• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
An opinion I suspect you never once shared until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen.
Click to expand...


Yeah, think you nailed it here...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I asked you if there is a law regarding hospital visitation.
Click to expand...

And I already showed you Now what about authoritarian marriage laws
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
You said the state interest in defining marriage as not meaning same-sex was that changing a definition is a burden. I don't care what you claim to think about marriage contracts. I was asking about an equal protection challenge and your idea of a state interest is that equal protection is a "burden." Maybe you think marriage contracts shouldn't exist. Fine, that's your belief. But back in reality, they do exist. If the state is going to recognize them and apply a gender-based distinction regarding a contract between two private individuals, it has to show an important state interest in making that distinction.

And your answer was that equal protection is a "burden." The ultimate authoritarian answer: the state can dodge equal protection if it doesn't feel like providing it. A real "small government" type would agree that if marriage contracts are going to exist, a gender-based classification is unacceptable in absence of a compelling reason to justify it.
Click to expand...

Not to mention...altho it was previously...that to engage in all those contracts and privileges and protections in separate transactions with lawyers would cost people $$$$$ for something that licensing by the state provides for FREE.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

winston53660 said:
And I already showed you Now what about authoritarian marriage laws
Click to expand...

You showed a bunch of state authoritarian laws.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
Not to mention...altho it was previously...that to engage in all those contracts and privileges and protections in separate transactions with lawyers would cost people $$$$$ for something that licensing by the state provides for FREE.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't want people to spend money on something they want. That would be bad.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Henrin said:
We wouldn't want people to spend money on something they want. That would be bad.
Click to expand...

That would be fine, if it wasnt accorded to others for free by the state under the same circumstances except for their gender.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Yeah, think you nailed it here...
Click to expand...

I'm starting to wonder if Tigger didnt create an alt.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

CriticalThought said:
You want to strip the state from marriage because you don't want the state involved in your marriage. Instead of making that decision on behalf of everyone why don't you just not get married?
Click to expand...

Alternatively i think he/she could just return those fat tax breaks to the IRS, if not wanting to be a huge hypocrite.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

ludin said:
check that same dictionary 10-20 years ago definition 2 won't be there.
Click to expand...

So you think the dictionary is divinely inspired? Better start up a religion and reap those tax breaks.

It's a social construction like anything else. As marriage itself changes, so does the dictionary.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

chromium said:
Alternatively i think he/she could just return those fat tax breaks to the IRS, if not wanting to be a huge hypocrite.
Click to expand...

How do you return the government taking less of your money?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
How do you return the government taking less of your money?
Click to expand...

Write a check to the IRS for the difference between joint and single filing, since you don't believe in state intervention in marriage. I promise they will cash it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

chromium said:
Write a check to the IRS for the difference between joint and single filing, since you don't believe in state intervention in marriage. I promise they will cash it.
Click to expand...

We have been routinely told by democrats that cannot happen.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

digsbe said:
Yeah, because turning the 66% of voters that voted to put traditional marriage as the definition of marriage for their state into second class citizens and saying their right to vote and the states ability to define marriage for itself made an "irrational" decision is "cool."

It's not cool, it's sick and such a massive injustice against freedom and human rights. Regardless of your stance on SSM, this is wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

So if 66% of voters vote that homosexuals cannot own property, cannot attend heterosexual-only universities/schools, are not allowed to drive automobiles or be out after dark, then it would be a "massive injustice against freedom and human rights" if a court overturned that vote because it was unconstitutional?

See, we are not a pure democracy for a reason, and the primary reason is so that the majority of people cannot get together and vote away human rights from the minority. The constitution prohibits this, and those 66% of voters who tried to do just that are basically **** out of luck.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
We have been routinely told by democrats that cannot happen.
Click to expand...

But your idol has guaranteed you have the right:

"Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders." - george w bush, 2008 state of the union

Anyway, just burn the money if not, since by your own admission you shouldn't have the tax break.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

chromium said:
But your idol has guaranteed you have the right:

"Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I'm pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders." - george w bush, 2008 state of the union

Anyway, just burn the money if not, since by your own admission you shouldn't have the tax break.
Click to expand...

Idol?

Rights don't exist.

I don't support leftists.

No taxes at all you mean.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

digsbe said:
Yeah, because turning the 66% of voters that voted to put traditional marriage as the definition of marriage for their state into second class citizens and saying their right to vote and the states ability to define marriage for itself made an "irrational" decision is "cool."

It's not cool, it's sick and such a massive injustice against freedom and human rights. Regardless of your stance on SSM, this is wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

DiAnna said:
So if 66% of voters vote that homosexuals cannot own property, cannot attend heterosexual-only universities/schools, are not allowed to drive automobiles or be out after dark, then it would be a "massive injustice against freedom and human rights" if a court overturned that vote because it was unconstitutional?

See, we are not a pure democracy for a reason, and the primary reason is so that the majority of people cannot get together and vote away human rights from the minority. The constitution prohibits this, and those 66% of voters who tried to do just that are basically **** out of luck.
Click to expand...

Hey Digsbe, instead of making that same drive-by ad nauseam, how about you actually respond to posts like DiAnna for a change?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

digsbe said:
Yeah, because turning the 66% of voters that voted to put traditional marriage as the definition of marriage for their state into second class citizens and saying their right to vote and the states ability to define marriage for itself made an "irrational" decision is "cool."

It's not cool, it's sick and such a massive injustice against freedom and human rights. Regardless of your stance on SSM, this is wrong on so many levels.
Click to expand...

And the poor white racists that were for Separate But Equal suffered a sick and massive injustice too... huh? No, the decision to over turn the 66%'s bigotry and lust for discrimination is what is good. What is sick is the bigotry... ****ing disgusting actually.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
All well and good, but I don't like being called a bigot because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

If you don't like it then don't express bigoted opinions... pretty simple.

And on a different level, it is an atrocious abuse of states rights when a federal judge's single opinion overturns the decision made by the people of that state. It's not slavery, no one is being forced to hand their life over to someone else.
Click to expand...

Rights are being denied. I assume that you think that the Plessy (1896) Decision was a good one?

Anthony60 said:
Well, you can call me a bigot if you want, which is wrong, and in my opinion, lacking any intelligence.
Click to expand...

No. It is accurate and intelligent to label a bigot as a bigot.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Several times I mentioned the Perry case and what Judge Walker said in it. It does not surprise me that you don't know that, as you appear to ignore that which you don't want to hear.

And no, the courts I quoted are not simply saying homosexuals are being discriminated against. The courts are saying, specifically, contrary to what you said, that the state laws prevent them from marrying. It is you who is being dishonest.

Yeah, there's no further point to this. Believe whatever you want; you'll still be wrong. Why it's so important to you to BE wrong, I will never understand.
Click to expand...

This isn't true. The laws do not prevent all homosexuals from marrying. The laws prevent specific homosexual couples from being able to get legally married. Some homosexuals could still get married despite the laws if they wish to marry someone of the opposite sex, no matter that other person's sexuality. Individually, no homosexuals are denied marriage. Homosexual, same sex couples are being denied marriage by the bans though, just as any heterosexual, same sex couples are also denied marriage by those laws. There is no test for love or even sexual attraction when it comes to legal marriage, just a desire to be married and meeting certain criteria. The "criteria" however needs to have a legitimate state interest being furthered in order to stand up to review.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Doesn't matter. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support it.

but it's still surprising that a judge in Utah would make the decision. Utah republicans had previously given this judge high praise when appointed.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is only true to a point. While I am completely against any such steps (and anyone on here knows I am a strong supporter of same sex marriage), it would not be unconstitutional to change the Constitution (US Constitution) to limit marriage to only a man and a woman. This would take about 2/3 to 3/4 (I put a range because it wouldn't be a direct vote) of the voters (by way of their representatives, both in Congress and the states) to achieve. Now, having said this, it is highly improbable that this amount of votes (either through direct votes or representatives) will be gained in the foreseeable future, since it was even tried in the early 2000s with Bush still in office and failed back then (I'm not even sure they had enough support really while Clinton was in office considering they went for DOMA rather than pushing for an Amendment).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
"LOL", really? So you think that a court case is somehow written into the Constitution? That's just sad.
Click to expand...

In essence, until a SCOTUS ruling is overturned by another ruling or change to a law it addressed or change to the Constitution itself, the ruling is part of the Constitution or at least how the Constitution is interpreted. It is called precedent, and it is a major component of what every student of law learns about during their first years. There is no actual written law that says that police officers cannot shoot an unarmed (not considered dangerous) suspect while he is fleeing. But Tennessee v Garner decision says this and all law enforcement officers are bound by this decision.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Gays can marry in every single state, just the majority of those states do not recognize that marriage.
Click to expand...

The entire point is legal recognition of the marriage because that is where the rights associated with marriage come in, including the most important one to most people, the right to be viewed as legal family of a spouse, the right to be viewed as a spouse to that person. Most other rights when it comes to marriage come from that first one and marriage is the only thing that grants "spousehood" legally.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
The entire point is legal recognition of the marriage because that is where the rights associated with marriage come in, including the most important one to most people, the right to be viewed as legal family of a spouse, the right to be viewed as a spouse to that person. Most other rights when it comes to marriage come from that first one and marriage is the only thing that grants "spousehood" legally.
Click to expand...

There is no right to be viewed a certain way.

Is there some law that decides who can visit in hospitals, and if so how is this not a problem of the state?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
Actually, this is only true to a point. While I am completely against any such steps (and anyone on here knows I am a strong supporter of same sex marriage), it would not be unconstitutional to change the Constitution (US Constitution) to limit marriage to only a man and a woman. This would take about 2/3 to 3/4 (I put a range because it wouldn't be a direct vote) of the voters (by way of their representatives, both in Congress and the states) to achieve. Now, having said this, it is highly improbable that this amount of votes (either through direct votes or representatives) will be gained in the foreseeable future, since it was even tried in the early 2000s with Bush still in office and failed back then (I'm not even sure they had enough support really while Clinton was in office considering they went for DOMA rather than pushing for an Amendment).
Click to expand...

And since the 14th amendment has yet to be repealed, the law in question violates the constitution. You definitely aren't getting sufficient votes to repeal the 14th.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Yes, they can. They just cannot discriminate against protected classes. We offer benefits for state workers that we do not offer to all, we offer the priviledge of driving to some and restrict who gets to drive, and on and on.
Click to expand...

They cannot discriminate without a valid reason that has to do in some way with a state's interest. The people/person being discriminated against determines how closely related to and how important that state interest must be, but it does not have to be a specifically listed protected class to be protected against discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom