• 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

And since the 14th amendment has yet to be repealed, the law in question violates the constitution.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.

The 14th annoys both the democrats and the republicans, no way would it be repealed.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

And since the 14th amendment has yet to be repealed, the law in question violates the constitution.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.

I'm not arguing that. But the entire 14th would not have to be repealed. Just getting into place an Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman would be sufficient. But I absolutely agree, there is extremely little chance of getting enough votes in the foreseeable future for such an Amendment. I was just clarifying that it is possible through voting, just not probable at all, not with our current public view about same sex marriage, which despite some people's opinion, is one of acceptance or at least tolerance.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

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?

There is by the law. It is not a right to be viewed as married by individuals, but it is a right to be viewed as legal spouses under the law.

There are laws that decide whether or not your place of employment has to give you leave in case of death or serious illness of a legal family member, including your spouse and inlaws. Family Leave Act. There are laws that place your family within an hierarchy when it comes to decisions and/or inheritance when there is no will or other documents to say otherwise (and sometimes even when there is such legal documents). Spouse is almost always at the top of that hierarchy when there is one.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I'm not arguing that. But the entire 14th would not have to be repealed. Just getting into place an Amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman would be sufficient. But I absolutely agree, there is extremely little chance of getting enough votes in the foreseeable future for such an Amendment. I was just clarifying that it is possible through voting, just not probable at all, not with our current public view about same sex marriage, which despite some people's opinion, is one of acceptance or at least tolerance.

That much is true, but under this option theoretically we can amend the constitution and become a communist dictatorship. It's about as likely at this point.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The 14th annoys both the democrats and the republicans, no way would it be repealed.

Where do you see it annoying democrats? Obviously Republicans are mad at the inability to suppress same sex marriage that results.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Where do you see it annoying democrats?

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


Wrong amendment. Where has the 14th even been applied to a gun control case instead of the 2nd?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Wrong amendment. Where has the 14th even been applied to a gun control case instead of the 2nd?

Did you miss McDonald v. Chicago?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Did you miss McDonald v. Chicago?

Obviously. I don't track every random court case.

Wiki says that was a due process issue, not equal protection.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Due process, not equal protection. And it doesn't annoy me one bit, of course the 2nd applies to states, like everything else in the bill of rights,

Yes, the 14th amendment applies this to the states. The 14th amendment.

It annoys democrats, your alleged non-annoyance is of anecdotal concern (none). And it opens up annoyances for democrats and republicans.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

That is totally "unfair" to bisexuals, as they must get to marry one of each to be fair. I suggest that it is unlike race or gender since that characteristic is neither recognizable at birth, immutable nor included on a census form and, more importantly, is not mentioned by the constitution or any amendment. It is entirely a self declared characteristic, therefore no different than membership in a hum while walking club.

This proves that you have no clue what bisexual means. Bisexuals would not be more likely than either homosexuals or heterosexuals to want to marry more than one person. The idea that they would is based on ignorance.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Getting vaccinated, riding an airplane, and using a computer are not unnatural, as they do not contradict any of the natural ends of man. And no, unnatural sexual activity isn't the only thing that should be banned, murder should be as well, as it is even more unnatural than sodomy.

Actually being vaccinated in fact is very unnatural, particularly the way we do, in such mass amounts, completely destroying entire strains, if not entire species of viruses. Viruses are a natural part of life and evolution. They are in fact found within our bodies where they have become part of our genetic code. By eliminating these viruses through mass vaccination, it can easily be argued that vaccinations are completely unnatural and contradict the natural ends of man since we have no clue what these actions are doing to the potential for our evolution.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes, the 14th amendment applies this to the states. The 14th amendment.

It annoys democrats, your alleged non-annoyance is of anecdotal concern (none). And it opens up annoyances for democrats and republicans.

Look up constitutional incorporation. The 2nd does apply to states, and that case you referenced upheld that.

I've never heard a Democrat argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to states, so it's on you to prove that.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I'm not sure you are responding to the right person.

I do not support state intervention (which would be "dictating the terms for everyone else").

Then you shouldn't support birth certificates or adoptions either since they serve the same main purpose as marriage does, creating a legally recognized kinship between people.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Look up constitutional incorporation. The 2nd does apply to states, and that case you referenced upheld that.

Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?

Then you shouldn't support birth certificates or adoptions either since they serve the same main purpose as marriage does, creating a legally recognized kinship between people.

Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?



Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.

Against SSM or marriage in general by the state?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Of course it applies to the states. But why were the Chicago (democrat) lawmakers unaware of this?

Birth certificates and adoptions do not require a state.

Legal birth certificates are issued by each state, as are adoption records. The state must recognize the parents as the legal parents of a child for them to be considered legal family.

Now, with genetic testing, we have additional means of establishing parenthood in some cases, but it can be legally restricted or even removed with legal paperwork. You cannot simply claim a child as your own and expect to hold legal say and/or custody over that child. The state is involved.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Legal birth certificates are issued by each state, as are adoption records. The state must recognize the parents as the legal parents of a child for them to be considered legal family.

Now, with genetic testing, we have additional means of establishing parenthood in some cases, but it can be legally restricted or even removed with legal paperwork. You cannot simply claim a child as your own and expect to hold legal say and/or custody over that child. The state is involved.

A birth certificate or an adoption is irrelevant of the state. I am not referencing legal anything.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

In general.

Fair enough... as long as it is equal treatment.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Fair enough... as long as it is equal treatment.

No state involved. Equal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

A birth certificate or an adoption is irrelevant of the state. I am not referencing legal anything.

This entire discussion is about legal marriage. So yes, you are discussing legal things here. And yes, birth certificates and adoptions are completely relevant to the state. A child is recognized as the legal relative, legal child of the person/persons on their birth certificate and/or adoption papers first, although other legal paperwork can counter these. And a person's legal spouse is the person on the marriage license with them (unless countered by other paperwork, aka a divorce).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

This entire discussion is about legal marriage. So yes, you are discussing legal things here. And yes, birth certificates and adoptions are completely relevant to the state. A child is recognized as the legal relative, legal child of the person/persons on their birth certificate and/or adoption papers first, although other legal paperwork can counter these. And a person's legal spouse is the person on the marriage license with them (unless countered by other paperwork, aka a divorce).

Marriage can only be "illegal" with the state involved.

Birth certificates and adoptions require no state, but legal related ones do.
 
Back
Top Bottom