• 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

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.

Why should I have to make an affirmative argument regarding individual liberty? Shouldn't you have to make the argument against it?
 
Contrary to what a few liberals said, I believe that Scalia's argument was simplistically brilliant:

Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.

"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."


Read more: Scalia On Gay Marriage: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional?' - Business Insider

Simply put, it is not a Constitutional issue.
 
Contrary to what a few liberals said, I believe that Scalia's argument was simplistically brilliant:



Simply put, it is not a Constitutional issue.

The response is also brilliant. When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? Scalia says it was the adoption of the 14th amendment. Yet that's not when it became legal.

Same-sex marriage bans became unconstitutional with the adoption of the 14th amendment. We're just way, way overdue in recognizing that.

Scalia is a dip**** and people should really stop relying on him.
 
Why should I have to make an affirmative argument regarding individual liberty? Shouldn't you have to make the argument against it?

You made the argument that SSM in no way impacted the ability of others to procreate. That is not an argument for "liberty".

I said "so what". In that such is not an affirmative argument.

I also defer to Scalia's argument. Look, SSM was first adopted all of 13 years ago in the Netherlands. Hardly a situation that has been long-defined as a denial of liberty. Seems much more a political issue.
 
The response is also brilliant. When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? Scalia says it was the adoption of the 14th amendment. Yet that's not when it became legal.

Same-sex marriage bans became unconstitutional with the adoption of the 14th amendment. We're just way, way overdue in recognizing that.

Scalia is a dip**** and people should really stop relying on him.

Except that's not so. The 14th was drafted to give Congress the constitutional backing to backfill on the changes they had already made following the Civil War. They had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the SCOTUS was signalling that perhaps they didn't have the authority for that. The 14th was drafted to give them the authority.
 
You made the argument that SSM in no way impacted the ability of others to procreate. That is not an argument for "liberty".

Yes it is. Without grounds to deny same-sex marriage, the state should have to recognize it, thereby granting liberty to individuals.


I also defer to Scalia's argument. Look, SSM was first adopted all of 13 years ago in the Netherlands. Hardly a situation that has been long-defined as a denial of liberty. Seems much more a political issue.

Society didn't think slavery was a denial of liberty. Why should I use past definitions to decide that?
 
Except that's not so. The 14th was drafted to give Congress the constitutional backing to backfill on the changes they had already made following the Civil War. They had passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the SCOTUS was signalling that perhaps they didn't have the authority for that. The 14th was drafted to give them the authority.


So when did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?
 
The response is also brilliant. When did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage? Scalia says it was the adoption of the 14th amendment. Yet that's not when it became legal.

Same-sex marriage bans became unconstitutional with the adoption of the 14th amendment. We're just way, way overdue in recognizing that.

Scalia is a dip**** and people should really stop relying on him.

You are getting silly now. Scalia answered the question specifically. And correctly. Others added context to the very same argument, showing the overwhelming difference of valid legal concerns between mixed-race marriages and the issue of SSM. Olson could not answer the question, as he was trapped into admitting it was a political concern more than a Constitutional one. He just could not say so directly.

Hey, I think Olson brilliant. Boies too. My heart will always bleed with Olson because of what happened to his wife. He had a tough case to make today.

Scalia is probably the smartest Justice on the Court. Its why liberals despise him ........... much as you do.
 
So when did it become unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage?

When SCOTUS ruled it so - Loving v. Virginia 1967. Otherwise you're asking one of those, if a tree falls in the forest questions.
 
When SCOTUS ruled it so - Loving v. Virginia 1967. Otherwise you're asking one of those, if a tree falls in the forest questions.

Well, it's possible that in 2013 it will become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage.
 
You are getting silly now. Scalia answered the question specifically. And correctly. Others added context to the very same argument, showing the overwhelming difference of valid legal concerns between mixed-race marriages and the issue of SSM. Olson could not answer the question, as he was trapped into admitting it was a political concern more than a Constitutional one. He just could not say so directly.

Hey, I think Olson brilliant. Boies too. My heart will always bleed with Olson because of what happened to his wife. He had a tough case to make today.

Scalia is probably the smartest Justice on the Court. Its why liberals despise him ........... much as you do.

He's a man who thinks someone proven to be innocent should not be released from prison if their conviction happened properly under due process of law.
 
Yes it is. Without grounds to deny same-sex marriage, the state should have to recognize it, thereby granting liberty to individuals.

For this to be valid, one must deny that the state has any basis upon which to establish the societal basis for Marriage. That argument has never held water.




Society didn't think slavery was a denial of liberty. Why should I use past definitions to decide that?

False and ill-informed. For millennia, society felt that the slave was a second class citizen, not worthy of the same liberties. Every society, to include blacks enslaving other blacks. Muslims enslaving non-Muslims.

However, that changed over time. Even our Founders recognized such. If you read of their debates, you would know this. Clearly the Civil War was fomented in part due to abolitionist agitation.

Your post was pretty ignorant. A stupid strawman. Why bother if that is all you got ?
 
He's a man who thinks someone proven to be innocent should not be released from prison if their conviction happened properly under due process of law.

What is with the red-herrings and strawmen and nonsense ? Can't debate the issue anymore ?


Pffffft ............
 
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?

Would support that of they voted to ban guns? Or outlaw conservative programming? Or allow only homosexuals the right to marry?
 
Well, it's possible that in 2013 it will become unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage.

Agreed, it is indeed possible. Equally possible it won't be.
 
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.

You are aware that marriage is a custom going back many thousands of years, pre-dating modern religions, right?
 
For this to be valid, one must deny that the state has any basis upon which to establish the societal basis for Marriage. That argument has never held water.
Not true at all.



False and ill-informed. For millennia, society felt that the slave was a second class citizen, not worthy of the same liberties. Every society, to include blacks enslaving other blacks. Muslims enslaving non-Muslims.

However, that changed over time. Even our Founders recognized such. If you read of their debates, you would know this. Clearly the Civil War was fomented in part due to abolitionist agitation.

Your post was pretty ignorant. A stupid strawman. Why bother if that is all you got ?

It wasn't a straw man, it was an example. You are using the term straw man incorrectly.

Of course things change over time. People thought slaves were second-class citizens. And right now people think homosexuals are second-class citizens. That doesn't make it right.
 
What is with the red-herrings and strawmen and nonsense ? Can't debate the issue anymore ?


Pffffft ............

I was refuting your claims about my motivation for disliking Scalia. If you can't stand to have your opinions challenged, leave the thread.
 
Why are victims irrelevant? If you can't articulate any harm whatsoever done to people by allowing same-sex marriage, doesn't that drastically weaken the argument for banning it? You keep talking about a decline in values, definition changes, etc, but can you quantify any actual negative impact of any sort?

You've made a very good case for polygamy.
 
Wrong. Polygamy is not SSM, and has it's own problems that SSM does not have: The Problem of Polygamy | Thom Brooks - Academia.edu. False comparisons are false.

Exactly. While I have no particular problem with polygamy, it presents some serious legal issues that really need to be worked out before we allow multiple-partner marriages. All case law that we have to date has dealt only with two partners. Adding more partners multiplies the potential problems. Figure out how to equitably handle those problems and I haven't got the slightest problem with letting polygamous marriage occur.
 
I'm waiting for them to rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional on the basis of Gender discrimination and watching with a smile at the fall out.

The "Traditional Marriage" crowd will be in a tizzy that "the will of the majority" was overturned.

The large amount of supporters of "Gay Marriage" who don't really care about it in general, but rather are using it as a poker chip in their greater attempt to make Homosexuality = Race under the law, will likely also get in a tizzy anger with the court "wussing out" by not taking a stance on homosexuality.

Finally, the few people who actually give a damn primarily about same sex marriage itself OR Facebook lemmings will be happy and celebrate. Facebook Leemings referring to the mass of people who like to think they are some kind of modern day activist because they change their f'ing facebook icon or post "KONY 2012" type things for a week, giving it no real thought before or after. Though their celebrating will likely be ignorant in this case, as they'd wouldn't really understand what the ruling would actually mean.

That'd absolutely be my preferred outcome.
 
Last edited:
No, victims are a clear distinguishing point. Animals and minors cannot consent, and so are victims. No one is a victim in a SSM. You have no right to not be offended, nor will I ever make any argument otherwise, so you can pack that straw man away. Your opinions are irrelevant in regards to the law.

There are no victims in polygamy, either, so this makes for a very good case for that. As for animals, they are legally property and it might be argued that they can be used however the owner pleases, especially since animals are used for foodstuff, to make leather goods, and so on. Yes, there are laws against mistreatment of animals, but there are those who are already making the case that sex with animals is not mistreatment. As for pedophilia, there is a lot of room to move the age of consent, which is, after all, an arbitrary, sliding distinction.

You may regard the slippery slope as a weak argument, but it is in fact inexorable. History shows this to be true, and the advent of SSM is a case in point.

The loss of traditional values has not been particularly beneficial over all. Our culture is in the process of literally dying. Many young people no longer bother to marry or have children because they see no value in either. The birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate, and with each generation there will be less of us. We will be replaced by those who regard our traditions and culture, including freedom, democracy, and egalitarianism, as corrupt and evil; those who punish homosexuality with death, and punish women who seek freedom by stoning them will triumph over us.
 
The issue is that there are more issues with regards to Polygamy than there are with Same Sex Marriage, so comparing them as a "If you say something for one it automatically applies to the other" analog is ridiculous. The amount of work in terms of contract law alone would be significant and is in stark difference then in same sex marriage being legalized. To my understanding, based on things I've seen CC post, there's also a larger amount of evidence of disfunctional issues tied to polygamy than there is to same sex or traditional marriage because of the interjection of multiple partners leading to new and unique emotional issues based on human nature. So even then, the "harm" question isn't even a direct correlation.

The two issues have related points, and have overlap, but they are not direct analogs.
 
Back
Top Bottom