• 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!

4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

TheNextEra said:
Those examples are cases that wouldn't be allowed, much like how you described. Sorry, but your side is going to rightfully lose this one. Deal with it, it is coming. I'll take a nice toast to all the anti-SSM people when it happens as well.
Click to expand...


Well of course you feel this way.. However, no comment on how the courts should be dealing with these litigations?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Well of course you feel this way.. However, no comment on how the courts should be dealing with these litigations?


Tim-
Click to expand...

They should rule that SSM is legal.
 
TheNextEra said:
They should rule that SSM is legal.
Click to expand...

No, the legislature decides what is legal when it makes laws. The courts either uphold the law or dismiss the law as a violation of some other law, in this case they seem to suggest thus far that the "violation" by not creating a right that does not exist is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution, specifically the Due Process clause, and 14th Amendment. What I'm saying is that the USSC court can boot this back to the legislatures based on my simple argument above. These courts all seem to think that they can create a right, in-law, by inference. The inference is that gays are being unfairly treated based on their gender, yet, as I've demonstrated, both men and women are equally limited by their gender. In short, there is no violation of Due process (State and or Federal Legislative authority to decide laws) nor is there any violation of the 14th Amendment. If both men and women are equally limited, there is no gender discrimination, and thus gays must prove that it is more than just gender that defines their inequitable treatment.

I think they'll have a hard time on that point since sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Tim-
 
AGENT J said:
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.
Click to expand...

They're libertarians. They don't have to make sense.
 
Cephus said:
They're libertarians. They don't have to make sense.
Click to expand...

all libertarians arent the same though, many actually do care about rights/freedom/constitution.
 
Deuce said:
Why? Marriage is an important part of a stable family unit, which is important to society. It should be encouraged.
Click to expand...

The same way businesses often get tax breaks to open in certain areas. They are generally of positive benefit to society and therefore are encouraged.
 
AGENT J said:
all libertarians arent the same though, many actually do care about rights/freedom/constitution.
Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. Lots of people stamp the label LIBERTARIAN on their forehead and don't agree with anyone else with that label.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
Click to expand...

All rights are invented out of whole cloth by the society in which they exist. Do try again.
 
Summerwind said:
True, but they can require it to be an actual contract, properly written, fully detailed including escape clauses, and could stop giving tax and other benefits to married people just because they are married. It isn't impossible to take marriage out of government, and instead force all to have civil contracts that don't involve the government at any level until such time as a contract is broken in an un-contracted means.
Click to expand...

Why? Marriage is a net good to society and is therefore being encouraged and rewarded by society. That will never stop. It's only the wingnuts who can't get laid who don't like that some people get more than they do because they bother to legally entangle their lives with another person.
 
Cephus said:
Some do, some don't. Lots of people stamp the label LIBERTARIAN on their forehead and don't agree with anyone else with that label.
Click to expand...

very true, and id say this is true of all parties.
In REAL life the libertarians i know arent like the vast majority here.
Maybe its because of their lower numbers but yes they seem the most . . . . .uhm . . . unique and independent then other parties here

but then again that is my whole personal problem with parties, IMO its stupid to try and define people/parties that way.

I am me and thats why Im an independant.

fiscally conservative
want a strong military
care about rights (pro-choice, pro-gun, pro SSM)
and many other things that dont allow me to fit any of the "stereotypical" labels and thats fine by me because im not going to change for a label
 
Cephus said:
Some do, some don't. Lots of people stamp the label LIBERTARIAN on their forehead and don't agree with anyone else with that label.
Click to expand...

Nobody pulls a No True Scotsman like libertarians.

Hicup said:
No, the legislature decides what is legal when it makes laws. The courts either uphold the law or dismiss the law as a violation of some other law, in this case they seem to suggest thus far that the "violation" by not creating a right that does not exist is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution, specifically the Due Process clause, and 14th Amendment. What I'm saying is that the USSC court can boot this back to the legislatures based on my simple argument above. These courts all seem to think that they can create a right, in-law, by inference. The inference is that gays are being unfairly treated based on their gender, yet, as I've demonstrated, both men and women are equally limited by their gender. In short, there is no violation of Due process (State and or Federal Legislative authority to decide laws) nor is there any violation of the 14th Amendment. If both men and women are equally limited, there is no gender discrimination, and thus gays must prove that it is more than just gender that defines their inequitable treatment.

I think they'll have a hard time on that point since sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Let's start with the easy one. By the time this is all done, it's quite likely that sexual orientation will be a protected class. Second, SSM bans have thus far been struck down on the basis that they don't even meet the rational basis test, so it doesn't even have to be a protected class. The bans simply violate people's general liberty interest for no useful purpose. Third, please see the ninth amendment (currently in my sig) for why saying "the right doesn't exist" is always wrong. You need to say that the right shouldn't exist, and then say why. Every right exists barring a sufficient reason why it shouldn't. Fourth, the bit about "it's not discrimination because neither gender can marry someone of the same gender" was stupid a decade ago, it's still stupid now. We already have a precedent that such an argument is nonsense in the striking down of interracial marriage bans. Lastly, I'm starting to doubt that this will ever go to the supreme court. I don't think it will ever have to. Every single case has been decided the same way. I can't imagine the supreme court even taking the appeal.

Lastly, I don't think you understand how due process works, and I have no interest in explaining it to you for anything less than $150/hour.
 
:yawn:


Thread after thread about gay marriage and racism.

This stuff should have been worked out decades ago.

When will this childish nonsense end?


Any sane, consenting adults should be allowed to marry AND no one is inferior or should be given ANY favouritism strictly due to the melanin content of their skin.

DUH
 
clownboy said:
The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.
Click to expand...

Allowing SSM is a 'benefit?'

How so?
 
clownboy said:
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
Click to expand...

OK, but if it offers those benefits and legal protections in marriage, then it is discrimination to deny them to gays that want to marry.
 
VanceMack said:
Unfortunately you are probably right.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason it needs to be set in stone? Black and white?

Should there be no room in our legal codes, institutions, protections, contracts for growth in society? Change?

Does 'one size fits all' work for decades? A hundred years? More?
 
TheNextEra said:
So is that why you got married for those reasons? I don't think so. So why do you assume the majority do?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume I'm married?

I would never get legally married...... I don't need the government to authenticate my love for a woman... As a Catholic I will take religious vows but screw the state...

Besides, if things don't work out you're not going to be caught up in a legal mess lol...

This is just my personal philosophy - people can do what makes them happy - which is why I'm opposed to government getting involved in any individuals personal business.
 
clownboy said:
No, you tried to slide one over. It's not "a distinction of gender" but a distinction of sexual orientation - and that is not a protected class.
Click to expand...

Yes it is about gender because it prevents 2 people of the same gender from entering into a particular contract.

A straight couple doesnt have to be in love or attracted to marry, neither does a gay couple.

It's not about the straight couple's orientation either legally (in the context of your statement).
 
Hicup said:
No, the legislature decides what is legal when it makes laws. The courts either uphold the law or dismiss the law as a violation of some other law,
Click to expand...

Actually, they are ruling because it is a violation of the Constitution.

Hicup said:
in this case they seem to suggest thus far that the "violation" by not creating a right that does not exist is in direct contradiction to the US Constitution, specifically the Due Process clause, and 14th Amendment. What I'm saying is that the USSC court can boot this back to the legislatures based on my simple argument above. These courts all seem to think that they can create a right, in-law, by inference. The inference is that gays are being unfairly treated based on their gender, yet, as I've demonstrated, both men and women are equally limited by their gender. In short, there is no violation of Due process (State and or Federal Legislative authority to decide laws) nor is there any violation of the 14th Amendment. If both men and women are equally limited, there is no gender discrimination, and thus gays must prove that it is more than just gender that defines their inequitable treatment.

I think they'll have a hard time on that point since sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Men and women arent equally limited since they are being limited from marrying different groups of people. Limiting the same is limiting men or women both from marrying children; that is the same. However, they are ruling according to what a person can do not what they cant do. If women can marry men then men should be able to marry men. So far it appears the courts agree with us.
 
Also, I'm absolutely opposed to homosexuality - but I'm not God, nor Jesus but it just goes against my personal beliefs, however I have no problem with "gay marriage" - because others happiness doesn't affect me, if anything I'm happy that others are happy just as long as they aren't tormenting me or affecting me..

And YES I do take massive offense to the gays and lesbians who have to make a political point by being over affectionate in public just to make a political point - and YES some do just that. Yeah kids makeout in public not adults.. Hell I cant recall the last time I have seen a straight adult couple just "making out" in public but gays do it all the time.

I'm no prude either - I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with a kiss or holding hands but keep the semi-sexual make out sessions in your bedroom (or wherever it's appropriate).

I have absolutely nothing against gays or lesbians as individuals but the public "political" statements they make with their aggressive affection with one another...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Also, I'm absolutely opposed to homosexuality - but I'm not God, nor Jesus but it just goes against my personal beliefs, however I have no problem with "gay marriage" - because others happiness doesn't affect me, if anything I'm happy that others are happy just as long as they aren't tormenting me or affecting me..

And YES I do take massive offense to the gays and lesbians who have to make a political point by being over affectionate in public just to make a political point - and YES some do just that. Yeah kids makeout in public not adults.. Hell I cant recall the last time I have seen a straight adult couple just "making out" in public but gays do it all the time.

I'm no prude either - I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with a kiss or holding hands but keep the semi-sexual make out sessions in your bedroom (or wherever it's appropriate).

I have absolutely nothing against gays or lesbians as individuals but the public "political" statements they make with their aggressive affection with one another...
Click to expand...

All I can say is... I agree with most of what you just said.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Also, I'm absolutely opposed to homosexuality - but I'm not God, nor Jesus but it just goes against my personal beliefs, however I have no problem with "gay marriage" - because others happiness doesn't affect me, if anything I'm happy that others are happy just as long as they aren't tormenting me or affecting me..

And YES I do take massive offense to the gays and lesbians who have to make a political point by being over affectionate in public just to make a political point - and YES some do just that. Yeah kids makeout in public not adults.. Hell I cant recall the last time I have seen a straight adult couple just "making out" in public but gays do it all the time.

I'm no prude either - I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with a kiss or holding hands but keep the semi-sexual make out sessions in your bedroom (or wherever it's appropriate).

I have absolutely nothing against gays or lesbians as individuals but the public "political" statements they make with their aggressive affection with one another...
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about straight people overly demonstrating their affections in public

I'm no prude either, so I look away. Easy.
 
Lursa said:
Is there a reason it needs to be set in stone? Black and white?

Should there be no room in our legal codes, institutions, protections, contracts for growth in society? Change?

Does 'one size fits all' work for decades? A hundred years? More?
Click to expand...
Yes...actually...it does need to be black and white. Marriage is a construct that affects people in all 50 states. The court battles and voter battles go on forever. It isnt healthy. One way or the other it just needs to be decided, even if that decision is that the states have the right to make the rules laws and definitions or not.
 
As it turns out, if you don't like seeing gay people being gay in public, that's your problem, not society's problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom