• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

roguenuke said:
And they cannot legitimately say that because marriage, in the way it functions, is gender neutral. You cannot show any laws concerning how marriage works, including the rights, responsibilities, or laws pertaining to the end of a marriage, that are gender dependent. [/url]
Click to expand...

I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


Lawriter - ORC

Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) 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:
 
Papa bull said:
I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


Lawriter - ORC

Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) 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...

Oh look, more gender-based distinctions you are supporting.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yeah...Wells was a radical, not a liberal and not a progressive. He favored revolutionary change of society.
Click to expand...

I can understand why Progressives would want to distance themselves. But the fact is, he was on the bleeding edge of Progressive-ism.
 
Papa bull said:
I don't know why you keep saying that. Marriage laws are not all "gender-neutral". There are two parties in a marriage - man and woman. Most of the laws apply equally to both, but since marriage law recognizes a husband and a wife, the argument about gender neutrality is dumb, at best. In fact, since states are designing "gender neutral" marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you should have already logically concluded that they can't all be gender neutral if the goal is to make them gender neutral.

Your "all marriage laws are gender neutral" argument fails.


Lawriter - ORC

Chapter 3101: MARRIAGE
3101.01 Persons who may be joined in marriage - minor to obtain consent.
(A) 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...

Because this is circular logic. You cannot use a restriction on the law that is being specifically challenged to claim that the laws of marriage itself are not gender neutral. It is circular logic.

The laws in how marriage itself, as a contract, not a license, functions, are gender neutral. You do not have to be of a specific gender to fulfill the responsibilities that come with being another person's spouse.
 
Boo Radley said:
If these laws coud be written so plainly that everyone would understand very nuance, there'd be no need for the courts to answer questions on them. You need to expand your reading.
Click to expand...

the constitution is a very easy read, i am sorry, you cannot understand it but if you continue to make attempts at trying to understand it, i am very you you will master it in time, i bid ......good luck to you.
 
roguenuke said:
And they cannot legitimately say that because marriage, in the way it functions, is gender neutral. You cannot show any laws concerning how marriage works, including the rights, responsibilities, or laws pertaining to the end of a marriage, that are gender dependent. Not legally sound laws. Because in this country, the sexes are supposed to be treated equally unless such unequal treatment can be shown to further a state interest. You can't say that marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman because it is between a man and a woman. That is circular logic. You must show why it must be between a man and a woman in accordance with the laws of marriage that deal with its operations/function.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Equal Protection Clause legal definition of Equal Protection Clause. Equal Protection Clause synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...



first lets get things in order, i myself an not trying to deny anyone, i am asking .........how does the states interest get furthered, or progress, as i understand you, by trying to keep the staus quo they currently have.

what do states hope to gain, further, progress, get our of it by denying SSM, ......the ball is in there court already,...they dont want to lose the ball.....how do further there interest by losing the ball.

in different context..how does a state have to prove a positive for them by denying SSM, when the law is currently on their side...........i see it has they have to claim, by allowing SSM it is a NEGATIVE for them, and thats why a ban on it.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Because this is circular logic. You cannot use a restriction on the law that is being specifically challenged to claim that the laws of marriage itself are not gender neutral. It is circular logic.

The laws in how marriage itself, as a contract, not a license, functions, are gender neutral. You do not have to be of a specific gender to fulfill the responsibilities that come with being another person's spouse.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it will become more and more true the more you say it. Marriage, as it is defined in 37 states has a requirement of one man and one woman. For the most part, it treats them equally but to say that it is gender-neutral is to imply that gender is irrelevant and since one of each gender is required, gender is absolutely relevant and most actually have references to male AND female.
 
ernst barkmann said:
first lets get things in order, i myself an not trying to deny anyone, i am asking .........how does the states interest get furthered, or progress, as i understand you, by trying to keep the staus quo they currently have.

what do states hope to gain, further, progress, get our of it by denying SSM, ......the ball is in there court already,...they dont want to lose the ball.....how do further there interest by losing the ball.

in different context..how does a state have to prove a positive for them by denying SSM, when the law is currently on their side...........i see it has they have to claim, by allowing SSM it is a NEGATIVE for them, and thats why a ban on it.
Click to expand...

The law of the land, the Constitution is on the side of same sex marriage. The Equal Protection Clause says that once a law is challenged, the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.

For example, if someone says their religious beliefs require them to kill a person who has lied to them. The state can deny them their practice of that belief by showing that it is in the state's interest to not allow religious beliefs to be used to kill people over something as petty as lying. The state can show an important state interest (not allowing citizens to take justice into their own hands by killing other citizens for something such as lying) is being furthered by this restriction on a person's right to practice their religion.
 
Papa bull said:
You keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again as though it will become more and more true the more you say it. Marriage, as it is defined in 37 states has a requirement of one man and one woman. For the most part, it treats them equally but to say that it is gender-neutral is to imply that gender is irrelevant and since one of each gender is required, gender is absolutely relevant and most actually have references to male AND female.
Click to expand...

In response to you continuing to repeat over and over again that a restriction on marriage is the definition of marriage itself. It isn't. The restriction is what is being challenged. You cannot use the restriction itself to show how a legitimate state interest is being furthered by the restriction. That is circular logic and not a viable legal argument.
 
roguenuke said:
In response to you continuing to repeat over and over again that a restriction on marriage is the definition of marriage itself. It isn't. The restriction is what is being challenged. You cannot use the restriction itself to show how a legitimate state interest is being furthered by the restriction. That is circular logic and not a viable legal argument.
Click to expand...

Webbed feet, wide bill, goes quack... those aren't restrictions. They're the definition of duck. If you don't have that, it's not because you got restricted from being a duck. It's that you're NOT a duck by your very nature.
 
roguenuke said:
The law of the land, the Constitution is on the side of same sex marriage. The Equal Protection Clause says that once a law is challenged, the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.

For example, if someone says their religious beliefs require them to kill a person who has lied to them. The state can deny them their practice of that belief by showing that it is in the state's interest to not allow religious beliefs to be used to kill people over something as petty as lying. The state can show an important state interest (not allowing citizens to take justice into their own hands by killing other citizens for something such as lying) is being furthered by this restriction on a person's right to practice their religion.
Click to expand...


can you show me this please in a legal sense, where it says this---> the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.
 
Papa bull said:
Webbed feet, wide bill, goes quack... those aren't restrictions. They're the definition of duck. If you don't have that, it's not because you got restricted from being a duck. It's that you're NOT a duck by your very nature.
Click to expand...

Those are descriptors of a physical thing. You are continuing to try to compare a concrete to an abstract. You cannot legitimately do that. It doesn't work. You cannot claim an abstract is something that never changes. Abstract concepts change not only over time but also when dealing with different societies or even with different individuals. Concrete things are just that, concrete.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you show me this please in a legal sense, where it says this---> the state must show what specific state interest is being furthered by the law itself.
Click to expand...

Here you go, from SCOTUS cases.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

"[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.” - Moore v City of East Cleveland

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

http://brisbin.polisci.wvu.edu/r/download/109312

Now, I always use the lowest level and usually put on that it has to at least show this "reasonable state interest" is furthered. In reality, it probably should be held at a higher level of scrutiny depending on how it is looked at. If looked at as it should and how restrictions on marriage have been in the past, it should fall under the highest level of scrutiny because marriage has been deemed a civil right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. However, this isn't how most have deemed this issue. So we look to the restriction itself and it actually is based on sex/gender, not sexuality. So it could also fall into the intermediate level of scrutiny due to the restriction actually treating men different than women in who they can marry and vice versa. But even at the lowest level of scrutiny, the state is unable to show that a legitimate state interest reasonably related is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. No one is harmed by those relationships, hence why they are legal to begin with. Marriage operates gender-neutral, meaning that no responsibility of marriage requires a person of each gender to fulfill the terms of the contract. And procreation, the only thing that separates all same sex couples from many opposite sex couples, is not a requirement of marriage nor can it be shown to legitimately even be connected to how marriage operates or the state's interest in marriage, because the state allows opposite sex couples who cannot procreate to marry, in some cases making laws saying that only certain opposite sex couples who cannot procreate can marry.
 
JoeTrumps said:
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that argument. It is the "because of my religion I think this way" argument not the dumb "you are redefining marriage" argument. I can respect that people have their religious convictions. It is when they try to pretend that their argument is irreligious that I tend to find it funny.
 
Cable said:
I can understand why Progressives would want to distance themselves. But the fact is, he was on the bleeding edge of Progressive-ism.
Click to expand...

In his own words he declared a desire for revolution. There is no edge. He was a radical.
 
I'm glad someone brought up the topic of gay marriage.... it's never really been discussed on this board before. Kudos.
 
roguenuke said:
Here you go, from SCOTUS cases.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

"[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.” - Moore v City of East Cleveland

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

http://brisbin.polisci.wvu.edu/r/download/109312

Now, I always use the lowest level and usually put on that it has to at least show this "reasonable state interest" is furthered. In reality, it probably should be held at a higher level of scrutiny depending on how it is looked at. If looked at as it should and how restrictions on marriage have been in the past, it should fall under the highest level of scrutiny because marriage has been deemed a civil right by the SCOTUS on several occasions. However, this isn't how most have deemed this issue. So we look to the restriction itself and it actually is based on sex/gender, not sexuality. So it could also fall into the intermediate level of scrutiny due to the restriction actually treating men different than women in who they can marry and vice versa. But even at the lowest level of scrutiny, the state is unable to show that a legitimate state interest reasonably related is being furthered by restricting marriage based on sex/gender. No one is harmed by those relationships, hence why they are legal to begin with. Marriage operates gender-neutral, meaning that no responsibility of marriage requires a person of each gender to fulfill the terms of the contract. And procreation, the only thing that separates all same sex couples from many opposite sex couples, is not a requirement of marriage nor can it be shown to legitimately even be connected to how marriage operates or the state's interest in marriage, because the state allows opposite sex couples who cannot procreate to marry, in some cases making laws saying that only certain opposite sex couples who cannot procreate can marry.
Click to expand...

i asked for a" further statement" from a something you know of, and you gave me links, i want the actual statement form a case or... something the USSC has said.

sorry........ marriage cannot be a right currently, that's impossible.......because rights are never licensed at all. only privileges are licensed........if the USSC ever declares marriage a right USING THE 9TH AMENDMENT TO DO IT .....then all licenses by state would have to end.

marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i asked for a" further statement" from a something you know of, and you gave me links, i want the actual statement form a case or... something the USSC has said.

sorry........ marriage cannot be a right currently, that's impossible.......because rights are never licensed at all. only privileges are licensed........if the USSC ever declares marriage a right USING THE 9TH AMENDMENT TO DO IT .....then all licenses by state woulds have to end.

marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS disagrees with you completely.

States are and have been restricted in what laws they can make by the Constitution, since the 14th Amendment. Like it or not, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause limited the power of the states, even in such things as marriage.
 
ernst barkmann said:
marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court wouldn't even have to do that. DOMA is the lynchpin in the legal argument for State bans on same-sex marriage. The purpose of Section 2 of DOMA was to create an exception to the Full Faith And Credit Clause of the Constitution so that other States could choose not to legally recognize same-sex marriage following the ruling of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. Without DOMA, the States would be required to legally recognize same-sex marriages across State lines. The Supreme Court only needs to ask 1 question: Are same-sex marriages legally recognized in any of the 50 States? If so, Section 2 of DOMA and State same-sex marriage bans violate the Full Faith And Credit Clause and are therefore Unconstitutional.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i asked for a" further statement" from a something you know of, and you gave me links, i want the actual statement form a case or... something the USSC has said.

sorry........ marriage cannot be a right currently, that's impossible.......because rights are never licensed at all. only privileges are licensed........if the USSC ever declares marriage a right USING THE 9TH AMENDMENT TO DO IT .....then all licenses by state would have to end.

marriage is currently a privilege dispensed by states, and the states are placing a ban on SSM, the USSC would want to know why the state feels it need to ban SSM,...asking the question by banning SSM, what detrimental action to the state are you preventing by placing such a ban, since it is a privilege, which must be applied equality.
Click to expand...

1967: Loving v. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state." — Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority

1978: Zablocki v. Redhail

"Appellant asserts that two interests are served by the challenged statute: the 'permission to marry' proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel the applicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations; and the welfare of the 'out of custody' children is protected. We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained." — Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority
 
roguenuke said:
The SCOTUS disagrees with you completely.

States are and have been restricted in what laws they can make by the Constitution, since the 14th Amendment. Like it or not, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause limited the power of the states, even in such things as marriage.
Click to expand...

the 14th states... equal treatment under the law by governments, this means rights and privileges, rights cannot be denied unless a crime is committed, privileges are given by the state, and in giving those privileges it must give them equity unless it can show that proving a privilege to someone or group would not be in the states interest.

privileges can be freely given or licensed by the state depending on what the privilege is, if you are denied a license by the state, say a hair dresser.... then the state would have prove why you dont qualify for the license if taken to court.

again..if marriage was a right....there would be no licensing of it.......rights and licenses are opposites and dont go together......privileges and licenses, go together...and it marriage was a right, all the person, would have to do in present the USSC court case showing the ruling, to a state court, and they could marry...however no such rights has been declared under the 9th amendment.
 
CriticalThought said:
1967: Loving v. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state." — Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority

1978: Zablocki v. Redhail

"Appellant asserts that two interests are served by the challenged statute: the 'permission to marry' proceeding furnishes an opportunity to counsel the applicant as to the necessity of fulfilling his prior support obligations; and the welfare of the 'out of custody' children is protected. We may accept for present purposes that these are legitimate and substantial interests, but, since the means selected by the State for achieving these interests unnecessarily impinge on the right to marry, the statute cannot be sustained." — Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority
Click to expand...

you can post that all you like,.........if you use the 14th amendment to our constitution,....those are not rights, they are civil privileges.........government cannot create an amendment and make rights, that goes against the founding principles of america......civil rights are ........ civil privileges.

again rights are not licensed at all!
 
ernst barkmann said:
you can post that all you like,.........if you use the 14th amendment to our constitution,....those are not rights, they are civil privileges.........government cannot create an amendment and make rights, that goes against the founding principles of america......civil rights are ........ civil privileges.

again rights are not licensed at all!
Click to expand...

You will have to take up your philosophical differences with SCOTUS. Precedent clearly shows that they define it as a civil right. Whether you think marriage is a civil right or privilege because it is licensed by the state has no bearing on how SCOTUS and the federal government views it.
 
CriticalThought said:
1967: Loving v. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Click to expand...

That remark clearly indicates that he wasn't talking about the yet unthinkable oxymoron now thought of as homosexual "marriage" because it does nothing for our existence or survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom