• 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

Conservative said:
Where is marriage listed in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

That question has literally nothing to do with what he said. Indeed, he tacitly acknowledged that marriage isn't in the constitution.

What he's saying is the constitution does state that there must be equal protection under the law.

And the constitution does state that the amendments within it apply equally to the states as it does to the federal government.

Therefore laws at the state level must STILL have equal protection under the law.
 
Deuce said:
I read the 14th amendment, which you clearly have not.
Click to expand...

Noticed you ignored this part of the Constitution, not surprising

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since marriage isn't listed in the Constitution it is left to the states and thus the people. TX is saying no as are 31 other states
 
Conservative said:
Marriage isn't an equal protection issue, never has been
Click to expand...

Actually, it is. No better recognition of this fact can be found than in the number of mixed marriages where such couples were harassed, threatened w/physical abuse and in some cased lost their lives all because the couple married someone who was not of their racial makeup. But that's on the physical side.

There are also instances where mixed race couples were denied housing and/or employment once word got out that a white woman had married a black man (or visa versa). I don't know of any case where a mixed couple lost their federal benefits on the basis of race, but I know of a few common-law marriages between civilian couples that fell into that gray area.
 
Zyphlin said:
That question has literally nothing to do with what he said. Indeed, he tacitly acknowledged that marriage isn't in the constitution.

What he's saying is the constitution does state that there must be equal protection under the law.

And the constitution does state that the amendments within it apply equally to the states as it does to the federal government.

Therefore laws at the state level must STILL have equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of what laws? if it isn't in the Constitution it is a state issue, pretty easy to see that in the Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Conservative said:
Loving was a race issue not a marriage issue. Why hasn't the SC ruled on SSM? Pretty simple, it is a state issue.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is a gender issue not a marriage issue.

if it were a "state issue," SCOTUS would have overturned the circuit court rulings because those rulings just overturned state laws. State decisions were just reveesed by federal courts, and SCOTUS did not intervene.
 
Objective Voice said:
Actually, it is. No better recognition of this fact can be found than in the number of mixed marriages where such couples were harassed, threatened w/physical abuse and in some cased lost their lives all because the couple married someone who was not of their racial makeup. But that's on the physical side.

There are also instances where mixed race couples were denied housing and/or employment once word got out that a white woman had married a black man (or visa versa). I don't know of any case where a mixed couple lost their federal benefits on the basis of race, but I know of a few common-law marriages between civilian couples that fell into that gray area.
Click to expand...

Wrong, in Loving both parties were adhering to state law and one party was black and the other was white but both were of different sexes. Prevention was discrimination.
 
Conservative said:
Noticed you ignored this part of the Constitution, not surprising

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since marriage isn't listed in the Constitution it is left to the states and thus the people. TX is saying no as are 31 other states
Click to expand...

9th amendment.
 
Deuce said:
Same sex marriage is a gender issue not a marriage issue.

if it were a "state issue," SCOTUS would have overturned the circuit court rulings because those rulings just overturned state laws. State decisions were just reveesed by federal courts, and SCOTUS did not intervene.
Click to expand...

Loving was a discrimination issue based upon race, both were adhering to the state law
 
Conservative, unequal protection of the laws is specifically denied to the states by the constitution, and that's why the 10th doesn't shield you here.
 
Conservative said:
Since you won't answer the question this will

Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote

61% isn't a majority for same sex marriage

Care to change your statement that the majority support same sex marriage? Not in North Carolina
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm very aware of what happened, and easily explained it. That is not a majority of the state or even registered voters. It is a majority of those voters, mostly Republican, at the time that voted at that single point 2 years ago.

Thom Tillis doesn’t want to discuss gay marriage: The GOP Senate candidate knows that North Carolinians have changed their minds about marriage equality.

Altogether, 1.3 million people voted for the amendment. That’s 61 percent of those who showed up, but it’s only about 20 percent of the state’s voters. According to the Institute for Southern Studies, it’s the lowest turnout, in percentage terms, for any anti-gay-marriage ballot measure passed in the South.
Click to expand...

As I said, it was setup so it had to pass. And there were still plenty of voters who voted on it at the time who didn't even realize that it banned any unions at all, so they wouldn't have voted for it had they known. Political setup 2 years ago. Wouldn't stand a chance if done in this next election.
 
Conservative said:
Held by the people, voted on by the people

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...

Are you missing this part "to the people", which means all the people not just those in the majority of a state.
 
Deuce said:
9th amendment.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to understand the Constitution at all, read this very slowly

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It means that powers not listed in the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states. that is where marriage resides and where it should reside. You don't seem to understand the Constitution at all. You want to make Common law and a privilege a civil right. No where in the Constitution is that power granted since Marriage isn't in the Constitution
 
roguenuke said:
Are you missing this part "to the people", which means all the people not just those in the majority of a state.
Click to expand...

Marriage is common law and controlled by the states leaving it up to the states to decide. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the concept
 
Papa bull said:
I did address the subject head on. Homosexuals have the same rights everyone else has. The person who didn't come at this head on was the one that said that if you don't have the right to marry whatever gives you a chubby then you don't have equal rights and I pointed out that was wrong.
Click to expand...

This was the same veiled bigotry used to defend interracial marriage bans - "They have the same rights, they can just marry the same race." How quickly you and practically every other SSM opponent changes their tune where their own logic is applied against minorities they can tolerate more than homosexuals.
 
roguenuke said:
Not at all. I'm very aware of what happened, and easily explained it. That is not a majority of the state or even registered voters. It is a majority of those voters, mostly Republican, at the time that voted at that single point 2 years ago.

Thom Tillis doesn’t want to discuss gay marriage: The GOP Senate candidate knows that North Carolinians have changed their minds about marriage equality.



As I said, it was setup so it had to pass. And there were still plenty of voters who voted on it at the time who didn't even realize that it banned any unions at all, so they wouldn't have voted for it had they known. Political setup 2 years ago. Wouldn't stand a chance if done in this next election.
Click to expand...

Then put it back on the ballot and let the state decide. Don't get the Federal Govt. involved in a state issue
 
Conservative said:
Marriage is common law and controlled by the states leaving it up to the states to decide. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the concept
Click to expand...

You are the one who cannot comprehend the concept that it still has to uphold equal protection guarantees.
 
Conservative said:
Then put it back on the ballot and let the state decide. Don't get the Federal Govt. involved in a state issue
Click to expand...

Nope. Same sex couples are getting married right now here in NC. Deal with it. That isn't going away.
 
chromium said:
This was the same veiled bigotry used to defend interracial marriage bans - "They have the same rights, they can just marry the same race." How quickly you and practically every other SSM opponent changes their tune where their own logic is applied against minorities they can tolerate more than homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I am a states' right supporter and this is where it belongs
 
Conservative said:
Equal rights refers to anything listed in the Constitution. Where did you get your basic civics education?
Click to expand...


Here is the 4th attempt at this question...



Do you believe that the Constitution is a list of rights and if a right is not enumerated there that they are not held by the people?


>>>>
 
roguenuke said:
Nope. Same sex couples are getting married right now here in NC. Deal with it. That isn't going away.
Click to expand...

So the will of the people doesn't matter, thanks and remember that when Republicans take over control of that massive central govt. you are creating.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Here is the 4th attempt at this question...



Do you believe that the Constitution is a list of rights and if a right is not enumerated there that they are not held by the people?


>>>>
Click to expand...

If the laws aren't in the Constitution then they are created at the state level by the people. The people have the right to determine whether or not they support SSM and that is where the issue belongs, not in the courthouse
 
Conservative said:
Held by the people, voted on by the people

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Click to expand...


That says "powers" not rights, so again...


Do you believe that the Constitution is a list of rights and if a right is not enumerated there that they are not held by the people?


>>>>
 
Conservative said:
So the will of the people doesn't matter, thanks and remember that when Republicans take over control of that massive central govt. you are creating.
Click to expand...

Won't happen. Besides, this issue is over. Republicans don't stand a prayer on changing this issue in their favor. Too many support same sex marriage, particularly among the younger generation.

Of course, now you are admitting that Republicans, conservatives wish to take over and control a "massive central government".
 
Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

oh and i suppose you believe the uneducated masses in NC all had the constitution in mind when they voted for the ban. They by and large don't give a rat's ass and could not name even a handful of amendments, just like i doubt very much you care either. This is and always has been about ****ting on a disliked minority
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom