• 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]

sawyerloggingon said:
You can't pass a law against a right that is clearly written out in the constitution, gay marriage does not rise to that level.
Click to expand...

If the 9th amendment states that all rights held by the people are not enumerated in the
Constitution...What does that mean. It means not all rights held by the people are in the Constitution.

The right of self-defense is not enumerated in the Constitution. Why? Because Self-defense like marriage are rights held by the people before the signing of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
The right to keep and bear arms is clearly written out in the constitution, the right for gays to marry clearly is not.
Click to expand...

True....there is no right to marry in the Const. However once the federal govt decided to confer benefits and legal protections on marriage, they must apply that equally, they cannot discriminate.
 
roguenuke said:
Completely meaningless. An activist judge is simply one that doesn't rule the way you want them to. And as for being liberal, that is a judgement based on biased of a singular decision made by such judges.
Click to expand...

An activist judge makes law from the bench that suits his or her political agenda instead of looking at the constitution and deciding where the issue they are ruling on fits in that document.
 
Lursa said:
True....there is no right to marry in the Const. However once the federal govt decided to confer benefits and legal protections on marriage, they must apply that equally, they cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...

At which point I'd suggest milquetoast social liberals are actually the conservatives on this issue, seeking merely to strengthen and expand an existing social institution, rather than genuinely deconstruct it through the abolition of marriage.
 
Einzige said:
Obviously we've hit on the solution to this problem: a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans in the United States. Surely our Constitutional conservatives, having already ceded the moral ground and the public space, will have no problem adopting such a campaign as their own.
Click to expand...

I"d just prefer the govt...state and fed...got completely out of marriage and left it up to private institutions and religion.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
An activist judge makes law from the bench that suits his or her political agenda instead of looking at the constitution and deciding where the issue they are ruling on fits in that document.
Click to expand...

Then all judges working in constitutional challenges would be activist judges, including every SCOTUS Justice to ever serve.
 
Lursa said:
True....there is no right to marry in the Const. However once the federal govt decided to confer benefits and legal protections on marriage, they must apply that equally, they cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...

Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.




1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Updates

prev | next
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.
Click to expand...

Why are you citing the United States Code? Your argument is that rulings finding gay marriage bans illegal are Unconstitutional. Do you dispute that judges even have a right to reverse parts of the United States Code, a hierarchically inferior piece of law to the Constitution?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.


1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Updates

prev | next
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Click to expand...

This is a very old argument. The definition of marriage has been changed before. Some states specified race, some numbers, some age....all change according to society and in some cases, the Constitution, as we know it was unConstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.

Edit: did you pull that from DOMA? Cuz it has been overturned.
 
Lursa said:
Huh, and here I thought you were basing your 'opinion' of homosexuality and SSM on yoru Christian beliefs. I guess I'll rethink that, since this obviously does not indicate very Christian thinking.







I also missed any explanations of how their families are any different than those of straight couples. You know...the whole 'how is their lifestyle/culture different?' thing that has been unanswered.
Click to expand...
I cannot be bothered with folks I specifically inform that I am not a Christian, have no specific religious beliefs actually, and yet they keep trying to batter me with that...all the time professing they are a Christian...wow, what a mess must be going on up in there...

So, it is apparent, whatever I might tell you would be surely and quickly lost in your bubbling-over effervescent spirit...
 
Lursa said:
This is a very old argument. The definition of marriage has been changed before. Some states specified race, some numbers, some age....all change according to society and in some cases, the Constitution, as we know it was unConstitutional to prevent interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Moreover, he's citing the united States Code, then turning around and claiming that gay marriage is somehow unconstitutional. But the Code is not the Constitution, and is legally subordinate to it - and thus subject to judicial review.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.




1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Updates

prev | next
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Click to expand...

And that definition of marriage and spouse violates the Constitution for there is no legitimate reason for the government (federal or state) to make such a policy/distinction. There is no legitimate interest furthered by that distinction when men and women have the same rights within marriage. Spouses are not treated differently within marriage based on their sex/gender, since that would be gender discrimination.
 
roguenuke said:
Then all judges working in constitutional challenges would be activist judges, including every SCOTUS Justice to ever serve.
Click to expand...

Wrong, you as a judge have a responsibility to set your personal beliefs aside and look at the constitution as a sacred document not to be tampered with from the bench. I have enjoyed our discussion as I sat here waiting for the snow to stop because I have things to do outside. It's not stopping and the day is growing short so off I go I guess.:2wave:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Marriage has been clearly spelled out as between a man and a woman in law. If you want to change the law fine but do it the constitutional way.




1 U.S. Code § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Updates

prev | next
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but that is not current law, that is DOMA Section 3 and it was ruled unconstitutional. And yes, a SCOTUS ruling is a constitutional way.



>>>>
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, you as a judge have a responsibility to set your personal beliefs aside and look at the constitution as a sacred document not to be tampered with from the bench. I have enjoyed our discussion as I sat here waiting for the snow to stop because I have things to do outside. It's not stopping and the day is growing short so off I go I guess.:2wave:
Click to expand...

And someone somewhere is always going to accuse any judge from ruling based on their personal beliefs, even if they aren't, just because that accuser's personal beliefs are different than the judge's. That is where my response came from. You are claiming the judges ruling against same sex marriage bans, ruling them unconstitutional, are activist judges only because their rulings do not agree with your beliefs, not because their rulings are faulty under constitutional law.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I cannot be bothered with folks I specifically inform that I am not a Christian, have no specific religious beliefs actually, and yet they keep trying to batter me with that...all the time professing they are a Christian...wow, what a mess must be going on up in there...

So, it is apparent, whatever I might tell you would be surely and quickly lost in your bubbling-over effervescent spirit...
Click to expand...

Well thank you! But flattery will not let you off the hook....please try to stick to the subject and explain why the kids of gay couples do not deserve the same legal protections at those of straight unions? Just do it so it's not hypocritical, you dont have to base it on relgion (since you really cant):


Gaugingcatenate said:
Finally? I have discussed previously what marriage is for and one of the main reasons is for protecting children that are, yes, created through the act of procreation that can only, besides in-vitro or cloning, be accomplished by opposite sex couplings. Marriage does not specifically require procreation, just the general likelihood of the ability to procreate.
Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:
No to your first question, In a free society I do not think it is possible, plausibly optimal but probably not possible...but if a SS couple have them one takes ones chances and gets what one gets in custody battles... one cannot complain and besides, no sympathy, not my/our problem.

I would certainly not allow for SS adoption. Toleration is one thing, condoning, acceptance or promotion is simply out of the question.
Click to expand...


Lursa said:
And then are the children of gay couples less worthy of protection? They exist, thru natural reproduction, thru surrogacy, thru IV, thru adoption....do they not deserve the protection that marriage affords straight families?

Because gay couples do desire families just as much as straight couples...and have them. Legalizing SSM wont change that...it will only provide more protections for families, kids. Gays arent going to stop having families......
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
I never said that they were specifically written in the Constitution itself, but they are covered and they are part of constitutional law and precedence. You don't have to approve of the way our system works, but complaining and making stupid demands on the internet isn't going to change how they currently work.
Click to expand...
You said they were Constitutionally protected... and they are not, pure and simple. Even if the SC rules in their favor, they are not Constitutionally protected, to repeal them would just require another court judgement going in the opposite direction... al la Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board.

You were wrong. Flat out, like I said originally.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Wrong, you as a judge have a responsibility to set your personal beliefs aside and look at the constitution as a sacred document not to be tampered with from the bench. I have enjoyed our discussion as I sat here waiting for the snow to stop because I have things to do outside. It's not stopping and the day is growing short so off I go I guess.
Click to expand...

Before leaving, you might consider that for things like civil rights, just because it's 'inconvenient' (I think you used 'inefficient') does not justify denying people their civil rights. Blacks and women had to fight for their civil rights too. Can you honestly say it was right for blacks to suffer all those years of Jim Crow just because there was not enough public momentum or 'popularity' to motivate change in the courts?

And note also my posts regarding how legal marriage also protects the children of those unions.
 
Lursa said:
Well thank you! But flattery will not let you off the hook....please try to stick to the subject and explain why the kids of gay couples do not deserve the same legal protections at those of straight unions? Just do it so it's not hypocritical, you dont have to base it on relgion (since you really cant):
Click to expand...
Kids of gay couples probably need a lot of protections, perhaps not the kind you are talking about. The kids, all kids, have the same protections. There is no constitutional right of any kid to have gay parents that I know of, is that what you are trying to say here?

The right of gay folks to adopt has no constitutional protection, either...maybe you are talking about that? Hard to follow you, you don't make a lot of sense on this topic so far.
 
Einzige said:
Obviously we've hit on the solution to this problem: a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage bans in the United States. Surely our Constitutional conservatives, having already ceded the moral ground and the public space, will have no problem adopting such a campaign as their own.
Click to expand...
Once again, are you making it up as you go...or is that what is the reality to you in your head... cause I don't see much evidence of much of anything you say being out here in the real world.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Kids of gay couples probably need a lot of protections, perhaps not the kind you are talking about. The kids, all kids, have the same protections. There is no constitutional right of any kid to have gay parents that I know of, is that what you are trying to say here?

The right of gay folks to adopt has no constitutional protection, either...maybe you are talking about that? Hard to follow you, you don't make a lot of sense on this topic so far.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are not protected in the same way that the kids of straight couple marraiges are. THey are more vulnerable in custody battles, foster care services, and if there is divorce, they lose all legal rights to the other parent, such as family rights, the right to visit in a hospital, inheritance, etc...the list is quite long.

Not talking about adoption but if a child IS adopted by a gay couple that isnt legally married, then that child is also vulnerable and loses even more of their protections, as they may be permanently separated from one of their parents, for example.

Again...these unions and these kids arent going anywhere....denying them the same protections is cruel and actually damaging to society as we'll have to deal with their dysfunctional kids just like we do those from straight marriages that falter.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You said they were Constitutionally protected... and they are not, pure and simple. Even if the SC rules in their favor, they are not Constitutionally protected, to repeal them would just require another court judgement going in the opposite direction... al la Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board.

You were wrong. Flat out, like I said originally.
Click to expand...

They are, in accordance with constitutional law and precedence, which is completely valid.

Until the SCOTUS reverses their rulings (which is highly unlikely given what that takes), saying that they are constitutionally protected stands.
 
Lursa said:
Nope, they are not protected in the same way that the kids of straight couple marraiges are. THey are more vulnerable in custody battles, foster care services, and if there is divorce, they lose all legal rights to the other parent, such as family rights, the right to visit in a hospital, inheritance, etc...the list is quite long.

Not talking about adoption but if a child IS adopted by a gay couple that isnt legally married, then that child is also vulnerable and loses even more of their protections, as they may be permanently separated from one of their parents, for example.

Again...these unions and these kids arent going anywhere....denying them the same protections is cruel and actually damaging to society as we'll have to deal with their dysfunctional kids just like we do those from straight marriages that falter.
Click to expand...
More reason not to support SSM I suppose then, poor kids. Shouldn't have happened in the first place... I blame the "parents".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom