• 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

Lakryte said:
And SCOTUS has already addressed marriage, and the right to that as well. However, just as SCOTUS has not addressed whether denying the right to marriage to same-sex couples is constitutional, it has also not addressed whether denying the right to life to women with blonde hair is constitutional. Thus, by your own argument, if such a law were passed women with blonde hair do not have a right to live, and only when the court says the law is unconstitutional do they gain such a right.

Rights exist before SCOTUS affirms their existence. If you deny such, you get absurd results. That is the piece of the puzzle you are missing.
Click to expand...

But not gay marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
But not gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Strawman. You are arguing in circles. There is no such thing as a right to "gay marriage" or "interracial marriage." The right to marriage exists, and same-sex couples are being denied that right. Either the basis for that denial is constitutional or it is not, but it is there nonetheless. Please address my actual arguments from this point forward.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to rule on something for a violation of rights to exist. Again, I point to the example of denying someone the right to life on the basis of their hair color. The court has never ruled it is unconstitutional to pass such a law. That does not mean if such a law were passed suddenly blonde people have no right to life--it simply means their rights are being violated.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
There is no such thing as a right to "gay marriage"

The right to marriage exists, and same-sex couples are being denied that right. Either the basis for that denial is constitutional or it is not, but it is there nonetheless. Please address my actual arguments from this point forward.

Furthermore, it is not necessary for the Supreme Court to rule on something for a violation of rights to exist. Again, I point to the example of denying someone the right to life on the basis of their hair color. The court has never ruled it is unconstitutional to pass such a law. That does not mean if such a law were passed suddenly blonde people have no right to life--it simply means their rights are being violated.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Marriage didn't mean two gays until very recently, and it still doesn't federally.

Since rights are completely subjective and rely entirely on the makeup of the current government, it absolutely does require it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Correct.

Marriage didn't mean two gays until very recently, and it still doesn't federally.

Since rights are completely subjective and rely entirely on the makeup of the current government, it absolutely does require it.
Click to expand...
No. Government exists to protect rights, not create them. You have a right to life whether or not government exists. The only rights dependent on government are those such as voting that deal with it specifically.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
No. Government exists to protect rights, not create them. You have a right to life whether or not government exists. The only rights dependent on government are those such as voting that deal with it specifically.
Click to expand...

The state recognizing your marriage requires the state.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Correct.

Marriage didn't mean two gays until very recently, and it still doesn't federally.

Since rights are completely subjective and rely entirely on the makeup of the current government, it absolutely does require it.
Click to expand...



Actually Civil Marriage applies to same-sex couples at the federal level. You may not have heard that DOMA Section 3 was struck as unconstitutional.



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

WorldWatcher said:
Actually Civil Marriage applies to same-sex couples at the federal level. You may not have heard that DOMA Section 3 was struck as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If a state recognizes that marriage (most don't as of now, and SCOTUS certainly said nothing of them having to).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The state recognizing your marriage requires the state.
Click to expand...
And states that refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples are violating their rights. Again, you are just going in circles.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
And states that refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples are violating their rights.
Click to expand...

Except it is not a right yet.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Except it is not a right yet.
Click to expand...

The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification when it is challenged under equal protection.

They aren't able to provide that justification, which is why same-sex marriage bans are failing every court challenge. It's not a right recognized nationwide. But like you say, yet. It will happen.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification when it is challenged under equal protection.

They aren't able to provide that justification, which is why same-sex marriage bans are failing every court challenge.
Click to expand...

They just need to point out that marriage was never defined as homosexual. That is a very new.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
They just need to point out that marriage was never defined as homosexual. That is a very new.
Click to expand...

Proponents of same-sex marriage bans have pointed this out. But "it's tradition" is not sufficient justification to maintain a gender-based classification. The test is that the classification must serve an "important state interest" and that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.

"This is how it was before" is not an important state interest by any measure. That's why these arguments fail.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Proponents of same-sex marriage bans have pointed this out. But "it's tradition" is not sufficient justification to maintain a gender-based classification. The test is that the classification must serve an "important state interest" and that the measure is "substantially related" to that interest.

"This is how it was before" is not an important state interest by any measure. That's why these arguments fail.
Click to expand...

Again, because rights are completely made up and can be created or destroyed with legislation or court orders, if the government does not see marriage as beyond what marriage is (heterosexual), they won't.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Whats the proper "end of sex" ?


Paleocon said:
Because it, by it's very nature, is not conducive to the proper end of sex.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Tell that to the 9th amendment.


Lakryte said:
No. Government exists to protect rights, not create them. You have a right to life whether or not government exists. The only rights dependent on government are those such as voting that deal with it specifically.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Again, because rights are completely made up and can be created or destroyed with legislation or court orders, if the government does not see marriage as beyond what marriage is (heterosexual), they won't.
Click to expand...

Our current court system works how I described, based on more than a century's worth of case law. Yes, technically the government can take away any right they want through the use of force in violation of the constitution. While we're on hypotheticals, they could take away the right for women to vote. The Supreme Court might very well choose to completely ignore how the equal protection clause has functioned for the last century, but I don't expect they will and I don't see any reason to argue for 10 pages about your theoretical universe.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
Yes, the government can take away any right
Click to expand...

Correct, because they can legally create and destroy rights as they see fit because rights are completely made up. And they can do this with the stroke of a pen, no violence required.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Correct, because they can legally create and destroy rights as they see fit because rights are completely made up. And they can do this with the stroke of a pen, no violence required.
Click to expand...

Once again ignoring my post in favor of repeating yourself. Twice in one day. You're really fitting in here.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Deuce said:
post
Click to expand...

If your post says "nu uh," I will take that as you asking me to do the same. Your wish was granted.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
WorldWatcher said:
scatt said:
Marriage didn't mean two gays until very recently, and it still doesn't federally.
Click to expand...
Actually Civil Marriage applies to same-sex couples at the federal level. You may not have heard that DOMA Section 3 was struck as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
If a state recognizes that marriage (most don't as of now, and SCOTUS certainly said nothing of them having to).
Click to expand...

Notice I used the term "Civil Marriage" which means that the marriage was entered into in a jurisdiction where Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal.

Your comment (quoted above) was that the Federal government doesn't recognize SSCM. That was incorrect, in United States v. Windsor Section 3 of DOMA was overturned so the Federal government does recognize SSCM from the States now. The State of residence of the couple is not a factor, the Federal government recognizes based on the State or origination (or DC, either one).



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

WorldWatcher said:
Notice I used the term "Civil Marriage" which means that the marriage was entered into in a jurisdiction where Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal.

Your comment (quoted above) was that the Federal government doesn't recognize SSCM. That was incorrect, in United States v. Windsor Section 3 of DOMA was overturned the the Federal government does recognize SSCM from the States now. The State of residence of the couple is not a factor, the Federal government recognizes based on the State or origination (or DC, either one).
Click to expand...

So any state can choose to not have gay marriages?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Again, because rights are completely made up and can be created or destroyed with legislation or court orders, if the government does not see marriage as beyond what marriage is (heterosexual), they won't.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why in many cases those laws are not surviving judicial review. Checks and balances at work for stupid laws.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
So any state can choose to not have gay marriages?
Click to expand...


We don't know that yet. No case were that has that as a core question has been heard and an opinion issued by the Court on the matter. Currently States can discriminate based on gender in their Civil Marriage laws, whether that will continue is unknown. Prop 8 was a case the court could have ruled on, but they punted with the "Standing" ruling and left Prop 8 as unconstitutional but with addressing the core question. Since, presumably, Utah's Governor and AG will challenge the District Court Judges decision, the first step will be the 10th Circuit.

It's like asking the question in 1966: "So any state can choose to not have interracial marriages?". At that time the answer was "yes". However in 1967 the SCOTUS recognized that such bans were unconstitutional and from that point the answer became "no".



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

scatt said:
Except it is not a right yet.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a right in the United States right now. Period. It is simply a right that is wrongly denied to many same-sex couples on a completely unconstitutional basis. The issue is not a right that is nonexistent. The issue is a right being denied.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lakryte said:
Marriage is a right in the United States right now. Period. It is simply a right that is wrongly denied to many same-sex couples on a completely unconstitutional basis. The issue is not a right that is nonexistent. The issue is a right being denied.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is not a federal "right."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom