision


It all comes down to "What is the societal benefit which justifies treating a discernible 'class' as worthy of discrimination?"

The DOMA amends the Constitution without amending the Constitution, don't really see how it was ever legal.
 
All of their victories now come through liberal courts rather than popular vote. Not at all something to celebrate actually, quite the opposite. It is a false victory to celebrate defeating the will of the people.

That is why beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are ridiculed, that is why the immigrants are so hated.

Not everything should be left to popular vote. This is one of those issues which should not be left to popular vote.
 
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-
 
Not everything should be left to popular vote. This is one of those issues which should not be left to popular vote.

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-
 
Back
Top Bottom