• 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!

Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

First post!

Jerry said:
No I don't. There are all kinds of restrictions I'm under. I cannot marry just whomever I love. If I fall in love with someone who's married, for example, I'm sol.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with what I quoted you saying here.

One does not have the right to marry whoever they are in love with. The constitution does not protect the citizens from their state and federal government from that. Sick but if one is in love with a child, they do not have the right to marry that child.

That said it was brought up before, but the EPC of the 14th amendment does protect the citizens of US from their state from gender discrimination. Simple argument but Alice can marry Charles because she is a woman but Bob can't marry Charles because he is a man. That is treating Bob and Alice (and Charles) differently strictly on the basis of their sex/gender.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Notice it even says privileges not rights (so even if you could argue marriage is not a right, it's irrelevant it is certainly a privilege granted by their state).

And Alice, Bob, and Charles have certainly all had their privileges abridged by not allowing them to marry someone solely because of their relative sexes.
 
Jerry said:
I actualy know a few hetero guys who probably would. They grew up best friends and are like brothers. They do everything together.
Click to expand...

So what if they want to make their bromance so strong they get federal and state benefits from it. Marriages of convenience happen all the time. A lot of 30 year olds (both male and female) marry rich 75 year olds, but very few 30 year olds marry poor 75 year olds ;)
 
wbcoleman said:
There has always been a single definition of marriage which applied to everybody.
Click to expand...

Is it really that big a deal if we let gays marry?

Really? Don't we have bigger things to worry about, like hunger, homelessness, education, healthcare, Iran, immigration, obesity, pollution?
 
What if...? said:
always?
Click to expand...

It's not even true today in the United States. Even side stepping same sex marriage:

Oregon has one definition:

Orgeon

If you aren't 17 years of age, you can't get married in Oregon. Those 17 years of age will need parental consent.

Pennsylvania has another:

If either of you are under 18 years of age, you must pay an additional $5.00, show your Birth Certificate, and have the written consent of a parent or guardian. Anyone under 16 years of age needs parental consent and the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.

And Rhode Island has another:

Rhode Island

If the bride is either 16 or 17 years of age, she will need to have a Minor's Permit to Marry Form (VS 10) signed and notarized by her parent or guardian at the City Clerk's office. Females under the age of 16, and males under the age of 18 cannot get married without prior approval from the Family Court.
 
PotusHillary said:
So what if they want to make their bromance so strong they get federal and state benefits from it. Marriages of convenience happen all the time. A lot of 30 year olds (both male and female) marry rich 75 year olds, but very few 30 year olds marry poor 75 year olds ;)
Click to expand...

I suspect those benefits are why there's so much money available to fight gay marriage.

Gays were "free" for businesses before.

Money got increases in property values without having to pay marriage benefits to the couples making the improvements.
 
wbcoleman said:
Do men have a constitutional right to marry their daughters? Assuming, of course, that everyone is above age of consent.
Click to expand...

The state can present a legitimate case that it has a rational reason to deny the right to marry in that case. It cannot do so with SSM.
 
wbcoleman said:
There has always been a single definition of marriage which applied to everybody.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. The definition of marriage varies by state now, and has varied over time just in the history of this country.
 
Helix said:
no, you aren't. she can get a divorce and then marry you. happens every single day. your example isn't analogous.
Click to expand...
So you agree that she can't be married, that noone can become a 3rd or 4th. Thank you for proving my point.
 
Jerry said:
So you agree that she can't be married, that noone can become a 3rd or 4th. Thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...

this isn't a discussion about polygamy. if you want my opinion on that one, i honestly don't care one way or the other about it.

the point is that heterosexuals are permitted to have a legally recognized marriage in all fifty states, and homosexuals are not. it's up to the SCOTUS to correct this, and hopefully it will do so.
 
Helix said:
this isn't a discussion about polygamy.
Click to expand...
That's right. This is a discussion about marriage equality. Equality only for one group is a contradicting idea. Equality means EVERYONE, not just your little pet group.

If you only want to support gays right now, that's fine, nothing wrong with that at all, and I join you in supporting gays....but by definition that means your cause is not about equality.

I support SSM, but I do not support poligamy, and that means I do not support marriage equality.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
That's right. This is a discussion about marriage equality. Equality only for one group is a contradicting idea. Equality means EVERYONE, not just your little pet group.

If you only want to support gays right now, that's fine, nothing wrong with that at all, and I join you in supporting gays....but by definition that means your cause is not about equality.

I support SSM, but I do not support poligamy, and that means I do not support marriage equality.
Click to expand...

incorrect. polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not.

if you support SSM being legally recognized in all 50 states as OSM is currently, then we agree.
 
Helix said:
incorrect. polygamy is a choice; homosexuality is not.
Click to expand...
Isn't this all about having a legal framework to marry someone of your *choice* and not having that *choice* arbitreraly blocked by the State without a damn good reason?

Since heterosexuality is not a choice, are you standing up for a person's right to marry as many members of the opposit sex as they want? You're saying that a ban on poligamy is discrimination against heteros?
 
Jerry said:
Isn't this all about having a legal framework to marry someone of your *choice* and not having that *choice* arbitreraly blocked by the State without a damn good reason?

Since heterosexuality is not a choice, are you standing up for a person's right to marry as many members of the opposit sex as they want? You're saying that a ban on poligamy is discrimination against heteros?
Click to expand...

no.

this is about gay people having the same right to marry as heterosexuals currently have. while i really don't care if someone marries multiple people, it isn't the same equal protection issue, nor is it analogous for reasons which i've already explained.
 
Jerry said:
Isn't this all about having a legal framework to marry someone of your *choice* and not having that *choice* arbitreraly blocked by the State without a damn good reason?
Click to expand...

No, it is about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requiring laws to apply equally to ALL citizens regardless of sex, race, country of origin (assuming they have become citizens), or religion. The fact that same sex marriage is not allowed has created men and women being treated unequally under the eyes of the law and this is generally not allowed (other than in some military issues). This is quite clearly gender discrimination.

Banning polygamy does not make women and men treated unequally. Or blacks and whites. Or even mormons and atheists, because no one can practice polygamy. Now, you could make the case for polygamy under other constitutional or legal arguments, but the same argument (14th amendment) for same sex marriage does not apply. That said, I am ok with polygamy, under the assumption all involved are consenting adults AND the benefits for it are not used in a manner that amounts to fraud ie someone marrying 100 immigrants to get all of them green cards.
 
PotusHillary said:
No, it is about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment requiring laws to apply equally to ALL citizens regardless of sex, race, country of origin (assuming they have become citizens), or religion. The fact that same sex marriage is not allowed has created men and women being treated unequally under the eyes of the law and this is generally not allowed (other than in some military issues). This is quite clearly gender discrimination.
Click to expand...
Sex, not gender. Those words mean diferent things.

Both sexes can marry the opposit sex. Neither sex can marry the same sex. That's equality of the sexes. Esch sex has the exact same rights and restrictions as the other.

This will remain true after SSM is legalised, therefore this is not an equality issue.
 
Jerry said:
Sex, not gender. Those words mean diferent things.

Both sexes can marry the opposit sex. Neither sex can marry the same sex. That's equality of the sexes. Esch sex has the exact same rights and restrictions as the other.

This will remain true after SSM is legalised, therefore this is not an equality issue.
Click to expand...

No, it still treats me (as a woman) under the eyes of the law differently than you (as a man).

Moreover, your argument would apply to interracial marriage. Whites can marry whites, blacks can marry blacks therefore the races are equal.

Your argument also gets muddy when you consider transgender and intersex individuals. Who can they marry?
 
PotusHillary said:
No, it still treats me (as a woman) under the eyes of the law differently than you (as a man).

Moreover, your argument would apply to interracial marriage. Whites can marry whites, blacks can marry blacks therefore the races are equal.

Your argument also gets muddy when you consider transgender and intersex individuals. Who can they marry?
Click to expand...

Hi, welcome to the board here! Just as a way of introduction, and to ensure you do not get the wrong idea: I am one of the most vocal and definite supporters of SSM. I wear as a badge of pride the name I have been called, "homoapologist". When it comes to SSM, no one is more in favor of it than I am, and few equal me in that regards.

Legally(and as far as court decisions go, that is what matters), the whole equal rights argument fails. The state is under no obligation to provide equal rights to every one, at many times it would be stupid to do so. Children have fewer rights than adults for example, and for good reason. The legal argument centers on one major question(well, for states to ban SSM that is, DOMA is a different animal, and the arguments are completely different): does that state have a rational, legitimate interest in denying same sex couples from marrying. Since marraige is a right(see Loving v Virginia et al), the state needs to show at least that much in order to ban SSM. Arguing that SSM bans are discriminatory in court is a failed argument, since most laws are in some way discriminatory.

Equal rights also fails as an argument in favor of SSM outside of courts. People will then bring up all the usual suspects, polygamy, incest, bestiality and any other stupid **** they can think of and ask why they do not get equal rights. The number one, far and away best argument in favor of SSM is that it benefits the children of those entering into the marriage, both those already born, and those that might come later. A stable, loving marriage is without question the best situation for raising children. There are a number of other, smaller arguments in favor of SSM that all derive from that same aspect of marriage, stability. This is an argument that is much harder to counter, and all the counters are emotional and not logical and generally arise out of ignorance on the part of the one trying to counter.

Again, welcome to the board here, I hope your stay is long and enjoyable.
 
wbcoleman said:
Do men have a constitutional right to marry their daughters? Assuming, of course, that everyone is above age of consent.
Click to expand...

Incest and SSM are false and unequal comparisons. Therefore your analogy is irrelevant.
 
PotusHillary said:
No, it still treats me (as a woman) under the eyes of the law differently than you (as a man).
Click to expand...
You and I can both marry someone of the opposit sex. You and are both barred from marrying the same sex. That's equal treatment.

Moreover, your argument would apply to interracial marriage. Whites can marry whites, blacks can marry blacks therefore the races are equal.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS agreed with that point in the Loving decision. Interacial marriage bans failed for other reasons.

Your argument also gets muddy when you consider transgender and intersex individuals. Who can they marry?
Click to expand...
Whatever their legal sex is, they can marry the opposit. Pretty clear.
 
Jerry said:
You and I can both marry someone of the opposit sex. You and are both barred from marrying the same sex. That's equal treatment.


SCOTUS agreed with that point in the Loving decision. Interacial marriage bans failed for other reasons.


Whatever their legal sex is, they can marry the opposit. Pretty clear.
Click to expand...

No, that is not equal treatment, any more than it was equal treatment when the claim was "black people can marry within their own race, and white people can marry within their own race, and each are treated the same when trying to marry a person of the other race so that is equal treatment".
 
Kanstantine said:
Is it really that big a deal if we let gays marry?

Really? Don't we have bigger things to worry about, like hunger, homelessness, education, healthcare, Iran, immigration, obesity, pollution?
Click to expand...

I'm actually of a mixed mind about it.
 
Redress said:
Absolutely false. The definition of marriage varies by state now, and has varied over time just in the history of this country.
Click to expand...

Varying ages of consent hardly represent differing definitions of marriage!
 
wbcoleman said:
Varying ages of consent hardly represent differing definitions of marriage!
Click to expand...

Certainly does, as do the number of people you can marry, the relationship of the people you can marry, the race of the people you can marry. Guess what, those where largely different from now when this country was founded...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom