• 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

Gender preference is not.

So? SSM bans are a gender classification. Not sexuality. Marriage isn't sex. Ask any married person. Whether or not the married couple has sex with each other, wants to have sex with each other, has sex with other people, has group sex, has no sex, whatever, all irrelevant to the legal contract.

I can't marry you. Because we are male, not because either of us is gay.

edit: and sexuality actually sometimes has been considered a protected classification. Just n federally.
 
Last edited:
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Nothing like a liberal who rushes to the Constitution when it suits his fancy but ignores it when it doesn't. The fact is, the Constitution doesn't mention marriage and if you want to argue the point about 'unmentioned' rights, those fall under the 10th Amendment and are left to the people and/or the states. HOW marriage is defined is not a Constitutional issue, that is something that should rightly be left to the people to decide. The state should only then be employed to make sure that there is no rights violations under that definition. The definition of marriage even under the definition put forth by leftists is discriminatory in regard to multiple partners or close relatives. But only a liberal could ignore that sort of glaring contradiction in their own argument.

I like how you don't mind a state government or a simple majority vote of citizens stripping someone of their rights, and it's only a problem if the federal government does it.

Let's talk about the numerous ways you don't understand constitutional law.

First, the ninth amendment is very clear. There are unenumerated rights. The court tends to look to enumerated ones to find the sorts of rights that are protected, and interprets whether or not they suggest the unenumerated ones.

Second, the tenth amendment has nothing to say about individual rights. It tells you what to do with anything not dealt with by the constitution. Marriage is not one of those things that is not dealt with by the constitution. For more than fifty years, the supreme court has held that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments. It is not simply left to the states, since they are not allowed to violate the constitution.

Third, there is no such legal thing as a "definition" of marriage. There are rights, privileges, and obligations that come with the legal status. Failing to meet some of those obligations can disqualify a person from marriage. Lack of consent would be the most obvious example. Each of those obligations technically infringes on the fundamental right to marry. But that's still legal and constitutional. Read on to find out why.

Fourth, infringements on constitutional rights are not always impermissible. There are various tests to determine if an infringement is acceptable. There are three such tests, based on how strongly the constitution protects the right in question. A right like free speech (sometimes) or freedom of religion is given the strictest test, which is the most difficult for an infringement to satisfy. Racial discrimination is likewise subject to this strict scrutiny test. The right to marry, as a fundamental right (fundamental is a specific type of right), is also subject to strict scrutiny.

So, to sum up. Yes, we have a fundamental right to marry. No, that the constitution does not list this right doesn't mean that it doesn't protect it. No, the federal government is not prohibited from lawmaking on the subject of marriage. No, states may not discriminate against gays by denying them access to marriage. No, the tenth amendment doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Yes, some infringements of constitutional rights are still permissible under the constitution. (The prohibition against yelling fire in a crowded theatre violates the first amendment, but is permissible) Yes, there is a method to determine whether or not an infringement is permissible. Yes, if polygamists or people who want to marry their relatives feel that the laws prohibiting their marriages are in violation of the constitution and don't meet these constitutional tests, they are welcome to file suit and the court will rule on it. No, ruling on one has nothing to do with the rule for another.

I think we're done here.

Wait no, I feel like tossing in a partisan swipe. There's nothing like a libertarian who proclaims that we must follow the constitution but doesn't actually know how the constitution works.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Perhaps. The thing is, that would seem to then allow any "strong personal desire", including the wish to drink alcohol, to have "standing". May I then sue to get a judge to force the state to prove a compelling state interest in not selling beer on Sunday, closing bars at midnight or any other "reasonable restriction" on my complete freedom of choice. Not to say that is bad at all, but the list of "strong personal desires" is nearly endless, as are "reasonable restrictions" on our freedom in our various laws. ;)

If that is what is attributed to gays as their reason for marriage...in your example...then why do straight people get to marry as recognized by the state under a legal contract? Dont straight people have that same reason?
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

So? SSM bans are a gender classification. Not sexuality. Marriage isn't sex. Ask any married person. Whether or not the married couple has sex with each other, wants to have sex with each other, has sex with other people, has group sex, has no sex, whatever, all irrelevant to the legal contract.

I can't marry you. Because we are male, not because either of us is gay.

edit: and sexuality actually sometimes has been considered a protected classification. Just n federally.

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states, like WA.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

If that is what is attributed to gays as their reason for marriage...in your example...then why do straight people get to marry as recognized by the state under a legal contract? Dont straight people have that same reason?

That may well be part of it, but mainly it was to stabilize the relationship of parents to help raise children. The pro-SSM crew will say (correctly) that children are not always produced by marriage and, indeed, a small percentage of marriages never produce or even involve raising children.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states, like WA.

Well, isn't that nice. Open carry of a handgun is protected in some states, like AZ. The point is that states have different laws, but federal courts deal with the US constitution, not state constitutions/laws unless they violate the US constitution. This case is not really about Texas, it is an attempt to get the federal gov't, via the SCOTUS, to force all states to change their marriage laws.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

again let us know when you have anything on topic otherwise move on lol

Really Agent, this makes about an even dozen for you on this subject. I just don't see how there is anything left to say, not anything new anyway. You may be the one that needs to move on.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

That may well be part of it, but mainly it was to stabilize the relationship of parents to help raise children. The pro-SSM crew will say (correctly) that children are not always produced by marriage and, indeed, a small percentage of marriages never produce or even involve raising children.

I think they'd also have a good foundation for support since a two parent home has been shown to provide more financial and emotional stability for kids and no great difference if they were gay or not.

Meaning that gay marriages can fulfill that 'reason' as well.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Well, isn't that nice. Open carry of a handgun is protected in some states, like AZ. The point is that states have different laws, but federal courts deal with the US constitution, not state constitutions/laws unless they violate the US constitution. This case is not really about Texas, it is an attempt to get the federal gov't, via the SCOTUS, to force all states to change their marriage laws.

Correct. Just like it isnt legal to discriminate against blacks or Catholics in ANY state.

*If* the federal govt decides that sexual orientation is a protected class, then that would apply to them as well. And I think that's the way it would go (but that's just me personally) but I also believe that the states see the handwriting on the wall as well.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Correct. Just like it isnt legal to discriminate against blacks or Catholics in ANY state.

*If* the federal govt decides that sexual orientation is a protected class, then that would apply to them as well. And I think that's the way it would go (but that's just me personally) but I also believe that the states see the handwriting on the wall as well.

I'm not sure that I follow you here. It is good to have federal control over state marriage laws, but bad to have consistent 2A laws among the states? Marriage is a state contract law issue, individual gun rights are actually in the US constitution. If my gun "rights" can change when I cross state/county/city lines then why not my marriage "rights"?
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

I'm not sure that I follow you here. It is good to have federal control over state marriage laws, but bad to have consistent 2A laws among the states? Marriage is a state contract law issue, individual gun rights are actually in the US constitution. If my gun "rights" can change when I cross state/county/city lines then why not my marriage "rights"?


2A laws are a completely different discussion and I think cc or oc should be allowed without permits in every state & DC.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

I'm not sure that I follow you here. It is good to have federal control over state marriage laws, but bad to have consistent 2A laws among the states? Marriage is a state contract law issue, individual gun rights are actually in the US constitution. If my gun "rights" can change when I cross state/county/city lines then why not my marriage "rights"?

Red herring. Gun carry laws would be a 2nd amendment challenge, not an equal protection challenge. Feel free to take up those laws in court, but this thread is about same sex marriage. Man you rally keep trying to change the subject.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Red herring. Gun carry laws would be a 2nd amendment challenge, not an equal protection challenge. Feel free to take up those laws in court, but this thread is about same sex marriage. Man you rally keep trying to change the subject.

Some people actually want the constituion to be understood without so much interpretation.

Explain the need for the 15th and 19th amendments using your interpretation of the 14th.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

I like how you don't mind a state government or a simple majority vote of citizens stripping someone of their rights, and it's only a problem if the federal government does it.
No one is stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman. The right you possess in this context is the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Beer has provided links to the Const. to back up his position....according to his interpretation. I would like to see the same for your position as he requested. It sounded like you were making a claim to me as well.

the was meaningless, I was asked to prove, and i quote "show me where SCOTUS has the right to give themselves more power"

why is this request meaningless because its something i NEVER said

i asked about 6 times for a link/quote of me saying that. Each time the request was dodged because its something i never said.

so theres nothign to provide unless of course you can quote me saying that which i never did.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Really Agent, this makes about an even dozen for you on this subject. I just don't see how there is anything left to say, not anything new anyway. You may be the one that needs to move on.

Translation: you still got nothing, we know. Lets us know when you have anythign on topic, anything.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Moderator's Warning:
Let there be chill, and let the back-and-forth between Certain Posters cease. So let it be written... so let it be done.




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

the was meaningless, I was asked to prove, and i quote "show me where SCOTUS has the right to give themselves more power"

why is this request meaningless because its something i NEVER said

i asked about 6 times for a link/quote of me saying that. Each time the request was dodged because its something i never said.

so theres nothign to provide unless of course you can quote me saying that which i never did.

Well He started out asking for sources that applied to marriage. This is pretty much what we were looking for sources for (bold) :


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)

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

The rest got 'convoluted' from there.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Let me get this straight: you think granting equal rights to more people somehow devalues the protection of rights that the constitution provides?
Well let me straighten you out then - granting equal rights to any group that already has equal rights under the Constitution devalues the very Constitution that already guarantees those rights.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

1/)Well He started out asking for sources that applied to marriage. This is pretty much what we were looking for sources for (bold) :






The rest got 'convoluted' from there.

oooooooh i know what YOU want now but whos we because thats not what was asked for by anybody.

If you would like a link to SCOTUS referring to marriage as a right 14 times i can do that, its easy, me and many people have provided that info many times.
Give me a second and ill simply Google it, i dont have it saved.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

oooooooh i know what YOU want now but whos we because thats not what was asked for by anybody.

If you would like a link to SCOTUS referring to marriage as a right 14 times i can do that, its easy, me and many people have provided that info many times.
Give me a second and ill simply Google it, i dont have it saved.

That is what I would be interested in, and in seeing how they referred to it. I believe that Beer was as well but I wont attempt to speak for him further.

Yes, thank you.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Good for them. Nothing will come of it, but good for them.
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

That is what I would be interested in, and in seeing how they referred to it. I believe that Beer was as well but I wont attempt to speak for him further.

Yes, thank you.

here you go

just googled "14 times scotus mentioned marriage as a right"

and this is the very first link:
Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[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.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”



is this what you wanted?
 
Re: Two couples file federal suit to overturn Texas same-sex marriage ban

Yes, thanks Agent J. There are a few in there, like Moore vs CIty of East Cleveland that dont really apply but most do.

Marriage is not a right enumerated in the Constitution but the courts have categorized it under other rights and protections.

I dont agree with many of the court's interpretations on marriage and cant even tell what they were ruling on for those cases but I can look them up. The precedence is there.

I agree with much of that personally, dont really agree that the govt has a place in it BUT it does support my position on SSM. OTOH, I still think that a) the state & fed govt should stay out of marriage completely and b) the issue can stand on equal rights and discrimination alone. Which for the sake of (IMO) truly being Constitutional, that is the way it should go.

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

No one is stripped of their rights by declaring the definition of marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman. The right you possess in this context is the right of association. Interfering or declaring illegal a particular living arrangement among consenting adults would be a rights violation. No individual or no nation is obligated to accept any random association as a legal marriage.

You may truly believe this, but it's not actually how US law works. Nor is a same sex marriage a "random association", no matter how much you don't like it. You're welcome to discuss what you want the law to be, but we're dealing in what the law is, and you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Back
Top Bottom