• 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]

Looks like it will be Monday at the earliest on this. No ruling on these two cases handed down today.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The government doesn't discriminate against gays...

Gays just want to be a "protected class" and have MORE rights than anyone else..

I find anyone who believes the government should protect them from scrutiny to be obnoxious..
Click to expand...

What? Aren't you being sarcastic? You're a Libertarian, right? Most Libs believe the gov't shouldn't prevent any american citizen from doing or being anything they want to be... That being said, if you believe this way.. I'm right behind you@! I agree 100 'cent.
 
cabse5 said:
What? Aren't you being sarcastic? You're a Libertarian, right? Most Libs believe the gov't shouldn't prevent any american citizen from doing or being anything they want to be... That being said, if you believe this way.. I'm right behind you@! I agree 100 'cent.
Click to expand...

Libertarian in name only...if you look at his posts he is really much more of a right-wing Republican.
 
Navy Pride said:
Give it up Boo. You know damn well the 14th amendment had zero to do with marriage.
Click to expand...

And yet it has been used several times already to strike down state marriage laws. Funny how it had nothing to do with marriage, according to you anyway, and yet it still applies.

Of course, those of us who can read recognize that the 14th states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Pretty sure marriage is part of the law and either a right or a privilege, either way, covered by this Amendment.
 
cabse5 said:
What? Aren't you being sarcastic? You're a Libertarian, right? Most Libs believe the gov't shouldn't prevent any american citizen from doing or being anything they want to be... That being said, if you believe this way.. I'm right behind you@! I agree 100 'cent.
Click to expand...

I'm not a "modern liberal" or progressive...

Marriage isn't even a right/civil liberty.

Marriage is historically based in religion/beliefs NOT in government. Marriage to our government is contract.

Any individual should be able to engage in contract if they're of the legal age to do so (and it is certainly possible today).

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm comfortable with homosexuality - it means I believe they have the right to engage in civil contract like any "marriage" is considered civil contract but that doesn't mean that a community should be obligated to accept their presence....

If people want to be accepted - they should live where they're accepted.

Honestly, I don't really care what gays do behind their own doors, however I find their acts of "affection" in public provocation. However I wouldn't view it that way if I was in San Francisco because I would be in their backyard...
 
winston53660 said:
The 14th was used in Loving v Virginia
Click to expand...

The Equal Protection Clause justifies just about anything which makes the clause anarchistic in nature and it should be repealed for its vagueness.
 
Boo Radley said:
Wrong. You are free to define marriage for yourself, but not for others.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As a citizen, I and my fellow citizens are free to define marriage for our government.
 
cpwill said:
Wrong. As a citizen, I and my fellow citizens are free to define marriage for our government.
Click to expand...

Within the limitations of the Constitution. You cannot limit marriage to only those you feel should get it without being able to justify why that limitation furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
roguenuke said:
Within the limitations of the Constitution. You cannot limit marriage to only those you feel should get it without being able to justify why that limitation furthers a legitimate state interest.
Click to expand...

Actually, marriage is presently covered by strict scrutiny, so it needs to be the narrowly tailored to promote a compelling interest. Sadly, no case has yet included SSM under the strict scrutiny umbrella, though this is one of the main issues that the supreme court will hopefully address. The California courts, however, have said that anti-SSM laws don't even pass the rational basis test. Because seriously, what possible interest is furthered in preventing gays from marrying?
 
Navy Pride said:
Give it up Boo. You know damn well the 14th amendment had zero to do with marriage.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm not a "modern liberal" or progressive...

Marriage isn't even a right/civil liberty.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.

Marriage is historically based in religion/beliefs NOT in government. Marriage to our government is contract.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a contract that the government is applying gender-based restrictions to. Surely as a "libertarian" you would agree that in order to do this, the government must show a good reason to make that classification, or else they have no business placing that restriction on who a private citizen enters a contract with.

Any individual should be able to engage in contract if they're of the legal age to do so (and it is certainly possible today).

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm comfortable with homosexuality - it means I believe they have the right to engage in civil contract like any "marriage" is considered civil contract but that doesn't mean that a community should be obligated to accept their presence....
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing that you should "be obligated to accept their presence." I have an important point for you here: Nobody really cares what you think about their marriage. I'm not talking about just gay people here. Straight people don't care whether you personally approve of their union either. Maybe you don't approve of redheads getting married. Redheads don't care. Maybe you don't approve of an albino marrying a Mormon. They don't care. They do care whether or not the government treats them equally, and as a libertarian you should too.

If people want to be accepted - they should live where they're accepted.

Honestly, I don't really care what gays do behind their own doors, however I find their acts of "affection" in public provocation. However I wouldn't view it that way if I was in San Francisco because I would be in their backyard...
Click to expand...

Provocation? Now that's some hateful ****. Have you ever shown affection in public? Did you consider that you might have been offending someone? How small your universe must be, that you think some else's public affection has anything to do with you.

Grow up, Nick. The world is not as interested in you as you seem to think.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Marriage is historically based in religion/beliefs NOT in government. Marriage to our government is contract.
Click to expand...

Provide evidence that marriage has been solely confined to the religious or retract this statement.

(You will fail this).
 
cpwill said:
Wrong. As a citizen, I and my fellow citizens are free to define marriage for our government.
Click to expand...

Wrong. So defined as only between people of the same race. That was shot down. Now they may define it that way for themselves, but not for others and the government had to comply. That alone shows your statement to be inaccurate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Try equal protection under the law. Most cite the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Absolutely....a lot of uneducated people do not understand what the 14th Amendment is and what it does. So you get the fools that try to argue Constitutional Law without understanding the basics of the Constitution.
 
This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.

There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfairness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.

There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfariness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
Click to expand...

No the argument for same sex marriage is simple, people should be allowed freedom in this country to do what they want up til the point where that interferes with someone else's freedoms/rights or does harm. The onus is on the state to justify why a restriction is placed on a government offered contractual arrangement to make two adults legal family on the basis of sex/gender, and that justification must show at the very least a legitimate state interest is furthered (and many feel it should have to be a higher level of scrutiny because it is marriage or the basis is sex/gender).
 
cabse5 said:
This is the ONLY argument for SSM: Some ideological plurality of judges decided marriage should be for everyone. Not a democracy. Heck, not even a representative republic. The decision was made by oligarchists - the decision was made by a few. Kinda think the Constitution was drawn up to prevent things like this from happening in US government.

Do supreme court judges show supreme judgement at all times? I refer you to the middle 1850's Dred Scott decision where the SCOTUS decided a slave owner had the legal right to recapture a fugitive slave no matter how long the slave had been a freeman in a free state. Actually, at that time, SCOTUS used the US Constitution more to make their decision on Dred Scott than the original plurality of state supreme court judges who used 'out of the box' thinking, decreed marriage was a right for everyone, and set the precedent. You can't even say these ideological oligarchists were particularly bright. Just ideologues.
Click to expand...

None of the above has any bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.

cabse5 said:
There are many issues which could be considered unfair in american society. Advocates of SSM aren't phased with this unfairness in other institutions of american society. SSM is not about fairness. Its political.
Click to expand...

Your baseless opinions have no bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.

And before you chime in with infringement on the rights of religion as you did in another thread, I will remind you (as I did in that thread) that the constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not force others to have the same practices and beliefs as your religion.
 
roguenuke said:
No the argument for same sex marriage is simple, people should be allowed freedom in this country to do what they want up til the point where that interferes with someone else's freedoms/rights or does harm. The onus is on the state to justify why a restriction is placed on a government offered contractual arrangement to make two adults legal family on the basis of sex/gender, and that justification must show at the very least a legitimate state interest is furthered (and many feel it should have to be a higher level of scrutiny because it is marriage or the basis is sex/gender).
Click to expand...

Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.
 
cabse5 said:
Or when 1st amendment rights are violated when, IMO, SSM laws infringe upon religions in america. upon religions.
Click to expand...

Hey, can I call it or can I call it?
 
Cardinal said:
None of the above has any bearing on the argument of whether or not homosexuals should have marriage.



And before you chime in with infringement on the rights of religion as you did in another thread, I will remind you (as I did in that thread) that the constitution protects your right to practice your religion, but it does not force others to have the same practices and beliefs as your religion.
Click to expand...

I'm a chimin'. That's what the religion part of the first amendment is about... Read it more closely. Gov't shall not set up a gov't religion, and gov't shall not impede religions from the practice of their religion.
 
cabse5 said:
I'm a chimin'.
Click to expand...

I'm not stopping you from chiming.

Gov't shall not set up a gov't religion,
Click to expand...

It's not doing that.

cabse5 said:
and gov't shall not impede religions from the practice of their religion.
Click to expand...

It's not doing that either. When gay marriage finally becomes fully legal in all fifty states, you will be able to still practice your religion in exactly the same way as you practice it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom