• 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]

That does of course leave the Ultimate Courts of the land, the Federal system, to rule on any state constitutional amendment or provision.

it is of some note that when the CONs, such as they are, controlled both Houses and the Oval Office there was no serious attempt to put a 'defense of marriage' amendment or outright ban on same sex marriage in the Federal Constitution. best effort was a federal law.


Actually there have been many "serious" attempts to ban SSCM in the COTUS -->>Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Just because it didn't pass doesn't mean that those that submitted them weren't serious.


>>>>
 
A very interesting and very warped view of what is happening. Government authority is being ROLLED back, not extended. The extension has already occurred when STATE governments banned gay marriage or 'defended' the definition of marriage to exclude same sex.

People are wanting this Government over reach rolled back and the Government to return to the more bureaucratic side of marriage- the issuance of licenses and acknowledgement of the same rights as any other married couple.

In this case, the ban was against the governments interest as allowing more parties to take part in government marriage rewards them more control over the relationships of people, and because of this, overturning the ban in fact expanded the governments authority far more than it decreased it. However, it is true that the ban itself was an unacceptable level of government power, but when measured against what they gained I can not argue that they didn't come out of it with more power.
 
That does of course leave the Ultimate Courts of the land, the Federal system, to rule on any state constitutional amendment or provision.

it is of some note that when the CONs, such as they are, controlled both Houses and the Oval Office there was no serious attempt to put a 'defense of marriage' amendment or outright ban on same sex marriage in the Federal Constitution. best effort was a federal law.
Yes it does allow them to rule. And to overrule a former SC in case they get it wrong, as they did in Plessy v Ferguson. So stay tuned.

Your point regarding "CONs"? BTW, they were not all Conservatives, most of them, they were Republicans. The two terms are not synonymous, Republican can be interpreted to be on a spectrum from rather conservative, socially, fiscally or both, all the way to being pretty damned liberal, depending on the issue.

My view of your point? You just wanted to use CONs in an implied derogatory manner and say something that most of us all already know... but that has little, if any, significance.
 
And well, I stick by my "words", my "contention", my "interpretation". I submit all those come from being a sentient being understanding the English language and grammar. A study of our history, government, the Constitution itself doesn't hurt, either.

The law of the land is our fine Constitution.

Now I will ask the requisite opposing question, where does the 14th say that it is an expansion of rights beyond those under the current law? If there are no laws in limitation of a right... the right is already expanded. Capiche?

So, just where is your concrete example that I requested that you have somehow completely forgotten to provide? You obviously contend that they exist, so please elucidate... or we will have to assume this to be one tilting at windmills.

If you understand the Constitution as you say you do...you would have never asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights. The 14th amendment and the constitutional as a whole is used as judicial reasoning for such decisions. Precedent.

Any future law can be ajudicated using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning to allow or strike down that law. Precedent.

Any right afforded in the future, will use the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment- as well as others- as the court's judicial reasoning to afford those rights. Precedent.

230+ years of American jurisprudence...precedent.
 
Who cares anymore? I mean honestly, the moment this issue comes up now, people tune out....

And yet you post in every freaking one of these threads!
 
Actually there have been many "serious" attempts to ban SSCM in the COTUS -->>Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just because it didn't pass doesn't mean that those that submitted them weren't serious.

Wasteful yes, serious no... the Senate never considered the amendment, the House never approved it, falling 54 votes short. Serious would have at the very least had both Houses voting for the Bill with the House passing it.

2002, no action taken
2003, different wording in a few places no action taken
2004, same bill failed in the House, never was heard in the Senate
2005/6 same bill again failed in house, never heard in the Senate

I guess you see this as serious... I see it as wasteful effort pandering to a CON base.
 
It will be up to them to make the challenge and present their legal arguments in court. Such arguments will prevail or fail on their own merits. Some seem to thing that becaues A happens, then that means the B can't have other issues involved which preclude their ability to prevail.

There are a number of arguments against Bigamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.

There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
  1. 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
  2. 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
  3. 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.


However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...

Then take it to 74 spouses.

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>
Agreed, now we are on similar pages regarding same structure arguments. They have to be proven on their own merits, cannot just be utilized solely because the same, or related, arguments were successful in some other case.

And...


Oh come on, where is the humanity to those objections...

Besides, I inherited oil and gas interests from my grandfather, he along with many others had a divided interest in this. I now own, I think it is, a 372nd interest, or some such, as do all my siblings...as do the apparently 371 others who have similarly inherited these almost worthless assets. The company to which these were leased must keep up with this ongoing mess. So this complexity and the necessity to keep up with it is already out there multiplying. That said, why would we deny all these fine folks the right to be married together based on some perceived notion that it will just be too dang complex? Love conquers all, right?

Besides, you did let those others have their way, so come on, we have super computers to figure all that complexity out. You just don't want to allow it. Are you a polygamaphobe, oops sorry, excuse me, bigamaphobe or something?

Let me also say that I do, however, appreciate the effort to which you have proven willing to make and compliment you on this wholeheartedly. Too few here actually want to debate. We may not ever agree on the topic, but I do hold the effort you have shown in high regard.
 
In this case, the ban was against the governments interest as allowing more parties to take part in government marriage rewards them more control over the relationships of people, and because of this, overturning the ban in fact expanded the governments authority far more than it decreased it. However, it is true that the ban itself was an unacceptable level of government power, but when measured against what they gained I can not argue that they didn't come out of it with more power.

No it was the government at one level removing the ability of a government at another level to ban marriage for individuals. You act as if the government isn't we the people, I understand the Libertarian slant on it but for the rest of us, and we are many, it is simple removing government over reach and an unconstitutional prohibition on a group of taxpayers.

People gain more power, out from under the State boot
 
Yes it does allow them to rule. And to overrule a former SC in case they get it wrong, as they did in Plessy v Ferguson. So stay tuned. Your point regarding "CONs"? BTW, they were not all Conservatives, most of them, they were Republicans. The two terms are not synonymous, Republican can be interpreted to be on a spectrum from rather conservative, socially, fiscally or both, all the way to being pretty damned liberal, depending on the issue. My view of your point? You just wanted to use CONs in an implied derogatory manner and say something that most of us all already know... but that has little, if any, significance.

Your POV on my use of the term CON is noted, do you have the same view and have made the same comments on CONs using libtard and the like? :confused:

My point is the CONs as the GOP loves to paint themselves when pandering for votes, have been unable to push a Federal Amendment on Marriage. The door has been left open for the Federal court to hear and declare STATE amendments as unconstitutional and therefore get the CONs at the state level out of restricting people they don't like rights.
 
Sounds as though you are right, you did not understand the question.

If there is an amendment to a Constitution one cannot simply change it by passing a law or by the State Supreme Court saying it is unconstitutional if the amendment was passed and ratified legally. The amendment would change that state's Constititution and the Supreme Court would be obliged to maintain the integrity of the law/amendment under the new framework created by the amendment. State Supreme Courts are not the Federal Supreme Court, the SCOTUS has yet to decide if such laws are Constitutional.

One usually must, depending on that state's constitution, repeal an amendment through the means agreed upon under that Constitution. A state Supreme Court is not allowed to just change things as they may want them to be, they are guided by the law and the state constitution.

For instance, under the US Constitution we had an amendment, #18, which prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol...which was repealed by passing the 21st amendment allowing the resumption of those activities. That was a legit manner of repeal of an amendment.

So, were the over-turnings of SSM/CU bans and definitions of marriage amendments accomplished through the proper means?

And yes, I was/am aware that some may have been only statutory and some were amendments.

You are mistaken. State Supreme Courts are still bound by the Federal Constitution, and state constitutions are similarly bound. If it violates the 14th amendment, it's unconstitutional and a judge at the state level is still bound to overturn it. They have no obligation to wait for a Federal judge to do it. A state constitutional amendment absolutely can be overturned by a state judge if it violates the US constitution. Imagine if Ohio passed an amendment to reinstate slavery. You're telling me you believe a state court would have to just throw up their hands and say "Welp, can't do anything about it!"

Yes, these are the proper means. These guys do this for a living, they're not just making things up as they go. And their legal arguments are sound, based on existing precedent and law.
 
Last edited:
No it was the government at one level removing the ability of a government at another level to ban marriage for individuals. You act as if the government isn't we the people, I understand the Libertarian slant on it but for the rest of us, and we are many, it is simple removing government over reach and an unconstitutional prohibition on a group of taxpayers.

People gain more power, out from under the State boot

The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.
 
The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.

It's a contract that establishes legal kinship. It establishes certain property rights, child custody, medical power of attorney. It empowers me in all sorts of things. It protects me from being compelled to testify against my spouse. Spousal communications are assumed to be confidential in a legal proceeding. Yes, this furthers my rights, not the states. And the process is 100% voluntary. The idea that marriage erodes my freedom is absurd.

The idea that someone else's marriage erodes my freedom is just beyond stupid.
 
It's a contract that establishes legal kinship. It establishes certain property rights, child custody, medical power of attorney. It empowers me in all sorts of things. It protects me from being compelled to testify against my spouse. Spousal communications are assumed to be confidential in a legal proceeding. Yes, this furthers my rights, not the states. And the process is 100% voluntary. The idea that marriage erodes my freedom is absurd.

Is that why more young people today consider marriage a net loss and the risks not worth the reward? How is those alimony laws working out for ya?
 
The idea that someone else's marriage erodes my freedom is just beyond stupid.

I was talking about the people involved.
 
The government isn't we the people. The people are those governed by the government, while the government is those that govern the people. Exactly how is having the government further involved in the relationships of people actually remove people from under the governments boot? Yes, the ban was an overreach of government, but to suggest government marriage is not an overreach is foolish.

If the people had no say in who is in government you MAY have a point, but I refer you to the opening line of our Constitution... "We the People of the United States..."

What the Federal level is doing is removing a state level over reach. Your Libertarian POV is noted, however is a minority view on the role of Government in marriage. There are a variety of legal benefits to marriage a class of people are denied under the current ban on SSM. This simply removes that boot on Same Sex folks wanting what the rest of us have- the government isn't picking my pocket to give SSM folks the same legal standing.

The idea of a government marriage isn't the issue, it is the legal status of SSM folks in forming a life together. Your Libertarian sensibilities maybe offended that a society embraces the idea of marriage as both a emotional and legal bonding... but the 'fix' is easy enough for you.... don't get married, just live together... :peace
 
Scary.

So We, you know, the People, do not get to decide what is acceptable and not in our own culture anymore? Judicial tyrants decide that for us now, do they?

Scary.
Its scary that you think that it is acceptable to oppress a group of people based on your beliefs.
 
If you understand the Constitution as you say you do...you would have never asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights. The 14th amendment and the constitutional as a whole is used as judicial reasoning for such decisions. Precedent.

Any future law can be ajudicated using the 14th amendment as judicial reasoning to allow or strike down that law. Precedent.

Any right afforded in the future, will use the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment- as well as others- as the court's judicial reasoning to afford those rights. Precedent.

230+ years of American jurisprudence...precedent.
Here is the pertinent text of the 14th

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.

Now, using the text of the amendment, and not all the mumbo jumbo camouflage that you were attempting above, show me where the 14th entitles/guarantees any group that so decides an expansion of their privileges or immunities. It doesn't.

Oh, and please point out to me where I, as you state, "...asked where in the constitution does it allow for an expansion of rights." Please do not state that I said something I did not say. I may even agree with it, but if I so desire to say so, I will say so in my own words, thank you.

Also, still waiting on that pesky and, apparently, illusive example of the expansion of rights that the 14th legitimately allows. As I said, I am open to convincing, you just have not proven very convincing so far.
 
If the people had no say in who is in government you MAY have a point, but I refer you to the opening line of our Constitution... "We the People of the United States..."

What the Federal level is doing is removing a state level over reach. Your Libertarian POV is noted, however is a minority view on the role of Government in marriage. There are a variety of legal benefits to marriage a class of people are denied under the current ban on SSM. This simply removes that boot on Same Sex folks wanting what the rest of us have- the government isn't picking my pocket to give SSM folks the same legal standing.

The idea of a government marriage isn't the issue, it is the legal status of SSM folks in forming a life together. Your Libertarian sensibilities maybe offended that a society embraces the idea of marriage as both a emotional and legal bonding... but the 'fix' is easy enough for you.... don't get married, just live together... :peace

My objection is that anyone that signs the marriage license is under the control of the state. People might argue there is benefits to it, but those benefits can be taken away whenever the government finds it in their interest. The government can also add whatever condition they might feel is worth their while, like alimony, whenever it suits them. Any sort of agreement of this sort has the same problem; in that, the people that sign the agreement have no recourse and no protection from changes in the deal. A business license for example essentially puts the property of individuals under the complete control of the state, and there is no legal rights left to those individuals to argue their property rights are being violated. All government contracts work on this same basic principle, while a private contract has set terms that need agreement by all parties to be changed. I strongly object to this sort of control being under the command of the state no matter if it is the relationships of people or anything else.
 
Nonsense. There is a hundred years of judicial precedent and a sound constitutional argument for my side. You've elected to pretend they don't exist, but that's your problem and not mine.

No there's not, once again, you proved by your own words that you care nothing for constitution or anything other than winning at any cost. The pretense has not been mine.
 
Your POV on my use of the term CON is noted, do you have the same view and have made the same comments on CONs using libtard and the like? :confused:

My point is the CONs as the GOP loves to paint themselves when pandering for votes, have been unable to push a Federal Amendment on Marriage. The door has been left open for the Federal court to hear and declare STATE amendments as unconstitutional and therefore get the CONs at the state level out of restricting people they don't like rights.
Never have used, except in this case right here, "libtard". While that may be a somewhat apt term [ i don't use retard either, however ] for many on that side of the political spectrum... and while I am not above such descriptions [for example I use boobama..or just the boob, and other such regularly], I usually only use perhaps similar perjoratives when someone on the other side provokes such. I generally use the likes of "the libs" which is meant only a shortening of the term "the liberals", but which, solely by it own merit, or lack of it, is considered a disparagement [not my fault].

So, guilty in some ways, I am sure.

As regards what the Republicans have and have not been able to accomplish an amendment defining marriage, there are myriad reasons why there has not be a greater push, one of which is that we generally think this kind of thing is not an area for federal intrusion, states can make their own decisions. Yet, with all the end runs, the activists judges, the name calling and subterfuge the other side is willing to use and the depths to which they will sink to getting this travesty passed, well, it may take that.

We conservatives are about CONserving the union, not destroying it.
 
If the people had no say in who is in government you MAY have a point, but I refer you to the opening line of our Constitution... "We the People of the United States..."

It's a matter of fact of who is in command. Your argument is like saying that the solders of a unit are the commanders of that unit. It's foolish nonsense that must ignore the hierarchy that is clearly present.

What the Federal level is doing is removing a state level over reach. Your Libertarian POV is noted, however is a minority view on the role of Government in marriage. There are a variety of legal benefits to marriage a class of people are denied under the current ban on SSM. This simply removes that boot on Same Sex folks wanting what the rest of us have- the government isn't picking my pocket to give SSM folks the same legal standing.

I have had people from all over the political spectrum agree with me on this point, and it would appear that the more time that passes the more people that agree with me. Of course, a great deal of that has more to do with marriage becoming less popular, but the point remains, that it is not only libertarians that agree with me.

The idea of a government marriage isn't the issue, it is the legal status of SSM folks in forming a life together. Your Libertarian sensibilities maybe offended that a society embraces the idea of marriage as both a emotional and legal bonding... but the 'fix' is easy enough for you.... don't get married, just live together... :peace

Don't worry, I have no plans to get married. I do however have to avoid common law marriage states to make your plan workable.
 
Yes, we understand the above is your opinion. Many of these bans, or in many cases only a statement of what is considered in the culture to be rightful marriage, has been through the arduous paces of becoming an amendment. That is an indication of the common will...a willingness to jump through all the hoops necessary, deliberately and persistently enough to become a solid declaration of the citizen's will.

You see, We the People are still sovereign... we only give our consent to be governed... the will of the people to decide their own culture should not denied...sorry we need to disagree on that.

How is that "will of the people"? Over half the voting populace doesn't vote in the first place. It's perhaps will of about 1/4 of the people.

Regardless, ever since government usurped marriage and created the marriage license, marriage has become government issued and recognized contract. The individual has right to contract and the government may not discriminate. As such, SSM is properly allowed.
 
We conservatives are about CONserving the union, not destroying it.

Or expanding our government aggressively against the rights and liberties of the People, growing imperial wars, pandering to corporate interest, etc.

Conserving the union. That's rich. When was the last time any Republocrat was interested in that?
 
Is that why more young people today consider marriage a net loss and the risks not worth the reward? How is those alimony laws working out for ya?

And you, the authoritarian, would deny them the choice in the first place.
 
No there's not, once again, you proved by your own words that you care nothing for constitution or anything other than winning at any cost. The pretense has not been mine.

You haven't read even one of the decisions that have overturned same-sex marriage bans, so keep telling yourself that, buddy.
 
Back
Top Bottom