• 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 Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
Gets harder to respect a process that would result in 'exceptions' to due process/equal protection. Then again that's why i'm against ballot initiatives now, cause that's what happened in most states.
Click to expand...

Ballot initiatives cannot happen on a federal level (not that I'm aware of).

But we have exceptions to equal protection now based on legal precedent, level of scrutiny. We don't treat 15 year olds the same as 25 year olds and older. In fact, we have age limits that treat adults differently than other adults under some laws (drinking and even some marriage laws). I don't have a problem with the process for making Amendments at all, even if it would put in place exceptions to some Amendments. Even our Constitution isn't perfect, we're human. But I would feel that putting a place an Amendment that would define marriage a certain way constitutionally would be just plain wrong and I would fight against it. It would be worse than having Prohibition in the Constitution, and that was definitely bad enough.

But same sex marriage is not the only place such an Amendment was tried. In the early part of the 20th Century, several attempts were made nationally to make an Amendment that would define marriage as only a man and woman of the same race. Luckily then too, all of those attempts failed.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
I honestly do wonder how many Democrats, and even possibly if Barr himself (Repub at the time who authored DOMA), actually were thinking ahead and supported it to avoid an Amendment rather than actually supporting the bill itself.

DADT didn't and couldn't really do much of anything because either way there were going to be gay people in the military. It did do the one thing of keeping people from having to lie outright, especially to those who get you into the military, but given how much else had to be kept hidden, it made the avoidance of that initial lie pretty much moot.
Click to expand...

Well but in the end the amendment was voted on, so DOMA didn't prevent that apparently. It seems too separate to me, not affecting the individual states at all.

DADT led to like 12k soldiers being kicked out of the military. Some weren't even gay and lied to get out. If you read the actual policy pamphlets they gave to recruits, they were a complete joke and recommended spying on others' use of porn and such and finding other ways to interrogate. "Don't ask" was never enforced once training started and not at all realistic in military culture. Of course they would be asked about their girls back home etc.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
Ballot initiatives cannot happen on a federal level (not that I'm aware of).
Click to expand...

No, but they violated the 14th just the same when they passed bans against SSM.

roguenuke said:
But we have exceptions to equal protection now based on legal precedent, level of scrutiny. We don't treat 15 year olds the same as 25 year olds and older. In fact, we have age limits that treat adults differently than other adults under some laws (drinking and even some marriage laws).
Click to expand...

Right, if it satisfies strict scrutiny/compelling government interest. That was the whole argument over affirmative action for example. Those are rational debates at least. The courts and govt allowing and encouraging SSM bans was always nothing but theocratic nightmare with the ballot process turned into merely a quantification of bigotry throughout the population. Shameful all around
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Right. That's why he was whining. I mean "dissenting." His rants in decisions about homosexuality are always entertaining. Ironically, his dissents have just served to provide more ammunition for the equality side.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think one time he dissented "many people do not want homosexuals as their neighbors, coworkers blahblah" as if that's a legal argument. Last time i ever read anything from that pig
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
Well but in the end the amendment was voted on, so DOMA didn't prevent that apparently. It seems too separate to me, not affecting the individual states at all.

DADT led to like 12k soldiers being kicked out of the military. Some weren't even gay and lied to get out. If you read the actual policy pamphlets they gave to recruits, they were a complete joke and recommended spying on others' use of porn and such and finding other ways to interrogate. "Don't ask" was never enforced once training started and not at all realistic in military culture. Of course they would be asked about their girls back home etc.
Click to expand...

It was voted on years later (I believe it was in 2004 and 2006), after there was a marked increase in support for same sex marriage and a huge loss in support for the Amendment. There were very few Democrats willing to vote for the Amendment (34), and even about as many Republicans voted against it (27) (in 2006). It didn't make it through the Senate either time it went up to them.

Before DADT, there were tons not allowed in or being kicked out for not only being gay but also lying on their entry paperwork because there was an actual form that people signed that said you weren't homosexual when you joined.

