• 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 is your false premise that I have to show harm. Who do we go to if, say in 20 years, we can document the harm that has already been done? What do you pledge to fix what you have wrought upon the rest of us? What would be your remedy then? All liberals folks supporting SSM immediately leave the country they have, perhaps irreparably, damaged...leaving all their possessions in payment for the harm they have inflicted upon the rest of our society?

No, you will go merrily along finding other ways to create crevices from tiny cracks singing la la la la la when people warn of the dangers.

Tell you what.

If you promise not to get Gay married, I promise not to Eat cow balls.

That way we both get to avoid things we don't like.


Sound good?
 
Cool. We are on the same page. My 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws should not be up for a popular vote. Given that Supreme Court precedent in Loving v. Virginia found under the 14th amendment that a state had to demonstrate how a legitimate state interest is advanced before it could regulate marriage in a way that would violate my right to equal protection under the law, I look forward to hearing your argument as to what state interest is advanced.
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.
 
Tell you what.

If you promise not to get Gay married, I promise not to Eat cow balls.

That way we both get to avoid things we don't like.


Sound good?
Nah, I don't have to make such promises, you are free to go ahead and eat cow balls [ cows don't have balls you do realize, don't you...would be bull, like what you are trying to promote here ].

Sound good? No, for sounds good, I enjoy music. Ciao.
 
This has absolutely nothing to do with SSM. These families exist now and will continue to do so. THey have done so in the face of public abuse and legal discrimination. Gay families HAVE BEEN and will continue to be part of American society. They arent going anywhere.

However you CHOOSE to deny them the same benefits and legal protections that are accorded to straight couples and families. And can prove zero harm why you believe that's acceptable? blech, you make me ashamed to be a Christian. Many of these protections extend to their children.
We cannot do anything about what harm, in a free society, people may legally do to others... such as these SS families you speak in such high regard. There are also hetero couples who should not have children and we cannot prevent that either, in such a free society.

We are tolerant, perhaps often too tolerant in allowing people such legal means to hurt others, especially children. As a society, we have not figured that one out yet. A free society cannot stop all harm before it is done, it can only hope to limit that harm and work at eliminating it, if possible. Surely we DO NOT want to compound the ongoing harm.

Sorry, it was not ME alone who chooses to deny SS folk anything that they deserve. First of all, they do not deserve what you say they do, and it is our system that makes those decisions, not myself as a individual. And our society is fully within its rights to make its own rules... I know that concept seems a bit beyond you, and many others here, at times. If you read the posts in this thread, there is, and I have so indicated, harm... that this is a part of an ongoing weakening, by the liberal ideology performed through liberal policy, of many, if not all, of the solid institutions developed by a great nation for itself to preserve for its posterity...I spend a great deal of time, and have done so a large part of my life, studying history, with a growing understanding of many of its lessons.

I would say many here have rather little understanding, besides what a media driven frenzy [ ever wonder how/why that happened?] has craftily ill -informed, of just what it is, as well as the damage incurred, that you and folks that think similarly to you on this and other topics are doing to the foundations of our society. You can't see it? Study some history and remove the rose colored glasses, perhaps.

And...

You may have plenty to be ashamed of with regards to your professed Christianity without my, a non-believer in that faith, assistance. With what you express here, you seem to have removed any doubts about it.

Oh, and as a courtesy, might you keep your bodily malfunctions to yourself when posting to me in the future, please? Certainly not classy and hardly proves persuasive to folks with those higher standards that you are, presumably, hoping to convert.
 
Nothing good ever comes out of ohio i swear....Yet this appeal may result in scotus taking the case so that even shanties in alabama will be forced to allow gay weddings.
Or...

The decision just may, as it should, go the other way, remove all doubt and allow all good people to maintain those stable, traditional institutions handed down to us which have allowed us to reap the abundant bounty which surrounds us all, even those lowly termites who work to destroy it. :peace :2wave:
 
That is your false premise that I have to show harm. Who do we go to if, say in 20 years, we can document the harm that has already been done? What do you pledge to fix what you have wrought upon the rest of us? What would be your remedy then? All liberals folks supporting SSM immediately leave the country they have, perhaps irreparably, damaged...leaving all their possessions in payment for the harm they have inflicted upon the rest of our society?

No, you will go merrily along finding other ways to create crevices from tiny cracks singing la la la la la when people warn of the dangers.

You haven't warned us of any dangers.

Actual states allowance for this travesty is a rather recent occurence... or hadn't you noticed. It was BJ Clinton, democrat and liberal, that signed both DADT and DOMA, correct? What was the boob's position [ I know, I know, that could be either Barack or Joe ] on SSM in 2008...2009...2010...ummm 2011?

Yes, a pretty stark shift towards tolerance in a short time, wouldn't you say? Going from nationwide voting for constitutional amendments to a majority in favor of equality in just a decade. Equality won every vote in 2012.

You're right though. You don't have to prove any harm, any interest in denying same-sex marriage. You can keep your belief for any reason, or no reason at all. The state, however, has this burden. And it's a test they haven't been able to meet even once since Windsor. Even the head of NOM admits now that equality is coming. "There's 5 votes on the supreme court for same-sex marriage." The people who do this for a living couldn't provide an argument to defend same-sex marriage bans. The people who do this for a living realize they've lost. But you? You're confident in victory.

Or, at least, you pretend to be. :lamo
 
Or...

The decision just may, as it should, go the other way, remove all doubt and allow all good people to maintain those stable, traditional institutions handed down to us which have allowed us to reap the abundant bounty which surrounds us all, even those lowly termites who work to destroy it. :peace :2wave:

Comparing people to insects. Yeah, no disturbing historical connotations there. Earlier, you said several times "we" should have never "offered" tolerance. (as if that's what you've actually done.) What do you mean by that? What change do you think should not have been made?
 
One cannot retrieve already spilled milk. There will always be the outliers in any system, we do not have to encourage that, promote that... and we have no imperative to do so. You do not solve a problem by compounding it.

You ignore the premise...on purpose no doubt, in and effort to make your feeble argument appear stronger. It is not equating gays to pedos, et al, it is because we have no reason to tear down the strong edifice of the institution of traditional marriage, open the floodgates in which the once solid institution will then be trampled further upon by these others to which we also have no desire to allow marriage. Capiche now, do ya?

When the door has been opened in an effort to make justifiable allowances for past inequities... it is not then to be shoved, pushed further open to allow anybody and everybody, those not justifiable to go through that same door. Sorry, if the law allows/promotes that, it needs fixed. The legitimate state interest test is a farce... almost anything, especially with a further degrading of standards in our society, could eventually pass that test.

So? No single judge is not the premise. You have liberal termites gnawing away at our foundations and one termite judge finally does break through, and then you have precedent, which is hard, almost impossible if we listen to your side on such things, to walk that back. Ha ha ha....see You need to read OUR history, get a better handle on how such slippage occurs, how the damage is then solidified so more and more damage can be done.

People like you said this about interracial marriage. How's that damage going for you?
 
Of course the courts have their place... they do not, however, supersede the will of the people on fundamental cultural constructs. They can tinker at the edges, at least until they become a roadblock to the will of the people. They, because of their position, do not become the new kings who make the people's will inferior.

I would say all those laws you indicated that we would still have, and in some cases still have, did not have the majority supporting them when they were pushed to the side. There are lines to be drawn, red lines that folks do want adhered to, not the boobama style red lines. And even with all that history of injustice, that does not mean your side is right because we overcame injustice, real injustice, in the past. This is merely silliness, me me me-ness, that will fade as rapidly as it came up.

Just because you are in the minority does not in any way mean you get to make the decisions for the rest of us... that is foolishness. The Constitution, nor the courts, were meant to do that, they were meant to protect your individual rights and allow you the freedom to say what you want, not to just do anything you want. That is simply an absurd analysis of our governing framework.

One person's morals are not necessarily equivalent to another's. Newbie smarts rarely equates to the wisdom of the ages.

The court does supersede the people on any issue where there is a violation of the Constitution, even if the people believe it is a cultural issue, construct, however you wish to try to present it. Segregation was a cultural thing. Banning interracial marriage, cultural thing. The will of the slight majority of the people is always superseded by the US Constitution, and that is where the Courts come in, to ensure the Constitution is being upheld when it comes to laws enacted.

You would be wrong. Polls from the 1970s show us that the majority (around 70%) of people in the US (not just the South) were against allowing interracial marriages. Even many non-whites were (and some are still) against interracial relationships.

You are the one here who is trying to use the "me me me-ness" on this issue since you still have yet to show in anyway how same sex couples being allowed to marry would legitimately affect you or society negatively. That means that your resistance to this is merely your personal dislike of same sex couples, homosexuality.

The last sentence has to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen posted. Wisdom of the ages is constantly being improved upon. Wisdom involves understanding, not simply believing something. For a long time the "wisdom of the ages" said that the sun revolved around the Earth and that demons caused people to get sick. And morals are relative. Most people share some very basic morals, but the more specific the moral question, the more people's morals diverge. As for being equivalent, in this case, that is completely subjective. Of course you are going to think your morals are better and worth more than someone's who disagrees with yours. That doesn't make you right.
 
Counting your turkeys way before they are hatched.

As those younger currently thinking SSM is okay become adults they start thinking more clearly, like adults. They generally become more conservative. Especially after they realize the line of bull they have been force fed in school, in media and now by government... and should that not happen, wow, what a wonderfully mixed up and predictably war torn world this is soon to become. Once family stability breaks down here completely, once nobody cares much about anything worth caring about anymore, once the weakness that your side's termites are constantly eating away at our foundations to create becomes apparent to the predators out there in the world... and they are out there, waiting... well, we will see if you get to keep your cherished SSM then.

Once you have chased all the strong away, nursed the rest into being namby pambies, the nation will be ripe for the picking. Yes, no doubt in your lifetime... if the quickening pace that is apparent in just this lifetime does not slow down. That would be unfortunate, yet poetic justice.

You are wrong. Just as people very rarely change their mind back to thinking interracial marriages are wrong just because they become adults, so it goes with this issue. I am an adult myself, mid-thirties in fact. I've held the same beliefs on this issue since as long as I can remember (including arguing it in high school in the 90s). Even my Catholic mother is for same sex marriage, along with the majority of adults in my family.

The trends we have prove that everything I stated in the post you quoted me.

As for the last comments, there is much more strength to fight for others to be treated equally and change unfair laws then to try to keep laws in place that are only there for your personal beliefs.
 
That is simply an absurd and pretty naive interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework for governing.

While I appreciate your efforts, why don't you give me a list of the protected classes and where exactly those protected classes are listed as protected (specifically) in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not list a lot of things that we still have rights to.

You have no clue on constitutional law and how our laws work at all. That is obvious by your comments. I have actual law experts who can back up my assertions about the laws. Until you can show me where being a person who owes child support (Zablocki v Redhail) is a protected class (specifically mentioned in the Constitution), then you fail.
 
Similarly, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you either. Their not having it also does not affect you.

What would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing a 40 year old to marry a 7 year old? Besides your prejudices regarding age, what would be the legitimate state interest? If I wanted to marry a tree, what would be the legitimate state interest in not allowing that? What if I wanted to marry an adult chicken, or a rooster for that matter, what would be the legitimate state interest there? I can marry a woman, you want to allow me to marry a man, why cannot I marry a horse? Why not all three? What is the legitimate state interest? Matter of fact, I want to marry 73 other people all at the same time, two of them my siblings, one my parent, what would be the legitimate state interest in stopping me?

It affects others. And it could potentially affect me in the future. You have no right to tell me that I cannot marry a woman just because you don't want me to marry a woman.

The rest of those things you mention I've already addressed. They must fight their own battles. I invite them to. They will still come down to the state's interest. That would be an argument for the state to make and they've been making it quite well. Can a 7 year old legally sign a contract? Can a horse legally sign a contract? The others are more complicated but still have state interests that the state is able to articulate when challenged (whether the courts view those interests as good enough is for a future challenge). Still has nothing to do with the fact that there is no legitimate state interest in not allowing a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry another man.
 
Oh, I understand what you are saying, but you see, as a society we, many of us, don't want that kind of nothing matters above anything else sort of world. Some things aren't equal, are not meant to be equal, some things just should not be. Maybe we, as a nation, will at some point agree to allow this outrage, but not while we have the strength to support a strong nation.

Not while I can help it. ;) :peace

The law doesn't care about your beliefs or how society feels about certain things unless you are able to get enough people to deny them constitutionally unequal protection. Until that time, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection of everyone enshrined within stands.
 
Yeah, that is just flat-assed silly. That is why a court system with precedent eventually must break down, it no longer stands for anything but the sublimely bizarre, a template for the circus you folks are turning this country into.

One could laugh if it weren't so sad. And you think you are doing good, what an irony.

Complain all you want, that is how our SCOTUS works.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")

History of Equal Protection and the Levels of Review

Breakdown in the levels of scrutiny. - Free Online Library

You don't like the way our legal system and constitutional review works, tough. Attempt to change it. I doubt that will go far because most people either don't care or like it the way it is because it protects all of us.
 
How about we give it the time for many of them to actually get older before we pronounce, eh? Good lord.

We have. Or do you really believe that this issue just started in the last decade? This issue has existed for quite some time.
 
Or...

The decision just may, as it should, go the other way, remove all doubt and allow all good people to maintain those stable, traditional institutions handed down to us which have allowed us to reap the abundant bounty which surrounds us all, even those lowly termites who work to destroy it. :peace :2wave:

Yeah nothing screams "stable, traditional" like my uncle's 5th marriage or Britney's 24hr "just for fun" marriage :roll:

You heteros have already done everything possible to ruin marriage on your own. Blaming the gays only makes ya'll seem like abusive neglectful husbands....which undoubtedly many complaining the loudest are.
 
So wrong, wow, lol...

And truly, if you don't like my posts [yet you seem addicted ] just ignore them, most assuredly will not hurt my feelings...but to be so asinine as to attempt to tell me what I should do, well, shows a level of maturity that is probably a bit less than sufficient, would you not agree? If its getting to you that much that you cannot win, that you are just not that convincing, or persuasive, give it a rest.

I certainly understand you have the harder task, an uphill battle, being on the wrong side of the issue and having to defend it.

LMAO!! You really think we are on the wrong side of this issue? Remove the blinders.

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry | Freedom to Marry

Gay Marriage | Pew Research Center

"The public has gradually become more supportive of granting legal recognition to same-sex marriages over the past 15 years, with support increasing more steeply in recent years. Currently, 50% favor same-sex marriage, while 43% oppose."

And that is from last year. It has only increased since then. Our side won the last 4 votes (by the people) on this issue.
 
Actual states allowance for this travesty is a rather recent occurence... or hadn't you noticed. It was BJ Clinton, democrat and liberal, that signed both DADT and DOMA, correct? What was the boob's position [ I know, I know, that could be either Barack or Joe ] on SSM in 2008...2009...2010...ummm 2011?

Doesn't matter when people started waking up to this issue and started supporting it in major numbers. What matters is that the trend clearly shows that as soon as people realized the issue itself and realized that others are being treated unfairly under the law for nothing more than personal beliefs about homosexuality, they started realizing the laws are wrong. Many still in fact believe personally that being homosexual or having same sex relationships is a sin, but they also feel that their beliefs have no place in our laws.
 
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.

What you view as an "ill conceived purpose" is the problem. You are trying to justify your personal dislike by denying that reasonable considerations should matter when it comes to our laws and equal protection.
 
See, the idea of legitimate state interest is NOT the 14th Amendment... the idea of legitimate state interest was a kind of clever artifice, just a rather blunt tool, an instrument created/utilized to resolve specific issues. Like a certain sized wrench, it doesn't fit all repairs. Like a gun, it can be used for good and it can be used for bad. Being that we cannot stop it from existing, we do need to stop the folks who would use it for ill conceived purposes as best we can.

It is the requirement for the lowest tier of scrutiny. It is asking simply whether or not there is a rational basis for infringing on a Constitutional right.
 
You haven't warned us of any dangers.



Yes, a pretty stark shift towards tolerance in a short time, wouldn't you say? Going from nationwide voting for constitutional amendments to a majority in favor of equality in just a decade. Equality won every vote in 2012.

You're right though. You don't have to prove any harm, any interest in denying same-sex marriage. You can keep your belief for any reason, or no reason at all. The state, however, has this burden. And it's a test they haven't been able to meet even once since Windsor. Even the head of NOM admits now that equality is coming. "There's 5 votes on the supreme court for same-sex marriage." The people who do this for a living couldn't provide an argument to defend same-sex marriage bans. The people who do this for a living realize they've lost. But you? You're confident in victory.

Or, at least, you pretend to be. :lamo
One cannot provide proof of harm that has yet to come... If one were to look at whether cigarette smoking created harm before long term studies... not just snap shots in the short term... well, if we relied on JUST speculation without the data, the proof before that, it would seem smoking presented no proof of long term harm, right? So, based on your premise, cigarette smoking presents no long term harm?

What will be our remedy when you liberal folk destroy what was so carefully, and intelligently, created for us? Huh? What bond, collateral are you willing to put up now if we find, over time, that this liberal stupidity, along with all the others, is damaging to the nation? How would one calculate the damage? The use of liberal artifices to get around the will of the people is damning to the ideas of that debunked ideology. The fact that you just want what you want, no matter who it does/may hurt, a willingness to subvert the system to accomplish all that... is abhorrent to all rational good-hearted folk.

The state has a liberally/falsely created imposed burden... WE the PEOPLE, no matter how you try to slice or dice it in your favor, have full right and power to decide what OUR culture is and what it will be. All the silliness has just gone too far.

I am for what is right... and so YES, I am confident that right will win over the malicious... or all is lost anyhow. And since you folks are not concerned about the long term, you will be fought by the thinking and good every step of your foul ways. ;)

The equation of equality with this evil is rather comical, by the way...
 
Comparing people to insects. Yeah, no disturbing historical connotations there. Earlier, you said several times "we" should have never "offered" tolerance. (as if that's what you've actually done.) What do you mean by that? What change do you think should not have been made?
Wow, I cannot be held responsible for repairing an apparent failure of the educational system in however many years one may have attended... and if one is not listening or tuned into what is going on, well that is the fault of the individual, cannot lay blame on the system then...

If one does not know what an analogy is, if one cannot comprehend what it is that termites do to solid structures/foundations... if one cannot/will not allow for an advancement of a metaphoric likeness to what the liberal ideology is doing to these solid structures, gnawing away from inside and outside the institutions that have made us strong, and help in the maintenance of that strength...

Well, it would be like the futility of trying to explain mass and velocity to a 4 year old in attempting to dissuade him from running out in the street in front of an oncoming car... oh, wait, that is another analogy that perhaps is beyond the comprehension of some...

Guess some will just have to wait a few years to gain cognition, perhaps... or it may never occur... not my problem, however.

In answer to your silly question, do you know how homosexuality was thought of 30 to 40 years ago? Would you like our country to revert back to that, or would you rather enjoy the tolerance that has been extended by the overwhelmingly straight community as has been accomplished over that period? Hmmmm...?
 
Don't know if you have taken the time to observe this but

Race and gender are dissimilar, not the exact same, just as the decisions are dissimilar. So your exactness argument relies upon a complete misunderstanding of the differences between race and gender.

Re: gender not mattering---- That is your opinion and you are surely welcome to harbor it. I certainly cannot seem to disabuse you of such false notions.

You truly know very very very little about me and my circumstances... so while all people can have their own opinions about such, you can apply the rule about everybody having opinions here. So to speak of what is beneficial or not to me, when you haven't the first clue, well...
and...We are not guaranteed outcomes, blarg, equality under the law, however we chose ultimately to construe that, will be our destiny or our fate. Not everybody is going to be happy with the outcome, and the fight will no doubt continue.

As for the last of your facile attempts, see above.

every one knows race and gender are not the same but your argument that people are not being discriminated against because they have to only go with certain gender combinations is the same the exact same kind of argument

their is no misundesnting nether race nor gender have any bearing on marriage

there is no requirement for a marriage that cant be meat by any combination of races or genders

as saying no one is discrmininated against by a ban on interracial marriage because they can marry some one of the same race
 
Last edited:
People like you said this about interracial marriage. How's that damage going for you?
People like me? People like me said nothing of the sort, thought nothing of the sort. It was people like you were sitting on the sidelines and waiting for the outcome and then jumped on the bandwagon after all the work had been done.
 
I often wonder just where "the state" got the authority to sanction marriage in the first place. But, I'll tell you a little story, My wife and I celebrated our 25th last summer with friends and family. When we were first married, we went to the Catholic priest to get married in the church. As this was my 2nd marriage, and the first was to a Lutheran woman, and done in a Lutheran church. The Catholic priest would not marry us. We ended up getting married by a JoP at the court house, and this is one of the reasons that I, or my wife have not been "Catholic's" since, even though both of us were raised Catholic.

her example would be more like if the church could choose to marry you 2 or not in a ceremony but your marriage would not be legal and you could not have gone down to the court house
 
Back
Top Bottom