• 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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up.

I'm against the pendulum being swung all the way to the right, but I'm against it being swung all the way to the left even more - and I envision this to happen in the not-too-distant future. I am perfectly happy with how it is right now, minus my whole "down with all marriage" viewpoint which will never see the light of day on an American political level.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your assessment of his "logic" and im sure thats what he was trying to say

but that just leaves me with one question

what state rights will be trampled?
 
This is good. DOMA prevents legally wed people in states that legalize SSM to receive federal benefits.

From my understanding nothing was done with Prop 8 because evidently they didn't have the legal push to represent it (Cali afterall refused to represent their people leaving it to others). The lower court ruling will stand for Cali and only California. It's still a state issue, more so now that DOMA is gone.
 
Gipper said:
Absolutely not. Intestate law, as a whole, has huge gaping holes in it.
Click to expand...

So then, when there's no will, who should? And how would you enforce that without legal family relationships?
 
Paschendale said:
So then, when there's no will, who should? And how would you enforce that without legal family relationships?
Click to expand...

Evenly divided amongst kids in the case of no will. If no kids, seizure by the state. Consider it a "stupid tax" for people without 5 spare minutes to create a legally binding will.
 
Gipper said:
Evenly divided amongst kids in the case of no will. If no kids, seizure by the state. Consider it a "stupid tax" for people without 5 spare minutes to create a legally binding will.
Click to expand...

Couples with no children have property seized by the state? Seriously? And you can call it a stupid tax, but that's hardly the reality. What if no one can find it? What if there are conflicting wills? What if the lawyer's secretary typed it up wrong and nobody noticed the mistake? What if one might be a forgery? What if one of those kids murdered the parent? What about shared marital property like a home? What about shared bank accounts? How many more rights do you need to destroy just to ensure that you can discriminate against gays?
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would only be the case if you assume that the constitution tramples on the states rights. If you do that, then you have even bigger problems.
 
Paschendale said:
Couples with no children have property seized by the state? Seriously? And you can call it a stupid tax, but that's hardly the reality. What if no one can find it? What if there are conflicting wills? What if the lawyer's secretary typed it up wrong and nobody noticed the mistake? What if one might be a forgery? What if one of those kids murdered the parent? What about shared marital property like a home? What about shared bank accounts? How many more rights do you need to destroy just to ensure that you can discriminate against gays?
Click to expand...

Nice try.

Also, abolition of marriage is "discrimination against gays" now? You've gone well past intellectual dishonesty to just flat-out lying. Maybe you should recruit more from your "cult of personality" to make your arguments for you. Yours are flimsy at best.
 
Notes from Scalia dissent: Scalia is still a piece of ****.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have gays always been a recognized class? What's the matter? Don't like being called a bigot?

I do not use the term marriage equality.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS did

Wrong: Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality
Click to expand...

Homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness by that same organization until it was only removed for political reasons. Homosexuals are identified by their sexual preferences. There is no gene. Being gay is not a race.
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but as a so-called libertarian, surely you don't support the government being unequal in its "rewarding" of people for being married?
 
A great day to be gay in America! Big thanks to allies who made this possible. Given how this decision reads, I think it will be legal in all states within 5-10 years. The courts have proven infinitely more useful than our government when it comes to equality for all Americans.
 
Deuce said:
Ahh, but as a so-called libertarian, surely you don't support the government being unequal in its "rewarding" of people for being married?
Click to expand...

Haven't I made this perfectly clear by now?

In case it STILL isn't, the purpose of me saying "not everyone" is to say "nobody". I like to think I've made this crystal clear by now, but I guess we have to wait for some people to come around.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said that polygamy was close to same sex marriage. You're making things up.

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.)
Click to expand...

Never said it was.

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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say legal. I said Constitutional.

But no, the SCOTUS did not say that marriage could mean anything. You are trying to misrepresent what was actually said in their ruling.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS says there is no Federal definition of marriage. If marriage doesn't mean anything, what does it mean?
 
Bronson said:
Have gays always been a recognized class? What's the matter? Don't like being called a bigot?



SCOTUS did



Homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness by that same organization until it was only removed for political reasons. Homosexuals are identified by their sexual preferences. There is no gene. Being gay is not a race.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think homosexuality is a mental illness?
 
Deuce said:
Notes from Scalia dissent: Scalia is still a piece of ****.
Click to expand...

Scalia is still one of my least favorite Justices to read. That and a few of Kennedy's opinions, i.e. Nicastro.
 
Deuce said:
Are you saying you think homosexuality is a mental illness?
Click to expand...

There is no gay gene

I'm not the one that labeled it a mental illness until it was removed from the DSM criteria for political reasons.
 
Bronson said:
SCOTUS says there is no Federal definition of marriage. If marriage doesn't mean anything, what does it mean?
Click to expand...

They didn't say it doesn't mean anything.
 
Bronson said:
Have gays always been a recognized class? What's the matter? Don't like being called a bigot?
Click to expand...

No they have not. That is irrelevant to whether they are now or not. Until you get a ruling which defines polygamists as a legal class, there is no precedent here that helps recognize polygamy. The opposite in fact. Your calling me a bigot is not going to change the legal realities. You are however entitled to your ignorant opinions.

SCOTUS did
Click to expand...

Odd. A search of the two rulings on that terms comes back negative...

Homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness by that same organization until it was only removed for political reasons. Homosexuals are identified by their sexual preferences. There is no gene. Being gay is not a race.
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of history is flawed, unsurprisingly. It was changed due to the results of research. Repeating the same failed definition is not going to make it right. I have not claimed a gay gene nor that being gay was a race, those are just random straw men.
 
Deuce said:
They didn't say it doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS said there is no Federal definition of what marriage is. They sent the issue back to the states.
 
disneydude said:
I don't think so at all. Kennedy clearly said in the opinion that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriages to straight only. That is a pretty solid 5 votes for a nationwide ban on laws discriminating against gays. Unless something dramatically occurs on the Supreme Court changing the balance the writing on the wall is clear. Thank God and Obama for saving our Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

What gives me pause on this is they could have voted for a nationwide decision today, so I don't know why the same judges would do so down the road. Just need that pig Scalia off the bench.
 
Bronson said:
I never said that polygamy was close to same sex marriage. You're making things up.

Never said it was.

I didn't say legal. I said Constitutional.

SCOTUS says there is no Federal definition of marriage. If marriage doesn't mean anything, what does it mean?
Click to expand...

In order for this ruling to apply to polygamy, it has to be close to same sex marriage. You admit it isn't. So your previous assertion is wrong.

Then procreation has nothing to do with government recognition of marriage. Legally you cannot claim that a law is for a specific purpose, such as procreation, yet the function of that law in no way requires that condition to exist. In fact, some other couples who cannot procreate are allowed to legally marry. And in certain cases, only those who cannot procreate are allowed to marry. This proves that procreation is not legally tied to marriage at all and is not a valid argument for restrictions in marriage, unless the restriction was specifically saying that only those couples who can procreate can legally marry. This is not likely to get approved. Very few people would support such intrusion into a couple's life.

Which means the state definitions are valid so long as they do not violate the US Constitution.

Marriage is a legal contract that makes two people legally recognized as "spouse" to each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom