• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

You can keep the false comparisons to Jim Crow laws, and women's suffrage was the will of the people. And no, it's not, just like abortion has nothing to do with constitutional privacy rights, because they just don't exist. It's social engineering by court decision plain and simple. You're cheering that a few robed fellows can change law, constitution and society without involving that old pesky will of the people thing.

And so is SSM the will of the people.

There were pockets of ignorant people who objected to those other civil rights movements as well.....the federal govt had to step in to make sure that both groups were treated equally under the law...they did not allow the ignorant to continue to deny them.
 
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.

Equal protection under the law and a clear discrimination against gender in contracts. Sorry but gender is clearly an area where the Constitution supports equality.
 
Another cut in the death of a thousand cuts to the US Constitution. Want to legalize homosexual marriage? Amend the Constitution to make it a right to marry instead of getting there through the backdoor and amending through judicial fiat. THEN the 14th would apply and you'd have made the constitution and the country a stronger place.

Stop amending the text of the US Constitution through judicial decision.

We're not amending anything. We're just applying what's there correctly and not denying Americans what they are entitled to. It is already unConstitutional to deny them and the judicial system is just recognizing that.
 
Precisely, and in the case of homosexual marriage the states and the people have spoken. According to the US Constitution, the rights not enumerated fall to, the people and the states. And since marriage is not an enumerated right in the US Constitution, the states and the people decide.

Even if that were the case and it was not a clear discriminatory case of civil rights, to deny gays marriage the states would have to show that SSM is not in the best interests of the state.

WHat exactly would they base that on? There is harm to the state or anyone in it.
 
Until this current attempt to skirt constitutional process, marriage was written into every STATE constitution. A right the people granted themselves that is not enumerated by the US Constitution.

Women werent allowed to vote either and all the states supported that too.

Wasnt Constitutional...and so it was overturned.
 
Women werent allowed to vote either and all the states supported that too.

Wasnt Constitutional...and so it was overturned.
It was actualy held: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.

The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.

Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.
 
Last edited:
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.

The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.

Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.

I dont believe marriage is/should be a right personally and I dont like that the govt is involved in it at all.

However since it accords benefits, priveleges, and legal protections to marriage, and the states issue a marriage license (contract) then it is gender discrimination to deny gays (it prohibits 2 people of the same gender from entering into that contract).

But there have been several decisions where SCOTUS does claim marriage is a right. I dont pay much attention to the details of that but it is true.
 
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.

The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.

Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, just because the constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, just because the constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it.
Sure, but I don't see your point. Did you think I was denying that marriage is a right?
 
I dont believe marriage is/should be a right personally and I dont like that the govt is involved in it at all.

However since it accords benefits, priveleges, and legal protections to marriage, and the states issue a marriage license (contract) then it is gender discrimination to deny gays (it prohibits 2 people of the same gender from entering into that contract).

But there have been several decisions where SCOTUS does claim marriage is a right. I dont pay much attention to the details of that but it is true.

I know marriage is a right. I said it wasnt in the Constitution, not that it wasn't a right. I support marriage being put into the Constitution with an Amendment just like women's right to vote had to be.
 
I LOVE when people gaining rights and freedoms upsets others that already have them. It makes me smile.
There is no sound argument against equal rights/SSM they have all been debunked countless times. And only bigots and those that support discrimination want it not to be legal and to grant others equal rights. The game is up and NOBODY honest and educated falls for it lol
 
No, and I dont agree with that anyway.

Oh, so you do think it's a blanket right to overturn any perceived inequality... interesting. Well, I disagree, and SCOTUS has specific mechanics for deciding these things that also disagrees.
 
It was actualy held: Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia because it was Constitutional, and that's why the 15th amendment was written.

The Constitution is silent on marriage and so we should make an amendment defining and supporting marriage.

Only then will SSM be a 14th Amendment issue.

Incorrect. 14th amendment requires equal protection of the laws, not just things specifically outlined in the constitution.
 
Sure, but I don't see your point. Did you think I was denying that marriage is a right?

We don't need an amendment for it to be an issue protected by the constitution. All rights, enumerated or not, are protected under it. That makes it a 14th amendment issue.
 
I know marriage is a right. I said it wasnt in the Constitution, not that it wasn't a right. I support marriage being put into the Constitution with an Amendment just like women's right to vote had to be.

And including or excluding gays?
 
We don't need an amendment for it to be an issue protected by the constitution.
We do need an Amendment, and another reason why is because marriage policy, like all policy, should come from the legislature, not the court.
 
We do need an Amendment, and another reason why is because marriage policy, like all policy, should come from the legislature, not the court.

It already did come from the legislature with the 14th amendment. How is this difficult to understand? It applies to all rights, not just the ones they were thinking of the 1860s.
 
It already did come from the legislature with the 14th amendment. How is this difficult to understand? It applies to all rights, not just the ones they were thinking of the 1860s.

Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.

Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.

I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.
 
Last edited:
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.

Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.

I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.

Interracial marriage would then have been the same thing, an emotional issue which eroded states' rights. The state only has the right to regulate something, limit something that treats individuals differently when they can show that doing so furthers a legitimate state interest. Scrutiny still is part of the judicial process when it comes to constitutional law.
 
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.

Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.

I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.

Do you think homosexual couples wanting recognition believe it's about eroding states rights?
And how, exactly, does the government gain more control over anybody from this?
And how, exactly, did you get the idea that marriage equality was being driven by the government? You're right. The government doesn't care. But we do.
 
Thats what women thought as they brought their voting rights argument before SCOTUS.

And I think we can agree that it was never right to keep women from voting, just as it was never right to keep gays from marrying.

Relying on the court to make policy is bad practice. Better to deal with unwilling states by having Congress legislate that univercal reciprocity of State marriage licences is a condition of recieving education and highway funding.

Congress should have done this, but it's full of conservatives from confederate states who think their personal religious beliefs trump people's rights, so we have to do it this way instead. Besides, the court isn't making policy. It's enforcing the policy the people have chosen. But the few people who determine primary elections are those same conservatives who think their religion is more important than liberty.

I know you people like to think that SSM is about indivigual rights, but that was never true. Thats the elotional appeal you're told to manipulate you. SSM, like many other issues, is about eroding States rights. Government has never, does not, and will never give a **** about your 'rights'. The government only cares about controling you.

Why do you think state governments are any different? And of course, my support of SSM came from being a civil rights attorney who is actually well versed in constitutional law and I just sat down, read the case law, and figured it out for myself since it's an extremely open and shut issue. States don't have or need rights. People do. People have a right to representation, at multiple levels of government, but those levels have no rights unto themselves. And so I return to my previous question, why do you think state governments don't just care about controlling you, but the federal does?
 
Interracial marriage would then have been the same thing, an emotional issue which eroded states' rights. The state only has the right to regulate something, limit something that treats individuals differently when they can show that doing so furthers a legitimate state interest. Scrutiny still is part of the judicial process when it comes to constitutional law.

Yes, Loving is part of that erosion process. That's a good point.
 
Back
Top Bottom