• 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]

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.
No, they are court protected only. Constitutional protections would take an amendment to the Constitution to change... sorry, you are just wrong. Admitting it is hard I know...
 
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.

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR | LII / Legal Information Institute

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[...] the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. [...] While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

This is the judicial reasoning used to require the federal government to recognize SSM in relation to federal benefits. USC 1, sec 7 is still on the books, but is a dead nail.

This is the likely judicial reasoning that will be opined by the US Supreme Court when laws baning SSM are stricken from the American landscape.
 
Last edited:
No, they are court protected only. Constitutional protections would take an amendment to the Constitution to change... sorry, you are just wrong. Admitting it is hard I know...

Nope. Constitutionally protected under the EPC of the 14th Amendment. Otherwise, what exactly would the EPC protect because it doesn't specifically mention race at all.
 
Okay... and so? See, I know I am too wordy in most of my posts, but now, since you said the obtuse without doing the work of fleshing it out, we have lost the original point... and I am just too busy to go back and look right now...so...next...
In other words you have nothing.

It is not necessarily an absolute, but if we the people want it that way, we damn well can keep it that way.
Don't look now but you can not.

It is a proven method that has worked wonderfully for us for generation after generation...along with other attributes within the system, its helped take us to supremacy in world power, a good world power on the whole, and mightily impressive domestic economics...why fix something that isn't broken, as they say. That help you out any?
I hardly needed help but clearly you do.

You are just flat out wrong on preclusion.
Because you say so?

Well, because of the system we have, though not precluded, we do have less chance for tyranny here, agreed.
Good, enough said then.

Not allowing same sex marriage is in no way to be associated with a tyranny in any event.
Not to you since it is you would would deny others their equality.

And you are free, in your own way, to marry whomever you want, nobody will/can stop you if the other is able and willing to give consent... just don't expect state sanction and recognition is all.
But it that recognition exactly that is at issue here and what you want to deny because you do not approve.
 
Screw your legalese crap... this is society we are talking about here, not your day at the courthouse chatting it up with attorneys and paralegals.
Nice intellectual and intelligent rebuttal. Just what can be expected from you.
 
We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.

What restrictions? If there is sufficient majority, we can obtain an amendment to do pretty much anything we desire...except take away inalienable rights... you would agree wouldn't you? How does that equate with your views on the majority?
You missed way too many civics classes and clearly are out of touch with what the majority wants.
 
More reason not to support SSM I suppose then, poor kids. Shouldn't have happened in the first place... I blame the "parents".

Yeah, to Hell with gays' right to the pursuit of happiness! They arent Americans, they dont get to have that. Oh wait...they are Americans...but so what? We dont like them, they are icky and make me feel funny.....let's punish them for exercising their rights. And then let's punish their kids too. They deserve it, because....oh wait....

Why do they deserve it? What are they doing wrong again? You havent explained that yet...remember?
 
Absolutely. And I'll go one step further in the direction of elitism, surely further than any of our egalitarian left-liberals will go: the very life of a single educated elite is objectively more valuable than the lives of ten or a hundred West Virginian Southern Baptists.

That's elitist. I don't care. 'Elitism' is not a dirty word. Conservatives of old understood this - and supported the elite.
They also forget that the founding father of this nation were not ignorant morons either.
 
We, the People...ever heard of US? Apparently not.

What restrictions? If there is sufficient majority, we can obtain an amendment to do pretty much anything we desire...except take away inalienable rights... you would agree wouldn't you? How does that equate with your views on the majority?

Yes I have. Have you read Madison? Maybe look up tyranny of the majority.

You may also look at all the protections for the minority in the Constitution.

Just a thought.
 
Got something on topic you want to discuss, perhaps... or just want to sit around and ...


Your call. you're the one that jumped in being silly. I'm merely showing I can do that as well.
 
(A) the fact you're too uneducated to come up with a novel comparison (the Armenian genocide, perhaps?).
Pol Pot wold be the more apt, as he too killed the ones who could read or count further than 2 and made no ethic distinctions.
 
Neither is the right for a black dude to marry a white woman clearly laid out in the Constitution.


>>>>
But at least Jefferson found it to be OK for a white diode to procreate with a black woman. That is almost as good as having it written in the Constitution...
 
What right would that be?

I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.

Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties

Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize most of the more important rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" or administrative rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other.
Personhood:[1]

"Persons" are one of the two main classes which are the subject of rights, powers, and duties, the other being "citizens". Persons may be "natural" or "corporate". "Citizens" are a subclass of "natural persons". Only persons have standing as parties under due process. Each government has the power to define what is and is not a "person" within its jurisdiction, subject to certain restrictions of Common Law and the Constitution, the 15th Amendment to which requires that it not exclude anyone based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under Common Law existing at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, "natural personhood" was considered to begin at natural birth and end with the cessation of the heartbeat. But technology has created a new situation, opening the way for statute or court decision to extend this definition and set the conditions under which personhood begins and ends.

Each government may also establish, within its jurisdiction, "corporate persons" such as governmental entities, associations, trusts, corporations, or partnerships, in addition to the Common Law "natural" persons, but the "personhood" of such corporate entities is not created by the government. Its corporate personhood derives from the personhood of its members. Corporate persons must be aggregates of natural persons.

Under Common Law, persons include only individual human beings and combinations of them acting in concert, but it provides a basis for inclusion of entities that are sufficiently like human beings in their behavior to be indistinguishable for legal purposes, such as aliens, androids, or genetically enhanced animals, which have interests, an ability to reason, and an ability to communicate. This would exclude, however, establishment of other things as persons, such as inanimate objects, which have no ability to represent themselves under due process. Inclusion of such inanimate objects as parties to civil due process, in effect making them "persons", has found its way into the U.S. legal system as in rem proceedings, unconstitutionally, through recent seizure/forfeiture statutes.

Although not a well-developed area, there is also a basis for excluding entities which, although they are born to human beings, lack attributes which would enable them to be functionally human, such as some minimal level of cognitive capacity, but such beings must be considered natural persons as the default unless proven otherwise through due process.
Citizenship:

Citizenship is the attribute of persons who, as members of the polity, have certain privileges and duties in addition to those they have as persons. Citizens include those born on U.S. or State territory or naturalized according to law.
Natural Rights:

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

Personal Liberty:

(3) To move freely.

(4) To assemble peaceably.

(5) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(6) To assemble in an independent well-disciplined[13] militia.

(7) To communicate with the world.

(8) To express or publish one's opinions or those of others.

(9) To practice one's religion.

(10) To be secure in one's person, house, papers, vehicle[14], and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(11) To enjoy privacy in all matters in which the rights of others are not violated.[7]

Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties
 
I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.
Neither do you see a right to marry anyone, but that was not the question.
The rest is just irrelevant partisan drivel from a private site with an agenda.
 
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.

Equal Protection is clearly written out in the constitution and the Supreme Court decides what that means. They've essentially already decided.
 
I just don't see the right to marry a member of the same sex here.

Loving v. Virginia, SCOTUS, 1967 says that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Therefore it is a right subject to equal protection challenges.
 
People of legal age should be allowed to marry whomever they want. I include polygamists, sisters who want to marry their brothers, and gay people in that.

This is an issue that shouldn't be political, just like abortion.

Is this the biggest problem in the USA today? Not at all.

Free love all around. It doesn't affect me either way.

It's amazing that many conservatives are interested in marrying their relatives and animals. I think that says a lot about conservatism.
 
It's amazing that many conservatives are interested in marrying their relatives and animals. I think that says a lot about conservatism.

And they cant get their minds out of gay's bedrooms. Like there is nothing more to them...they are not 'people' with lives, they are defined by the type of sex they have. Which is dumb because straight people have all the same types of sex. I wonder if define straight couples by their intercourse? LOL....as everyone knows, marriage tends to equate to LESS sex, lol, so they still have their heads up their asses...their arguments make no sense at all.

I wonder if they imagine every couple they see in bed...or only gays? That is sick but apparently that is what they do....that is all they see....sex.

And they call gays deviants and perverts?
 
Back
Top Bottom