• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

Not all. There is the one district federal ruling over Louisiana. Robicheaux et. al v. Caldwell. That upheld a same sex marriage ban.

Wasn't talking about the ones that upheld the ban but those that struck the bans. And in the cases where state courts struck down the bans they improperly used federal court precedencies to do so.
 
Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.

If you want to make the new argument that "procreation is a legitimate state interest for marriage bans" or that "denying marriage to same sex couples does not violate equal protection because it discriminates equally" then that is fine and I can easily contest those new arguments. However, I was contesting your old 10th amendment argument that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so the federal government has not place in it." That was not a sound argument.

Which argument would you like to put forward now?
 
An activist judge is one whose rulings you don't agree with.

No, not for me. An activist judge is one who improperly uses law or constitution to decide in the favor of a cause.
 
If you want to make the new argument that "procreation is a legitimate state interest for marriage bans" or that "denying marriage to same sex couples does not violate equal protection because it discriminates equally" then that is fine and I can easily contest those new arguments. However, I was contesting your old 10th amendment argument that "marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution so the federal government has not place in it." That was not a sound argument.

Which argument would you like to put forward now?

No, read what YOU posted. I was countering your assertion that marriage was some fundamental right tied to survival. If it were, homosexual marriage loses.

The feds have no constitutional play here despite your thinking that the 10th and actual enumeration doesn't matter.
 
Correct, it does not. Not it's purpose nor it's intent.

The 14th says "any person" not "former slaves" or "people of African descent" or whatever. The amendment could very easily have been drawn narrowly if the intent was to have it apply only to former slaves. It wasn't.
 
The 14th says "any person" not "former slaves" or "people of African descent" or whatever. The amendment could very easily have been drawn narrowly if the intent was to have it apply only to former slaves. It wasn't.

Wow, I know you know more of our history than that displays. Tell me again the intent wasn't to deal with former slaves. It certainly didn't apply to women who, last I checked were persons.
 
The Federal government is involved because it has been asked by the people to get involved. The people can not run to the Constitution and amend it to fix problems in our daily lives...that is why we have laws.

Marriage and child custody are contracts that have to be settled in a court of law. Who offers that service? Google? AT&T? Walmart? ...No the state and federal governments.

The powers of the Federal government are outlined in the Constitution. There is nothing in there that says that it can have more power if the people simply ask. That's what the amendment process is for. Laws are only valid if they are Constitutional, no law supersedes the Constitution.

States can handle those issues, no need or permission for the federal government to be involved. Remember, the federal government was created by the States, and can be eliminated and changed by the States. I think it has gotten so out of control now because the States never come together and reel in the Federal government. I'd love to see the States pass an amendment or two and put the Federal in it's place. Maybe something like term limits and a requirement for a balanced budget.

Then kick 'em in the ass and tell them to get outta here before we decide to amend things further.
 
Yep, and if the state had a constitution that laid down one man and one woman definition of marriage they would only be in violation of the 14th if they didn't allow one man to marry one woman. That's equality under the law.

As for the rest, it's just nonsense in this discussion. You cannot claim with a straight face that homosexual marriage has anything to do with our need for survival.

And you cannot claim with a straight face that a state constitution can define a federal amendment.
If a state constitution defined "arms" as the two things attached to your shoulders, would you find a blanket gun ban constitutional within that state?
 
No, not for me. An activist judge is one who improperly uses law or constitution to decide in the favor of a cause.

Fair enough. I can't see however, how you can read the Equal Protection Clause so narrowly.
 
And you cannot claim with a straight face that a state constitution can define a federal amendment.

It doesn't need to, and I don't understand why you think this distraction was anywhere claimed in what I posted. The feds can't even define a federal amendment. That's a job for the amendment process and the states when ratifying that amendment.
 
I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.


I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I can read, apply logic, common sense, and reason to a variety of situations.

I've followed SSCM quite closely over the last decade since 2004 reading many of the briefs and decisions in the matter (I don't claim to have memorized them) and evaluated the arguments on both sides of the issue and the truth is the pro-discrimination side has been lacking as to why discrimination based on the racial composition of the couple does not matter but yet the gender composition of the couple does.

In 10-years no one has been able, from a Constitutional and legal perspective, been able to provide a compelling government reason - which pertains to the comparison of those in like situations that are treated differently but where one group is discriminated against - as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of different genders are allowed to Civilly Marry but yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of the same gender are not allowed to Civilly Marry.


So here is your chance, please articulate a reason that applies equally to both groups.


>>>>
 
Same way the folks who wrote it and ratified it did.

What makes you think they wanted it to apply narrowly? Why do you think they didn't want broad interpretations towards individual liberty? Were they just more authoritarian than I am?

Some people argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder muskets, because the founding fathers never said anything about semi-automatic weapons.
 
No, read what YOU posted. I was countering your assertion that marriage was some fundamental right tied to survival. If it were, homosexual marriage loses.

The feds have no constitutional play here despite your thinking that the 10th and actual enumeration doesn't matter.

My assertion was not that marriage is a fundamental right tied to survival. My argument is that marriage is a law, and therefore, it falls under the 14th amendment. There are amendments that exist beyond the 10th amendment and the purpose of Section 1 of the 14th amendment was to limit state powers so that they could not pass laws that would violate equal protection and due process.

Are you going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia because the federal government has no authority over marriage law?
 
Last edited:
No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.
You're contending that the equal protection clause does not cover SSM?


No it goes farther than that. He said that sexual orientation isn't covered so homosexuals aren't included under the "all citizens" part, so laws such as anti-sodomy laws that targeted homosexuals should have been upheld and that conduct remained illegal.



Of course Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans show that is incorrect.



>>>>
 
Wow, I know you know more of our history than that displays. Tell me again the intent wasn't to deal with former slaves. It certainly didn't apply to women who, last I checked were persons.

I didn't say that wasn't the intent. The 14th is a reconstruction amendment. It may have been prompted by slavery but it doesn't follow from that that it only applies to former slaves. Especially when the wording so explicitly says it applies to all people.

Are you speaking of women in terms of voting rights? I'd suggest that if the 14th amendment applied to voting rights there'd be no need for a 15th amendment.
 
Realistically, this rejection by SCOTUS settles the issue anyway. Just slower and less directly. If SCOTUS saw any substantial flaw in any of the decisions on cursory inspection, they would have taken up the case to overturn the circuit court decision. They didn't do that. Anyone attempting to appeal the next circuit decision (likely 9th) has this barrier: SCOTUS has no drive to take the case right now. So why appeal? Other circuits will also be looking at this rejection in the same light. While not technically bound by the decision of another circuit, the legal reasoning in these various cases is presumably sound if it made it that far without being overturned.

So, in the end, somebody needs a new, compelling argument as to why same-sex marriage bans should stand, if they want to keep this fight going. I'd ask the people against same-sex marriage in this thread to ponder that question: "Do I actually have an argument that I don't think has been expressly rejected several times already?" Theoretically another circuit could uphold a ban, at which point there would be a circuit split SCOTUS would be forced to settle. Unlikely.

It's over. The rest is just bureaucracy. I just wish SCOTUS would have had the balls to take the case and settle it faster so we can stop wasting taxpayer dollars on fighting against freedom.
 
No, absolutely not. Sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th, nor was that the intent of the 14th to begin with.

Gays and Lesbians are not citizens of the United States?
 
What makes you think they wanted it to apply narrowly? Why do you think they didn't want broad interpretations towards individual liberty? Were they just more authoritarian than I am?

No, they were dealing with an issue that had plagued us, split us since the beginning.

Some people argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to muzzle-loading black powder muskets, because the founding fathers never said anything about semi-automatic weapons.

Well then those some people don't know what they're talking about. Automatic weapons existed at the time, we just couldn't afford them.

Ferguson rifle
Ferguson rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, but I can read, apply logic, common sense, and reason to a variety of situations.

I've followed SSCM quite closely over the last decade since 2004 reading many of the briefs and decisions in the matter (I don't claim to have memorized them) and evaluated the arguments on both sides of the issue and the truth is the pro-discrimination side has been lacking as to why discrimination based on the racial composition of the couple does not matter but yet the gender composition of the couple does.

In 10-years no one has been able, from a Constitutional and legal perspective, been able to provide a compelling government reason - which pertains to the comparison of those in like situations that are treated differently but where one group is discriminated against - as to why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of different genders are allowed to Civilly Marry but yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adult couples of the same gender are not allowed to Civilly Marry.


So here is your chance, please articulate a reason that applies equally to both groups.

Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???

Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
 
My assertion was not that marriage is a fundamental right tied to survival. My argument is that marriage is a law, and therefore, it falls under the 14th amendment. There are amendments that exist beyond the 10th amendment and the purpose of Section 1 of the 14th amendment was to limit state powers so that they could not pass laws that would violate equal protection and due process.

Are you going to argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to strike down state interracial marriage bans in Loving v. Virginia because the federal government has no authority over marriage law?

Asked and answered.
 
No, they were dealing with an issue that had plagued us, split us since the beginning.



Well then those some people don't know what they're talking about. Automatic weapons existed at the time, we just couldn't afford them.

Ferguson rifle
Ferguson rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So they didn't want the 14th amendment to cover anything except former slaves/racial issues? Who said that? What lead you to believe this was the intent? What if I suggested they were wiser than this, and realized that there were other aspects of a person that might be cause for discrimination in the future that they wanted to preempt?
 
Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???

Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.

What if a man wants to marry a man?
 
Back
Top Bottom