I joined in 1998. We got no such forms and in fact, even with DADT in place, there was a difference in the treatment of gays (from what I have found out, from both personal accounts and information about it) before and after DADT was put into effect. DADT needed to go, absolutely, so that gays could serve openly, but I don't think it made anything worse for gay military members serving than what existed prior to it being put into place. I'm not saying it made it much better, but it did not make it worse for most.

Now, on a military retention level, it was an issue because it allowed for some people to have an out by simply claiming they were gay. This one I witnessed personally during school. In fact, after having several students from my class (which started at around 600+ students) sign paperwork claiming they were gay within just a couple of weeks, our Master Chief for our class got us all together and told us that if one more person tried it, he was going to make that person call home and tell their mother/father right there in his office that he/she was gay. It was pretty obvious that DADT was being used to get out of the Navy because the school had gotten too hard for them, at least some of them.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Somehow the homosexual community went from being people that were proud of engaging in "an alternative lifestlye" to wanting homosexuality to be considered in every way the same as heterosexuality. The problem I see coming is that once homosexual marriages are legal in all 50 states, the drama will be over and what, then, will the drama queens who sooooo love to be the center of attention have for their next crusade? What will make the "gay and proud of it" people "special" once they get the "normality" they pretend they're seeking?
Click to expand...

Talk about a ridiculous hissy fit. It's like some drama queen wants to be center of attention
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
No, but they violated the 14th just the same when they passed bans against SSM.
Click to expand...

Within the states, absolutely because the US Constitution supersedes any and all state constitutions when it comes to the power held.

chromium said:
Right, if it satisfies strict scrutiny/compelling government interest. That was the whole argument over affirmative action for example. Those are rational debates at least. The courts and govt allowing and encouraging SSM bans was always nothing but theocratic nightmare with the ballot process turned into merely a quantification of bigotry throughout the population. Shameful all around
Click to expand...

But those are exceptions that could just as easily be put into the Constitution as just leaving them out. One day they might need to be put into the Constitution, depending on SCOTUS makeup. No SCOTUS is required to observe the rulings of previous Courts. There could come a day when the SCOTUS simply decides that level of scrutiny is bunk, since it isn't in the Constitution, and they strike down something like age of consent laws or age limitations on drinking or contracts. Now, the majority of the population would still very likely support these limitations within laws and could easily get an Amendment that set up levels of scrutiny and/or dictated to the SCOTUS to use levels of scrutiny or simply put age limitations as a valid exemption to equal protection of the 14th in place.

Most people truly have no issue with exceptions to Constitutional protections the SCOTUS has ruled on as acceptable, mainly because from a reasonable person standpoint, they are reasonable exceptions and pretty consistent in how they are applied.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
Within the states, absolutely because the US Constitution supersedes any and all state constitutions when it comes to the power held.
Click to expand...

Well that's why i don't approve of ballot process. The general public is not legal experts or even generally educated. How can they possibly be called on or allowed to make decisions such as marriage rights or affirmative action? Similarly, they are not economics experts or most even taken a single econ class to competently determine the minimum wage, yet it's on the ballot. At most, general public should pick someone more qualified to make such decisions and even that is pushing it from what i've seen.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
Well that's why i don't approve of ballot process. The general public is not legal experts or even generally educated. How can they possibly be called on or allowed to make decisions such as marriage rights or affirmative action? Similarly, they are not economics experts or most even taken a single econ class to competently determine the minimum wage, yet it's on the ballot. At most, general public should pick someone more qualified to make such decisions and even that is pushing it from what i've seen.
Click to expand...

I have many issues with referendums as well that have little to do with constitutionality of any law such referendums put into place (I honestly think that most voters simply don't have the knowledge on budgeting that is needed to vote on things that require money be spent to implement those things). But, when it comes to referendums on actually enacting laws like this, I don't like them but they are really very little different than those laws enacted by legislatures, who are just as likely to put into place such things. Heck, in almost all states (if not all), the state legislatures have to vote to put it on the ballot for voters to vote for. It does not, despite popular belief of some anti-ssm people, in any way make a difference in whether or not a state constitutional amendment or state law is violating the US Constitution when it is put into place by a direct vote of the people or simply by the representatives.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

CaptainCourtesy said:
That's just absurd. Either you know no homosexuals, or you need to change the people you spend time with. Oh, and don't assume that the people who are on TV are your average everyday people. There are some pretty bizarre heterosexuals out there who wouldn't be considered a run-of-the-mill straight.
Click to expand...

I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
Well that's why i don't approve of ballot process. The general public is not legal experts or even generally educated. How can they possibly be called on or allowed to make decisions such as marriage rights or affirmative action? Similarly, they are not economics experts or most even taken a single econ class to competently determine the minimum wage, yet it's on the ballot. At most, general public should pick someone more qualified to make such decisions and even that is pushing it from what i've seen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think allowing the public to vote against the freedom of the individual inevitably leads to suppression of the rights of the minority.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
It was voted on years later (I believe it was in 2004 and 2006), after there was a marked increase in support for same sex marriage and a huge loss in support for the Amendment. There were very few Democrats willing to vote for the Amendment (34), and even about as many Republicans voted against it (27) (in 2006). It didn't make it through the Senate either time it went up to them.

Before DADT, there were tons not allowed in or being kicked out for not only being gay but also lying on their entry paperwork because there was an actual form that people signed that said you weren't homosexual when you joined.

I joined in 1998. We got no such forms and in fact, even with DADT in place, there was a difference in the treatment of gays (from what I have found out, from both personal accounts and information about it) before and after DADT was put into effect. DADT needed to go, absolutely, so that gays could serve openly, but I don't think it made anything worse for gay military members serving than what existed prior to it being put into place. I'm not saying it made it much better, but it did not make it worse for most.

Now, on a military retention level, it was an issue because it allowed for some people to have an out by simply claiming they were gay. This one I witnessed personally during school. In fact, after having several students from my class (which started at around 600+ students) sign paperwork claiming they were gay within just a couple of weeks, our Master Chief for our class got us all together and told us that if one more person tried it, he was going to make that person call home and tell their mother/father right there in his office that he/she was gay. It was pretty obvious that DADT was being used to get out of the Navy because the school had gotten too hard for them, at least some of them.
Click to expand...

Were you in the Navy RN? If so, thank you for your service.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.
Click to expand...

That's it? "Some of my best friends are gay?"

No ability to support your claims further?

LOL
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
Yeah, I think allowing the public to vote against the freedom of the individual inevitably leads to suppression of the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

It also leads to a lot of the problems we have in California, where people want to vote for new programs, but consistently vote against tax raises to pay for those programs. As awful as so many of the people are who end up going to congress, they're still in a position where they're forced to look at the spending/tax hikes that are a part of instigating new programs, whereas Joe Voter is not. Direct Democracy is dum.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I lived in Mid-town Atlanta, the French Quarter, had a homosexual roommate in the Army before don't ask, don't tell and had various and sundry homosexuals trotted into the barracks by him most weekend nights. I've known quite a few homosexuals, so another swing and a miss by the good captain.
Click to expand...

[shakes head]
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
He supports gay marriage.
Click to expand...

My Christian Sunday school-teaching father is immoral? That's BS.


He taught God's love...and left the judgement up to Him.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
He supports gay marriage.
Click to expand...


Who can blame him, it's tough going through life being a guy named "Barbara".



>>>>
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
He supports gay marriage.
Click to expand...

God is love, so you should always support love.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Deuce said:
God is love, so you should always support love.
Click to expand...

There is nothing loving in confirming people in causing their own damnation.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
There is nothing loving in confirming people in causing their own damnation.
Click to expand...

Arbiter of damnation now, are you?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
God is.
Click to expand...

Cardinal, waking up: "Now why am I happy with the separation of church and state? I can't remember."

Reads Paleocon's posts.

Cardinal: "Oh yeah! I knew there was a really good reason! Whew!"
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Cardinal said:
Cardinal, waking up: "Now why am I happy with the separation of church and state? I can't remember."

Reads Paleocon's posts.

Cardinal: "Oh yeah! I knew there was a really good reason! Whew!"
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
Your point?
Click to expand...

your opinions like all of our opinions of GOD are meanignless to laws, and rights and legal marriage. thats the point.

I personally thank my god that i live in a free country and have rights because without them I could be killed for simply prying to my own god and not somebody elses. Your views seem to not value this at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom