• 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

Papa bull said:
That's where the bear will hit the buckwheat. Right there. What will be debated in court is the state's interest. It does have an interest in endorsing only heterosexual marriages. It's not doing it arbitrarily. The only remaining question going forward is whether the argument of the state's interest is compelling or not and whether the supreme court will eventually reverse itself on it's recent decision and reasoning that the definition of marriage is the domain of the state and not to be overridden by the federal government without an important state interest in doing so.

If it was as cut and dried as you would like to think it is, homosexual marriage would already be the law of the land. It will be an uphill battle instead of the done deal you pretend it is.
Click to expand...

Actually, the state's interest position is the winning position on this issue, not the equality position. If all legal arguments were focused on the state's compelling interest, demonstrating in this context that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, SSM would either have been approved or well on it's way. People on both sides are too caught up in the "equality" debate.
 
Somerville said:
I would call this the weakest and most infantile argument against SSM
Click to expand...

Not really... though it depends on how one identifies WHY someone gets married. Problem is that the "why" is rarely addressed.

Nowadays, people tend to get married because the person they want to marry is the person that they love. In THIS case, the argument that Papa bull makes is a complete failure. Unfortunately, the law doesn't recognize the "why". This is why the equality argument tend to hit a lot of snags. It's dishonest, but logical.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

disneydude said:
Thank God.....prop H8 was a horrible initiative funded in large part by the Mormons with the largest propoganda display in the history of the state that was full of lies and deceit. Its a great day for California.
Click to expand...


Funny part is it wouldn't have passed if a Senator by the name of Obama wasn't running for President. When 60% of the African-American community supported Prop 8.. it's gonna pass.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Anybody find it ironic the LGBT lawyers argued on Equal Protection and State Rights? The two major positions which lead to the Civil War and the aftermath of it. We can recognize State's rights when it comes to a liberal position but can't on a conservative one? I am confused.

And if anybody thinks that the DOMA ruling will just effect Federal workers or those States with gay marriage think again. Anybody that receives Federal money will now have to comply. That means School Districts, Cities, and States or they will have to forgo those funds. It's just like the drinking age law the Federal Government has. If you are a State that has drinking age lower the 21, you lose Federal Highway funds.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not really... though it depends on how one identifies WHY someone gets married. Problem is that the "why" is rarely addressed.

Nowadays, people tend to get married because the person they want to marry is the person that they love. In THIS case, the argument that Papa bull makes is a complete failure. Unfortunately, the law doesn't recognize the "why". This is why the equality argument tend to hit a lot of snags. It's dishonest, but logical.
Click to expand...

Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

austrianecon said:
Funny part is it wouldn't have passed if a Senator by the name of Obama wasn't running for President. When 60% of the African-American community supported Prop 8.. it's gonna pass.
Click to expand...

Actually...I don't think that played much of a part at all. Obama actually ran robocalls here asking people to vote against prop8. Voters were more swayed by the Mormon lies that they plastered the airwaves with.
 
Papa bull said:
Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
Click to expand...

The state sanctions marriage for many reasons, but definitely not just for procreation. And as long as it does sanction it for other reasons, then those groups who fit into those other reasons should fight for their right to enter into marriage. The state then must show a legitimate state interest in denying that group, that only pertains to that group and not others that can already marry, and how it furthers a legitimate state interest, against that pertains to the specific restriction. Exceptions are still legal grounds to counter a restriction.

And in the case of same sex marriage restrictions, procreation fails as a legal argument for several reasons.

First, there are no legal requirements to be able to procreate in any marriage laws.

Second, there are no legal requirements for marriage in order to procreate.

Third, around 25% of married opposite sex couples where the woman is of childbearing age do not have children, and many of them can't and don't want them. Around 12% of these couples are infertile (and that 12% is set, even if in rare cases some of those will turn up having a flawed diagnosis). Another 10% do not want children and will go out of their way to prevent pregnancy, including any and every birth control method available to them, up to voluntary infertilization.

Fourth, we allow women past their childbearing ability to marry despite not being able to have children.

Fifth, there are states that have laws that specifically limit marriage to first cousins only when those first cousins cannot reproduce together. The federal government recognizes all these marriages.

And last, given all this information, same sex couples would be an extremely small percent of the overall married and would make up way less than any of these other opposite sex couples groups who cannot/do not procreate while married. They would absolutely fit into the "their an exception" and be most likely the smallest groups, in numbers, in the exceptions groups.

On top of all this, it is plain that the majority of Americans, including heterosexuals and even anti-ssm people do not feel that marriage is truly about procreation since no group has been able to get enough signatures to even start an initiative to limit marriage to only those couples that can procreate. It has been tried. (By both sides)
 
roguenuke said:
The state sanctions marriage for many reasons, but definitely not just for procreation.
Click to expand...

That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
 
Papa bull said:
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
Click to expand...

It is not considered important in laws that deny marriage to only those opposite sex couples who can procreate if they are first cousins and want to marry. It is not considered important when it comes to lack of limitations on age of marriage, at least for women. It is not considered important when it comes to procreation that occurs outside of marriage.

Legally, marriage has already been divorced from procreation, whether you want to recognize this fact or not.
 
Papa bull said:
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
Click to expand...

The primary purpose of the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin issues.
 
roguenuke said:
It is not considered important in laws that deny marriage to only those opposite sex couples who can procreate if they are first cousins and want to marry. It is not considered important when it comes to lack of limitations on age of marriage, at least for women. It is not considered important when it comes to procreation that occurs outside of marriage.

Legally, marriage has already been divorced from procreation, whether you want to recognize this fact or not.
Click to expand...

We'll find out if and when homosexuals successfully get a case in front of the supreme court challenging the actual definition of marriage in states. The PURPOSE of marriage will be hashed out at that time, as well as whether or not the state that sanctions marriage has the right to define it. Don't hold your breath, though, because that's not happening tomorrow.
 
winston53660 said:
The primary purpose of the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin issues.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating that. And it's still not any more true than it was the first time you said it.
 
Papa bull said:
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
Click to expand...
Who is "divorcing" it? How does SSM change procreation?
 
Papa bull said:
We'll find out if and when homosexuals successfully get a case in front of the supreme court challenging the actual definition of marriage in states. The PURPOSE of marriage will be hashed out at that time, as well as whether or not the state that sanctions marriage has the right to define it. Don't hold your breath, though, because that's not happening tomorrow.
Click to expand...

It has already been "hashed out" a number of times over the last few years, and it has failed in many of those cases. It will continue to fail using procreation ability as a defense of restrictions on marriage due to sex/gender because it simply is not applied equally. And in fact, if laws were ever pushed to limit marriage to only procreative couples, including opposite sex couples, such laws would be struck down as well because they simply do not have any standing in law because the purpose of marriage is not legally procreation.
 
roguenuke said:
It has already been "hashed out" a number of times over the last few years, and it has failed in many of those cases. It will continue to fail using procreation ability as a defense of restrictions on marriage due to sex/gender because it simply is not applied equally. And in fact, if laws were ever pushed to limit marriage to only procreative couples, including opposite sex couples, such laws would be struck down as well because they simply do not have any standing in law because the purpose of marriage is not legally procreation.
Click to expand...

OK. Well, good luck with that. If you want to have a same-sex marriage, there are about a dozen states you can move to that agree with you and will let you do it.
 
Papa bull said:
OK. Well, good luck with that. If you want to have a same-sex marriage, there are about a dozen states you can move to that agree with you and will let you do it.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be in a same sex marriage, since I'm already in an opposite sex marriage and I'm heterosexual.

But those who do want to be in a same sex marriage should not be forced to move to a different state and stay there just because some do not want to understand that restrictions against same sex marriage do not further any legitimate state interest and therefore are unconstitutional. And there are those in same sex marriages or who soon may be who have no real choice where they live because of their job and obligations.
 
winston53660 said:
So what is the purpose then?
Click to expand...

Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.

Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization

State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
 
Papa bull said:
Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.

Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization

State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
Click to expand...


Then why doesn't the contract say that if that is it's purpose?
 
Papa bull said:
Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.

Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization

State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
Click to expand...

Except you're wrong because the state in no way confirms that a couple entering into marriage "makes biological sense". That simply isn't true. Two people who enter into marriage who know they cannot have children but are of the opposite sex still, by your definition, would not "make biological sense", since they cannot have children with each other. In some cases, opposite sex couples have to in fact prove that they cannot have children together in order to legally marry.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't want to be in a same sex marriage, since I'm already in an opposite sex marriage and I'm heterosexual.

But those who do want to be in a same sex marriage should not be forced to move to a different state and stay there just because some do not want to understand that restrictions against same sex marriage do not further any legitimate state interest and therefore are unconstitutional. And there are those in same sex marriages or who soon may be who have no real choice where they live because of their job and obligations.
Click to expand...

See, that is the "compassionate" argument and the only one that I find sympathetic. I don't agree that marriage makes any sense at all for homosexuals outside of the argument for what have come to be deemed reasonable benefits and state protections for committed partners. That's the real dilemma and not just for me, but for a lot of people. It's not marriage, but there is a compassionate side to this that is compelling. People typically want to help others. I'm just not certain marriage should come up on the "re-engineering" table in order to meet the goals of providing a legal framework for relationships that are not biologically sensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom