• 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

What is an "anti-DOMA" act?

There already is one. It's called the "full faith and credit clause". Unfortunately, the court didn't strike down the part of DOMA that undermines it.

So do you support some sort of act that enforces SSM in a language that brings it to states that want nothing of the sort?

50 bucks says it's coming in your lifetime.

Yes, we support state governments not being able to infringe on constitutionally protected civil rights.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Had to log in today just to see what was going on after this ruling?

all i have to say is WOOOOOWHOOOOOO!!!!!!


not the end,
not a HUGE/FINAL step but a very important and great one!

Uh oh ... you mean the huge final step is gay marriage is gonna be mandatory?
 
That is not a class of people.

Sure they are

Gays are identified by what they are attracted to and who they have sex with

So are Polygamists. Who are you to judge them and insinuate they are second class citizens? Bigot

Nothing. I do not care about them.

You just insinuated they are second class citizens. Bigot

Gays are not defined by they sexual behavior.

Yes they are
 
Yes, we support state governments not being able to infringe on constitutionally protected civil rights.

I don't consider SSM to be "Constitutionally protected", let alone a civil right. That's fine though - I don't consider any marriage to be.

In a perfect world, DOMA gets wiped from the boards and the discussion on marriage altogether ends here, never to be brought up again - on either side - unless the talks concern abolition of the practice in its entirety.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Uh oh ... you mean the huge final step is gay marriage is gonna be mandatory?

why would any marriage ever be "mandatory"? that makes zero sense
 
So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.

Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.
Psst....the liberalization of the country began....before and during the revolution from the monarchy of Britain.
The current expanding of marriage/civil rights was started in Loving v Virginia. The court found that marriage is a fundamental right, we now understand this means you cannot deny it based on race or sex.
 
I don't consider SSM to be "Constitutionally protected", let alone a civil right. That's fine though - I don't consider any marriage to be.

In a perfect world, DOMA gets wiped from the boards and the discussion on marriage altogether ends here, never to be brought up again - on either side - unless the talks concern abolition of the practice in its entirety.
Again, the SC found it to be a basic, fundamental right of the people in Loving v Virginia.
 
Many Married Advocates

What do you have against Polygamy? It's not hurting you right? :lol:


You don't think other groups whose identities are defined by their sexual behaviors are not going to run with this precedent? Really?

They can run with it all they want. In fact, marriage being opposite sex only never stopped them from trying to challenge the number of spouses a person could legally have. The cases will still come down to what the legitimate state interest the state can show it has for that particularly restriction in marriage. For same sex marriage it was a restriction on sex/gender and the Court ruled that maintaining this restriction was not, in itself, a legitimate state interest essentially. However, the restriction involved in polygamy is on number of spouses any person can have and the state arguments have centered on much more than simply "this is how its always been" or something of this nature. Instead, the state has said that there are much more legitimate reasons to restrict how many people can be legally defined as another's spouse. Since other contracts allow for such a restriction on how many people are involved, there is no reason to believe that this will not hold up for marriage, where that restriction is instrumental in how the current laws of marriage operate. No other contracts are limited based on gender/sex.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

why would any marriage ever be "mandatory"?
that makes zero sense

... and that should have told you something.
But I'm curious what the huge final step would actually look like.
 
Again, the SC found it to be a basic, fundamental right of the people in Loving v Virginia.

Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.

Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

... and that should have told you something.
But I'm curious what the huge final step would actually look like.

yes it did, it told me your assumption makes no sense and theres no logic to support it

the final step is equal rights :shrug:
 
Sure they are

Gays are identified by what they are attracted to and who they have sex with

So are Polygamists. Who are you to judge them and insinuate they are second class citizens? Bigot

Gays are recognized as a class of people by the court. Polygamists not so much. Name calling from ignorance is going to fail.


You just insinuated they are second class citizens. Bigot

You are making **** up now.


Yes they are

Wrong again. You can be gay and celibate. You can be gay and have sex with people of the opposite sex.
 
Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Never read it, huh?

Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.

So you want unequal treatment under the law. You want the law to proscribe rewards for some people and not for others.
 
Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.

Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.

Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.

Loving is one of many cases where marriage was defined as a right. While you may not like it, marriage is recognized legally as a right in the US.

The federal governemnt is not ever getting out of marrraige. Not in the foreseeable future. Maybe in a few hundred years, but even then probably not.
 
They can run with it all they want. In fact, marriage being opposite sex only never stopped them from trying to challenge the number of spouses a person could legally have. The cases will still come down to what the legitimate state interest the state can show it has for that particularly restriction in marriage. For same sex marriage it was a restriction on sex/gender and the Court ruled that maintaining this restriction was not, in itself, a legitimate state interest essentially. However, the restriction involved in polygamy is on number of spouses any person can have and the state arguments have centered on much more than simply "this is how its always been" or something of this nature. Instead, the state has said that there are much more legitimate reasons to restrict how many people can be legally defined as another's spouse. Since other contracts allow for such a restriction on how many people are involved, there is no reason to believe that this will not hold up for marriage, where that restriction is instrumental in how the current laws of marriage operate. No other contracts are limited based on gender/sex.

