• 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

An amendment, expanding the definition of marriage, would 'reel' the govt back in?

And let's not forget that you are avoiding the underlying question of why not just amend the Constitution to change the definition of marriage? And we know that is because it would never pass, though the left claims that the American people are so behind this and want it. Sorry, not happening. That's why the left goes to the courts. Not enough support? Just get a handful of judges to amend the Constitution. That's the way of the left.
 
1.)and let's not forget that you are avoiding the underlying question of why not just amend the Constitution to change the definition of marriage?
2.) And we know that is because it would never pass, though the left claims that the American people are so behind this and want it.
3.)Sorry, not happening.
4.) That's why the left goes to the courts. Not enough support?
5.) Just get a handful of judges to amend the Constitution. That's the way of the left.

1.) because its it is in fact not needed
2.) this makes no sense, the majority do support equal rights but the reality is they dont have to, see womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage.
3.) sorry already has LOL
4.) you know there are millions on the right that support equal rights? weird this fact is ignored
5.) a handful? isnt it like up to 45? also nothing has been amended you already pointed this out. Make up your mind your post cnt even keep up with its own lies LMAO:lamo

facts win again
 
And let's not forget that you are avoiding the underlying question of why not just amend the Constitution to change the definition of marriage? And we know that is because it would never pass, though the left claims that the American people are so behind this and want it. Sorry, not happening. That's why the left goes to the courts. Not enough support? Just get a handful of judges to amend the Constitution. That's the way of the left.

Because it is not needed, and a waste of money and time to do so. This is already covered under the Constitution. There is no set "definition of marriage" in the Constitution in the first place, so why should we put one in just to appease some idiots who don't realize that the Constitution is supposed to limit the government, not tell the people what they can and cannot do.

However, those who oppose same sex marriage have already tried and failed twice to amend the Constitution to define marriage their way. Not enough support, which has only diminished since that time.
 
Just rule on it. It is a hot button issue across the nation. Make a ruling. Don't hide. Sad they are not taking such a large and highly litigated issue about personal freedom up.
 
Where's the amendment? When is it coming?
Why is there a need for an amendment?


Because Amendment efforts, for the US Constitution, to ban Civil Marriage based on gender have failed - repeatedly. So I guess the position is that citizens are entitled to equal treatement and due process from the States. So to get same-sex Civil Marriage a Federal Constitutional Amendment is required to grant a right from the government, instead of a document limiting the "powers" of government it is to become a laundry list of "rights" held by the people.

Previous Amendment efforts to ban SSCM failed in:

2002 - referred to die in committee

2003 - referred to various committees, failed to advance

2004 - failed a cloture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote

2005/2006 - failed a cluture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote

2008 - Introduced, referred to committee, no action

2013 - Introduced, referred to committee​



>>>>
 
Because Amendment efforts, for the US Constitution, to ban Civil Marriage based on gender have failed - repeatedly. So I guess the position is that citizens are entitled to equal treatement and due process from the States. So to get same-sex Civil Marriage a Federal Constitutional Amendment is required to grant a right from the government, instead of a document limiting the "powers" of government it is to become a laundry list of "rights" held by the people.

Previous Amendment efforts to ban SSCM failed in:
2002 - referred to die in committee

2003 - referred to various committees, failed to advance

2004 - failed a cloture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote

2005/2006 - failed a cluture vote in the Senate and failed on the House floor vote

2008 - Introduced, referred to committee, no action

2013 - Introduced, referred to committee​



>>>>

i-see-what-you-did-there-meme.jpg
 
Why is there a need for an amendment?

In my mind, there is no need, because I believe the Federal government should not play any role in this, it is up to the States. I think those that want to redefine marriage need an amendment because there is nothing in the Constitution granting Federal authority in this. The 14th amendment argument is B.S., but it is still used by activist judges to try and justify their crappy decisions.
 
1.)In my mind, there is no need, because I believe the Federal government should not play any role in this, it is up to the States.
2.) I think those that want to redefine marriage need an amendment because there is nothing in the Constitution granting Federal authority in this.
3.) The 14th amendment argument is B.S., but it is still used by activist judges to try and justify their crappy decisions.

1.) this is backwards from how our government works. Individual rights are not a states rights issue. The states overreached and the fed stepped in and corrected them protect equal rights, that's exactly how its supposed to be.
2.) its not being redefined, its still a type of civil contract
3.) BS? I havent double checked this but supposedly you are talking about 45 judges lol all 45 are just "activists"? sorry the strawman has no support.

you are claiming that rights, the law, the constitution and 45 judges and thier court cases are all wrong?
 
In my mind, there is no need, because I believe the Federal government should not play any role in this, it is up to the States. I think those that want to redefine marriage need an amendment because there is nothing in the Constitution granting Federal authority in this. The 14th amendment argument is B.S., but it is still used by activist judges to try and justify their crappy decisions.

And so the problem is that there is only a "redefinition" in your own mind. It isn't really happening because marriage has never really been defined legally by who can enter into it, but rather by what it does, which is make a legal kinship between two people in the form of spouse. All removing the restriction of sex/gender does is make that kinship available to more combinations of people.
 
And so the problem is that there is only a "redefinition" in your own mind. It isn't really happening because marriage has never really been defined legally by who can enter into it, but rather by what it does, which is make a legal kinship between two people in the form of spouse. All removing the restriction of sex/gender does is make that kinship available to more combinations of people.

As far as I can remember in this country, marriage has been between a man and a woman only. I don't know of any time in our history that it's been anything else. That's why it's a redefinition. But the issue that bothers me, whichever way it goes, is that the Federal government has no authority to get involved. Those judges should be turning the cases away because it is up to the States. The Constitution does not give the power to them, so it automatically resides with the States and the people.
 
As far as I can remember in this country, marriage has been between a man and a woman only. I don't know of any time in our history that it's been anything else. That's why it's a redefinition. But the issue that bothers me, whichever way it goes, is that the Federal government has no authority to get involved. Those judges should be turning the cases away because it is up to the States. The Constitution does not give the power to them, so it automatically resides with the States and the people.

Doesn't matter if it never happened before, it doesn't make it a "redefinition". It has always been about establishing a legal kinship of spouses. In order for it to be a "redefinition", you would have to be doing something other than establishing the kinship of spouses between two people.

The federal government has every authority to get involved. It is called the "US Constitution". The 14th Amendment gives them that power. The Civil War is over, the South lost, that means state governments are limited in what laws they can enact by the US Constitution and the people.
 
The federal government has every authority to get involved. It is called the "US Constitution". The 14th Amendment gives them that power. The Civil War is over, the South lost, that means state governments are limited in what laws they can enact by the US Constitution and the people.

You say they have "every authority"? How so? We know the complete history of the 13th, 14th, and 14th amendments. It's no mystery what they are for. And gay marriage isn't part of it.

The South lost the Civil War, which decided slavery and whether or not States can just leave the Union whenever they want. State governments are not more limited in the laws they can enact than they were before the Civil War. If that's what you mean? I'm not sure of what it is you are saying.
 
You say they have "every authority"? How so? We know the complete history of the 13th, 14th, and 14th amendments. It's no mystery what they are for. And gay marriage isn't part of it.

The South lost the Civil War, which decided slavery and whether or not States can just leave the Union whenever they want. State governments are not more limited in the laws they can enact than they were before the Civil War. If that's what you mean? I'm not sure of what it is you are saying.

Doesn't matter what you "think" you know. I know that the people including the Courts and government have upheld that the 14th applies to much more than just race, as some like to claim. And yes, same sex marriage is covered by it.

Yes, state governments are more limited, whether they like it or not. The Civil War was about more than slavery afterall. It was based on states' rights being supreme, over the federal government and individuals. They lost that fight. Individual rights trump state rights up to the point where the state can show a law/restriction furthers a legitimate state interest.
 
If you think that being against another person demanding handouts from the rest of us is suppressing their freedom, well that's just a complete disconnect from reality.
You have a serious lack of understanding of what freedom and Constitution mean.

Handouts? Your marriage is a handout from me, is it?
 
You say they have "every authority"? How so? We know the complete history of the 13th, 14th, and 14th amendments. It's no mystery what they are for. And gay marriage isn't part of it.

The South lost the Civil War, which decided slavery and whether or not States can just leave the Union whenever they want. State governments are not more limited in the laws they can enact than they were before the Civil War. If that's what you mean? I'm not sure of what it is you are saying.

The 14th amendment doesn't say it applies to race.
 
Yes, state governments are more limited, whether they like it or not. The Civil War was about more than slavery afterall. It was based on states' rights being supreme, over the federal government and individuals. They lost that fight. Individual rights trump state rights up to the point where the state can show a law/restriction furthers a legitimate state interest.

It didn't change the Constitution, it was enforced. There's nothing in there about States rights being supreme. It's more States and the people vs. the Federal government. And the Federal government only has power if the Constitution gives it to them, the people and States have power unless the Constitution states they don't.
 
It didn't change the Constitution, it was enforced. There's nothing in there about States rights being supreme. It's more States and the people vs. the Federal government. And the Federal government only has power if the Constitution gives it to them, the people and States have power unless the Constitution states they don't.

On this issue, it is states vs the people, specifically people who are having their rights oppressed by the states.
 
It doesn't say you can marry a person of the same sex either.

Since it is there to restrict the government, specifically state governments, then that would mean it is covers same sex couples getting married, the same as it did interracial couples and people behind on child support trying to get married and people in prison trying to get married.
 
It doesn't say you can marry a person of the same sex either.

So you think overturning interracial marriage bans was outside the power of SCOTUS.
 
Repubs fell on the wrong side of this one. A marriage is a contract that encompasses many other contracts. And the repubs claim they want the gov out of our business, but not on this issue. And I hope all the anger the gay community has on this is not for a title.
 
Back
Top Bottom