• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

The law of Alaska will not be amended for a while, even if it is ignored.

A law that cannot be enforced, is not a valid law, whether on the books or not.

There are segregation laws still on the books in some states.
 
A law that cannot be enforced, is not a valid law, whether on the books or not.

There are segregation laws still on the books in some states.

It can be enforced. There is nothing which can, strictly speaking, make county clerks sign marriage licenses.
 
It can be enforced. There is nothing which can, strictly speaking, make county clerks sign marriage licenses.

They can be fired for refusing to do so, and should be if they are not giving licenses to or accepting marriage licenses from same sex couples. And they can then be sued by those couples if it holds up their marriage.
 
Why not, they've been waiting?

Some have, and some have fought for the right to, but that doesn't mean they will just all go out and do it. I believe in the right for me to protest, that doesn't mean I am going to go out and do that each day.

That's why I think it is hilarious watching the hysteria of some conservatives thinking that the state is going to go bankrupt due to taxes of married SS couples.
 
They can be fired for refusing to do so, and should be if they are not giving licenses to or accepting marriage licenses from same sex couples. And they can then be sued by those couples if it holds up their marriage.

Yet if they are moral people they can do so nonetheless.
 
Yet if they are moral people they can do so nonetheless.

Everyone is a "moral" person, because everyone has their own morals.

What you mean is that if everyone shared your morals, that they will refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

I hope they try so that they can get fired and be replaced by someone less bigoted.
 
Most of the recognitions/benefits of spouses come from the federal government, not the state. So you can continue the crap about how it hasn't been a federal issue, but you would be wrong. It simply isn't true.

And the federal government has struck down state marriage restrictions, the same thing that same sex marriage restrictions are, 3 times in the past.

All the Federal Govt. has to do is change the laws regarding economic issues and leave the states controlling the marriages like they have been doing for centuries. This isn't a Federal issue, it is a state issue and always has been. You want to be married to your same sex Partner move to a state that allows it. Put the issue on a national ballot and see what . happens. Stop whining about an equal rights issue ignoring that you have the same rights I have, marrying someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't suit you so you have to get a judge to overturn the will of the people.
 
All the Federal Govt. has to do is change the laws regarding economic issues and leave the states controlling the marriages like they have been doing for centuries. This isn't a Federal issue, it is a state issue and always has been. You want to be married to your same sex Partner move to a state that allows it. Put the issue on a national ballot and see what . happens. Stop whining about an equal rights issue ignoring that you have the same rights I have, marrying someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't suit you so you have to get a judge to overturn the will of the people.

Or simply make the states allow same sex couples to marry, as they should. I do not have the same rights as you because I cannot marry a woman, you can. Just as in the past blacks and whites did not have the same rights. A black person could not marry a white person but a white person could. A white person could not marry a black person but a black person could marry a black person. That is unequal rights.
 
All the Federal Govt. has to do is change the laws regarding economic issues and leave the states controlling the marriages like they have been doing for centuries. This isn't a Federal issue, it is a state issue and always has been. You want to be married to your same sex Partner move to a state that allows it. Put the issue on a national ballot and see what . happens. Stop whining about an equal rights issue ignoring that you have the same rights I have, marrying someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't suit you so you have to get a judge to overturn the will of the people.


All the Federal Govt. has to do is change the laws regarding economic issues and leave the states controlling the marriages like they have been doing for centuries. This isn't a Federal issue, it is a state issue and always has been. You want to be married to your different race Partner move to a state that allows it. Put the issue on a national ballot and see what . happens. Stop whining about an equal rights issue ignoring that you have the same rights I have, marrying someone of the same race. That doesn't suit you so you have to get a judge to overturn the will of the people.



>>>>
 
Or simply make the states allow same sex couples to marry, as they should. I do not have the same rights as you because I cannot marry a woman, you can. Just as in the past blacks and whites did not have the same rights. A black person could not marry a white person but a white person could. A white person could not marry a black person but a black person could marry a black person. That is unequal rights.

This certainly is a passionate issue for some of you and yet you won't let the people of your state decide. Why is that? Yes, you do have the same rights as I have as I cannot marry a man either. This is about same sex marriage and you have the same rights as I have. You want to overturn decades of precedence all because of your own morals. This is a country of laws made by people and voted on by people. Let the people of each state decide not a person on the courts.

Race is protected under the Constitution, read it. Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?
 
This certainly is a passionate issue for some of you and yet you won't let the people of your state decide. Why is that? Yes, you do have the same rights as I have as I cannot marry a man either. This is about same sex marriage and you have the same rights as I have. You want to overturn decades of precedence all because of your own morals. This is a country of laws made by people and voted on by people. Let the people of each state decide not a person on the courts.

Race is protected under the Constitution, read it. Where is marriage defined in the Constitution?

Because same sex couples getting married does not affect those people who are trying to prevent them, no more than any opposite sex couples getting married does so they have no legitimate right to prevent them from getting married. That is why they shouldn't "decide" this issue.

I will overturn decades of precedence for what is right, for the guarantees of our Constitution, for what is fair. We are not a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Race is not mentioned in the Equal Protection Clause as the only thing that is protected under that clause. Marriage is protected under that catch-all the 9th.
 
All the Federal Govt. has to do is change the laws regarding economic issues and leave the states controlling the marriages like they have been doing for centuries. This isn't a Federal issue, it is a state issue and always has been. You want to be married to your same sex Partner move to a state that allows it. Put the issue on a national ballot and see what . happens. Stop whining about an equal rights issue ignoring that you have the same rights I have, marrying someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't suit you so you have to get a judge to overturn the will of the people.

That's a bogus description of the relevant 'right' being discussed, which is the 'right' to marry the person you love. It helps the discussion when you're up front about what you're proposing, which is marriage is a privilege and can be limited or restricted however the community deems appropriate. I don't agree with that position, but it's at least intellectually honest. No legitimate 'right' is dependent on the outcome of a vote and can be granted or rescinded at will as popular opinion changes.
 
Because same sex couples getting married does not affect those people who are trying to prevent them, no more than any opposite sex couples getting married does so they have no legitimate right to prevent them from getting married. That is why they shouldn't "decide" this issue.

I will overturn decades of precedence for what is right, for the guarantees of our Constitution, for what is fair. We are not a direct democracy. We are a constitutional republic. Race is not mentioned in the Equal Protection Clause as the only thing that is protected under that clause. Marriage is protected under that catch-all the 9th.

So what you believe is right is indeed right? What gives you that power and that arrogance? The equal protection clause has nothing to do with marriage and that is why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. This is a state issue. you don't like it, tough ****. move to a state that allows you to do what ever the hell you want and think is right.

Equal protection can be used for almost any issue you want and just because you want it, doesn't make it right. we are a nation of laws and the people of N.C. spoke in huge numbers. You don't like the results so you go to some robed justice to get your will imposed on everyone else.

I really suggest focusing on what is really important, the economy and national security.
 
That's a bogus description of the relevant 'right' being discussed, which is the 'right' to marry the person you love. It helps the discussion when you're up front about what you're proposing, which is marriage is a privilege and can be limited or restricted however the community deems appropriate. I don't agree with that position, but it's at least intellectually honest. No legitimate 'right' is dependent on the outcome of a vote and can be granted or rescinded at will as popular opinion changes.

Marriage is indeed a privilege and has for decades controlled by the states not some judge. If you want to marry your partner move to a state that allows it. stop making a federal issue out of a state issue and privilege
 
I really suggest focusing on what is really important, the economy and national security.

Says the guy reading and posting in a thread titled, "Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional."

:lamo
 
So what you believe is right is indeed right? What gives you that power and that arrogance? The equal protection clause has nothing to do with marriage and that is why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. This is a state issue. you don't like it, tough ****. move to a state that allows you to do what ever the hell you want and think is right.

Equal protection can be used for almost any issue you want and just because you want it, doesn't make it right. we are a nation of laws and the people of N.C. spoke in huge numbers. You don't like the results so you go to some robed justice to get your will imposed on everyone else.

I really suggest focusing on what is really important, the economy and national security.

In reality, what gives me the power is the fact that the courts and a majority of people support that position. The SCOTUS has ruled on marriage several times in the past, striking down state laws pertaining to marriage restrictions. You don't like, too bad. That is reality. The SCOTUS has struck down marriage restrictions for race, owing child support after divorce, and getting married while in prison.

Equal protection absolutely can be used for whatever issue, so long as it abides by the levels of scrutiny that the SCOTUS has already established.

The economy is important and not only is it a huge waste of taxpayer money to fight against same sex couples being allowed to marry, it has also been shown that same sex marriage is good for the economy both the states' economies and the nation's.
 
Says the guy reading and posting in a thread titled, "Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional."

:lamo

Yep, trying to make people think about what is really important vs. posting on this bull**** all the time. Every thread on SSM is filled with emotion driven rhetoric that ignores reality, history, precedence, and the will of the people. If the people of TX don't want SSM then so be it, move to a state that allows it.
 
In reality, what gives me the power is the fact that the courts and a majority of people support that position. The SCOTUS has ruled on marriage several times in the past, striking down state laws pertaining to marriage restrictions. You don't like, too bad. That is reality. The SCOTUS has struck down marriage restrictions for race, owing child support after divorce, and getting married while in prison.

Equal protection absolutely can be used for whatever issue, so long as it abides by the levels of scrutiny that the SCOTUS has already established.

The economy is important and not only is it a huge waste of taxpayer money to fight against same sex couples being allowed to marry, it has also been shown that same sex marriage is good for the economy both the states' economies and the nation's.

if the majority of the people support it then this wouldn't be an issue at all. The people of TX don't support it. Why should the will of the people of TX be ignored?
 
if the majority of the people support it then this wouldn't be an issue at all. The people of TX don't support it. Why should the will of the people of TX be ignored?

Because the "majority" in this case is only the majority at a single point in time, years ago. You don't really know what the majority supports at this very moment. You are guessing.

But in reality, it doesn't matter. As I've said, the majority are not legitimately harmed or even affected by two people of the same sex entering into marriage more than two people of the opposite sex entering into marriage, so there is no legitimate reason for them to prevent it, so the Constitution comes into play.
 
Because the "majority" in this case is only the majority at a single point in time, years ago. You don't really know what the majority supports at this very moment. You are guessing.

But in reality, it doesn't matter. As I've said, the majority are not legitimately harmed or even affected by two people of the same sex entering into marriage more than two people of the opposite sex entering into marriage, so there is no legitimate reason for them to prevent it, so the Constitution comes into play.

You make my point, what you believe is right is all that matters not what the majority in the states believe. You buy the polls but don't look at the internals nor do you look at what happens when this issue is put on the ballot even in your own state. what was the vote in your state? How can you claim the majority of the people in North Carolina support SSM? This isn't a Constitutional issue and never has been. Marriage isn't a right, it is common law and controlled by the states
 
Yep, trying to make people think about what is really important vs. posting on this bull**** all the time. Every thread on SSM is filled with emotion driven rhetoric that ignores reality, history, precedence, and the will of the people. If the people of TX don't want SSM then so be it, move to a state that allows it.

Good point, we could be talking about football... Tennessee plays #3 Mississippi this weekend! Go Vols!
 
Why should the will of the people of TX be ignored?

Because sometimes the people are wrong.

You can't vote, to take away others rights, its as simple as that.

What if people voted to allow slavery again?

Whenever a law gets passed that some of you supposed "constitutionalists" don't like it's:

"We're a Republic not a democracy"

And when it's something you do like it's:

"Will of the people".

Well I'll tell you what, if I spend enough money I can convince enough people to vote to take your rights away and we'll see how much you enjoy the "will of the people" then.
 
Because sometimes the people are wrong.

You can't vote, to take away others rights, its as simple as that.

What if people voted to allow slavery again?

Whenever a law gets passed that some of you supposed "constitutionalists" don't like it's:

"We're a Republic not a democracy"

And when it's something you do like it's:

"Will of the people".

Well I'll tell you what, if I spend enough money I can convince enough people to vote to take your rights away and we'll see how much you enjoy the "will of the people" then.

Seems that a lot of people in the country are wrong by your standards. We are indeed a republic and have 50 sovereign states that make the laws that govern marriage. The Will of the people is being overturned by justices. why hasn't the SC ruled on Marriage yet? Bring your opinion to TX and spend all the money in the world and see what that gets you here. You and others want to overturn the will of the people of TX as well as the many other states that don't buy into the SSM issue. Saying that the majority support the issue is a downright lie.
 
Seems that a lot of people in the country are wrong by your standards. We are indeed a republic and have 50 sovereign states that make the laws that govern marriage. The Will of the people is being overturned by justices. why hasn't the SC ruled on Marriage yet? Bring your opinion to TX and spend all the money in the world and see what that gets you here. You and others want to overturn the will of the people of TX as well as the many other states that don't buy into the SSM issue. Saying that the majority support the issue is a downright lie.


IIRC, Texas was one of the States that still barred interracial marriage as of June 12, 1967.

How'd that work out again?



>>>>
 
IIRC, Texas was one of the States that still barred interracial marriage as of June 12, 1967.

How'd that work out again?



>>>>

Race is indeed a Constitutional issue, marriage isn't. You want to marry your partner move to a state that allows it
 
Back
Top Bottom