• 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!

Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban [W:72]

Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Supposedly discrimination is illegal in any form against any one.

No it's not. Any individual, business, or the govt can discriminate against anything that is not covered by anti-discrimination laws.

You can throw a person out of your business if they arent wearing a shirt, but not if they are female. The govt or an employer may not hire someone based on their having a tattoo, but not based on their race. For ex.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

No it's not. Any individual, business, or the govt can discriminate against anything that is not covered by anti-discrimination laws.

You can throw a person out of your business if they arent wearing a shirt, but not if they are female. The govt or an employer may not hire someone based on their having a tattoo, but not based on their race. For ex.

Okay, I never looked at that way, but you are right. protected class, interesting.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Exactly, I also see what you mean by mentioning equal rights or not. If the courts decides it is the states who control marriage then it, equal rights had little to nothing to do with the court's ruling. Or so I take that is what you meant. If it is equal rights, then the court will cite that and the provision of the constitution for which it applies. I think I got you.

Well thats close, what i really mean is is if Texas SSC decides to side step the issue and not take it head on they will simply not mention equal rights and reference the US constitution because i think its impossible to do so and deny equal rights for gays.

I think they will reference something else and stick to that.

But yes like you said if they talk about equality they will adress it directly, at least this is what the other SSCs ruling did
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Supposedly discrimination is illegal in any form against any one.

it can be but you have to be much more specific.

what i mean is that theres not one person you can name that isnt protected by discriminaiton laws because we all are but there are discriminations out there that are totally legal.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

to throw your world upside down,the constitution never once grants right of marriage,nor recognizes it.when the constitution was written,marriage was to be a religious ceremony,not recognized by the federal govt.meaning they left it to the 10th amendment,and that states were to choose their own laws.

.

This is true....there is no 'right to marry.' However the federal govt chooses to confer benefits and privileges (and some penalties) on married couples, so it comes down to an issue of discrimination. And discrimination is covered in the Constitution.

The gray area is whether or not the federal govt will recognize, as some states have, sexual orientation as a protected class. (And the threat of this has likely driven many of the current states to examine whether or not to legalize SSM)
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.) this does nothing to my world since i never claimed the constitution grants marriage rights, please try more failed strawmen though

2.) this cant happen since this too would also infringe on rights, another failed strawman


look at that, my world is still right side up :shrug: please continue you rant though it was entertaining

well lemme start,it wouldnt infringe on anyones rights since no where in the constitution is marriage granted as a right.so please explain how rights are infringed if they never were a right.,

second states are bound by the 14th,meaning constitutionally they have to grant everyone marriage,or no one marriage.that doesnt mean marriage wont exist,but thaat the state wont recognize it.even further marriage is a religious construct not a state construct,so in real terms it would be the decision of any given religion,not the state,civil unions however are a state construct,void from religion,so forcing gay marriage violates the seperation of church and state,as does denying it.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.) This is true....there is no 'right to marry.' However the federal govt chooses to confer benefits and privileges (and some penalties) on married couples, so it comes down to an issue of discrimination. And discrimination is covered in the Constitution.

2.)The gray area is whether or not the federal govt will recognize, as some states have, sexual orientation as a protected class. (And the threat of this has likely driven many of the current states to examine whether or not to legalize SSM)

1.) just for clarification marriage actually is a right has determined by SCOTUS 14 different times

2.) this is coming, not sure when but it is coming
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Two things I know about Texas...steers, and queers! And you ain't got no
horns, so that kinda narrows it down...

Lol.....

As a native and PROUD Texan, I can say our steer population has been overstated due to innacurate stereo-types.

Gay marriage. I think, unfortunately that Texas may eventually give in to the fringe groups pushing for the right to marry the same sex.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Well thats close, what i really mean is is if Texas SSC decides to side step the issue and not take it head on they will simply not mention equal rights and reference the US constitution because i think its impossible to do so and deny equal rights for gays.

I think they will reference something else and stick to that.

But yes like you said if they talk about equality they will adress it directly, at least this is what the other SSCs ruling did

Got you and thanks. When it comes to legalese they might as well be speaking Martian. Just keep your fingers crossed. A few months ago I was of the opinion that the states had the right to decide whether or not to recognize gay marriages although I never had a problem with it personally. But I also know it does no harm regardless if it is an equal rights issue or not. I also think government should be in the business of saying who can and who can't be married. So I am against all these bans. Final conclusion, if two people loves each other, they should be able to live out their lives in bliss regardless of what sex, race, creed, religion etc. Then too, it gives gay married couples a chance to see how divorce is, another benefit of equal opportunity.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

This is true....there is no 'right to marry.' However the federal govt chooses to confer benefits and privileges (and some penalties) on married couples, so it comes down to an issue of discrimination. And discrimination is covered in the Constitution.

The gray area is whether or not the federal govt will recognize, as some states have, sexual orientation as a protected class. (And the threat of this has likely driven many of the current states to examine whether or not to legalize SSM)

to an extent it doesnt grant the federal govt any power,as no power was granted in the first place to differentiate married from other,nor was any power granted to recognize marriage at all.this again would grant all power to the states,and due the the 14th legaly would require granting priviledge to everyone,or noone,forcing marriage to be what it was over a century ago,simply a religious ceremony,with no state involvement.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.)well lemme start,it wouldnt infringe on anyones rights since no where in the constitution is marriage granted as a right.so please explain how rights are infringed if they never were a right.,

2.) second states are bound by the 14th,meaning constitutionally they have to grant everyone marriage,or no one marriage.that doesnt mean marriage wont exist,but thaat the state wont recognize it.

3.)even further marriage is a religious construct not a state construct,so in real terms it would be the decision of any given religion,not the state,civil unions however are a state construct,void from religion,

4.)so forcing gay marriage violates the seperation of church and state,as does denying it.

1.) 100% false and facts, laws, and many court cases and court precedence disagree with you. 14 SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a right and more importantly its the discrimination and denying of equal rights that has been discussed in court.

2.) again this would violate individual rights has again some court precedence and cases have already determined and many more are in the works.

3.) sorry religion is 100% meaningless to the topic of legal marriage, is a complete non factor so this fallacy complete fails

4.)sorry see 3 religion has nothing to do with legal marriage and protecting equal rights has zero impact on the separation of church and state
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

to an extent it doesnt grant the federal govt any power,as no power was granted in the first place to differentiate married from other,nor was any power granted to recognize marriage at all.this again would grant all power to the states,and due the the 14th legaly would require granting priviledge to everyone,or noone,forcing marriage to be what it was over a century ago,simply a religious ceremony,with no state involvement.

I'm all for the state & feds getting 'out of' marriage but I dont think that's likely.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.) 100% false and facts, laws, and many court cases and court precedence disagree with you. 14 SCOTUS has declared marriage to be a right and more importantly its the discrimination and denying of equal rights that has been discussed in court.

2.) again this would violate individual rights has again some court precedence and cases have already determined and many more are in the works.

3.) sorry religion is 100% meaningless to the topic of legal marriage, is a complete non factor so this fallacy complete fails

4.)sorry see 3 religion has nothing to do with legal marriage and protecting equal rights has zero impact on the separation of church and state

number 1 is your largest fail,the courts were never declared the power to declare rights,and were never granted the power to declare constitutionality.


so its people like you who ignore blatant abuses of power and accept the court granted itself the power to interperate the constitution and to add rights never defined.


as for number 3,marriage is a religious construct,civil unions are a state construct.therefore arguing religion has nothing to do with it thereby you admit you blatantly wish to ignore the seperation of church and state and wish the state to mandate religion,as being a religious construct,each religion would be placed to make the decision,not the state.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

it can be but you have to be much more specific.

what i mean is that theres not one person you can name that isnt protected by discriminaiton laws because we all are but there are discriminations out there that are totally legal.

That is a good thing. If I own a fancy restaurant and I want to deny service to those who do not wear shoes or shirts, I should be able to do that. I would be discriminating against shoeless and shirtless folks, but that should remain my business and right to do so. Now to discriminate on the base of race is something entirely different.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.)Got you and thanks. When it comes to legalese they might as well be speaking Martian.
2.) Just keep your fingers crossed.
3.) A few months ago I was of the opinion that the states had the right to decide whether or not to recognize gay marriages although I never had a problem with it personally. But I also know it does no harm regardless if it is an equal rights issue or not.
4.) I also think government should be in the business of saying who can and who can't be married.
5.) So I am against all these bans.
6.) Final conclusion, if two people loves each other, they should be able to live out their lives in bliss regardless of what sex, race, creed, religion etc. Then too, it gives gay married couples a chance to see how divorce is, another benefit of equal opportunity.

1.) you're welcome
2.) well i am hopeful but if this one case ends up a loss im not discouraged in the lease. Discrimination and bigotry is losing and equality is winning. The writing is on the wall, there was a time where i never thought id see equal rights for gays in my life time, i thought my daughter would get a chance to see it but not me. That has dramatically changed. Heck just a year ago like the article says only 6 states had equal rights now 16 do with possibly 5 more in the next 6 months.

Id say 5 years max before wach stat changes on its own of SCOTUS changes it for everybody.

3.) im not sure what you are saying here, i understand the first part but you lost me on the second. What does no harm? allowing gay marriage?

4.) i think they should also but only to a certain degree and as long as it doesnt infringe rights

5.) im also against the bans but whats awesome about them is in the end they are actually going to help establish gay marriage and thats poetic justice.

6.) lol so true and some of them are already divorced from states that had it years and years ago.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

SSM is not a right for the same reason that polygamy is not a right; having a strong personal desire is not reason to have laws changed to accomodate that desire. The fact that business partnerships allow mutiple partners, and have no gender restrictions, does not mean that marriage prnerships must as well.

It's a legal contract that provides certain legal benefits and protections. It currently discriminates on the basis of gender. Under equal protection, the court precedents are pretty clear: the state must show an important interest in making that discrimination.

Provide such an interest.

Surely a libertarian like yourself would believe that the government can't just make that discrimination for no reason. Individual liberty trumps government interference as a default.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

I'm all for the state & feds getting 'out of' marriage but I dont think that's likely.

i dont think its likely either,but the constitution is clear,too bad bad people have a hard time reading plain english.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.)number 1 is your largest fail,the courts were never declared the power to declare rights,and were never granted the power to declare constitutionality.


2.) so its people like you who ignore blatant abuses of power and accept the court granted itself the power to interperate the constitution and to add rights never defined.


3.) as for number 3,marriage is a religious construct,civil unions are a state construct.therefore arguing religion has nothing to do with it thereby you admit you blatantly wish to ignore the seperation of church and state and wish the state to mandate religion,as being a religious construct,each religion would be placed to make the decision,not the state.

1.) really well they did, have and do, this is reality and this is fact, you are free to disagree if you like but facts and reality prove you wrong so theres no fail at all lol

2.) more opinion from you that is meaningless i simply like my government protecting equal rights and defeating discrimination and bigotry, sorry that bothers you, if you arent happy with that theres other places you could live like russia

3.) religion = meaningless to legal marriage

this fact will never change :shrug:

religious marriage is its own thing it is not legal marriage some people get them together but they are separate things. many many people have legal marriages with zero religion involved and many people have religious marriage with zero law involved.

sorry facts disagree with your failed strawman andy facts defeat your post again
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.)That is a good thing. If I own a fancy restaurant and I want to deny service to those who do not wear shoes or shirts, I should be able to do that. I would be discriminating against shoeless and shirtless folks, but that should remain my business and right to do so. Now to discriminate on the base of race is something entirely different.

i agree and the reason one can typical do things like this is they can claim health code reasons etc or other legit reasons

and yes you are right race, gender etc is something different
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.) really well they did, have and do, this is reality and this is fact, you are free to disagree if you like but facts and reality prove you wrong so theres no fail at all lol

2.) more opinion from you that is meaningless i simply like my government protecting equal rights and defeating discrimination and bigotry, sorry that bothers you, if you arent happy with that theres other places you could live like russia

3.) religion = meaningless to legal marriage

this fact will never change :shrug:

religious marriage is its own thing it is not legal marriage some people get them together but they are separate things. many many people have legal marriages with zero religion involved and many people have religious marriage with zero law involved.

sorry facts disagree with your failed strawman andy facts defeat your post again

so your entire post somehow says you agree with blatantly violating the constitution so long as it agrees with you.


sorry to say the constitution wasnt written to grant rights based on court decisions.your still ignoring the fact no one was granted ever such authority,and for as long as has been recorded in blatant violation of the law,not protecting it.im sorry if you feel violating he constitution is the right course of action,but the constitution has protected many,its been the courts who have ruled against it that have harmed rights.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Supposedly discrimination is illegal in any form against any one.

Not correct. Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or religion is illegal unless the government can provide varying levels of justification for such a discrimination.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

so your entire post somehow says you agree with blatantly violating the constitution so long as it agrees with you.


sorry to say the constitution wasnt written to grant rights based on court decisions.your still ignoring the fact no one was granted ever such authority,and for as long as has been recorded in blatant violation of the law,not protecting it.im sorry if you feel violating he constitution is the right course of action,but the constitution has protected many,its been the courts who have ruled against it that have harmed rights.

Equal protection under the law is written into the constitution. Haven't you read it?
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.)so your entire post somehow says you agree with blatantly violating the constitution so long as it agrees with you.


2.)sorry to say the constitution wasnt written to grant rights based on court decisions.your still ignoring the fact no one was granted ever such authority,and for as long as has been recorded in blatant violation of the law,not protecting it.im sorry if you feel violating he constitution is the right course of action,but the constitution has protected many,its been the courts who have ruled against it that have harmed rights.

1.) thats a cute story but thats all it is, your opinion and nothing more but please continue to rant and rave about it, you have that right.
also it has nothgin to do with "me" or agreeing where did you get that from lol equal rights are for us all :shrug:

2.) see #1 you like makign a lot of stuff up dont you?

translation you got nothing, this is an equality issue and bigotry and discrimination is losing, for some reaosn this bother you

good move dropping the factually wrong statement that religion matter though.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Equal protection under the law is written into the constitution. Haven't you read it?

yes i have,its the 14th amendment,but the 4th does not mandate marriage,therefore legally a state can choose not to recognize marriage at all,and legally nothing can be done,as nothing in the constitution grantss marriage as a right,only a court ruling granted the power to the court by itself and no constitutional authority.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1.) thats a cute story but thats all it is, your opinion and nothing more but please continue to rant and rave about it, you have that right.
also it has nothgin to do with "me" or agreeing where did you get that from lol equal rights are for us all :shrug:

2.) see #1 you like makign a lot of stuff up dont you?

translation you got nothing, this is an equality issue and bigotry and discrimination is losing, for some reaosn this bother you

good move dropping the factually wrong statement that religion matter though.

you have yet to show any constitutional backing for anything you claimed,just the court said,in which the court was never granted any authority to decipher the constitution or to grant rights at all.



until you can back anything youve claimed with anything constitutional,everything you have claimed is utter crap unbackable by any legal constitutional law or rule writte in the united states.
 
Back
Top Bottom