The argument can be made that Polygamy is closer to real marriage than Gay Marriage. Both are sham marriages however. In a Polygamist marriage, the union is still man + woman, you're just adding a (s). Children can still be conceived and born naturally without some Frankenstein science experiment. I see a lot of people cheering this decision, but Gay Marriage was not made Constitutional today. The defense of marriage act merely made the Federal definition of recognized marriage man + woman, as the definition has been known since the beginning of mankind. The oligarchy of black robes merely said marriage can mean anything because there is now no US Federal Definition of what marriage means. Has nothing to do with gays specifically.

I'm laughing my a** off watching liberals call people bigots while making the case that we should restrict marriage equality from people who want to marry more than one person. "Marriage Equality" apparently only applies to liberal approved sexual interest groups. Anyone else who wants in on marriage equality to justify who/what they want to marry are still second class citizens. What legitimate reason would a state have to ban polygamy? This DOMA case was brought to the court because of a tax issue. Why should polygamy and group marriage be illegal? Why can't fathers marry adult sons? Sisters marry sisters?
 
Wishful thinking, I know.

Best feasible scenario, this strike ends the marriage talk on the federal level. If a state votes to adopt SSM, I'm good with it. I am just tired of hearing Washington get involved, for weal or woe.
 
Gays are recognized as a class of people by the court. Polygamists not so much. Name calling from ignorance is going to fail.

Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot


You are making **** up now.

You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.

Wrong again. You can be gay and celibate. You can be gay and have sex with people of the opposite sex.

Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people. :lol:
 
The argument can be made that Polygamy is closer to real marriage than Gay Marriage. Both are sham marriages however. In a Polygamist marriage, the union is still man + woman, you're just adding a (s). Children can still be conceived and born naturally without some Frankenstein science experiment. I see a lot of people cheering this decision, but Gay Marriage was not made Constitutional today. The defense of marriage act merely made the Federal definition of recognized marriage man + woman, as the definition has been known since the beginning of mankind. The oligarchy of black robes merely said marriage can mean anything because there is now no US Federal Definition of what marriage means. Has nothing to do with gays specifically.

I'm laughing my a** off watching liberals call people bigots while making the case that we should restrict marriage equality from people who want to marry more than one person. "Marriage Equality" apparently only applies to liberal approved sexual interest groups. Anyone else who wants in on marriage equality to justify who/what they want to marry are still second class citizens. What legitimate reason would a state have to ban polygamy? This DOMA case was brought to the court because of a tax issue. Why should polygamy and group marriage be illegal? Why can't fathers marry adult sons? Sisters marry sisters?

So then your original premise is very wrong, since you are now trying to say that polygamy was already close to opposite sex marriage. They would have already had standing.

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage in the US. (You wouldn't happen to be arguing on Yahoo too, would you? Because I have only seen it twice, but it has happened twice today, someone making a horrible comparison between Frankenstein and IVF/surrogacy.)

No, same sex marriage was not made legal today. It happened years ago, for the US back when Massachusetts became the first state to allow same sex couples to marry.

But no, the SCOTUS did not say that marriage could mean anything. You are trying to misrepresent what was actually said in their ruling.
 
Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot

Wrong. You can deny court rulings all you want and call names to those less ignorant than yourself, but it won't change the fact that gays are a recognized class, polygamists are not.

You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.

I do not use the term marriage equality.

Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people. :lol:

Wrong: Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality
 
Based upon their sexual behavior. Same as polygamists. "Marriage Equality" only applies to your pre approved list of sexual interest groups? Bigot

You're the one insinuating they don't deserve "marriage equality". Bigot.

Homosexuals are identified by their sexual behavior and sexual preferences. Now you're basically claiming there is no such thing as gay people. :lol:

You are completely wrong. Marriage is not about sexual behavior. It is about two people wanting to become legal recognized spouses for their relationships and the agreements they are making to each other.

Marriage restrictions that have been struck down did not limit homosexuals from getting married. It limited anyone from marrying a person of their same gender. This is an arbitrary restriction that can in no way be shown to further a legitimate state interest. Restrictions on numbers of spouses have so far held up as furthering a legitimate state interest. Prior to this, same sex restrictions had not been ruled on by the SCOTUS, number of spouse restrictions have.
 
Loving only shot down the prohibition of interracial marriage.
No, not only, again the court stated that marriage is a basic, fundamental right.

Okay, let me come at this another way - I'll be happy when marriage is, in no way, federally recognized or encouraged through financial benefits.
That is changing the topic, from marriage being a right....to federal tax policy and survivor benefits, to say nothing of contract law whether at the state or federal level.

Everyone should have a "right" to get married. Not everyone should be rewarded to do so.
Well, that flies in the face of our society.....which is reflected in our laws.
 
So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?

By his suggestion that this isn't the end point, it seems he's basing his statement and view of the ruling off the same one as Your Star...assuming that all this does is set up the next court case to come in and tell all states that they must acknowledge and treat equally the marriage that occurs in another state that wouldn't have occured in their own...which he seems to be suggesting is a trampling of state rights by essentially forcing every state to adhere to whatever standard any particular state wishes to set.

Based on that sort of logic, I can kind of get the point...it's kind of a "two steps forward, one step back" type of thing or losing a battle to win the war. That the ruling itself doesn't directly trample states rights, but lays the clear and present pathway that will likely be used shortly to trampled said state rights.

Not sure I really agree, but can at least see the logic behind it.
 
Back
Top Bottom