• 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]

Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't really know if it violates the 14th yet, now do we?

As regards the re-institution of slavery into one of the united states, well, there is a specific amendment addressing that issue, so its not quite the same, yano? The 14th says nothing whatsoever about same sex marriage whereas the 13th did say something exlicit about ending slavery [prohibited its existence]. So maybe you might pick a slightly better example?

Some judges are making it up as they go, known as activist judges...and they are in the state supreme courts at times as well. See the Gore v Bush Florida State SC decision. And you are really dreaming regarding sound legal opinions in each case. The SCOTUS cannot even boast that.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, we don't really know if it violates the 14th yet, now do we?

As regards the re-institution of slavery into one of the united states, well, there is a specific amendment addressing that issue, so its not quite the same, yano? The 14th says nothing whatsoever about same sex marriage whereas the 13th did say something exlicit about ending slavery [prohibited its existence]. So maybe you might pick a slightly better example?

Some judges are making it up as they go, known as activist judges...and they are in the state supreme courts at times as well. See the Gore v Bush Florida State SC decision. And you are really dreaming regarding sound legal opinions in each case. The SCOTUS cannot even boast that.
Click to expand...

My example works fine because we do know it violates the 14th. Numerous judges have ruled this. Windsor set the precedent. Heightened scrutiny, a test that such a ban cannot possibly pass. You object? Ok. Provide the important state interest served by denying marriage to two people of the same gender, and describe how the measure is substantially related to that interest.

"Activist judge" is the cry of people who have no argument other than the judge ruled in a way they don't like. People with a real rebuttal will detail that rebuttal and back it up with something.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, we don't really know if it violates the 14th yet, now do we?

As regards the re-institution of slavery into one of the united states, well, there is a specific amendment addressing that issue, so its not quite the same, yano? The 14th says nothing whatsoever about same sex marriage whereas the 13th did say something exlicit about ending slavery [prohibited its existence]. So maybe you might pick a slightly better example?

Some judges are making it up as they go, known as activist judges...and they are in the state supreme courts at times as well. See the Gore v Bush Florida State SC decision. And you are really dreaming regarding sound legal opinions in each case. The SCOTUS cannot even boast that.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment doesn't require a laundry list of every conceivable law it would apply to. All that needs to be demonstrated is whether something does violate equal protection, as laws against gay marriage have repeatedly been shown to.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Boo.

Gosh, so do you think we should oppress [by that I mean even going to the point of putting them in jail] murderers?

How scary. How absurd.
Click to expand...

This post is a particularly good example of why your side of the gay marriage debate doesn't do well in court.
 
Ikari said:
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?
Click to expand...

Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan.
 
Deuce said:
You haven't read even one of the decisions that have overturned same-sex marriage bans, so keep telling yourself that, buddy.
Click to expand...

I have read them all thus far. Not worth the paper they're printed upon. I don't have to keep telling myself anything of the sort - YOU were the one that revealed you only care about the end result, the method?, not so much. The Constitution, not at all. It's only a foil to get you what you want.
 
clownboy said:
I have read them all thus far. Not worth the paper they're printed upon. I don't have to keep telling myself anything of the sort - YOU were the one that revealed you only care about the end result, the method?, not so much. The Constitution, not at all. It's only a foil to get you what you want.
Click to expand...

I feel the same about you. You've twisted the constitution to convince yourself that equal protection doesn't mean equal protection, that your disgust for homosexuality can be translated into law of the United States. That your opinions decide the rights of others.

And seriously, nobody is buying it when you claim to have read them all.
 
Deuce said:
And you, the authoritarian, would deny them the choice in the first place.
Click to expand...

What?

So removing a government authority is being authoritarian? Is your world upside down? WTF?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Boo.

Gosh, so do you think we should oppress [by that I mean even going to the point of putting them in jail] murderers?

How scary. How absurd.
Click to expand...

A murderer takes away the right to life of another human being by killing them, therefore it is justified that their rights be taken away and thrown in jail. On the contrary, a gay person does not take away the rights of other in any way. You have the right to think about them however you wish, just as they reserve the right to get married. Seeing as by getting married gays are not oppressing anybody, there is not reason they should not be allowed to.
 
Henrin said:
What?

So removing a government authority is being authoritarian? Is your world upside down?
Click to expand...

The post explains my opinion sufficiently. If you're confused, it's because you're cherry-picking one sentence and ignoring the rest of the conversation.
 
Deuce said:
I feel the same about you. You've twisted the constitution to convince yourself that equal protection doesn't mean equal protection, that your disgust for homosexuality can be translated into law of the United States. That your opinions decide the rights of others.

And seriously, nobody is buying it when you claim to have read them all.
Click to expand...

You've made a couple false assumptions. One is that I have a "disgust for homosexuality". Not true. Two that I don't believe in the principles set forth in the 14th, again, not true. And finally that my opinions decide the rights of others - that would be YOU who are guilty of that one.

You lost the constitutional argument and admitted you don't care as long as your opinion wins, as long as you get what you want. Don't try to put that on me, that's all you.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "will of the people" perhaps only counts those that count themselves. You have to have will to be considered [as having a "will"]. Similarly, if you had three empty and three glasses full of water, you wouldn't/couldn't reasonably count that as 6 glasses of water. Besides, you know what they always say about "will", where there is a will there is a way. Yes, we only count the conscious and the participating. In addition to everything else we are supposed to force them to vote? Too authoritarian for my likes, yano?

Not every contract merits consideration, much less approval, glad to say. The government and every single conscious person on the planet discriminates almost all the time every single day. I pick my powder blue polo button down over the white/cream one. We choose one over the other, we prioritize, we budget... all involving choosing, discriminating one thing over another. Not that hard to understand. And if you are a smart adult, one who has looked at things, studied things, understand consequences, unintended and intended, well... you just try to do it right. As regards government, as best we all think...

Or else there arises trouble... who needs that? Now if you want it, really want it, well thats a different story.

Things are fine until some decide to push it too far... who knows when the camel's back will eventually break...

Who knows? Only the shadow knows...
 
Henrin said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you feel the risk of divorce and the subsequent alimony is too great a risk, then don't get married. You keep going on about government's intrusion into marriage, but you keep forgetting that you're not legally obliged to get a civil marriage.
 
Deuce said:
The post explains my opinion sufficiently. If you're confused, it's because you're cherry-picking one sentence and ignoring the rest of the conversation.
Click to expand...

authoritarian -

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

So, do you really believe removing a government authority is authoritarian?
 
Deuce said:
My example works fine because we do know it violates the 14th. Numerous judges have ruled this. Windsor set the precedent. Heightened scrutiny, a test that such a ban cannot possibly pass. You object? Ok. Provide the important state interest served by denying marriage to two people of the same gender, and describe how the measure is substantially related to that interest.

"Activist judge" is the cry of people who have no argument other than the judge ruled in a way they don't like. People with a real rebuttal will detail that rebuttal and back it up with something.
Click to expand...
Besides calling you on your premature exclamation of assuredness as regards SSM, I also object to the whole thing, disagree with the test itself, no matter the result.

All just a load of lawyer-speak, attorney jive, my requirement is that it make sense to all of us, not just the ones hooked on the technicalities, nor the ones that can be bought, influenced. If the people want SSM in their own state, damn well let them have it...but let the people decide, not judges, not lawyers, not courts...maybe elected politicians, understanding that all can be written can be rewritten, can be taken back, countermanded by the electorate's choices. Pendulum is allowed to swing.

If the electorate itself does not actually get to make these broader stroke decisions, then we are all just basically slaves at the beckon call [ or for all you proper linguists out there, beck and call ] of our superiors.

Sorry, a definition of activists judges is not the one you get to make up [ an activist poster that might do that ]. Activists judges are those that make rulings suspected of being based on personal/political considerations rather than on the extant law. Those are often readily apparent [RvW].
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Besides calling you on your premature exclamation of assuredness as regards SSM, I also object to the whole thing, disagree with the test itself, no matter the result.

All just a load of lawyer-speak, attorney jive, my requirement is that it make sense to all of us, not just the ones hooked on the technicalities, nor the ones that can be bought, influenced. If the people want SSM in their own state, damn well let them have it...but let the people decide, not judges, not lawyers, not courts...maybe elected politicians, understanding that all can be written can be rewritten, can be taken back, countermanded by the electorate's choices. Pendulum is allowed to swing.

If the electorate itself does not actually get to make these broader stroke decisions, then we are all just basically slaves at the beckon call [ or for all you proper linguists out there, beck and call ] of our superiors.

Sorry, a definition of activists judges is not the one you get to make up [ an activist poster that might do that ]. Activists judges are those that make rulings suspected of being based on personal/political considerations rather than on the extant law. Those are often readily apparent [RvW].
Click to expand...

It sounds like you have an issue with the US Constitution. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The will of the people is the US Constitution, not a majority vote in any particular state. If you do not like it, you should probably find a different country.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Besides calling you on your premature exclamation of assuredness as regards SSM, I also object to the whole thing, disagree with the test itself, no matter the result.

All just a load of lawyer-speak, attorney jive, my requirement is that it make sense to all of us, not just the ones hooked on the technicalities, nor the ones that can be bought, influenced. If the people want SSM in their own state, damn well let them have it...but let the people decide, not judges, not lawyers, not courts...maybe elected politicians, understanding that all can be written can be rewritten, can be taken back, countermanded by the electorate's choices. Pendulum is allowed to swing.

If the electorate itself does not actually get to make these broader stroke decisions, then we are all just basically slaves at the beckon call [ or for all you proper linguists out there, beck and call ] of our superiors.

Sorry, a definition of activists judges is not the one you get to make up [ an activist poster that might do that ]. Activists judges are those that make rulings suspected of being based on personal/political considerations rather than on the extant law. Those are often readily apparent [RvW].
Click to expand...

Folks.

This is the Religious Right Wing at it's most potent.

Best summed up by Jon Stewart in his description of Fox News which completely describes the above post.

"Expressing anger and victimization over the loss of absolute power and reframing it as persecution of Real America by minorities, freeloaders, socialists and homosexuals".
 
this is awesome, 35 pages and theres NOTHING that says the constitution has been violated, only evidence of protecting rights, the ass whoopin going on in this thread is astounding!

its all the same arguments that were presented against women's rights, minority rights and interracial marriage.

All these arguments were debunked and eventually failed the test of history, law and rights because they were found to be illogical, unsound and mentally retarded. That was true then and that remains true today.

now the best NEW arguments is a conspiracy theory of "rogue, activist, liberal judges" LMAO these failed arguments and conspiracy theories reek of dishonesty and desperation. Nobody educate, honest and objective buys them.

Equality is winning and bigotry and or discrimination is losing. Some people simply hate the idea of others sharing thier same rights but thier meaningless feelings dont matter. People can cry about this all they want but its VERY transparent.

Is there ONE sound, logical and honest argument against gay rights when it comes to law, rights, freedom and this country? ONE?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Besides calling you on your premature exclamation of assuredness as regards SSM, I also object to the whole thing, disagree with the test itself, no matter the result.

All just a load of lawyer-speak, attorney jive, my requirement is that it make sense to all of us, not just the ones hooked on the technicalities, nor the ones that can be bought, influenced. If the people want SSM in their own state, damn well let them have it...but let the people decide, not judges, not lawyers, not courts...maybe elected politicians, understanding that all can be written can be rewritten, can be taken back, countermanded by the electorate's choices. Pendulum is allowed to swing.

If the electorate itself does not actually get to make these broader stroke decisions, then we are all just basically slaves at the beckon call [ or for all you proper linguists out there, beck and call ] of our superiors.

Sorry, a definition of activists judges is not the one you get to make up [ an activist poster that might do that ]. Activists judges are those that make rulings suspected of being based on personal/political considerations rather than on the extant law. Those are often readily apparent [RvW].
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to you? What, it's too complicated?

In an equal protection challenge, the state must justify the measure with a sufficiently powerful state interest. The state must also demonstrate the measure is done in a way related to that interest, and is not reaching beyond that interest more than is necessary.

There is no rational basis for banning same-sex marriage. Preventing two adults of the same gender from entering the contract does not further any state interest, nor does it cause harm to anyone else, or to society in general.

Your only argument is "people voted for it." As if that alone is enough to decide what someone else can or cannot do. Why do you think you have the right to make that decision for them? How on earth have you managed to convince yourself that this notion is in accordance with a nation built upon individual liberty?
 
AGENT J said:
and what do you base that on?

all these things prove you wrong

the celebration where they happen
the crying where they happen

the celebration here when it happens
the crying here when it happens

the news reports, before, during and after
Click to expand...

These are your reactions to news of such. I think at this point there are bigger issues than if Steve and Joe want to get married.
 
j-mac said:
These are your reactions to news of such. I think at this point there are bigger issues than if Steve and Joe want to get married.
Click to expand...

Then post in other threads.
 
Cardinal said:
The 14th amendment doesn't require a laundry list of every conceivable law it would apply to. All that needs to be demonstrated is whether something does violate equal protection, as laws against gay marriage have repeatedly been shown to.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the 14th simply cannot, its impossible.

Besides which, the drafters of the 14th had no way of knowing at that point in time, even after the stark raving madness of the Civil War, just how crazy some folk would become today. I think the Kinks said it well with the lyrics, "Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."

Not all of us advocate the world being near that muddled up... those that do, well, sorry, we cannot all just be forced to go along your aberrant paths. You see, we don't want what would then come next, and next after that...

And speaking of muddled, mixed up, you sure you don't want to be a bit more precise about what "does violate equal protection"? Many, many, many things specifically do not have equal protections and are not considered in violation. As well they should not. I am sure you might, if you put your thinking cap on, even think of a few examples yourself.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Exactly, the 14th simply cannot, its impossible.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's irrational to say that it doesn't "mention same sex marriage." All that's required is a demonstration that certain laws violate that protection.

Gaugingcatenate said:
Besides which, the drafters of the 14th had no way of knowing at that point in time, even after the stark raving madness of the Civil War, just how crazy some folk would become today. I think the Kinks said it well with the lyrics, "Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."

Not all of us advocate the world being near that muddled up... those that do, well, sorry, we cannot all just be forced to go along your aberrant paths. You see, we don't want what would then come next, and next after that...

And speaking of muddled, mixed up, you sure you don't want to be a bit more precise about what "does violate equal protection"? Many, many, many things specifically do not have equal protections and are not considered in violation. As well they should not. I am sure you might, if you put your thinking cap on, even think of a few examples yourself.
Click to expand...

That isn't a prelude to gun rights, is it?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
This post is a particularly good example of why your side of the gay marriage debate doesn't do well in court.
Click to expand...
You mean by having to state the obvious to activist judges to make sure they actually understand the point? Then learning later that they still didn't understand? Pretty sad, one is forced to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom