• 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]

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.

Neither does heterosexual marriage. People don't have to be married in order to reproduce.
 
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.

Why not? Same sex parents have kids through surrogates and in vitro. Whereas the technology did not exist back when Loving was decided, it certainly does now. If there had never been the invention of contraceptives to limit births or fertility treatments to allow those who normally could not have kids to have them, then you would have a point, but technology has made your talking point moot.
 
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.


when the FFA clause was created, it was created for judgements on people, because they had dont something against the law, and ordered to do something, pay, of perform an act.

by having the clause it prevent people who had those judgements from running away to another state to escape those judges, becuase in those days states were their own independent countries, it was not like it is today.

second your missing this below

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws (DOMA)prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

this states that congress by general law, can choose if states have to recognize other states public acts, records.
 
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.

there are no civil rights in the constitution only rights and privileges, congress cannot create rights for the people, the USSC can only say something is a right falling under the 9th amendment, or congress create a privilege, and they can be given or taken away.
 
when the FFA clause was created, it was created for judgements on people, because they had dont something against the law, and ordered to do something, pay, of perform an act.

What it was originally created for is of less importance than how it is applied today.

this states that congress by general law, can choose if state have to recognize other states public acts, ,records.

What Congress has said is:

"Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."
 
What it was originally created for is of less importance than how it is applied today.



What Congress has said is:

"Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken."


and why is this being left out...And the Congress may by general Laws (DOMA)prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

again this states the congress has full power to make general laws, concerning those Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
 
Why not? Same sex parents have kids through surrogates and in vitro. Whereas the technology did not exist back when Loving was decided, it certainly does now. If there had never been the invention of contraceptives to limit births or fertility treatments to allow those who normally could not have kids to have them, then you would have a point, but technology has made your talking point moot.

Nonsense. If homosexuality was a race, it would have gone extinct. You can argue technological capabilities that can make homosexual child bearing possible but homosexual mating produces no offspring. The point is that in that statement by the supreme court justice, he clearly was not talking about homosexual unions when he was talking about marriage as a fundamental right necessary to human survival.
 
Privileges or Immunities , what do they mean?

well in the most simple terms they means this: when a state extends privileges to its citizens, any citizen of another state entering into that state must be given the same and equal privileges the states citizen are receiving. however it in no way means a citizen of a state with a privilege of that state can travel to another state and demand that same privilege.

what are immunities, is simple terms, it means, no citizen traveling to one state from another state, can be held for something, say a crime, that a citizen of the state would not be held for, meaning a double standard.
 
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.

Equal Protection means that if the government offers something, then people, all people, must be treated equally in access to it unless the state can show how a legitimate state interest is furthered by the restriction.

For example, driver's licenses are offered by the state in order for people to drive on the road. They come with restrictions on entry and even on use. You must be 16 (in pretty much every state) to get a driver's license. This is based on many factors that the state can show further a legitimate state interest in keeping the roads safe while allowing the highest percent of those citizens who may need to be able to drive that ability. The state could not make a random age restriction, such as no one between the ages of 42 and 47 can have a license without being able to show some legitimate state interest is being furthered (once the law is challenged) in that restriction. They cannot make a restriction on driver's licenses that said people with red hair cannot drive at night without showing how this restriction furthers a state interest. They can make restrictions on people who have issues with their eyesight because they can show that being able to see is vital to operating a car properly (at least for now) and restricting those who can't see to certain limitations furthers a legitimate state interest in public safety on the roads.

The same applies to marriage licenses. The state must show that a legitimate state interest (at least) is being furthered by any restriction (once challenged) that they place on marriage licenses. They could not show any such interest being furthered by race restrictions, restrictions based on a person being behind on their child support, or restrictions based on a person being an inmate with possibility of release. There have not been any legitimate state interests shown to be furthered by restrictions based on sex, but ultimately it will come down to SCOTUS decisions which are likely to eventually rule to strike these restrictions down even in those states that have them. The state has been able to show legitimate state interests in not allowing people to have legally recognized multiple spouses and to not be able to marry close relations. (Whether these continue to hold up in the future, who knows, but it is likely since the arguments revolve around legitimate interests in offspring and minimizing undue influence and the fact that the marriage laws functions around two people only being considered as spouses to each other.) Age restrictions are likely to stand up, if challenged, at least to 18, if not higher as state interests based on when the state views a person is legally competent enough to enter into a contract and take on those legal responsibilities. Plus, lower ages present an issue with competency within consenting to sex, which is recognized as a component of most marriages.
 
Nonsense. If homosexuality was a race, it would have gone extinct. You can argue technological capabilities that can make homosexual child bearing possible but homosexual mating produces no offspring. The point is that in that statement by the supreme court justice, he clearly was not talking about homosexual unions when he was talking about marriage as a fundamental right necessary to human survival.

Except for the fact that a) genes don't work that way and b) for much of human history, there have been many cultures where people were forced into marriages with people that had nothing to do with attraction and everything to do with the families wanting the arrangement for political or power/money reasons.
 
Equal Protection means that if the government offers something, then people, all people, must be treated equally in access to it unless the state can show how a legitimate state interest is furthered by the restriction.

For example, driver's licenses are offered by the state in order for people to drive on the road. They come with restrictions on entry and even on use. You must be 16 (in pretty much every state) to get a driver's license. This is based on many factors that the state can show further a legitimate state interest in keeping the roads safe while allowing the highest percent of those citizens who may need to be able to drive that ability. The state could not make a random age restriction, such as no one between the ages of 42 and 47 can have a license without being able to show some legitimate state interest is being furthered (once the law is challenged) in that restriction. They cannot make a restriction on driver's licenses that said people with red hair cannot drive at night without showing how this restriction furthers a state interest. They can make restrictions on people who have issues with their eyesight because they can show that being able to see is vital to operating a car properly (at least for now) and restricting those who can't see to certain limitations furthers a legitimate state interest in public safety on the roads.

The same applies to marriage licenses. The state must show that a legitimate state interest (at least) is being furthered by any restriction (once challenged) that they place on marriage licenses. They could not show any such interest being furthered by race restrictions, restrictions based on a person being behind on their child support, or restrictions based on a person being an inmate with possibility of release. There have not been any legitimate state interests shown to be furthered by restrictions based on sex, but ultimately it will come down to SCOTUS decisions which are likely to eventually rule to strike these restrictions down even in those states that have them. The state has been able to show legitimate state interests in not allowing people to have legally recognized multiple spouses and to not be able to marry close relations. (Whether these continue to hold up in the future, who knows, but it is likely since the arguments revolve around legitimate interests in offspring and minimizing undue influence and the fact that the marriage laws functions around two people only being considered as spouses to each other.) Age restrictions are likely to stand up, if challenged, at least to 18, if not higher as state interests based on when the state views a person is legally competent enough to enter into a contract and take on those legal responsibilities. Plus, lower ages present an issue with competency within consenting to sex, which is recognized as a component of most marriages.


please.... again can you show me where you get your information, and point to it instead of........ just a link...what legal document are you looking at?
 
please.... again can you show me where you get your information, and point to it instead of........ just a link...what legal document are you looking at?

I gave it to you. SCOTUS decisions that deal with equal protection and marriage. Much of our constitutional law is based on precedent in cases, not what is written down.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

"When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the 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

This is directly from a SCOTUS decision that says that the Court must determine if the state can show an important state interest is advanced (synonym for advanced is furthered) and to what extent by a challenged regulation (aka law, restriction). This shows that the SCOTUS has used the principle that a state interest must be able to be shown to be furthered by a law.

And this isn't the only time either that the SCOTUS has said this. This is the standard, whether you want to recognize it or not. And the reason for this is because the Constitution was never meant to limit the rights or freedoms of the people, but rather to limit the power of the government. In the beginning, that was only really considered the federal government, but with the addition of the 14th Amendment, which applies specifically to state governments, it also limits the state governments as well.
 
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling.

i myself can only find......compelling governmental interest
 
Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling.

i myself can only find......compelling governmental interest

Then you need to look more because there are three levels of scrutiny (at least) used by the SCOTUS and they range from compelling to important to legitimate.
 
Then you need to look more because there are three levels of scrutiny (at least) used by the SCOTUS and they range from compelling to important to legitimate.

That would be narrowly tailored and least restrictive.
 
Then you need to look more because there are three levels of scrutiny (at least) used by the SCOTUS and they range from compelling to important to legitimate.

well what i have been asking is, those 3 levels you site, do you have a statement/ ruling by the court, that states /says in direct words....that the interest of a state has to be advanced, to keep a ban in place.
 
i have founds some information concerning laws which have been passed and challenged, and in the information, they speak of the states interest being advanced in the sense of laws being made to make people do things like..... wear seat belts.

since i cannot find, anything of the opposite statement, i am going to agree with you what you have said, becuase i cannot find anything of..... negative or detrimental interest.
 
Last edited:
well what i have been asking is, those 3 levels you site, do you have a statement/ ruling by the court, that states /says in direct words....that the interest of a state has to be advanced, to keep a ban in place.

That is simply not how constitutional law works. It is based off of how the SCOTUS has ruled on previous cases and the precedent they set in those rulings. They have stated these levels of scrutiny in various cases, several examples were given in many of those links I posted earlier, but I will not go back through and post more just so you can continue to ask the same ridiculous questions over and over. The SCOTUS does not have to come out and say "yes, this is the levels of scrutiny and exactly what we are looking for in each one". That just isn't how they operate. They intentionally rule on cases based on the points of that individual case. But a legal scholar (which I'm not, but that doesn't prevent me from studying them nor posting what their views on this are) can summarize quite well (as they have in many of those links I posted, which were almost all from law schools) how the SCOTUS rules on/within levels of scrutiny.
 
i have founds some information concerning laws which have been passed and challenged, and in the information, they speak of the states interest being advanced in the sense of laws being made to make people do things like..... wear seat belts.

Yes, because the state can show a legitimate interest being furthered in laws that punish people for not wearing seat belts. They cannot show a legitimate state interest being furthered in laws that restrict two people of the same sex from getting married though. It is based on what the state interest is that is being claimed to be furthered and how exactly that state interest is actually furthered by a restriction or law/regulation.
 
Yes, because the state can show a legitimate interest being furthered in laws that punish people for not wearing seat belts. They cannot show a legitimate state interest being furthered in laws that restrict two people of the same sex from getting married though. It is based on what the state interest is that is being claimed to be furthered and how exactly that state interest is actually furthered by a restriction or law/regulation.

i will concede to you......;)
 
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.

I'm the one the courts have agreed with, remember. Perhaps it is you who don't understand it? It's possible you know.
 
i am the one the constitution, agrees with , Perhaps it is you who don't understand it? It's possible you know.

Apparently not. The arbitrator of that says you're wrong.
 
Apparently not. The arbitrator of that says you're wrong.

the constitution speaks truth, and its there for everyone to read, and government cannot discriminate...the constitution does not apply to people or business, because they are not limited.
 
the constitution speaks truth, and its there for everyone to read, and government cannot discriminate...the constitution does not apply to people or business, because they are not limited.

Court ruled; doesn't violate the constitution. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom