• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

Conservative said:
Loving vs Va was all about race discrimination not sexual orientation
Click to expand...

Race is a protected class. Laws saying that races can only marry their own race are unconstitutional.
Gender is a protected class. Laws saying that you have to marry a specific gender are unconstitutional.

There are no laws that say homosexuals (sexual orientation) can not marry.
There ARE laws that say a man and a man (gender) can not marry.
 
sneakosview said:
Reading your posts is a challenge and even harder because you don't comprehend what your reading. Hypothetically speaking if there was a law you didn't agree with would you obey it.(for crying out loud) The religious belief that homosexuality is a sin is quite clear all over the bible and to ask a Christian to set a side they're beliefs for deviate behavior is intolerant.
Click to expand...

Would Christ refuse to feed a homosexual?
 
wolfsgirl said:
Race is a protected class. Laws saying that races can only marry their own race are unconstitutional.
Gender is a protected class. Laws saying that you have to marry a specific gender are unconstitutional.

There are no laws that say homosexuals (sexual orientation) can not marry.
There ARE laws that say a man and a man (gender) can not marry.
Click to expand...

Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM

Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
 
Top Cat said:
The hardcore cons keep buying their own BS. Even many of the red states are seeing the light.
Click to expand...

Red states are being forced by the courts to do something they disagree with and that is the problem. This is a state issue, change state law in 50 states. Seems the SC agrees with me, this is a state issue
 
Conservative said:
The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage allowing the states to do that. They have had numerous opportunities to do so and have declined. They have always been partial to the state decisions on their own laws and have remain loyal to that opinion allowing the number of states to pass SSM decisions. That is where this issue belongs and always has belonged, not in the courts. You tell me why it is so important to overturn centuries of common law and the basics of the Bible and Christianity starting with Genesis where Adam and Eve were created and a wife mentioned. What possible benefit could a SS Couple get out of the term marriage that they couldn't get out of a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership? Why do a small vocal minority deserve this much attention on an issue that isn't in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Have to love your logic- though it has been shot down repeatedly it is doggedly represented.

First it doesn't interfere with Christians defining their Unions as marriage. If we are so hotted up over literal interpretation of the Bible then incest seems to be ok as how do you get from two people to what we have now? Same Sex couples get the same benefit any other married couple gets, the ability to name their game. Would 'straight' couples happy with Civil Union? I'm married (to a woman), I got married in a Judge's office, no Church involved and no desire to have it 'blessed' by a religious figure- I don't see why anyone could object to anyone (of age, sound mind etc) getting married no matter the place or number of similar/differing sex parts involved.

Be careful how you use the Constitution... it doesn't limit or define a citizen's rights but the limits of Government. Many founders felt if only a few Rights were listed in the Constitution then someone will come along later and decide these few are the ONLY. Not true. The 10th keeps the door open for other rights to be decided.

Next the Constitution has a stance on this, the 14th, sec 1. Throw in Jefferson asking does it pick my pocket or break my leg and we are done.

I am having a tough time finding where the Supreme Court has declined to rule on the definition of marriage, when did they do that?

Perhaps like art, the Supreme Court may not know what marriage is, but they know what it ain't- and it ain't just restricted to men and women of the heterosexual persuasion.

But it appears now the Supreme Court is ready to step up and strike down a bushel basket of 'protect heterosexual marriage' laws.

Better late than never.... :peace
 
Top Cat said:
Would Christ refuse to feed a homosexual?
Click to expand...

Wow, getting desperate now, equating marriage which is common law to eating which is a requirement to live. Gay couples will survive without having the title of married but not survive if they don't eat. Your statement has to be a joke
 
Conservative said:
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM

Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
Click to expand...

The courts are there specifically for this purpose. Their JOB is to determine the constitutionality of laws.

I see you didn't respond to the FACT the gender is a protected class, and laws against same sex marriage are based on GENDER since no state bans a homosexual (sexual orientation) from getting married.

At one time states had marriage laws regarding the race you were allowed to marry. They were found to be unconstitutional through the courts doing their job.
 
Top Cat said:
So the courts forced the AZ gov to veto that bill? Who knew?
Click to expand...

The bill that was vetoed had nothing to do with marriage and the bill that was vetoed mirrors Federal law. You have no idea what you are talking about again as you read the headlines but not the story
 
Conservative said:
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM

Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
Click to expand...

Loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right.

And whenever I hear that silly argument, "you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex..."

I think of this:

gaydaughter_zps41689403.jpg
 
wolfsgirl said:
The courts are there specifically for this purpose. Their JOB is to determine the constitutionality of laws.

I see you didn't respond to the FACT the gender is a protected class, and laws against same sex marriage are based on GENDER since no state bans a homosexual (sexual orientation) from getting married.

At one time states had marriage laws regarding the race you were allowed to marry. They were found to be unconstitutional through the courts doing their job.
Click to expand...

Show me marriage or sexual orientation in the Constitution. How does not being married affect a SSM couple and thus subject to protection under the Constitution. The state of TX authorizes civil unions and domestic partnerships. You seem to want what you want and ignore state or common law trying to force your opinions and views on others and putting into the Constitution that which isn't there
 
Paperview said:
Loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right.

And whenever I hear that silly argument, "you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex..."

I think of this:

gaydaughter_zps41689403.jpg
Click to expand...

It is a right guaranteed to two people of the opposite sex. Loving vs Va was a civil rights issue having to do with race.
 
Conservative said:
The bill that was vetoed had nothing to do with marriage
Click to expand...

Except the words of the people who crafted it said the same-sex photography case their motivation. Try again.

and the bill that was vetoed mirrors Federal law. You have no idea what you are talking about again as you read the headlines but not the story
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.
 
Paperview said:
Loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right.

And whenever I hear that silly argument, "you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex..."

I think of this:

gaydaughter_zps41689403.jpg
Click to expand...

So where does it stop, daughters marrying their sister, brothers marrying their brother, family members marrying other blood relatives. You people have no idea what you are doing and that is what is sad, all because of a selfish desire to have a title that you don't deserve and simply want attention. Civil unions work, domestic partnerships work, but no, this is nothing more than a temper tantrum
 
Conservative said:
So where does it stop, daughters marrying their sister, brothers marrying their brother, family members marrying other blood relatives. You people have no idea what you are doing and that is what is sad, all because of a selfish desire to have a title that you don't deserve and simply want attention. Civil unions work, domestic partnerships work, but no, this is nothing more than a temper tantrum
Click to expand...
I agree - the silly arguments made by social cons are nothing but temper tantrums, because they know, like so many of their causes, they find themselves on the wrong side of history.
 
Conservative said:
Wow, getting desperate now,
Click to expand...

Dodge much? Not surprised.

Conservative said:
equating marriage which is common law to eating which is a requirement to live.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. I just posed a simple question to underscore the hypocrisy of the supposed religious freedoms right wingers are suggesting they hold dear. Almost all of which are Christian fundamentalist in nature. I certainly understand why you are avoiding the question. Rather embarrassing to admit.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, race is a protected class, the issue was a man and a woman wanting to get married in Va. They met the laws of the state but were denied based upon race. That is why it was overturned, has nothing to do with SSM Yes, there are laws against SSM, those laws are being changed int he states and that is where the issue belongs. You change the laws in 50 states, so be it, but stay out of the courts. As it stands right now, in TX you have the same rights as I have, to marry someone of the opposite sex that will have you. No discrimination, state law
Click to expand...

Another CON not understand how our system works... if the courts didn't use the Constitution as a yardstick for laws states pass there would be little if any real social progress, such as racial equality. The Courts look at laws and determine if they pass Constitutional muster.

It isn't a simple matter of citizens of a state can pass a bad law and we are done... other citizens can challenge that law IN COURT and redress their grievances.

It works both ways as the recent Heller decision overturned a law that had been 'sacred' since 1976, enacted in response to a crack epidemic, not to keep righteous folks from having weapons (funny how the CONs love to ignore why a ban can to be)

As a law since 1976 was overturned (and should have been) so to shall SSM bans/definitions of marriage as hetro only and 'defending hetro marriage' be history...
 
Paperview said:
I agree - the silly arguments made by social cons are nothing but temper tantrums, because they know, like so many of their causes, they find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Click to expand...

History has a way of repeating itself and the temper tantrum you and others are throwing are going to back fire on you. We are a nation of laws and the Arizona law invoked religious freedom which is in the Constitution. You and your ilk have no business telling a private business that has their own money invested in that business who they can or cannot serve. Let the market decide and let these screwballs that refuse to serve a particular religious or other groups to go out of business because of all the lost business.
 
notquiteright said:
Another CON not understand how our system works... if the courts didn't use the Constitution as a yardstick for laws states pass there would be little if any real social progress, such as racial equality. The Courts look at laws and determine if they pass Constitutional muster.

It isn't a simple matter of citizens of a state can pass a bad law and we are done... other citizens can challenge that law IN COURT and redress their grievances.

It works both ways as the recent Heller decision overturned a law that had been 'sacred' since 1976, enacted in response to a crack epidemic, not to keep righteous folks from having weapons (funny how the CONs love to ignore why a ban can to be)

As a law since 1976 was overturned (and should have been) so to shall SSM bans/definitions of marriage as hetro only and 'defending hetro marriage' be history...
Click to expand...

Again, you totally ignore the point, marriage isn't in the Constitution nor is sexual orientation and thus it is a state issue. States have allowed SSM but that isn't good enough for you, you want the courts to finish the job for you and that is absolutely wrong and why the SC hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage.
 
Conservative said:
Show me marriage or sexual orientation in the Constitution. How does not being married affect a SSM couple and thus subject to protection under the Constitution. The state of TX authorizes civil unions and domestic partnerships. You seem to want what you want and ignore state or common law trying to force your opinions and views on others and putting into the Constitution that which isn't there
Click to expand...

1. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not provide equal protection of the laws (14th amendment)
2. Not being legally married denies the 1100+ federal benefits and protections of marriage to same sex couples. Again not equal protection of the law (14th amendment)
3. Not all rights are enumerated in the constitution. The supreme court has deemed marriage fundamental right in 14 separate cases.

AMENDMENT XIV

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.

We have laws and legal protections called marriage.
The state can not deny equal protections of the laws without showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest.
 
Conservative said:
It is a right guaranteed to two people of the opposite sex. Loving vs Va was a civil rights issue having to do with race.
Click to expand...

You can not deny a right to people based on GENDER. Just like you can not deny a right based on RACE.
 
Conservative said:
History has a way of repeating itself and the temper tantrum you and others are throwing are going to back fire on you. We are a nation of laws and the Arizona law invoked religious freedom which is in the Constitution. You and your ilk have no business telling a private business that has their own money invested in that business who they can or cannot serve. Let the market decide and let these screwballs that refuse to serve a particular religious or other groups to go out of business because of all the lost business.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Well alrighty then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom