• 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]

Gaugingcatenate said:
Everybody within US jurisdiction is Constitutionally protected under the 14th... so I would suppose same sex couples are protected under the 14th just about as much as two 12 year olds wanting to marry, especially if groups of 12 year olds and their advocates had been pushing this silliness as long as homosexuals have been pushing theirs.
Click to expand...

And the 14th allows for states to give justification as to why a law is in place if the state can show a legitimate state interest is furthered by having a certain law in place, as they can when it comes to 12 year olds being treated differently from adults. That is how the law actually works. I realize that it doesn't work with your personal bias against gays, but that is how it is. This is considered reasonable by a majority of people. Otherwise the 14th really would be a useless Amendment because a state could simply say "yes, we treat everyone the same in this way" or it would be an Amendment that overturned most of our laws because almost every law treats someone differently than someone else.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you have to have a reason and not just because you're the majority.

And no, I don't think you do understand the Constitution. We're talking about laws and not elections. You seem confused.
Click to expand...
In other words, you cannot verify what you claimed to be true in the Constitution, thus confirming my claim to be a bit more knowledgeable about the document than many, if not most, here, eh?

and....OMG, we are talking about changing our entire culture, our long lasting and working primary institution of marriage... so we are talking elections, laws, the people's will, the whole gamut my friend. As stated previously, when selling the Constitution and the idea of federal supremacy in only certain, enumerated, areas, it was understood by the framers that the federal government may overstep... and this is what Hamilton had to say,

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

That is showing a complete understanding, by Hamilton who was perhaps one of the strongest advocates of a strong central government, of just who is the real power behind the throne. WE, THE PEOPLE.

Class over. ;)
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So that would mean anybody that is not married could sue who, the Federal government, if they are not married? Would that not be an undeniable denial of one's civil rights?
Click to expand...

Just as in most rights, you don't get to sue if you choose not to exercise a right. Would a person who didn't vote be able to sue the federal government for them choosing not to vote? Would a person who is an atheist be able to sue the federal government for them choosing not to have a religion? Would someone who chooses not to own a gun be able to sue the federal government, or really even the state governments, for them choosing not to own a gun? A person doesn't have to exercise their rights to still be entitled to do so later when they may choose to do so.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
No. Yes we can, yes you did and you can thank me, not just because I say so but because it is so, no ... you were still way off wrong about preclusion, there is sufficient equality in marriage currently, I and sufficient others so far are not for opening up a right to those who do not merit it... yes.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that, it may be delusion, but then again some people hate reality.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Sorry, but you seem completely unaware of much of anything of which you speak.
Click to expand...
But you speak of nothing meaningful or relevant. It is obvious that the Constitution, legal principles and reality are far beyond your grasp.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
As I said regarding polls, except for election polls...well, you can go back and read it yourself...

However, where are all those conservative pollsters you were so confidently bandying about, yet I note that you are not here citing...??
Click to expand...

Election "polls" are pointless when it comes to gauging what support a position does or does not have when elections only occur every couple of years, if that. As I've said before, using the results of a vote, especially from years ago, to attempt to claim a majority is stupid because it is a snapshot poll at only a single point in history of how a small group of people felt about that issue at that particular point in time. Since that vote, there has many any number of changes to the makeup and even mindset of the population. People died. People became of age to vote. People changed their minds. And on the issue of same sex marriage, all those things favor support for same sex marriage.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh its been said plenty of times from our side...If the majority of the people don't want it as a part of our culture, we have no need to allow it. That is more than legal, it is the will of the people, we being the ultimate sovereigns here.

Just when are you referencing that I brought up pedophiles... not that it isn't a "valid" argument? Just because its useful, applicable and effective... and you don't like it does not make an argument against it. But you can cry about it and tears might get you sympathy from some quarters.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You live in the US. The ultimate sovereign of the US is the US Constitution because it limits the government, and therefore the people, on in their will when it comes to law. You could claim that the supermajority of the people is the ultimate sovereign here when they choose to enact a change/Amendment to the Constitution. And the Constitution promises equal protection to all and that has been interpreted to mean the state has to show a law furthers a legitimate state interest when challenged, even if the law is the "will of the people".
 
roguenuke said:
And the 14th allows for states to give justification as to why a law is in place if the state can show a legitimate state interest is furthered by having a certain law in place, as they can when it comes to 12 year olds being treated differently from adults. That is how the law actually works. I realize that it doesn't work with your personal bias against gays, but that is how it is. This is considered reasonable by a majority of people. Otherwise the 14th really would be a useless Amendment because a state could simply say "yes, we treat everyone the same in this way" or it would be an Amendment that overturned most of our laws because almost every law treats someone differently than someone else.
Click to expand...
You do not have the ability to just deem what the majority thinks on this, most have never ever even been aware of what this concept is that you are talking about, so we are assured that your statement is a complete and utter prevarication... you may think it true, but you are not the representative of our people.

And yes, I think in many ways we need a revisiting of what the 14th means vs what is was supposed to mean and put in its proper limits, just like our most cherished freedom, that of free speech, has its own limits. The 14th was never intended to be strained to accommodate the silliness of which your personal bias may desire to push down the rest of our throats...

We don't treat everyone the same way, a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday is treated differently than someone who has achieved 18 years... there is no real difference in one day...or a week, perhaps a year, maybe even more depending on each individual... so using one's individual rights under the 14th, we should do away with such arbitrariness, correct?

You see, it starts to get to the height of ridiculousness to think that society may not just establish certain lines and maintain them for the reasons they see fit.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yup, always glad to make a public service announcement so that those who might feel this, or a similar penchant, are fully warned...that being for any and all sexual preferences, so do not get that hang dog look and make like it was just aimed just at you or your particular preference [ which I don't know and don't care about].

If we open this whole marriage thing up, YOU KNOW [even if you don't know, many of us do ] there will be these type folks out there trying, maybe someday succeeding with the way your side is quickly taking down proper standards and lowering the bar ... that was the message, and since it seems you could not put this specific two and two together properly, it was good that you asked. So, yes, glad we got that all cleared up. ;)
Click to expand...

People can bring their arguments to court, as it should be. That is what the courts are for, to determine if someone is really being treated unequally and why they are if it is true.
 
roguenuke said:
Wrong. You live in the US. The ultimate sovereign of the US is the US Constitution because it limits the government, and therefore the people, on in their will when it comes to law. You could claim that the supermajority of the people is the ultimate sovereign here when they choose to enact a change/Amendment to the Constitution. And the Constitution promises equal protection to all and that has been interpreted to mean the state has to show a law furthers a legitimate state interest when challenged, even if the law is the "will of the people".
Click to expand...
My god, that is just an idiotic and subversive statement of voluntary ignorance and, ultimately, of subjugation. While the court in many instances, to maintain order, will no doubt and should be obeyed, when they overstep their limited commission, it is our right and duty to put them back in their place. See the Hamilton quote above. This is a part of the deal, breach of the deal may well mean lots of misery and unnecessary suffering.

The 13th amendment, you might do well to remember, did away with slavery, madam. I certainly do not intend to be a slave, sounds like you are willing. Subservience, when one is the genuine master, is just plain dumb.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
You do not have the ability to just deem what the majority thinks on this, most have never ever even been aware of what this concept is that you are talking about, so we are assured that your statement is a complete and utter prevarication... you may think it true, but you are not the representative of our people.

And yes, I think in many ways we need a revisiting of what the 14th means vs what is was supposed to mean and put in its proper limits, just like our most cherished freedom, that of free speech, has its own limits. The 14th was never intended to be strained to accommodate the silliness of which your personal bias may desire to push down the rest of our throats...

We don't treat everyone the same way, a 17 year old the day before their 18th birthday is treated differently than someone who has achieved 18 years... there is no real difference in one day...or a week, perhaps a year, maybe even more depending on each individual... so using one's individual rights under the 14th, we should do away with such arbitrariness, correct?

You see, it starts to get to the height of ridiculousness to think that society may not just establish certain lines and maintain them for the reasons they see fit.
Click to expand...

IF the majority did not approve of the way our courts do business when it comes to constitutional law, including judicial review and/or scrutiny in relation to the 14th Amendment, then they are free to change that through Amendment. Until that point, then the people either don't care enough or agree with how it is done.

We don't treat everyone the same, and that is the point. In how you are trying to use the 14th, without states being able to justify treating 16 year olds different than 18 year olds, then they would have to be treated the same. Why aren't they? Why are states allowed to treat 17/15/16 year olds differently than 18 year olds? Please enlighten us all because it is obvious that they are allowed to do so.

Your claim is that it is the will of the majority that allows this, but that is not true. It is because the will of the majority in this mattered is justified by furthering a legitimate state interest in establishing an "age of majority". The will of the majority would be invalid if it tried for treating different ages differently, such as saying that a 36 year old could not get married but anyone 18-35 and 37 and older could.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
My god, that is just an idiotic and subversive statement of voluntary ignorance and, ultimately, of subjugation. While the court in many instances, to maintain order, will no doubt and should be obeyed, when they overstep their limited commission, it is our right and duty to put them back in their place. See the Hamilton quote above. This is a part of the deal, breach of the deal may well mean lots of misery and unnecessary suffering.

The 13th amendment, you might do well to remember, did away with slavery, madam. I certainly do not intend to be a slave, sounds like you are willing. Subservience, when one is the genuine master, is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't even mention the Courts up there, you did. I mentioned the Constitution and the job of the Courts is to ensure the Constitution is being followed and that rights are being preserved despite the will of the majority.

And spare us the victim mentality. No one is trying to treat you like a slave.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Oh, I think many of us can find absurdities in American History, sure. You believe all our history is just clean, pristine, without fault do you?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the demonstration of ignorance and lack of understanding. History is just an account of events, it can not have fault, be clean or dirty. It can be inaccurately presented or misrepresented, but that is hardly the fault of history.

But, as I indicated previously, to take this incongruity to its logical conclusion, if one is not married under these proclaimed civil rights, one is being discriminated against, correct?
Click to expand...
No that is more ignorant misrepresentation. Being prevented from being marries is the discrimination.
 
prometeus said:
But you speak of nothing meaningful or relevant. It is obvious that the Constitution, legal principles and reality are far beyond your grasp.
Click to expand...
Why not prove that... because you cannot, you have neither the skill or the knowledge, besides which, tellingly and most importantly, you are flat out wrong.

Debate is not won by disparagement, fellow citizen. At minimum you should have something to argue, some point of reasoning to put forth. But...nothing??
 
roguenuke said:
Just as in most rights, you don't get to sue if you choose not to exercise a right. Would a person who didn't vote be able to sue the federal government for them choosing not to vote? Would a person who is an atheist be able to sue the federal government for them choosing not to have a religion? Would someone who chooses not to own a gun be able to sue the federal government, or really even the state governments, for them choosing not to own a gun? A person doesn't have to exercise their rights to still be entitled to do so later when they may choose to do so.
Click to expand...
Please do not complicate matters for him...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
In other words, you cannot verify what you claimed to be true in the Constitution, thus confirming my claim to be a bit more knowledgeable about the document than many, if not most, here, eh?

and....OMG, we are talking about changing our entire culture, our long lasting and working primary institution of marriage... so we are talking elections, laws, the people's will, the whole gamut my friend. As stated previously, when selling the Constitution and the idea of federal supremacy in only certain, enumerated, areas, it was understood by the framers that the federal government may overstep... and this is what Hamilton had to say,

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

That is showing a complete understanding, by Hamilton who was perhaps one of the strongest advocates of a strong central government, of just who is the real power behind the throne. WE, THE PEOPLE.

Class over. ;)
Click to expand...

Hardly. The 14th Amendement is one example of protections. You step outside of the context and compared an apple with a tree frog. I noted they don't compare.

As for culture, you are not required to change at all. You can be as narrow minded as you want to be. But our society is not stagnant. It us in a constant state of change, though often at a varying paces, from glacier to instant. That us the nature of living. So, fearing change is not by itself reason to deny.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the insults and discuss the OP.
 
prometeus said:
Thanks for the demonstration of ignorance and lack of understanding. History is just an account of events, it can not have fault, be clean or dirty. It can be inaccurately presented or misrepresented, but that is hardly the fault of history.

No that is more ignorant misrepresentation. Being prevented from being marries is the discrimination.
Click to expand...
Our history is NOT just the accounting, it is its essence as well, it is the actuality... in other words what actually happened, not solely the summary of what happened.

Wow... that was minimalist and faulty viewpoint, without any underlying substantiation... worthless, wasted words to be read, easily dismissed as they have little value if not backed up with some logic, some truth, something.
 
Last edited:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-recognizes-michigan-sex-couple-marriages-23097138

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday extended federal recognition to the marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place in Michigan before a federal appeals court put those unions on hold.

Holder's action will enable the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to the Michigan couples who married Saturday, which means they can file federal taxes jointly, get Social Security benefits for spouses and request legal immigration status for partners, among other benefits.
Click to expand...

Holder's decision came a week after U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman in Detroit struck down the gay marriage ban and two days after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder called last weekend's marriages legal but said Michigan won't recognize them.
Click to expand...

I don't know what Limbo is, but I'm guessing if you're one of the 300 couples that got married it looks a lot like this.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Our history is NOT just the accounting, it is its essence as well, it is the actuality... in other words what actually happened, not solely the summary of what happened.

Wow... that was minimalist and faulty viewpoint, without any underlying substantiation... worthless, wasted words to be read, easily dismissed as they have little value if not backed up with some logic, some truth, something.
Click to expand...
There is not need to fabricate or make up lies, although it is not surprising coming from you.
I made no remark about summary of events. That is just a lie to mask your mistake or inability to comprehend written sentences. An accounting, an accurate one as it was implied, would contain all pertinent aspects.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Hmmm... don't know for sure, but I bet if you started listing the states that haven't done any of that, the list would look a heck of a lot longer, eh?
Click to expand...

Now you are moving the goal posts, your original statement was "Nobody here, despite the alleged invalidity of our side's arguments, has been able to prove your side's point". As I pointed out, the reply wasn't in regard to "Nobody here" as it is unlikely that anyone here will change your individual opinion. However the case has been proven to dozens of judges (when you count state, state appeals/supreme courts [including en blanc reviews), federal district courts, and federal appeals court]).

Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, you folks here, and in real life, have not yet been able to sufficiently convince the rest of us of your side's "logic and facts"... btw, was that supposed to be a joke? I think you flatter yourself if you think you and your side are in possession of those two.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you appear to flatter yourself on what "the rest of use think". The fact is that the last time such proposals were placed before the voting public in General Election initiatives, Marriage Equality won each time. In addition polls have shown a consistent trend to more acceptance of SSCM over the last decade.

Face it, you don't speak for "the rest of us" or even the majority. Your claim to being a majority is based on actions taken a decade ago.

Gaugingcatenate said:
You think nine justices have the right to just turn an entire culture topsy-turvy without the consent of the people?
Click to expand...

We the people are consenting, it's now the minority opinion that capricious and invidious laws targeting homosexuals are just.



>>>>
 
Boo Radley said:
No, but it's fair to point out inconsistencies in what people get upset about. You know, when democrat does it, wild outrage. When republican does it, silence.
Click to expand...

So then express it, your opinion is noted. That doesn't mean everyone must agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom