• 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 Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

What about people who want to marry children? Why should pedophiles be treated as second class Citizens? Why do want pedophiles to die while on hold with 911?

Ah. The pedophile argument. When discussing SSM, bringing up pedophilia is the same as bringing up Hitler. It's Godwining the thread. Good job.
 
What was wrong??

MMM since when does one bitch dictate outcome, not to mention the EVIL 14th Amendment.

This is not some sort of ****ing theocracy or monarchy but the courts have circumvented those ideas and created their own.

All judges belong in prison on charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason.

Seems to me that you have no intention of debating anything here. You are just here to bitch. Good to know.
 
Human nature is evil :shrug:

Just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it should be approved of or used in defense of it being "normal" or "moral" or even "acceptable." As far as biology and sex goes, homosexuality is dysfunctional and "unnatural" in how those sex organs are being used. But that's besides the point.

I sincerely hope this gets struck down. It is a grave injustice to the voters of VA to have their attorney general refuse to defend state laws and the state constitution in court and also have their ability to uphold traditional marriage, which has been the defacto marriage position for many many years, essentially removed largely due to a progressive judicial opinion and changes in public opinion. I'm happy for the gays in VA that may be able to get married and I support SSM, but not through this type of judicial tyranny and lack of legal representation for those on the other side. Equal rights is not imposing a new definition of marriage upon every state due to new social changes and acceptances of certain sex practices or sexual relationships. Equal rights is respecting the rights of voters who disagree and allowing them to govern as well. The 14th amendment should not extend to sexuality or personal sex choices/relationships unless amended.

No one is harmed by homosexuality, nor gay marriage; hence the government needs to mind it's own business.

If we can stop the government from trampling the rest of our rights, we might just be able to save America.
 
No one is harmed by homosexuality, nor gay marriage; hence the government needs to mind it's own business.

If we can stop the government from trampling the rest of our rights, we might just be able to save America.

If I feel the presence of the government's foot on the back of my neck, it ain't because of marriage.
 
No one is harmed by homosexuality, nor gay marriage; hence the government needs to mind it's own business.

If we can stop the government from trampling the rest of our rights, we might just be able to save America.

If I feel the presence of the government's foot on the back of my neck, it ain't because of marriage.

I've often wondered... what size shoe does the government wear? I ask because in case I want to send it shoes for it's birthday, this year.
 
The problem is that this is not a discrimination a against a particular group of people treating them differently. The laws are not specifiably requiring that gay people cannot have the same access that every one else does but that States do have the Power to decide what marriage is. Marriage from the beginning of this country was between two people and between one man and one woman. Having marriage between two of the same gender is a change (and is new) and there is on support in the Constitution requiring this bo be so.




The Constitution of the United States require that equal protection under the law with respect to race. It would Un-Cnstitutional and I would be against it snce I do believe it violates the fundamental Rights of those who were targeted.



That is correct but the question is whether the Courts can argue that it is Un-Constitutional to do so. My view is it cannot be argued under the Constitution that gay marriage is a Right that supersedes the Power of the States to decide what is allowable under the law the State's Legislature decides at a given time.





States do not determine what Rights people have. Rights are inherent. Marriage is a sort of contract and contracts involve State Power and it is within State Power to determine what is a valid marriage. Keep in mind that gay marriage at least in the United States is a new thing and I think the Courts are going too quickly on this. I do think that States will have to recognize the legitimacy of married gay couples from other States and this will be what determines whether most States will eventually adopt it.

With respect on my being Libertarian, I do not oppose gay marriage but for now the States do have the authority rule it out unless we have an Amendment that says otherwise. I should also point out that States such as Illinois had undue restrictions against gun ownership even though the Constitution explicitly says that the Citizens have a right to own and bear them. I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO GIVE THE COURTS A PASS ON THIS IF THEY WOULD UPHOLD THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND I'M ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTHS JUST COMPENSATION FOR TAKING PROPERTY THAT WAS WEAKENED BY THE COURTS.

The Supreme Court has ruled about 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. Whether you agree with that is irrelevant, it is the supreme law of the land. Now, considering it's a fundamental right, a state does not have the right to deny it to certain people while granting it to others. That is discrimination, plain and simple, and it has no place in a free society. All citizens should be equal under the law. I don't think that's too extreme of a concept.

I think your Illinois gun example is actually perfect. The state was violating its citizens rights, so the Supreme Court came in and overruled it, which is precisely what is happening right now with SSM. Personally I don't think marriage should have anything to do with the government whatsoever, but for some reason it is, and as long as it is, the government can not choose to whom it doles out that right.

What was wrong??

MMM since when does one bitch dictate outcome, not to mention the EVIL 14th Amendment.

This is not some sort of ****ing theocracy or monarchy but the courts have circumvented those ideas and created their own.

All judges belong in prison on charges of treason and conspiracy to commit treason.

Bahahahahahah! You're so furious that they're giving gays equal rights that you're calling for their heads. Jesus ****ing christ you must really hate gays.
 
Last edited:
Yep, and the USSC found that they didn't have standing.

There is a difference though.

In the Prop 8 case the State actors (Governor and AG) defended to measure in District Court, once the case was lost they decided not to appeal. The proponents then took up the appeal and filed with the 9th Circuit. The question was placed before the California Supreme Court as to weather the supporters of the law had standing to defend it and that question was put to the CSC (IIRC) by the SCOTUS. The CSC said "Yes", however the SCOTUS ignored that and ruled instead they did not, vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit but allowed the District Courts ruling to remain in place. That allowed them to "punt" on the fundamental question and craft a ruling that (a) allowed SSCM to resume, but (b) only applied to California.

In this case the AG didn't defend the law (and actually briefed against it) prior to the District Court ruling and other actors were allowed to defend this law. In this case a County Clerk from Prince Georges County (being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom**) who (as a State Actor) does (and probably will) have standing all the way through to the SCOTUS.





** I personally think it's kind of ironic that a group calling itself the "Alliance Defending Freedom" is fighting against freedom, but that is another thread.


>>>>
 
There is a difference though.

In the Prop 8 case the State actors (Governor and AG) defended to measure in District Court, once the case was lost they decided not to appeal. The proponents then took up the appeal and filed with the 9th Circuit. The question was placed before the California Supreme Court as to weather the supporters of the law had standing to defend it and that question was put to the CSC (IIRC) by the SCOTUS. The CSC said "Yes", however the SCOTUS ignored that and ruled instead they did not, vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit but allowed the District Courts ruling to remain in place. That allowed them to "punt" on the fundamental question and craft a ruling that (a) allowed SSCM to resume, but (b) only applied to California.

In this case the AG didn't defend the law (and actually briefed against it) prior to the District Court ruling and other actors were allowed to defend this law. In this case a County Clerk from Prince Georges County (being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom**) who (as a State Actor) does (and probably will) have standing all the way through to the SCOTUS.





** I personally think it's kind of ironic that a group calling itself the "Alliance Defending Freedom" is fighting against freedom, but that is another thread.


>>>>

Great explanation, thanks.
 
No it wasn't.

Yes it was. It was against tradition, against the will of the people, changing the definition of marriage, against nature, against God, unnatural. These aren't my words, these are the words of people who were defending interracial marriage bans.
 
States establish the definition of marriage when the Courts decide that the definition the State uses is "Un-Constitutional" then yes they do make a definition of marriage. Previously we did have States who prohibited mixed race marriages and they were Unconstitutioal (no quote marks) since the Constitution explicitly requires equal protection with respect to race so in that instance the States are prohibited to transgress there. There is no explicit requirement with respect to sexual idenity. I'm sorry this is somthing that the culture will have to deal with and it will probably take a couple of generations in some States to resolve.


"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​


Could you help me out here with a couple of things:

1. Where in Section 1 of the 14th is race "explicitly" mentioned as a requirement to be eligible for equal protection under the law?

2. Since Section 1 does identify "All persons", "citizens", and "any person" - why do homosexuals not qualify as "a person" or "a citizen"?​



>>>>
 
There is a difference though.

In the Prop 8 case the State actors (Governor and AG) defended to measure in District Court, once the case was lost they decided not to appeal. The proponents then took up the appeal and filed with the 9th Circuit. The question was placed before the California Supreme Court as to weather the supporters of the law had standing to defend it and that question was put to the CSC (IIRC) by the SCOTUS. The CSC said "Yes", however the SCOTUS ignored that and ruled instead they did not, vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit but allowed the District Courts ruling to remain in place. That allowed them to "punt" on the fundamental question and craft a ruling that (a) allowed SSCM to resume, but (b) only applied to California.

In this case the AG didn't defend the law (and actually briefed against it) prior to the District Court ruling and other actors were allowed to defend this law. In this case a County Clerk from Prince Georges County (being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom**) who (as a State Actor) does (and probably will) have standing all the way through to the SCOTUS.





** I personally think it's kind of ironic that a group calling itself the "Alliance Defending Freedom" is fighting against freedom, but that is another thread.


>>>>

I thought the AG defended it, but will not appeal. Thanks for the correction. That does change things.
 
Yes it was. It was against tradition, against the will of the people, changing the definition of marriage, against nature, against God, unnatural. These aren't my words, these are the words of people who were defending interracial marriage bans.

The difference sis that only two of those things were correct. There have been plenty of societies which have allowed interracial marriage, not so with gay marriage.
 
If I feel the presence of the government's foot on the back of my neck, it ain't because of marriage.

Marriage is just one of the government intrusions into our private lives.
 
Marriage is just one of the government intrusions into our private lives.

If you say so. Can't say I'm feeling that myself.
 
Acceptable and moral are subjective and therefore irrelevant..
How can one make this statement? Most of our progress in the realm of social law has come through a public discussion of what should be considered moral and commonly accepted in modern societies. It's simple enough to make the argument for why SSM falls into these categories and certainly preferable to dismissing the process altogether.
 
The difference sis that only two of those things were correct. There have been plenty of societies which have allowed interracial marriage, not so with gay marriage.

Serious question:

So what?
 
Marriage is just one of the government intrusions into our private lives.

Maybe you could explain the nature of this intrusion? This is never made very clear.
 
Serious question:

So what?

So perhaps if every society in the history of the world (including societies which accepted homosexuality) thought something so ridiculous as to never even consciously consider it, perhaps there's a reason for that.
 
So perhaps if every society in the history of the world (including societies which accepted homosexuality) thought something so ridiculous as to never even consciously consider it, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Can....you tell me what that reason is?
 
That the purpose of marriage is contradicted by same-sex relations.

What is that purpose and how is it "contradicted?"

It might seem like a silly question, but I just don't want to put words in your mouth and provide a rebuttal for an argument you haven't made. It's rude.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom