• 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!

Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

JC_CT said:
Because marriage is a legal contract, and the 14th amendment provides for equal protection under state laws...
Click to expand...

Is the age of majority equal in all states?
 
JC_CT said:
Taxes.

I'm not sure if you are arguing for the complete abolition of government-recognized marriage, but if so then fine by me but that is a long ways away if ever from happening. If not, then please explain.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for a particular position. I'm arguing against anything goes...
 
Jerry said:
Not sure why everyone is looking to SCOTUS instead of Congress. I guess the public has been conditioned to live under an oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Because the ideas can't be advanced by a Constitutional amendment, which would be the proper way to make societal changes...
 
JC_CT said:
Since when is a legal contract between two CITIZENS anything goes?
Click to expand...

When a federal court is needed to make it valid in opposition to State law or constitution...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
When a court is needed to make it valid in opposition to State law or constitution...
Click to expand...
State laws and constitutions do not take precedence over the Constitution of the United States.

You are on the losing side of this one.
 
JC_CT said:
State laws and constitutions do not take precedence over the Constitution of the United States.

You are on the losing side of this one.
Click to expand...

Would you remind me how slavery ended or how women gained the right to vote?

HINT: It wasn't through the courts...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It can just as easily be done with a private legal document. Governments sanction marriage because of the belief there is a benefit to doing so, but when it becomes something forced upon society, it loses a bit of its luster...
Click to expand...
No, it can't be done anywhere near as easily.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Would you remind me how slavery ended or how women gained the right to vote?

HINT: It wasn't through the courts...
Click to expand...
I get your point. It's just not a convincing one. Blacks and women were specifically excluded from being full citizens; the Constitution was not applicable to them. The 3/5 compromise and "male" were written in. I don't recall seeing the word heterosexual anywhere.
 
JC_CT said:
I get your point. It's just not a convincing one. Blacks and women were specifically excluded from being full citizens; the Constitution was not applicable to them. The 3/5 compromise and "male" were written in. I don't recall seeing the word heterosexual anywhere.
Click to expand...

The 3/5s compromise had nothing to do with the legality of slavery, and there was no reference to males being the only allowed voters in the Constitution...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The 3/5s compromise had nothing to do with the legality of slavery, and there was no reference to males being the only allowed voters in the Constitution...
Click to expand...
Yikes.

I am not going to continue a conversation about Constitutionality with someone who has, without question, NOT read the Constitution.
 
JC_CT said:
Yikes.

I am not going to continue a conversation about Constitutionality with someone who has, without question, NOT read the Constitution.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no defense. Got it...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
In other words, you have no defense. Got it...
Click to expand...
Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
 
JC_CT said:
How about the 14th Amendment, the one I originally referenced?
Click to expand...

Does that amendment give one the ability to do anything? Context is important...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Does that amendment give one the ability to do anything? Context is important...
Click to expand...
You mean the context of women not being allowed to vote? Or some other context?

Why are you afraid of gay people getting married?
 
JC_CT said:
Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Click to expand...

Please show me where slavery is sanctioned in the Constitution or where men were the only ones allowed to vote. Those were State constructs and outside of its purview until the Constitution was amended...
 
JC_CT said:
You mean the context of women not being allowed to vote? Or some other context?

Why are you afraid of gay people getting married?
Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of it, I'm wondering why the federal government is involved. Aren't you?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not afraid of it, I'm wondering why the federal government is involved. Aren't you?
Click to expand...
Not even in the slightest. Equality is equality. If the states won't do it, then the federal gov't needs to. We wouldn't leave slavery or women's rights up to the states. We have the tool to stop this bigotry without needing Constitutional amendment, and we should use it. And we are.
 
JC_CT said:
Not even in the slightest. Equality is equality. If the states won't do it, then the federal gov't needs to. We wouldn't leave slavery or women's rights up to the states. We have the tool to stop this bigotry without needing Constitutional amendment, and we should use it. And we are.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, looking to the courts to do what cannot be done by changing the Constitution. If these issues were truly supported by a majority, the amendment process is not that daunting, but using a few (courts) to impose their will is a bit easier I suppose...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
This is the problem, looking to the courts to do what cannot be done by changing the Constitution. If these issues were truly supported by a majority, the amendment process is not that daunting, but using a few (courts) to impose their will is a bit easier I suppose...
Click to expand...
Or we could just stop ignoring the 14th Amendment and call it a day.
 
JC_CT said:
Or we could just stop ignoring the 14th Amendment and call it a day.
Click to expand...

The 14th could be interpreted to protect any action. Is this what you would prefer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom