• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

cpwill said:
:shrug: as a quick question, would you say that getting rid of slavery was a moral advancement?

If so, how? Isn't it true that the morality that the slave states held that slave-owning was justifiable or even desirable is equal to the moral position that it is not? You haven't had a moral advance in that case, so much as a use of massive amounts of violence by the proponents of one set of morals to impose their beliefs on those who propose another.
Click to expand...

Moral advancement presumes axiomatically many things.

1) Is an advancement inherently "good?" Why?
2) Are "good" and "bad" even known to objectively exist?
3) Why is slavery "bad?"
 
disneydude said:
Not exactly. The 5th Amendment ruling essentially says "Yes, states, you are free to define marriage, but you must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.....and discriminating against gays violates the 5th Amendment". There was nothing procedurally in Windsor that allowed them to do this...but there is a strong signal that the court will ultimately rule that any state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. A Great day for America!
Click to expand...

Sounds like the states have to remove all restrictions on the books, otherwise they would be discriminatory, correct?
 
cpwill said:
:) a better discussion for the religion forum, perhaps, but these aren't really what you would call "God", perhaps as much as a "deity" or "higher power".
Click to expand...

There is just as much proof for those other Gods existence as their is for the Christian God.
 
Samhain said:
Sounds like the states have to remove all restrictions on the books, otherwise they would be discriminatory, correct?
Click to expand...

At least the restriction on gay marriage.....that is the signal of the court. Other restrictions were not really hinted at...but there certainly could be other challenges as well.
 
CanadaJohn said:
To the extent that the government insists on interfering with and regulating what was essentially a religious rite, this ruling is the correct one. All the more reason why the government should not be in the marriage business because this ruling does not just expand the right of gays to have their marriage recognized by the federal government, if a state so recognizes it, it also leaves open the possibility of other equal protections of other marriage "couplings" going forward.

As for the religious rite of marriage, it's likely that going forward churches will no longer participate in the civil aspect of marriage but only the religious aspect, retaining the rite as between a man and a woman and leaving no room for the civil equality to creep into their services. As such, those who wish to be married in the church of their faith will also have to be married in a civil ceremony recognized by the state in order to be "registered" with the state.
Click to expand...

The bolded: The government and it's regualtion of marriage is entirely separate from the church's. Just because a church marries some one in their eyes does not make them married in terms of the government, and just because the government licenses some one as married does not mean churches have to accept it from their purposes. It is very much like 2 groups, using the same word, but meaning different things by it.
 
cpwill said:
You don't (none of us do) get you're own "God". By definition this is impossible.
Click to expand...

We get our own beliefs in God. This is freedom of religion. This includes believing in what God's morals are. You cannot prove that what you believe God's morals are or what God has placed as man's morals are the correct ones, so we each would have our own God or at least our own beliefs in what God's morals are.
 
Wondering, do people in states that ban SSM get to file joint federal tax returns? Do they get federal benefits that comes with marriage? Or are they denied by not being able to have their marriage recognized by the state they live in?

And if that is the case, what impact will it have on future rulings, because based on the ruling of DOMA, those laws could be seen in the same light.
 
cpwill said:
Not what he's doing. You cannot by definition have multiple actual "God"s, just multiple "gods".
Click to expand...

Not sure WHO you are referring to. There are multiple people that claim to speak for God.
 
Wiseone said:
So is anyone divorced now because their marriage means nothing?

Anyone?

Anyone.....
Click to expand...

Can't wait til property values skyrocket in states that allow gay marriage while they fall where they don't.

SSM will be legal everywhere in no time.
 
winston53660 said:
There is just as much proof for those other Gods existence as their is for the Christian God.
Click to expand...

that is an entirely different discussion than whether or not it is possible to have multiple First Cause infinite entities.

It is also incorrect. You don't have to say that the evidence is compelling, or convincing, or that you believe it, but the fact remains that there is a greater amount of net evidence in favor of the New Testament v. the Greek Pantheon.
 
The challenge in cases such as this is to realize that a number of powers reserved to the states are not rightly so any longer.

As time has passed and technology brought us all closer together, the concept of states relative to the nation as a whole is diminishing in meaning, like the concept of counties relative to states themselves has greatly diminished, and it becomes a mere arbitrary function of land, its usage and population densities in an arbitrarily boundaried region, nothing too greatly relevant to topical relevancy intelligence reflecting America as a whole.

It also makes it more difficult for our country to present our national policies, especially on social issues, to other nations.

Granted, the SCOTUS decision, though strangely a close 5-4, upholds the states rights, and nothing more.

But there is coming a time when our country as a whole on these matters will intelligently mean more than the sum of the soon-to-be antiquated states.

DOMA was evidence of that.

The times they are a changing, and this close SCOTUS decision will not slow that change down.
 
Your Star said:
Wondering, do people in states that ban SSM get to file joint federal tax returns? Do they get federal benefits that comes with marriage? Or are they denied by not being able to have their marriage recognized by the state they live in?
Click to expand...

It seems (by the ruling) that they are held to the standards of their State. This isn't a declaration of a federal definition of marriage that includes homosexual couples - it is a denial of the federal government's right to have a definition of marriage.

If they go to another state to get married and then return.... :shrug: the Court didn't rule on Section 2, only Section 3.
 
winston53660 said:
There is just as much proof for those other Gods existence as their is for the Christian God.
Click to expand...

Yikes, could you guys take this to the Religion forum? Please?
 
Redress said:
The bolded: The government and it's regualtion of marriage is entirely separate from the church's. Just because a church marries some one in their eyes does not make them married in terms of the government, and just because the government licenses some one as married does not mean churches have to accept it from their purposes. It is very much like 2 groups, using the same word, but meaning different things by it.
Click to expand...

I agree, in principle, but you'll find in practice it's the exact opposite today - I can't think of a single mainstream religious marriage ceremony that is not recognized by the state in which it's performed - but it likely will revert back to the situation as you outline it above in the not too distant future.
 
Tucker Case said:
I wouldn't place much faith in that approach, though. Kennedy was swayed by Equal Protection at the federal level, but he also appeared to be supporting state's rights in the process. A Marriage rights amendment would be the only sure path to nationwide legalization of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Now if only they'd support states right on pot.
 
disneydude said:
At least the restriction on gay marriage.....that is the signal of the court. Other restrictions were not really hinted at...but there certainly could be other challenges as well.
Click to expand...

Here is Ohio's basic law. Since there are different ages for males vs females, that's going to have to go. So will the second cousins portion. And the second sentance.

Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. A minor shall first obtain the consent of the minor's parents, surviving parent, parent who is designated the residential parent and legal custodian of the minor by a court of competent jurisdiction, guardian, or any one of the following who has been awarded permanent custody of the minor by a court exercising juvenile jurisdiction:
Click to expand...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Your God wouldn't be God then.
Click to expand...

My God is God. Your God is the one that isn't God. This is philosophical. But it still goes back to freedom of religion and the fact that you cannot prove that the morals you believe come from God actually do, so saying that this is morally bad only shows that it is only your morals that are disturbed by allowing same sex couples to marry (and those who hold similar morals on this subject to you). You cannot prove that God's morals are as such. The Bible or your personal religious beliefs are not proof of this.
 
disneydude said:
Not sure WHO you are referring to. There are multiple people that claim to speak for God.
Click to expand...

If the "people" never spoke for God, there would have been no God to begin with.

Because if you're waiting to hear or see evidence of "God," from God, it ain't gonna happen.

Just sayin.....
 
Moderator's Warning:
Religion forum people, perhaps this discussion should go there rather than derailing this thread further
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom