• 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]

1750Texan said:
That is not culture. Those rights belong to all. All cultures.

You need to redefine your undersanding of "culture".

Your "culture" is no more deserving of constiutionally protected rights that any other...
Click to expand...
We, Americans, our majority... the owners here, yano?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Say JB [ since we are making up ridiculous scenarios], at age 16, was having sex with "consenting" 16-17, perhaps even 15, year old girls on the stage with the prearranged consent of all the concerned 'adult" parents, both those of participants and the audience...should that be illegal?

I don't even want to know... you see, there should be some semblance of national lucidity in knowing that we should not even have to approach certain limits... and the cast iron confidence that if the people do decide certain limits, these limits should be able to be openly declared... and have our government dignify them with the upholding of these limits.
Click to expand...

The judge who ruled in this case agreed with that exact principle. Perhaps you should READ the ruling so you know what you are commenting about.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We, Americans, our majority... the owners here, yano?
Click to expand...

The will of the people is not a majority vote in Michigan. The will of the people is the US Constitution. It is literally spelled out "We the people..."
 
Ontologuy said:
The majority of people in MI voted to amend their constitution to disallow the ridiculous oxymoronic "gay marriage", 59 - 41 percent.

Clearly the marjority there didn't care less -- they cared more.

The same in every state that enacted a voter approved ban on "gay marriage": the majority of the people cared more.

Where the states blew it, somewhat so to speak, was in not realizing that political ideology in power would one day, as sadly usual, trump majority rule, and these states would have done well to also enact at that time a civil union domestic partnership law similar to the civil union domestic partnership law called "marriage", only calling it "homarriage" or the like specifically for same-sex couples, same-sex couples who are, obviously, unqualified for the "marriage" statute civil union domestic partnership as they are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife" that marriage is.

Money isn't everything.

Humanity has historically spent much money righting wrongs.

Fighting against the tyranny of the minority, the minority of those who would want "gay marriage" for themselves and their temporarily-in-power ideological power abusers supporting the disaffected coalition, is simply one of the ways humanity spends money to fight wrong doers and right wrongs.
Click to expand...

The majority in MI are uneducated hicks. Believe me, i grew up around them. This was also 10 years ago. They should be grateful to not be placed in the deepest darkest dungeon for this abuse of their fellow citizens. I can only laugh at the bigot voters on this day
 
Redress said:
So you do not know how EPC works or levels of review. Not surprising.
Click to expand...
Very very informative post...I mean, notwithstanding the omission of having any information actually included....so, perhaps you might elucidate for us a tad... you know, for the ill- and under- informed masses out here?
 
ecofarm said:
A tyrant lacks the perspective provided by millions and thus will always make an inferior decision.
Click to expand...

So we should just trash the US Constitution for mob rule? Popularism should override Constitutional rights and everything and anything should be put to a popular vote?
 
ecofarm said:
A tyrant lacks the perspective provided by millions and thus will always make an inferior decision.
Click to expand...

Disagree, this country is chock full of disgraceful majority-approved "black codes," anti-gay laws, name your minority. "Millions" only enables/results from hysteria
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
We, Americans, our majority... the owners here, yano?
Click to expand...

These are your words.

So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore...
Click to expand...

Your own words are contradictory. Which is it?

Are you the "We the people" that are in control of this nation...or are you the "We the people" that no longer have a voice in this nation's decisions?
 
CriticalThought said:
So we should just trash the US Constitution for mob rule? Popularism should override Constitutional rights and everything and anything should be put to a popular vote?
Click to expand...

What idiot told you that?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Very very informative post...I mean, notwithstanding the omission of having any information actually included....so, perhaps you might elucidate for us a tad... you know, for the ill- and under- informed masses out here?
Click to expand...

The MMA did not reasonably stand up to even the lowest tier if scrutiny. The judge found no reasonable state interest that is served by the ban and explicitly went through all four arguments offered by the state and explained precisely why those arguments were found unreasonable. Can you point out which specific argument in the ruling you did not agree with and how the judge was mistaken in their reasoning? Or do you care so little about it as to actually take the time to read the ruling?
 
chromium said:
Disagree, this country is chock full of disgraceful majority-approved "black codes," anti-gay laws, name your minority. "Millions" only enables/results from hysteria
Click to expand...

Do you understand that any problem has many facets that can only be viewed by various perspectives and that those perspectives, combined, provide the most objective view of the problem.

If one can grasp this, then one can understand the short-coming of a "benevolent tyrant".
 
CriticalThought said:
I am sorry you do not like the US Constitution and the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
Neither the 14th amendment or anything else in the U.S. constitution supports the oxymoronic "gay marriage" any more than it supports forcing dog owners to let cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show.

What the constitution supports is preventing dog-owners from banning cat-owners from having cat shows, and, analogously likewise, preventing states from not allowing same-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "homarriage" or the like for same-sex couples as states have allowed opposite-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "marriage".

You misunderstand the entire issue.
 
1750Texan said:
I would be embarrased to call myself a "conservative"...a conservator of American Ideals and rights and make this statement.
Click to expand...
While I am sure this would not staunch the gush of other reasons in which one might have good reason to be embarrassed, one just might try reading the wording in the context of which the argument was presented.

Yeah, I know, blah blah blah, that seems lost as a cause and so good luck to all that have to ask it be explained. I have taken a silent pledge not to dumb down responses.
 
1750Texan said:
I read your words.



What other possible meanings could they have?
Click to expand...

Obviously I meant having the government involved in whatever was legalized. Liberals aren't interested in people being free, but only the most effective way to control people.
 
chromium said:
The majority in MI are uneducated hicks. Believe me, i grew up around them. This was also 10 years ago. They should be grateful to not be placed in the deepest darkest dungeon for this abuse of their fellow citizens. I can only laugh at the bigot voters on this day
Click to expand...
So basically your fellow humans who vote against you don't deserve to have their vote respected, so you get to call them names and deride them. :roll:

Your attitude in this regard is what conservatives deride as "liberal arrogance", and will be a likely contributing factor to the Republican takeover of the Senate very soon.

The majority of Americans are tired of liberal activist judges and the ideologically alike in power thwarting the will of the majority of the people, then calling the majority names, adding insult to injury.
 
ecofarm said:
What idiot told you that?
Click to expand...

That was the logical conclusion of your words. You appear to be claiming a majority vote in Michigan should override the rights assured by the US Constitution, namely Equal Protection of the laws as assured by the 14th amendment. You do know this is a court ruling with specific arguments and reasoning, right? You should probably actually read the ruling so you know what you are arguing against instead of doing the lazy "judicial tyranny" thing. Your words come off sounding awfully silly to those who are actually informed.
 
chromium said:
You, "the people," are not qualified to dictate how people like me live, no. I'd take an educated "judicial tyrant" making that decision every time.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt but that you would want such "educated" tyranny, as long as it fit with the tyranny you desired...

You are aware that there are other countries out there that are already like that? One is always free to vote with the feet. Well, at least you are free to do that until you arrive at those kind of countries with judicial tyranny.

But you also know that with the invention of cars, jets and ships, access to these "utopias" are much easier nowadays.
 
Ontologuy said:
So basically your fellow humans who vote against you don't deserve to have their vote respected, so you get to call them names and deride them. :roll:

Your attitude in this regard is what conservatives deride as "liberal arrogance", and will be a likely contributing factor to the Republican takeover of the Senate very soon.

The majority of Americans are tired of liberal activist judges and the ideologically alike in power thwarting the will of the majority of the people, then calling the majority names, adding insult to injury.
Click to expand...

This judge was truly respectful in commenting on the majority and their intentions...which you would know had you read the ruling.
 
CriticalThought said:
That was the logical conclusion of your words.
Click to expand...

No, that's the moronic extreme of my words.

Your words come off sounding awfully silly to those who are actually informed.
Click to expand...

Your words come off sounding downright stupid; you run someone's point to an extreme in order to defeat the strawman you create. You're not really debating anyone, you're just spewing crap.
 
Ontologuy said:
Neither the 14th amendment or anything else in the U.S. constitution supports the oxymoronic "gay marriage" any more than it supports forcing dog owners to let cat-owners enter their cats in a dog show.

What the constitution supports is preventing dog-owners from banning cat-owners from having cat shows, and, analogously likewise, preventing states from not allowing same-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "homarriage" or the like for same-sex couples as states have allowed opposite-sex domestic partnership civil unions called "marriage".

You misunderstand the entire issue.
Click to expand...

Tell me where specifically in this ruling you disagreed with the judge's application of the 14th amendment. Please quote the actual ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom