• 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]

sawyerloggingon said:
Civil unions give all the legal rights of marriage. Gays just want to "marry" to legitimize or normalize their relationship, it is not about civil or legal rights it is about gay's being militant.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Civil unions are not currently recognized by the federal government. Only marriage is. Civil unions do not bestow the legal recognition of "spouse" onto a person, nor "inlaw" onto each spouse's immediate family members. Those are facts. You may wish that it was otherwise, but it isn't.
 
prometeus said:
Please do not delude yourself, it hardly helps. There is nothing to thank you for short of the demonstration of utter disregard of reality, closed mindedness, bigotry, denial and a complete lack of understanding legal principles and the Constitution.
Other than that you made fabulous arguments.
Click to expand...
That's some good old fashioned name calling, there... care to contradict Merriam Webster on the term "history", care to provide an example where "all the pertinent aspects" [which could include, but not be limited to, the way a decision maker were potty trained, could it not... or if they had turned down one street instead of another..."all" sorts of "pertinent aspects"] were included... ? Pure unadulterated malarkey... had one any genuine facts on ones side, one wouldn't have to resort to the tactics of denigration as primary tool.

Yano?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Civil unions give all the legal rights of marriage.
Click to expand...
No they don't. In no instance has a civil union ever given all the legal rights of marriage.

Gays just want to "marry" to legitimize or normalize their relationship, it is not about civil or legal rights it is about gay's being militant.
Click to expand...

No, it's about people wanting the government to treat them equally. Nobody gives a crap whether sawyer approves of their union. I didn't get to vote on your marriage, why am I getting to vote on the marriage of two men or two women? Don't you see just how offensive that is to the American way of life? The idea that your moral disapproval should be enough for the government to treat another citizen unequally?
 
prometeus said:
Reading comprehension issues? I was talking about your posts, as I do not know you, but nice misrepresentation as usual.
Click to expand...

Your spamming of the word bigot doesn't add any more to the conversation than he is adding.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".
Click to expand...


Ahhhh - so now Civil Unions are OK. See a decade ago as these were debated even Civil Unions were a No-No and that door was slamed closed. Quite a few states banned Civil Unions as well as marriage equality.

Like the state I live in, Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​


Funny how Civil Unions in the early 2000's were not a compromise to be considered when opponents of SSCM were in the majority. Now though that they have lost in the courts, lost in the legislatures, lost in the polls, and bagain losing in ballot during General Elections - suddenly - "Oh, Civil Unions should work."

And many who now claim to support the concept of "separate but equal" are mostly the very people that voted against it a decade ago.




>>>>
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
No, they don't. Civil unions are not currently recognized by the federal government. Only marriage is. Civil unions do not bestow the legal recognition of "spouse" onto a person, nor "inlaw" onto each spouse's immediate family members. Those are facts. You may wish that it was otherwise, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

If gays had not wasted all this time pushing for marriage rights they would have had full civil union laws in place now.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Ahhhh - so now Civil Unions are OK. See a decade ago as these were debated even Civil Unions were a No-No and that door was slamed closed. Quite a few states banned Civil Unions as well as marriage equality.

Like the state I live in, Virginia:

"Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​


Funny how Civil Unions in the early 2000's were not a compromise to be considered when opponents of SSCM were in the majority. Now though that they have lost in the courts, lost in the legislatures, lost in the polls, and bagain losing in ballot during General Elections - suddenly - "Oh, Civil Unions should work."

And many who now claim to support the concept of "separate but equal" are mostly the very people that voted against it a decade ago.




>>>>
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a fed civil union law not one single state.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If gays had not wasted all this time pushing for marriage rights they would have had full civil union laws in place now.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, if anti-ssm would just stop opposing it we could spend that energy on more important things.
 
Deuce said:
No they don't. In no instance has a civil union ever given all the legal rights of marriage.



No, it's about people wanting the government to treat them equally. Nobody gives a crap whether sawyer approves of their union. I didn't get to vote on your marriage, why am I getting to vote on the marriage of two men or two women? Don't you see just how offensive that is to the American way of life? The idea that your moral disapproval should be enough for the government to treat another citizen unequally?
Click to expand...
If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If gays had not wasted all this time pushing for marriage rights they would have had full civil union laws in place now.
Click to expand...

Bull****. People like you voted against civil unions en masse. Don't try to put that on someone else.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You want the government to exclude them from marriage.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I'm talking about a fed civil union law not one single state.
Click to expand...

There are no Federal Civil Marriage laws, why would there be Federal Civil Union laws?

sawyerloggingon said:
If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
Click to expand...

I'd back a Civil Union law.

Same-law would apply to same-sex couples and different sex couples. Marriage would be something regulated to religious organizations to "award" and since same-sex and different-sex couples can currently enter into Religious Marriages then each would be treated the same.

To sweeten the offer, we'd repeal Public Accommodation laws so that private businesses could function under the business model of their choice. If they didn't want to accept a customer based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, ethnicity, or national origin they would be free to do so.



Deal?

>>>>
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If a civil union law was put forth that gave all the rights of marriage you would still be against it. I and many others would embrace it because we actually want gays to have equal rights under the law whereas people like you just want to make a social statement.
Click to expand...


Those with positions regarding homosexuals were the ones that BANNED Civil Unions in many State Constitutions. You are now trying to use "Civil Unions" as a fallback not that you are no longer a majority position. Anti-marriage equality is losing in the courts, losing in the polls, losing in the legislatures, and now losing in the ballot box in general elections - and "now" suddenly Civil Unions are acceptable.

Sounds like "when I'm in the majority it's my way or the highway, now that we aren't - it's time to come to a compromise". I don't blame homosexuals going for full equality instead of separate but equal considering how the compromise door was slammed shut in many states a decade ago.



>>>>
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Examples of civil rights are" freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."
Marriage is not a civil right.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not a right at all. However after Loving vs Virginia, SCOTUS said it was a civil right under the 14th Amendment. As such, it is covered by the Equal Protection Act.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The civil union of gays protects their rights under the law and gives them equality to marriage without actually being "married".
Click to expand...

Surely you remember that 'separate but equal' was determined to be unConstitutional?

Not to mention that 'marriage' means exactly the same thing to gays as it does to many straight couples. So why shouldnt they be able to 'marry?'
 
roguenuke said:
The 14th was created to protect everyone's rights from the tyranny of the majority of the states. You can complain all you wish about it, but that is what the majority want. Very few would argue that they should lose their driver's license for one year while they are 36 years old or not be allowed to marry because they are 44 just because the majority in a state want to make such a stupid law.
Click to expand...
The 14th was created for nothing of the sort... Heck, it was pretty near extorted as a mandate to be passed for the minority of states that had "left" the Union to gain re-admittance to the Union... so that would be your actual "tyranny of the majority of the states " over the minority.

In reality it was a reaction to the fact that we had 4 million people who had previously been enslaved and now were free but had never before been considered citizens even though they were born here and many of their ancestors had been born here. See the Dred Scott Decision and how Scott was treated in that famous case.

Statements within the Fourteenth were intended by its framers only to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the then Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

Nothing more.

In fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment utilized the term "immunities" to mean all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. They used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights of citizens against an action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights.

You see, there are records of their debates, what was said and what was meant.

"No discrimination shall be made by any state, nor by the United States, as to the civil rights of persons because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This was expressly for blacks, our African Americans brothers and sisters known then under the term Negroes.

This was, for all intents and purposes, the reason behind the creation of the 14th. Again, it said nothing about an expansion of rights, it said nothing about sex or gender, certainly nothing about marriage, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution also are silent on all of that. You folks are trying to make something out of the 14th that is just not there.
 
What exactly do you perceive the 14th amendment to do? It doesn't specifically name anything at all, so it does nothing?
 
Deuce said:
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, says so right in the text. It literally defines the United States of America as an entity. We are not a direct democracy. 51% of the vote does not decide anything you want. You've admitted as much: 51% of the vote cannot reinstate slavery because that is in violation of the constitution. Therefore, if same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution, there is no number of votes that can uphold them.

So again, the real issue is whether or not the equal protection clause applies here. You claim it doesn't, but you don't really base that on anything in particular. You've steadfastly ignored how the equal protection clause actually functions, hiding behind this "it doesn't say that in the constitution!" business. Constitutional amendments do not explicitly spell out every aspect of their application, and they don't need to.

SCOTUS is the authority here. They have the power to determine this, and they've put forward a strong legal argument that you choose to ignore.
Click to expand...
Ever notice the opening words of the Constitution, how it starts off how? We the People... an important acknowledgment that it is WE that came forward to make a framework of governing that was in no way intended to become our Master and we do its bidding... we, through our representatives at this convention, did not feel it workable, nor did we want, to be a direct democracy. So, through debate and compromise, we gave our consent to be governed under this framework. A framework that was sold on its direct promise on limiting of the Federal Government.

That promise is in breach and our consent to be governed can always, and legally, be withdrawn. We are the sovereigns, you see. You can deny it, but to deny implies a desire to be a slave with the government our master.

Where do you arrive at 51% of the vote not deciding anything? Out of 68 million votes in the election of 1960, Kennedy won by a mere 120K, so 50+% wins plenty in this country. 49% wins noting except perhaps a runoff in some cases. My god, how many times must this be repeated: there is a specific amendment [13th]regarding the abolition of slavery... your use of this as an explanation tied to the 14th and the push for gay marriage is comical. There is NO AMENDMENT REQUIRING SSM. Period.

Same sex marriage bans are not prohibited under the 14th... you may well get a bogus ruling under the SC saying so, but the 14th intended none of that, provides for nothing of that... and all those mumbo-jumbo contortions created by the court system itself do not make it so. It is only the structure they themselves have created out of whole cloth, with no specific guidance from anything that can be even vaguely alluded to in the Constitution or the 14 specifically, that arrives us at this pathetic point in our history.

Equal protections were extended only to life, limb and property... again, nothing about marriage rights was intended, mentioned nor sanctioned in the 14th. While its application is not specified and accommodations must be made for this, the amendment's scope was not limitless in all directions, either. The court cannot, is not in its job description to just make up what it wants, that is the job of the law makers... not the court's job. The fact that they have gotten away with it, that is just the normal course of business, subverting the Constitution is something that needs be stopped, whether you and your colleagues recognize this tyranny or not. Their job is to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, based on the Constitution, the extent to which something is or is not...and of course to settle disputes.

The Supreme Court, just as with the entire apparatus of the Federal government, needs to be reined back in. They have overstepped their Constitutional bounds.

You will no doubt disagree, but you have no rational basis, except for the habit of just going along with whatever they choose to do, never giving it much of another thought. That is not really how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy, the citizenry is supposed to be awake, alert to incursions on its rights.
 
Last edited:
Gaugingcatenate said:
Ever notice the opening words of the Constitution, how it starts off how? We the People... an important acknowledgment that it is WE that came forward to make a framework of governing that was in no way intended to become our Master and we do its bidding... we, through our representatives at this convention, did not feel it workable, nor did we want, to be a direct democracy. So, through debate and compromise, we gave our consent to be governed under this framework. A framework that was sold on its direct promise on limiting of the Federal Government.

That promise is in breach and our consent to be governed can always, and legally, be withdrawn. We are the sovereigns, you see. You can deny it, but to deny implies a desire to be a slave with the government our master.

Where do you arrive at 51% of the vote not deciding anything? Out of 68 million votes in the election of 1960, Kennedy won by a mere 120K, so 50+% wins plenty in this country. 49% wins noting except perhaps a runoff in some cases. My god, how many times must this be repeated: there is a specific amendment [13th]regarding the abolition of slavery... your use of this as an explanation tied to the 14th and the push for gay marriage is comical. There is NO AMENDMENT REQUIRING SSM. Period.

Same sex marriage bans are not prohibited under the 14th... you may well get a bogus ruling under the SC saying so, but the 14th intended none of that, provides for nothing of that... and all those mumbo-jumbo contortions created by the court system itself do not make it so. It is only the structure they themselves have created out of whole cloth, with no specific guidance from anything that can be even vaguely alluded to in the Constitution or the 14 specifically, that arrives us at this pathetic point in our history.

Equal protections were extended only to life, limb and property... again, nothing about marriage rights was intended, mentioned nor sanctioned in the 14th. While its application is not specified and accommodations must be made for this, bit the amendment's scope was not limitless in all directions either. The court cannot, is not in its job description to just make up what it wants, that is the job of the law makers... not the court's job. The fact that they have gotten away with it, that is just the normal course of business, subverting the Constitution is something that needs be stopped, whether you and your colleagues recognize this tyranny or not. Their job is to rule whether something is Constitutional or not, based on the Constitution, the extent to which something is or is not...and of course to settle disputes.

The Supreme Court, just as with the entire apparatus of the Federal government, needs to be reined back in. They have overstepped their Constitutional bounds.

You will no doubt disagree, but you have no rational basis, except for the habit of just going along with whatever they choose to do, never giving it much of another thought. That is not really how it is supposed to work in a representative democracy, the citizenry is supposed to be awake, alert to incursions on its rights.
Click to expand...

thats a nice long post that says nothing since the fed didnt over step its bounds but the state did, the state infringed on THE PEOPLES rights so the fed stepped in and protected WE the peoples rights
if you disagree simply prove the facts,laws, rights and court cases wrong lol
nice try, but it fooled nobody educated and honest, your post fails again :)
 
Deuce said:
What exactly do you perceive the 14th amendment to do? It doesn't specifically name anything at all, so it does nothing?
Click to expand...
I just explained it up there...

"No discrimination shall be made by any state, nor by the United States, as to the civil rights of persons because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

You see, we had just had this Civil War thing, it was kind of a big deal, and we had all these multitudes, about 4 million or about 10+% of the total population, of these former people wandering around in legal limbo, who had not been recognized as citizens, you see... and so this was something done to rectify that situation, give them official recognition and guarantee them all the rights then accorded to fellow citizens of the US of A.
 
prometeus said:
Reading comprehension issues? I was talking about your posts, as I do not know you, but nice misrepresentation as usual.
Click to expand...
No, I was talking about my posts too... so, reading comprehension issues? Stop dodging and start answering the questions/giving your example, how about, eh?
 
I would love to know why ANY marriage is recognized by the state??? oh yeah because our government wants tax money.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If gays had not wasted all this time pushing for marriage rights they would have had full civil union laws in place now.
Click to expand...

I doubt it since most of the state amendments banning same sex couples from getting married, ban any same sex unions at all. So I'd say you are wrong. Plus, the fact that there has never been any bill ever introduced on a federal level to recognize same sex unions or any unions at all other than marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom