• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

Yet the liveliest moments came when Scalia asked Ted Olson, President George W. Bush's solicitor general and the lawyer for the two same-sex couples challenging Prop 8, "When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791 [when the Bill of Rights was ratified]? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?"
Click to expand...
Olson pushed back against Scalia's originalist view, asking him in return, "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?"

"It's an easy question," Scalia said. "At the time that the equal protection clause was adopted. That's absolutely true. But don't give me a question to my question."

"There's no specific date in time," Olson ultimately answered. "This is an evolutionary cycle."
Click to expand...


Read more @: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

Check and mate :applaud
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Its not that simple, as there are priorities.

1) I do not think Marriage is a "right".
Click to expand...

Precedent disagrees, but ok.

2) I do think it is a state-level issue.
Click to expand...
I think it's a civil right, and civil rights are nation-wide issues :)


3) I have interest in whether or not a state can pass such as a Prop 8. I note that all Prop 8 in CA really came down to was the word "Marriage". CA Civil Unions already had all the other privileges.
Click to expand...
Not entirely true. In California, they're pretty close, but not entirely equal.

4) I think that the Federal issue, regarding benefits, etc., with such as the Military, is a very good issue. I would be content if it were resolved without changing the definition of marriage, as it had been done in CA.
Click to expand...
Federal benefits are more of an issue with DOMA. And if you think marriage is a state-level issue, shouldn't you have a problem with the idea that the Federal government can just go "Nah, we're not going to recognize THOSE marriages, even though your state decided to issue them."

I believe that I am very close to Rand Paul's position, which was to make all things "Civil Union", and then to add "Marriage" to some. Perhaps I have misstated or ever-simplified his position, but not by much I assume.
Click to expand...

I think it's a mistake to cede the word "marriage" to a select group of favored citizens who have decided they own the definition of that word.
 
Re: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

What a very clever argument... I'll add that to my repertoire.
 
Re: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

My experiences is that judges always see issues differently from the advocates. The Obamacare case demonstrated this: nobody expected the case to turn on the definition of a tax.

I suspect that this case will be also surprising in its reasoning, though the outcome should be favorable to those Americans who think the discrimination againgst gays must finally be ended.
 
if they punt, it's a temporary abdication of support for the equal protection clause. i argue that it's temporary, because this case is the modern Loving v. Virginia.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is intuitively obvious, and i hope that the court makes the right decision and tosses out discrimination nationwide.
 
I can't believe the court actually entertained the debate of same sex couples adopting. What does adoption have to do with marriage?


Also Scalia is making himself look like a bigot and unworthy of being on the bench, and I am referring to some of his racial arguments as well.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged. Let's keep the discussion in Breaking News about these two related cases in one thread please.
 
Re: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

head of joaquin said:
My experiences is that judges always see issues differently from the advocates. The Obamacare case demonstrated this: nobody expected the case to turn on the definition of a tax.
Click to expand...

The VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli did. He was very clear that was going to be the point upon which the analysis would turn before the SCOTUS heard the case

head of joaquin said:
I suspect that this case will be also surprising in its reasoning, though the outcome should be favorable to those Americans who think the discrimination againgst gays must finally be ended.
Click to expand...

And what exactly reasoning do you think they will use and what is your definition of "favorable". If you think they will legalize gay marriage everywhere, I think you will be disappointed.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Lousy strawman. We have a clear Amendment outlawing slavery.
Click to expand...

Not lousy at all, you claim we should do majority rule. Make up your mind. If SCOTUS determines SSM is protected under an existing amendment, than you claim majority should rule. So my example isn't a strawman it's applying YOUR logic.
 
Re: Supreme Court Proposition 8 Case Arguments Cast Doubt On Gay Marriage Ban

8 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, could you explain that
9 a little bit to me, just because I did not pick this up
10 in your briefs.
11 What harm you see happening and when and how
12 and -- what -- what harm to the institution of marriage
13 or to opposite-sex couples, how does this cause and
14 effect work?
15 MR. COOPER: Once again, I -- I would
16 reiterate that we don't believe that's the correct legal
17 question before the Court, and that the correct question
18 is whether or not redefining marriage to include
19 same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage
20 as a --
21 JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then are -- are you
22 conceding the point that there is no harm or denigration
23 to traditional opposite-sex marriage couples? So you're
24 conceding that.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 supporters are just doing a wonderful job presenting their case, aren't they?
 
longknife said:
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but rights are based on individual freedom. Not majority wants.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hate to break it to you but rights are based on individual freedom. Not majority wants.
Click to expand...

Aww but I want to vote on Kim Kardashian's marriage.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
That was answered by Scalia, I believe. Again, the original basis for Marriage was to promote procreation and families.
Click to expand...

Which is entirely wrong, it was originally promoted to control inheritance and wealth. Shows how little Scalia knows.
 
Cephus said:
Which is entirely wrong, it was originally promoted to control inheritance and wealth. Shows how little Scalia knows.
Click to expand...

Provide a link. Otherwise, the basis for the state to promote and regulate propagation is long established. Although clearly, many other issues, such as inheritance, divorce, etc., are residual issues.
 
Deuce said:
Today's hearing is specifically California's Prop 8. Tomorrow they hear some arguments on DOMA, specifically section 3. Multiple court rulings exist overturning that section in more than one jurisdiction, so even if SCOTUS punts this one on procedural grounds the exact same case is just going to come back to them. With that, I expect they'll have to issue some sort of ruling.
Click to expand...

As I noted earlier, I think tomorrow should be a much better discussion. Today was still interesting !


If you disagree, then explain to me how a same-sex marriage ban promotes procreation. Do gay people go "welp, I can't marry the person I love, so I'll marry someone of the opposite sex and have babies!" I just don't see that happening.

You noted some justices, primarily Scalia. Who is a piece of **** who has absolutely no problem ignoring his jurisprudence when it suits his ideology.
Click to expand...

It is not about whether the SSM ban promotes anything. The argument is that "Marriage" has been defined as it has been for specific benefit to society. That being the propogation of the society. Creating new taxpayers to replace old taxpayers, among other reasons.
 
Wiseone said:
Alright well,

1) The SCOTUS has in the passed said it was a right, that makes that argument tough in court.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but let us assume you are correct. The issue is how Marriage is defined. Scalia made that point clearly today.

2) Perhaps if that is your opinion but the DOMA has obviously made it a Federal issue one way or the other.

3)+4) I don't know if whether the word "marriage" or "civil union" is ultimately used really a big deal to me, it does kind of lead to the notion of a "second-class citizen" even if all the legal rights and benefits are the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, but to the former, that is primarily tomorrow's argument. To the latter, that goes to "stigmatism", which was discussed today, and which did not seem to hold much water. If for no other reason, but that the Justices pointed out that SSM is a new phenomenon, only first legitimized in the Netherlands 13 years ago. And as they said, hardly enough to create a "stigmatism" yet. Even Sotamayor carried that argument.
 
Redress said:
............. If I understand correctly, your solution is to keep seperate and unequal types of marriage.
Click to expand...

Trying to get caught up with all the folks who quoted me and which rate a response.

I think that I have argued for all privileges being the same, just not the title of "Marriage", and even that I am OK with each State deciding. I don't see that as "unequal". Just labeled differently. As I said, I think that is briefly such as Rand Paul's position as well, where he spelled it out in better detail.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As I noted earlier, I think tomorrow should be a much better discussion. Today was still interesting !




It is not about whether the SSM ban promotes anything. The argument is that "Marriage" has been defined as it has been for specific benefit to society. That being the propogation of the society. Creating new taxpayers to replace old taxpayers, among other reasons.
Click to expand...

Heterosexual marriage indeed fosters stable family units that benefit society and this is a benefit of the existence of marriage.
Excluding homosexual couples from getting married does not further that goal. In fact, it harms it: marriage makes homosexual relationships more stable just like it does heterosexual relationships, and that is beneficial to raising children.
 
Deuce said:
........... I think it's a mistake to cede the word "marriage" to a select group of favored citizens who have decided they own the definition of that word.
Click to expand...

I think I touched on your other points in responding to others. With regards to this, I am one Conservative who has no problem with equal privileges. I do not think that any religion should be required to perform SSM though. I am OK with any state using two separate but equal terms, reserving "Marriage" for hetero unions. But I don't care much either way. I just like the legal arguments made. This is top-shelf stuff.

TheNextEra said:
Not lousy at all, you claim we should do majority rule. Make up your mind. If SCOTUS determines SSM is protected under an existing amendment, than you claim majority should rule. So my example isn't a strawman it's applying YOUR logic.
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I supported what you erroneously claim. I advocate for equal privileges. Always have. I have never supported mob rule. I think your post was quite ill-informed.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I think I touched on your other points in responding to others. With regards to this, I am one Conservative who has no problem with equal privileges. I do not think that any religion should be required to perform SSM though. I am OK with any state using two separate but equal terms, reserving "Marriage" for hetero unions. But I don't care much either way. I just like the legal arguments made. This is top-shelf stuff.
Click to expand...

Why should marriage be reserved for your beliefs and not my beliefs?
 
Deuce said:
Heterosexual marriage indeed fosters stable family units that benefit society and this is a benefit of the existence of marriage.
Excluding homosexual couples from getting married does not further that goal. In fact, it harms it: marriage makes homosexual relationships more stable just like it does heterosexual relationships, and that is beneficial to raising children.
Click to expand...

I do not necessarily disagree with what you assert. However, I look for the affirmative argument, and whether SSM furthers procreation or not is not the legal issue in my eyes. It may be the sympathetic one. I know that my brother and his mate deliberately traveled to Iowa just to have that document, a Marriage Certificate, even though it conferred no added privileges to them back in their home state. There they have to do it the incremental way. But I clearly understand the "feel-good" nature of it. I was happy that it made my brother happier. I did not really care otherwise.

I also understand those who oppose what they see as a denigration of the meaning of a Marriage. So I am content with letting the most local folks (the States) decide.

Now that it is in front of SCOTUS, it is a great listen.
 
Deuce said:
Why should marriage be reserved for your beliefs and not my beliefs?
Click to expand...

It was not reserved for either of our beliefs. It clearly evolved via the natural process of procreation, and the legal issues that naturally flowed from such as man formed societies. It became institutionalized in that mold over centuries, if not millennia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom