• 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

This same logic was applied to interracial marriage bans.

Well duh of course, but they still had to be male and female, no matter what color they were. This is not the same argument because I could easily say that black men cannot marry black men or white men, or pink men, and black women cannot marry black women, or white women, or pink women. Now what legal genius? What is the gender being protected against? Discrimination, right? Well how are either men or women being unequally discriminated against? The fact that there is discrimination is not the question, of course there is, the question is does society have a rational reason to do so? In the case of interracial marriage it did not. Adding another layer to interracial marriage like gender is what it is. Adding another layer to the legal question. Blacks can marry whites, but blacks can't marry whites or blacks or pinks of the same gender. God do you people make a living out of muddying the waters?


Tim-

Tim-
 
The other characteristics dodge doesn't work even in the unconstitutional and wonky system of protected classes the SCOTUS ginned up. "Other characteristics" isn't one of the protected classes, the classes the SCOTUS is willing to rewrite the constitution for. Neither is sexual orientation as much as you may like it to be. Gender is, but you can't get to where you want on that horse.

It's a state licensing issue and it only has to comport with the state's constitution.

Everyone is protected under the law. It is the government that cannot treat people unequally with laws or restrict what we can do without showing that doing so furthers a legitimate state interest. Hair color is not a protected class, but it would still violate the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment to make a law that treated people differently because of their hair color.

State licenses and recognized relationships and contracts (all of which come into play in regard to marriages) are still covered under the US Constitution, despite what you want to believe. The state cannot tell someone they cannot get a fishing license because their eyes are blue, or they cannot be licensed to drive a car because they are 5'3"-5'8" tall. These all violate the EPC of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, as do marriage restrictions based on sex/gender. This is because the states cannot show how such restrictions further a legitimate state interest.
 
Well duh of course, but they still had to be male and female, no matter what color they were. This is not the same argument because I could easily say that black men cannot marry black men or white men, or pink men, and black women cannot marry black women, or white women, or pink women. Now what legal genius? What is the gender being protected against? Discrimination, right? Well how are either men or women being unequally discriminated against? The fact that there is discrimination is not the question, of course there is, the question is does society have a rational reason to do so? In the case of interracial marriage it did not. Adding another layer to interracial marriage like gender is what it is. Adding another layer to the legal question. Blacks can marry whites, but blacks can't marry whites or blacks or pinks of the same gender. God do you people make a living out of muddying the waters?


Tim-

Tim-

Situation 1) Everyone can marry someone of the same race
Situation 2) Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Explain why 1 is unconstitutional, but 2 is acceptable. Explain that rational reason of yours. Because you are absolutely right. The question is whether society, and the government, have a rational reason in doing so. In the case of a distinction of gender, that test is that the measure is "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

So, name the interest.
 
Wow. Now that's ****in authoritarian right there. "You have to prove why you should have a right" is pretty antithetical to American values.

Is that what you got from my post? That you have to prove you have a right? All I said is that for a court to decide on a right that was not previously recognized, it must decide whether the right exists, and in this case it does (Marriage in general) and whether limiting that right to a specific group has any basis in rationale. I think it does..

Tim-
 
1.)All I'm agreeing to is that having government not handle marriage as an exclusive contract, as suggested by another poster
2.) then SSM issue could be solved as well.
3.)I'm sorry you don't like it when I agree with a different point of view.
4.)However, it is not outside the realm of the discussion of creating equality for SS and OS marriages.
5.)One can either upgrade SS or downgrade OS, either achieves the same thing, equality.

1.) it will always be one in some fashion like all contracts
2.) that doesnt solve SSM
3.) i like when you make stuff up its funny LMAO. who said i dont like it or that you even agree with a different view point. Per what i was actually discussing i was talking facts, nothing else. lol
4.) no thats not outside the realm, your suggestion or the others done do that nor can some of them even be done.
5.) well this proves you don't understand how rights works, the solution is we just simply stop denying equal rights to a group of people that are currently being denied rights. Thats no upgrade or downgrade.

also it can easily be argued that and REAL downgrade is not equality.

again government will always be involved, and this is about equal rights, this is the topic lmao
 
Situation 1) Everyone can marry someone of the same race
Situation 2) Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Explain why 1 is unconstitutional, but 2 is acceptable. Explain that rational reason of yours.


Huh? They are both legal? But I think I know what you meant.

Because race and gender have no material similarities concerning marriage. They ARE different matters to adjudicate.

Next question.

Tim-
 
yeah, but in reality there is very little "reality" to a marriage contract as they are allowed now, it's all pretty vague and married people are treated differently legally with tax benefits and other estate type benefits that are not inherent in any other contract and instead must be detailed within the contract specifically. I'm suggesting that "marriage" should be treated like any other contract, with details and no particular government benefits just because of the contract. If a wife is a dependent then taxably she'd be handled that way, if she isn't a dependent and has her own income then she files separately, and the higher income earner has the children as dependents. The idea that just because you're married you should pay less tax doesn't seem right particularly when even single income couples tend to have a better income/expense ratio per person than a single person.

This is why marriage really isn't a contract. It is a recognition of legal kinship, very similar to a birth certificate or adoption record. Then that kinship is what provides those benefits or other privileges or rights because many different forms of kinship provide many of the same rights/benefits/privileges. Why? Because we view our kin as people who automatically deserve to be treated better in relation to our legal affairs than other, nonlegally related people, given special consideration, because family is important to us. Now, people are free, at least to a point, to make up legal contracts that exclude their legal relatives or at least specific legal relatives from certain privileges, but most people want the government to recognize that special relationship of kinship, which is why we do.
 
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.

I disagree. I don't see marriage as a net good or a net bad. And I don't see demonizing or attempting to humiliate single people by claiming they are defective. There aren't enough men to go around so some women are going to be single. It costs more to be single, so it makes no sense to offer the more cost effective situation tax breaks. It also doesn't make sense to exclude other non-sexual partnerships that are otherwise equally financially dependent, such as a woman and her adult daughter, who rely on each other's incomes and co-habitation to assure bills are paid and life is halfway comfortable.

Thank you for your careless bit of bs about singles. It is discouraging to see you be that person.
 
Situation 1) Everyone can marry someone of the same race
Situation 2) Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Explain why 1 is unconstitutional, but 2 is acceptable. Explain that rational reason of yours. Because you are absolutely right. The question is whether society, and the government, have a rational reason in doing so. In the case of a distinction of gender, that test is that the measure is "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

So, name the interest.

shhhhh don't use facts to destroy nonsense
you will be told that its magically different and that it wasn't the same thing (even though there are court rullings that directly refer to this)

just like it wasnt discriminatory for minorities when they could drink out of water fountains, just not THESE water fountains

the straw men of its already equal and its not a rights issue and its not like interracial marriage have all been debunked many moons ago.
 
This is why marriage really isn't a contract. It is a recognition of legal kinship, very similar to a birth certificate or adoption record. Then that kinship is what provides those benefits or other privileges or rights because many different forms of kinship provide many of the same rights/benefits/privileges. Why? Because we view our kin as people who automatically deserve to be treated better in relation to our legal affairs than other, nonlegally related people, given special consideration, because family is important to us. Now, people are free, at least to a point, to make up legal contracts that exclude their legal relatives or at least specific legal relatives from certain privileges, but most people want the government to recognize that special relationship of kinship, which is why we do.

Thank you for your response. It definitely puts it in a different light than I had been doing. I will ponder it.
 
No, it's solely about sexual orientation. But you would know this if you had been following the SCOTUS decisions. Both men and women have equal access to marriage. Unless you have another gender up your sleeve there. :mrgreen:

No, men and women do not have equal access to marriage. I cannot marry a woman, not because I am heterosexual, but because I a woman, but a man can marry a woman. This is discrimination based on sex. This is unequal access to marriage based on my gender. It doesn't matter that men cannot marry men, but I can. That only shows that every single person is being treated unequally by the laws of marriage so long as same sex marriage bans exist within our laws.

It is like saying that only women can hold a teaching license, not men, but only men can hold a license to practice medicine, not women, and saying that both have equal access to licensed career opportunities since both are restricted from being able to be licensed in a single career field.
 
Situation 1) Everyone can marry someone of the same race
Situation 2) Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Explain why 1 is unconstitutional, but 2 is acceptable. Explain that rational reason of yours. Because you are absolutely right. The question is whether society, and the government, have a rational reason in doing so. In the case of a distinction of gender, that test is that the measure is "substantially related" to an "important state interest."

So, name the interest.

I did, that regardless of how you libbos wish to frame the debate, marriage has been and always will be important to the state for one reason. The children, and whether parenthood is more than what you libbos think it is. It's not just about who carries the egg and who delivers the sperm. It's more, MUCH more than that, and you can't convince me otherwise. This is not radical, YOU'RE radical and the ilk that think like you.

Tim-
 
I love the amount of disdain, fear, anger, dishonesty and desperation that equal rights winning brings out in the bigots and or ant-equal rights people.

Equal rights is winning and is going to be the victory, now the only question is when. I bet at the longest 2016.
 
Marriage is a specific contract that is barred to same-sex couples in many states. It provides many benefits and rights at both state and Federal levels, and not all of these benefits and rights can be duplicated via a different private contract. (even civil unions don't get all of them)

For example, I cannot be compelled to testify against my spouse in a criminal hearing, and any communications between me and my spouse are assumed to be private and confidential. This is not something a civil contract can duplicate.

No it's not..... ANYONE can engage in a civil contract....

Technically all marriage is contract.....

Marriage and it's ties to the state is extremely complex - especially when it comes to taxation. That is something I have no desire to even have time to compute for you, especially since I think it is nonsense anyways and secondly because it would be just too difficult to explain it to you - not because I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand but because it's extremely confusing and flawed..... This is a concept that takes years to fully understand - unless you're a lawyer that practices civil law.

The best even concept I could give you about the contract(s) I'm talking about would be similar to "estate law" - but it goes way beyond that.

Of course every state is different and has different civil laws - I just know Illinois (well as most as I could learn) and I'm obviously familiar with federal law...

BTW, DOMA is a pain in the ass, if you legally wanted to make a contractual argument for marriage and circumvent the entire system...
 
I disagree. I don't see marriage as a net good or a net bad. And I don't see demonizing or attempting to humiliate single people by claiming they are defective. There aren't enough men to go around so some women are going to be single. It costs more to be single, so it makes no sense to offer the more cost effective situation tax breaks. It also doesn't make sense to exclude other non-sexual partnerships that are otherwise equally financially dependent, such as a woman and her adult daughter, who rely on each other's incomes and co-habitation to assure bills are paid and life is halfway comfortable.

In general, married households raise superior children, they have more disposable income, they are more stable and they form stronger communities. These, among other reasons, is why marriage is the preferred option of society and why society chooses to reward those who get legally married. If you choose not to, that's up to you. All choices have consequences. When people choose not to legally entangle their financial lives, most of those benefits to society go out the window. So long as that's the case, singles do not get those benefits and should not get those benefits.

Thank you for your careless bit of bs about singles. It is discouraging to see you be that person.

Sorry, but most of the people I see making those arguments fit what I said. They are people who, for whatever reason, choose not to be married. They want theirs and since they aren't getting theirs, they want to take away everyone else's. It's a choice and choices, as I said, have consequences. That's the consequence society has assigned to not getting married. The same as, in another thread, the whiny Christians who want to be able to talk about politics from the pulpit and maintain their tax-exempt status. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
1.)No it's not..... ANYONE can engage in a civil contract....
2.)Technically all marriage is contract.....

3.)Marriage and it's ties to the state is extremely complex - especially when it comes to taxation. That is something I have no desire to even have time to compute for you, especially since I think it is nonsense anyways and secondly because it would be just too difficult to explain it to you - not because I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand but because it's extremely confusing and flawed..... This is a concept that takes years to fully understand - unless you're a lawyer that practices civil law.

4.)The best even concept I could give you about the contract(s) I'm talking about would be similar to "estate law" - but it goes way beyond that.

5.) Of course every state is different and has different civil laws - I just know Illinois (well as most as I could learn) and I'm obviously familiar with federal law...

BTW, DOMA is a pain in the ass, if you legally wanted to make a contractual argument for marriage and circumvent the entire system...

1.) repeating this topically uneducated lie wont make it true.
2.) not technically it factually is and the majority of states banned gays in the marriage contract and civil unions. Some did domestic partnerships and some even further
3.) all meanignless to equal rights and failed insults wont help that
4.) again nothing to do with equal rights and SSM
5.) correct and when they violate individual rights the fed steps in which is what is happening

Please educate yourself on this specif topic, thank you
 
I did, that regardless of how you libbos wish to frame the debate, marriage has been and always will be important to the state for one reason. The children, and whether parenthood is more than what you libbos think it is. It's not just about who carries the egg and who delivers the sperm. It's more, MUCH more than that, and you can't convince me otherwise. This is not radical, YOU'RE radical and the ilk that think like you.

Tim-

Banning same-sex marriage does not further this interest. Banning same-sex marriage does not result in more children, or more stable family units, or a better environment for raising children. In fact, it harms that interest.
 
No it's not..... ANYONE can engage in a civil contract....

Technically all marriage is contract.....

Marriage and it's ties to the state is extremely complex - especially when it comes to taxation. That is something I have no desire to even have time to compute for you, especially since I think it is nonsense anyways and secondly because it would be just too difficult to explain it to you - not because I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand but because it's extremely confusing and flawed..... This is a concept that takes years to fully understand - unless you're a lawyer that practices civil law.

The best even concept I could give you about the contract(s) I'm talking about would be similar to "estate law" - but it goes way beyond that.

Of course every state is different and has different civil laws - I just know Illinois (well as most as I could learn) and I'm obviously familiar with federal law...

BTW, DOMA is a pain in the ass, if you legally wanted to make a contractual argument for marriage and circumvent the entire system...

I cannot sign any contract to prevent me from being forced to testify against a spouse, except a marriage contract. I cannot exempt you from an estate tax upon my death, I can only do that with a spouse that the state chooses to recognize.
 
And there you finally arrive at the point. It's a state issue, that should be decided by the individual states.

No, gender discrimination is federal.
 
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.

So the people/society...and their needs and desires....in those 50 states are frozen, set in stone?

Apparently not...since it has changed in the past and many many desire it to be changed again (changes: polygamy, interracial marriage, SSM)

So to actually SERVE our society apparently it needs to remain somewhat flexible.
 
The only straight people I see doing that nonsense are teenagers or drunk folk in bars...

I'm sorry but some of the gay activists can put on a pseudo-porno show..... With the kids I just laugh and say to myself "I remember when I was 16" but homosexuals/lesbians making out as adults in public.... That is a big WTF to me - as it would be for a straight couple.. I view their public affection as a political statement.

Trust me I would shake my head at a straight couple getting fond in public - and I'm far from a prude.

Don't get me wrong, kisses are fine - they're wonderful but the whole ass grabbing and obvious tongue nonsense ..... It's just not cool and certainly not adult behavior straight or gay...

In Chicago metro area you dont see major straight PDAs in public? Of more than teens? I call BS. you just dont notice or care.

Just IMO but I've been there too.
 
I cannot sign any contract to prevent me from being forced to testify against a spouse, except a marriage contract. I cannot exempt you from an estate tax upon my death, I can only do that with a spouse that the state chooses to recognize.

That is what you believe not what reality is.....

You want to talk about prenuptial agreements?
 
In Chicago metro area you dont see major straight PDAs in public? Of more than teens? I call BS. you just dont notice or care.

Just IMO but I've been there too.

What do you mean by PDA?

You're right tho - I see a lot that I don't care about because I've been trained to either ignore it or am desensitized to it.
 
So the people/society...and their needs and desires....in those 50 states are frozen, set in stone?

Apparently not...since it has changed in the past and many many desire it to be changed again (changes: polygamy, interracial marriage, SSM)

So to actually SERVE our society apparently it needs to remain somewhat flexible.
Sorry but I disagree. What we have seen over the last 15 years is the will of the people completely usurped by judges. At some point, the battle has to be decided one way or the other and we need to be able to move forward, however that looks.

Different opinions.
 
..

Furthermore it appears that gays get divorced twice as much as heterosexuals (or at least cant maintain a relationship as often).

Sorry, you'll have to provide divorce data to prove your statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom