• 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

Anthony60 said:
More leftist hate. You are boring me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I proudly hate bigotry.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Sorry, but you don't have the right to tell me what the limits of my religious beliefs are. And they certainly don't interfere with anyone else's rights. And please, don't push that B.S. on me about equality. It's not equality. It's changing the definition of marriage for political gain. And really, it's time to shut up with the preaching of the B.S. In other words, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Click to expand...

No one is telling you to do anything with your religious beliefs. I see no need for them to change at all, why do you?

And marriage's definition has changed many times...as appropriate to SOCIETY, not politics. It's about discrimination, just like Loving vs. Virginia.

There's no BS....we are talking about marriage in America. If you wish to continue to base it on your religious views & cannot accept others, then I suggest you find a place that creates laws based on religion, not equality.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
Yeah but I dont like it, lol. But yes I am aware of that.

I dont believe the govt should be involved in marriage at all.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself this question honestly. You don't even have to answer here, this is a sort of self-reflection question for you and for everyone else who says the government shouldn't be involved in marriage:

Before it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen, did you ever once express this belief? Or, as I suspect, did you only decide the government should get out of marriage when they started granting the right to people you disapprove of?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Because why, according to the court, Deuce? It discriminated against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

It discriminated against same-sex couples, yes, and therefore was in violation of the equal protection clause.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Ask yourself this question honestly. You don't even have to answer here, this is a sort of self-reflection question for you and for everyone else who says the government shouldn't be involved in marriage:

Before it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to happen, did you ever once express this belief? Or, as I suspect, did you only decide the government should get out of marriage when they started granting the right to people you disapprove of?
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but here are my comments:

I am totally in favor of same sex marriage.

However, well before it became an issue - it bugged the hell out of me that the govt was involved.

My boyfriend and I were living together; we were perfectly happy and didn't see why we needed the govt to make our pairing official. BUT - this was the mid-80s. There are a ton of benefits if we did the legal thing - he could be on my health care; less taxes if we sold our house; if one of us died, property taxes wouldn't go up if we were married officially, would if we weren't; hospital visitation was tied to legal status; on and on and on.

So while I did not need govt to sanction my relationship in any moral or emotional way - I needed the benefits that came with it so we got married. Easy to do; we were on a vacation in Hawaii and tied the knot.

Unfortunately, a same sex couple we knew did not have the same opportunity; longtime partners - almost 30 years - one of them died. The other had to sell the house, because he could not afford the increased property taxes (which would not have happened if they had been married).

So well before it was obvious that same-sex marriage would be happening I both a) said govt shouldn't be in the business of marriage and b) said that same sex couples should be able to get married; that it was ridiculous that my b/f and I got so many benefits just from getting married while that long-term couple couldn't. (we ended up divorcing; total time together , including dating, maybe 15 years? which couple was a better bet?)


(funny side note: I kept my name when we got married, as did he. After a few months, we hadn't gotten his medical card from <large hmo>. I asked my company to check into it; they asked the HMO and the HMO said basically "because we had different last names, they didn't believe we were married". My company, to their credit, said "if we say they are married, they are married" and we got covered. I assume the HMO doesn't do that anymore.)
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
It discriminated against same-sex couples, yes, and therefore was in violation of the equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

Specifically:

The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Specifically:
Click to expand...

Yes, by barring same-sex couples the right to marry.

No state defines marriage as between two heterosexuals. Some states define marriage as between one man and one woman. A gender-based distinction, not sexuality. Your error is conflating marriage with sexual desire. (clearly not being married yourself, then! :D )
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I am against bigotry also! I also love puppies and kittens. Do you?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that your religious beliefs, sincere and earnest as they are, are sufficient grounds to decide the law for other people?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
No one is telling you to do anything with your religious beliefs. I see no need for them to change at all, why do you?

And marriage's definition has changed many times...as appropriate to SOCIETY, not politics. It's about discrimination, just like Loving vs. Virginia.

There's no BS....we are talking about marriage in America. If you wish to continue to base it on your religious views & cannot accept others, then I suggest you find a place that creates laws based on religion, not equality.
Click to expand...

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.

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

Deuce said:
Yes, by barring same-sex couples the right to marry.

No state defines marriage as between two heterosexuals. Some states define marriage as between one man and one woman. A gender-based distinction, not sexuality. Your error is conflating marriage with sexual desire. (clearly not being married yourself, then! :D )
Click to expand...

Well, Deuce, you can continue to claim that marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals, but court after court does, and more will continue to, disagree with you. :shrug:
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Well, Deuce, you can continue to claim that marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals, but court after court does, and more will continue to, disagree with you. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

Resolve your confusion?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract.

Resolve your confusion?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Deuce said:
No, same-sex marriage bans are a classification of gender, not sexuality. There are no laws regarding sexuality in marriage.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Post a single state's law or constitutional amendment that says homosexuals aren't allowed to get married.
Click to expand...

Aha:

Judge in the UT Case said:
The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry
Click to expand...

Plus the many other court decisions I've already cited to you.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

Resolve your confusion?
Click to expand...

The effect is discrimination against equally or greater qualified majority group persons. The method is affirmative action to give preference to selected minority group members. It must therefore pass racial and ethnic based discrimination hurdles under equal protection. Does that resolve your confusion?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
That's not what I said. Maybe I can clarify for you:

The effect is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based classification regarding a legal contract. It must therefore pass gender-based discrimination hurdles under equal protection.

Resolve your confusion?
Click to expand...
Huh. Clever way of framing it. There must have been similar loopholes used to discriminate against blacks and women. Off the top of my head, I can think of Jim Crow voter literacy tests being defended by racists as a method to "only" test education, but defensible because it has nothing to do with skin color. Even though the racist and everyone else knew exactly what the consequences of literacy tests were.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Hmmm.





Aha:



Plus the many other court decisions I've already cited to you.
Click to expand...

...and the clarification I just gave you still hasn't helped you out with this?

I know what the courts have said overturning the laws, but the fact remains that the actual distinction the state is making is one of gender, not sexuality. There is no law that says "gay people can't get married." The laws say "two men cannot get married." I am not wrong in this, and this doesn't conflict with the court arguments. The gender-based distinction is made with the intent of and effect of discriminating against homosexuals, which is what the courts are referring to.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
...and the clarification I just gave you still hasn't helped you out with this?
Click to expand...

:roll: At best, it's a backpedal.

Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying. Many, many courts have, and will continue, to disagree with you. Not only that, several have specifically rejected the argument that it's a gender-based discrimination; it's a discrimination against homosexuality. I've already told you all this. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying.
Click to expand...
What I've actually said is that it's a gender-based classification. Because the distinction the states are making is one of gender, not sexuality. This is not the same thing as saying "this doesn't discriminate against homosexuals."

See, homosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. The same way heterosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Feel free to disprove this.


Many, many courts have, and will continue, to disagree with you. Not only that, several have specifically rejected the argument that it's a gender-based discrimination; it's a discrimination against homosexuality. I've already told you all this. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
Click to expand...

They don't disagree with me. They disagree with your incorrect interpretation of what I've said.

Again: The intent is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract. I've clarified this for you, there's no reason to continue lying about what I'm arguing. Given your perceptions and beliefs, the mistake is understandable. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
 
Last edited:
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.

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...

You may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; but there are now what - 17 states? - that disagree with you. Not to mention various countries around the world also disagree with you.

You may believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't mean others need to go along with your beliefs.

If the voters of a state banned marriage between left-handed people, would you say the vote should stand?

In the 60s, states had voted to ban inter-racial marriage. The court overturned those rules.

Voters cannot take away a federal constitutional right. For example, voters could not vote that redheads weren't allowed to vote.

I have no idea what you mean by your "it's not slavery" ... you are right in one way, but I can't imagine this is what you meant. With the court decision, NO ONE is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender. It's not slavery. You are not being forced to marry someone you don't want to marry.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Harshaw said:
Look, you said multiple times that marriage laws don't prevent homosexuals from marrying.
Click to expand...

There are some people who claim that because a gay/lesbian can marry someone of the opposite gender, they are not prevented from marrying.

So they would rather marriages be built on lies and shams than allow two people who actually love each other to marry, even if they are of the same gender.

Never understood that myself. What good is having the right to marry if you can only marry someone you are not sexually attracted to? Now - you of course have the right to marry someone you find sexually unattractive; that happens, and there are lots of reasons for it, and I'm not judging. But if the only way to get married is to marry someone you are not attracted to - that just seems warped to me.

To clarify: this battle is about allowing people to marry someone of the same gender - even if they are straight. Is that clear enough?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
You may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman; but there are now what - 17 states? - that disagree with you. Not to mention various countries around the world also disagree with you.

You may believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't mean others need to go along with your beliefs.

If the voters of a state banned marriage between left-handed people, would you say the vote should stand?

In the 60s, states had voted to ban inter-racial marriage. The court overturned those rules.

Voters cannot take away a federal constitutional right. For example, voters could not vote that redheads weren't allowed to vote.

I have no idea what you mean by your "it's not slavery" ... you are right in one way, but I can't imagine this is what you meant. With the court decision, NO ONE is forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender. It's not slavery. You are not being forced to marry someone you don't want to marry.
Click to expand...
None of those examples are relevant, they are not a good comparison at all. Slavery was legal in some states, but it was clearly prohibited by the Constitution, Not so here.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
What I've actually said is that it's a gender-based classification. Because the distinction the states are making is one of gender, not sexuality.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have. And many courts disagree with you. I've pointed them out many, many times. To the extent that they mention "gender classification" at all, they reject it as a basis of equal protection. Why? Because both sexes are treated equally under the law. In fact, in Perry, what you are arguing HERE is exactly what the proponents of Proposition 8's SSM ban argued, and Judge Walker rejected it as poppycock, because, as he said, let's face it -- no one but homosexual couples have a stake in it.

Instead, their rulings are on the basis of equal protection as to homosexuality. Get it? Not gender, homosexuality.


See, homosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. The same way heterosexuals can get married: to someone of the opposite gender. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the same gender. Feel free to disprove this.

They don't disagree with me. They disagree with your incorrect interpretation of what I've said.

Again: The intent is discrimination against homosexuals. The method is a gender-based distinction regarding a legal contract. I've clarified this for you, there's no reason to continue lying about what I'm arguing. Given your perceptions and beliefs, the mistake is understandable. Not sure what benefit you think there is in continuing to be stubborn about it.
Click to expand...

No, they DO disagree with you, and I'm not at all misinterpreting what you said. What you said is just plain wrong. Why you continue to cling to it, I have no idea. Honestly, what does it gain you?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
There are some people who claim that because a gay/lesbian can marry someone of the opposite gender, they are not prevented from marrying.

So they would rather marriages be built on lies and shams than allow two people who actually love each other to marry, even if they are of the same gender.

Never understood that myself. What good is having the right to marry if you can only marry someone you are not sexually attracted to? Now - you of course have the right to marry someone you find sexually unattractive; that happens, and there are lots of reasons for it, and I'm not judging. But if the only way to get married is to marry someone you are not attracted to - that just seems warped to me.
Click to expand...

Tell it to Deuce -- he's the one making that argument, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom