• 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!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

roguenuke said:
You appear to have a problem with liberals and separating your personal ideology with the individual issues and who stands where on those issues. We do not all fit into perfect little labels. Most people don't in fact. Most people have at least one issue they would easily fit on the other side with when it comes to politics and their personal political view overall. Many conservatives/Republicans are in fact supporting same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the attempt at "educating" me on life, but been around a bit longer than you and have seen more of it, studied more of it than you. I am sure there are plenty of liberals who, on this issue, do not agree with SSM. Hell, I know gay people who are not for it. So, whats your point?
 
roguenuke said:
The 9th and 10th support me. The rights belong to the individual citizens and the states and the states have been limited by the 14th in favor of the individual's rights.

I provided you the information needed. You refuse to accept it. You refuse to learn how the laws of the US and the Constitution, or even the SCOTUS works.
Click to expand...
Only equal protection, which is in no way an enforcement of equality as you see it.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The south was not THE culture of the United States, and to try to squirm your point in there based on your premise, thanks but no thanks. States, regions and the country have a right to establish their own cultures. When we agreed to Federal Union, the states agreed to that based on a contract [ see the Constitution and the Federalist Papers ] that stipulated that the Federal government was limited to what was enumerated in the Constitution as well as a minimal application of those implied powers, only to carry out those powers enumerated. The Federal government have far overstepped, is in breach of this agreement, and is continuing to heap insult upon injury.

Well, thanks for supplying a liberal source with which to "substantiate" your views. I didn't ask for that, but thanks anyhow. I said that segregation was not a majority view in any event. Yet I would still maintain that if we the people did not want interracial marriage as a part of our culture, the sovereigns will, whether you or I agree or not, should be the rule. That is up to the states individually to decide, and if you don't like how a state does it, move to a state where things are more to your liking.

You can try to force it and forcing it sometimes works, perhaps in this case. Or you can try to force it and forcing it doesn't work until the people come around, are ready and have been persuaded [ i.e., the Civil War force and the people not coming around and segregation ending until almost 100 years later ]. If the people truly are not ready or truly do not want what you are trying to force it down our throats, its not gonna happen

You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.

Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.

Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?

How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.
Click to expand...

There is no "main" culture of the US. Unless you count the "freedom and justice for all" mentality. (If you think differently, prove it.)

I never said segregation was viewed as right by a majority. Try to keep up with what is actually claimed. I said that opposition to interracial marriages was strong across the country even after the Loving decision. And I proved it. There is way more support across the country for same sex marriage right now then there was for interracial marriages when the Loving decision came down.

I'm not forcing anything. I'm telling it how it is and how the law works and where your position stands in relation to reality, on this issue and similar issues.

It is not all about harm. It is about state interest. There is no state interest in giving trees legal rights.

Laws can only be challenged by those with standing and who are able to do so, even if someone else must become their proxy. And their being challenged is what is necessary for them to be changed by courts. So when a tree or animal or inanimate object is able to challenge a law, then they can have some consideration. Til then, lets discuss the actual issue same sex marriage instead of stupid irrelevant cases that may or may not come up in the future, but still would not have to do with same sex marriage being legal, but rather their own arguments for and against.
 
roguenuke said:
The state sanctions my current marriage and if me or my husband were to change our sex, legally, any state that recognized that new sex would also in fact still sanction that new same sex marriage (which is another major thing that proves that sex/gender matters not for any marriage).

It isn't the same sex marriage supporters that have to show legitimate interest in wanting same sex couples to be allowed to marry, it is the state that must show legitimate state interest in not allowing them to. Again, go study a little more about our laws and specifically how constitutional law works.
Click to expand...
Yeah, based on that, just how screwed up and far are you folks on the left gonna take these things...? Showing your hand now... this is getting to the point of circus level bizzarly absurd.

See what 40 years of an onslaught against reason has done? Made a total muddle and waste of otherwise good brains, brains that should be striving towards uplifting America, not taking us down.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Only equal protection, which is in no way an enforcement of equality as you see it.
Click to expand...

Equal protection means being able to have access to the same sort of contracts others do without regard to protected characteristics, such as race, religion, and even sex/gender.
 
roguenuke said:
The 9th and 10th support me. The rights belong to the individual citizens and the states and the states have been limited by the 14th in favor of the individual's rights.

I provided you the information needed. You refuse to accept it. You refuse to learn how the laws of the US and the Constitution, or even the SCOTUS works.
Click to expand...
The 14th does not in any way obviate the 9th and 10th by the way.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yeah, based on that, just how screwed up and far are you folks on the left gonna take these things...? Showing your hand now... this is getting to the point of circus level bizzarly absurd.

See what 40 years of an onslaught against reason has done? Made a total muddle and waste of otherwise good brains, brains that should be striving towards uplifting America, not taking us down.
Click to expand...

40 years from now you and those like you will appear the same as those who were against interracial marriages in the 1960s.

The intelligent people of this country support same sex marriage in large percentages. In fact, there is a correlation to be made between intelligence level and support of same sex marriage, as well as education level and support for same sex marriage. We know what will come of same sex marriage being legal, people being treated better no matter what sex/gender of person they wish to be married to.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The 14th does not in any way obviate the 9th and 10th by the way.
Click to expand...

The 14th limits the ability of the states to make laws that would not be allowed by the Constitution if the federal government were making those laws. In other words, it limits the states to the US Constitution, making the US Constitution more legally significant than the individual state constitutions and state laws.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Thanks for the attempt at "educating" me on life, but been around a bit longer than you and have seen more of it, studied more of it than you. I am sure there are plenty of liberals who, on this issue, do not agree with SSM. Hell, I know gay people who are not for it. So, whats your point?
Click to expand...

So what if you have been around longer. That in no way makes you better, wiser, more educated, or even more experienced on this or any other issue than me. It simply makes you older.

And there are many more conservatives/Republicans that support same sex marriage than there are liberals/Dems or even Independents that oppose it.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The 14th does not in any way obviate the 9th and 10th by the way.
Click to expand...

who says it does, that post still stands and you have done NOTHING to change that lol
 
roguenuke said:
Again, look into how constitutional law works. This is an equal protection issue. The way that it works is that when a law is challenged, and a group/individual is recognized as not being treated equally by the law (as is the case here), then the state must show that the law furthers a legitimate state interest.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand what you want Constitutional law to do, how you will use your methods to subvert its intent and subvert the masters, us.

What is obvious is that this is what lawyers have turned their views of constitutional law into, a jumble that can only, oh wonder of wonders, be understood and sorted out by lawyers. Lord save us all.

The true principles are as set forth and understood by the founders: We the people are sovereign and we ONLY GIVE OUR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED. WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE POWER. If you don't understand and believe that, I feel sorry for you and for the trouble you folks are going to start, the misery you will inflict upon us all by not understanding the Federal government's limits. This was easily enough understood from the beginning, why can you not understand it now?
 
Deuce said:
No.

A screen door on a submarine is harm you can specifically identify before implementation.
You have not identified any harm caused by same-sex marriage before "implementation," nor have you identified any harm in the ten years of data you have so far.

I have ten years of data on my side. You have zero. What arbitrary amount of data do you need before you concede that same-sex marriage causes no harm? 20? 30? 50? 10,000?
Click to expand...
We have about 10 thousand years of data... how many same sex cultures have survived out there again?

Oh yeah, none. Nada, zero, zilch.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh I understand what you want Constitutional law to do, how you will use your methods to subvert its intent and subvert the masters, us.

What is obvious is that this is what lawyers have turned their views of constitutional law into, a jumble that can only, oh wonder of wonders, be understood and sorted out by lawyers. Lord save us all.

The true principles are as set forth and understood by the founders: We the people are sovereign and we ONLY GIVE OUR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED. WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE POWER. If you don't understand and believe that, I feel sorry for you and for the trouble you folks are going to start, the misery you will inflict upon us all by not understanding the Federal government's limits. This was easily enough understood from the beginning, why can you not understand it now?
Click to expand...

The true principles of this country are freedom and justice for all, not just those in a majority at a given, single point in history. We were never meant to be a direct democracy or even a representative democracy, that is why we have a Constitution, to protect rights, including those that are not favored by the majority.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We have about 10 thousand years of data... how many same sex cultures have survived out there again?

Oh yeah, none. Nada, zero, zilch.
Click to expand...

so whats your data of harm please present it now, we are waiting

who wants to take bets this is dodged AGAIN
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We have about 10 thousand years of data... how many same sex cultures have survived out there again?

Oh yeah, none. Nada, zero, zilch.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You have nothing. There have never been solely same sex or solely opposite sex cultures. Every culture in history has had same sex couples.

Of course, no culture in history has survived that is not around today period and many of the oldest are either free and embracing same sex marriage or they are oppressive to their people in the first place.
 
roguenuke said:
You are once again showing your inability to understand how the Constitution and constitutional law works. Learn that, then get back to us.
Click to expand...
Nah, thanks anyhow. You want me to understand how YOU WANT IT TO WORK... its being subverted, its being used in ways never intended and yet you want me to get back to you? What a joke.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Nah, thanks anyhow. You want me to understand how YOU WANT IT TO WORK... its being subverted, its being used in ways never intended and yet you want me to get back to you? What a joke.
Click to expand...

It is how it works now. Don't like it, tough. It isn't going to change after at least a century of working that way, especially not when a majority believes it needs to work that way to protect us all.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I understand that is YOUR interpretation.
Click to expand...

And the interpretation of that of the majority, including the SCOTUS. If we're wrong, oh well, we have the power to back up the decisions since the majority likes the 14th to protect all those characteristics in regards to equal protection, even if they don't like it for every specific situation.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh I understand what you want Constitutional law to do, how you will use your methods to subvert its intent and subvert the masters, us.

What is obvious is that this is what lawyers have turned their views of constitutional law into, a jumble that can only, oh wonder of wonders, be understood and sorted out by lawyers. Lord save us all.

The true principles are as set forth and understood by the founders: We the people are sovereign and we ONLY GIVE OUR CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED. WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE POWER. If you don't understand and believe that, I feel sorry for you and for the trouble you folks are going to start, the misery you will inflict upon us all by not understanding the Federal government's limits. This was easily enough understood from the beginning, why can you not understand it now?
Click to expand...

And one who knows the constitution knows that the Ulimate power held by the people is the amendment process. The amendment process over-rides all laws and all Supreme Court rulings. It is the ultimate democracy.

If you and like minded Americans wish to block SSM, all you have to do is propose and pass a constitutional amendment making marriage between One Male Human Being and One Female Human Being...and you and like minded Americans have exercised the ultimate democratic power.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Nah, thanks anyhow. You want me to understand how YOU WANT IT TO WORK... its being subverted, its being used in ways never intended and yet you want me to get back to you? What a joke.
Click to expand...

proof?
link?
facts?

your post fails again, why dont you simply support you claim instead of just saying "nu-huh" everybody else is wrong.

teach us all a lesson, prove us and the law and the courts etc all wrong


we cant wait to read it :)
 
roguenuke said:
So now you are trying to use the extremely flawed logic that procreation is connected to marriage or the right to marriage. It isn't. Procreative ability has nothing to do with a couple's right to marry. In fact, there are 5 states that limit a person's ability to marry based on their inability to procreate in a way that is completely opposite of your assertion. If first cousins want to marry in states like Utah or Arizona, then they must be above a certain age or prove that they cannot procreate with each other. There goes that assertion. We won't even get into the fact that inability to procreate is never considered when it comes to two people of the opposite sex trying to marry even when one of them knows that they cannot procreate. (And a woman who does not have a uterus and/or ovaries cannot get pregnant, no matter how much she tries.)

And this has nothing to do with majority/minority status, but rather everything to do with whether someone is being treated differently under a law and whether or not the state can show that this difference in treatment is necessary to further a state interest. You would have no standing since there is no way that you could show that a law treated you differently once everyone is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
Click to expand...
No, you don't follow at all. Sorry, I cannot keep explaining all of life and every nuance of life to you. I was only explaining how race does not matter in marriage whereas gender does matter, that the arguments are not the same for each case and so using a same structured argument in the case of same sex does not hold any bearing on a race based case. And I am not here to re-argue every single case in every single state or federal court. Procreative abilities of opposite genders with one another are provable whereas the lack of same is provable in same sex couples. There is not a specific imperative to have children if one marries. However, one of the major reasons for marriage is to create strong family units for people who do procreate so that children are given some safeguards and should not simply be abandoned.

Family stability has been under attack for a long time as well, you folks may well have destroyed the idea of it, and its demise is resulting in much unnecessary harm, with much of poverty issuing from single parent families.

Stability of the institution of marriage and protection of children are sufficient state interests. No, we are not going to allow just anything and just anybody to get married. Sorry, there is no legitimate state interest in such.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
1.)No, you don't follow at all. Sorry, I cannot keep explaining all of life and every nuance of life to you. I was only explaining how race does not matter in marriage whereas gender does matter
2.) that the arguments are not the same for each case and so using a same structured argument in the case of same sex does not hold any bearing on a race based case.
3.)And I am not here to re-argue every single case in every single state or federal court.
4.) Procreative abilities of opposite genders with one another are provable whereas the lack of same is provable in same sex couples.
5.)There is not a specific imperative to have children if one marries.
6.) However, one of the major reasons for marriage is to create strong family units for people who do procreate so that children are given some safeguards and should not simply be abandoned.
7.)Family stability has been under attack for a long time as well, you folks may well have destroyed the idea of it, and its demise is resulting in much unnecessary harm, with much of poverty issuing from single parent families.
8.)Stability of the institution of marriage and protection of children are sufficient state interests.
9.) No, we are not going to allow anything and anybody to get married.
10.)Sorry, there is no legitimate state interest in such.
Click to expand...

1.) you keep saying this with ZERO to back it up
2.) yes they are civil, legal and equal rights. Same lol
3.) you CANT do this anyway, your opinion of them is meaningless
4.) procreative abilities are 100% meaningless to legal marriage
5.) correct
6.) which again is meaningless to equal marriage and gay marriage still creates family anyway lol
7.) more meaningless opinions that have no impact on equal rights or legal marriage
8.) neither which are endangered by equal rights
9.) agree the LAW and RIGHTS doesnt allow that already so this strawman also fails
10.) seen #9

your post fails again

all we are looking for is ONE accurate and factual thing that supports your views . . . ONE
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You have yet to show the harm that a man or woman marrying a tree would inflict... so you don't have a legitimate leg to stand on, legally speaking.

Who cares about all that, you cannot show harm, can you? What is the legitimate state interest in excluding these forms of marriage? Hoist on your own petard.

Besides which laws apply to all sorts of inanimate things... cars, guns, water, energy, light bulbs, animals, air...and of course to trees. I mean how silly is that notion that laws only apply to humans?

How about I make the same sort of "silly" stipulation, when same sex couples can procreate among just the two, then we can talk.
Click to expand...

The equal protection clause only applies to humans. Therefore there is no "state interest" test for a tree. Stop being ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom