• 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

JasperL said:
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can't get worked up over a slippery slope argument that begins with the judiciary EXPANDING human rights (or privileges if you prefer) to an historically disfavored group.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege
 
Conservative said:
And yet the will of the people is being ignored and that should scare the hell out of every American. Marriage is a state issue, it is common law, and the Federal govt. should never be involved. Activists justices are involved and making law rather than interpreting law. There is one solution, a Constitutional Amendment. You aren't going to like the outcome.
Click to expand...

What should scare the hell out of every American is the prospect of a tyranny of the majority. The majority of the citizens of southern states 50 years ago were in favor of segregation. By your reasoning the federal government should have never gotten involved then. You cannot vote away the rights of others. If you don't want gays to have legal marriage recognition, then you have to demonstrate how granting them legal marriage recognition impedes the rights of others. Of course you can't. Even if every state all of a sudden had to start issuing same sex couples marriages licenses, no church would have to recognize those marriages. For example, if you divorce and remarry the state recognizes your second marriage but the Catholic Church does not. Nobody's lives would be impacted other than those couples that were allowed to then get married and their families.
 
Conservative said:
I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege
Click to expand...

This argument you just made is a perfect example of how ignorant most people are of the constitution. For the most part, the constitution does not grant you rights, it limits the powers of the government. In fact there was a lot of concern at the time of our founding that if a bill of rights were added to the constitution, some authoritarians later on would actually think that those were the only rights people had. By your argument, marriage is not a right because its no where in the constitution thus the government could outlaw all marriage. Cohabitation is not a right because its no where in the constitution, thus the government could outlaw cohabitation. Hell sex is no where in the constitution, thus by your reasoning a state government could require you have a permit to engage in sex, and could stipulate who you sleep with. The true slippery slope here would be if the federal courts actually to the extreme position of interpreting the constitution as you think they should. You could literally have a government as totalitarian as the government of Iran if the constitution were interpreted as you think it should be.
 
Conservative said:
I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege
Click to expand...

You want to ban gays from accessing the institution of marriage. Call it what you will - human right, civil right, privilege of modern society - I don't care. But what you're upset about is people you don't approve of accessing a right/privilege that you have acknowledged was valuable and meaningful to YOU. If the courts keep going down this slippery slope, why would I care? I care more about the people able to access marriage, and their well being, than those who want to reserve that right/privilege to themselves and those like them. Two gays getting married doesn't affect or diminish my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It's the beautiful thing about rights and privileges - extending them to others costs us NOTHING but the ability to express our "moral opprobrium" through restrictive access to those rights or privileges.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What should scare the hell out of every American is the prospect of a tyranny of the majority. The majority of the citizens of southern states 50 years ago were in favor of segregation. By your reasoning the federal government should have never gotten involved then. You cannot vote away the rights of others. If you don't want gays to have legal marriage recognition, then you have to demonstrate how granting them legal marriage recognition impedes the rights of others. Of course you can't. Even if every state all of a sudden had to start issuing same sex couples marriages licenses, no church would have to recognize those marriages. For example, if you divorce and remarry the state recognizes your second marriage but the Catholic Church does not. Nobody's lives would be impacted other than those couples that were allowed to then get married and their families.
Click to expand...

We have a Constitution, read it. There is no tyranny on the part of the majority being against SSM but like all leftwingers you make a mountain out of a mole hill all because you cannot defend your position so you use scare tactics. You use judges to advance a leftwing agenda vs the will of the people. We had the Constitution amended and will do it again. If there was tyranny of the majority many of those issues you are whining about would still be issues today
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This argument you just made is a perfect example of how ignorant most people are of the constitution. For the most part, the constitution does not grant you rights, it limits the powers of the government. In fact there was a lot of concern at the time of our founding that if a bill of rights were added to the constitution, some authoritarians later on would actually think that those were the only rights people had. By your argument, marriage is not a right because its no where in the constitution thus the government could outlaw all marriage. Cohabitation is not a right because its no where in the constitution, thus the government could outlaw cohabitation. Hell sex is no where in the constitution, thus by your reasoning a state government could require you have a permit to engage in sex, and could stipulate who you sleep with. The true slippery slope here would be if the federal courts actually to the extreme position of interpreting the constitution as you think they should. You could literally have a government as totalitarian as the government of Iran if the constitution were interpreted as you think it should be.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have been saying, the power of the federal govt is limited by the wording in the Constitution. If it isn't there or put there it doesn't exist or it may at the state and local level. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, it is common law. learn the difference
 
JasperL said:
You want to ban gays from accessing the institution of marriage. Call it what you will - human right, civil right, privilege of modern society - I don't care. But what you're upset about is people you don't approve of accessing a right/privilege that you have acknowledged was valuable and meaningful to YOU. If the courts keep going down this slippery slope, why would I care? I care more about the people able to access marriage, and their well being, than those who want to reserve that right/privilege to themselves and those like them. Two gays getting married doesn't affect or diminish my marriage or the marriage of anyone else. It's the beautiful thing about rights and privileges - extending them to others costs us NOTHING but the ability to express our "moral opprobrium" through restrictive access to those rights or privileges.
Click to expand...

What part of states' rights don't you understand. how many times do I have to say it? This is a state issue not a civil rights issue. There is a reason the SC hasn't ruled yet, figure it out.
 
Conservative said:
What part of states' rights don't you understand. how many times do I have to say it? This is a state issue not a civil rights issue. There is a reason the SC hasn't ruled yet, figure it out.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly the 14th ammendment and the equal protection clause make this an national issue as well.
 
Conservative said:
WorldWatcher said:
Conservative said:
My interpretation is that equal protection under the law refers to the laws in the Constitution, not common law or state law.
Click to expand...
Then you aren't reading the Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​


The very text of the 14th Amendment itself shows you are wrong because it specifically places limitations on the States.


>>>>
Click to expand...
Great, how does this relate to common law? Did you read the definition of common law? Every American in this country has the same rights when it comes to marriage. I cannot marry my sister, my mother, my dog so you tell me what the difference is? Are you going to support that next?
Click to expand...


You said "or State Law".

When a State amends it's Constitution, that is not "common law" that is State Constitutional Law, when a State enacts statutes, that Is Statutory Law.



Typical reaction though, when you are getting your ass kicked on Constitutional Law deflect to incest and bestiality. Surprised you didn't throw in coffe table for inanimate objects and a 6-year old for raping a child.



>>>>
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Unfortunatly the 14th ammendment and the equal protection clause make this an national issue as well.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment again relates to the Constitution. You want to amend the Constitution for Marriage, go for it
 
WorldWatcher said:
You said "or State Law".

When a State amends it's Constitution, that is not "common law" that is State Constitutional Law, when a State enacts statutes, that Is Statutory Law.



Typical reaction though, when you are getting your ass kicked on Constitutional Law deflect to incest and bestiality. Surprised you didn't throw in coffe table for inanimate objects and a 6-year old for raping a child.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Great, now tell me how common law marriage relates to that clause? You don't seem to grasp that Marriage isn't a civil right, it is common law and history, precedence, and states agree with that fact.
 
Conservative said:
Great, now tell me how common law marriage relates to that clause? You don't seem to grasp that Marriage isn't a civil right, it is common law and history, precedence, and states agree with that fact.
Click to expand...

And the precedent of this Case is loving v. Virginia.
 
Conservative said:
The 14th Amendment again relates to the Constitution. You want to amend the Constitution for Marriage, go for it
Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense. You have been shown several times that the 14th Amendment refers to state laws, not anything in the Constitution itself, when talking about the EPC.
 
Conservative said:
Great, now tell me how common law marriage relates to that clause? You don't seem to grasp that Marriage isn't a civil right, it is common law and history, precedence, and states agree with that fact.
Click to expand...

It is a law, which is subject to limitation under the EPC of the 14th Amendment, whether you wish to recognize this fact or not. At least three court cases ruled on by the SCOTUS have covered this issue, all three striking down state restrictions on marriage.
 
Conservative said:
What part of states' rights don't you understand. how many times do I have to say it? This is a state issue not a civil rights issue. There is a reason the SC hasn't ruled yet, figure it out.
Click to expand...

OK, the states have the "right" to discriminate. Sorry, but I won't be crying even crocodile tears that their precious right to withhold privileges from disfavored minorities is restricted.
 
Conservative said:
Great, now tell me how common law marriage relates to that clause? You don't seem to grasp that Marriage isn't a civil right, it is common law and history, precedence, and states agree with that fact.
Click to expand...


There is no need to because the States Amended their Constitution and revised Statutory law, it has nothing to do with Common Law. Hell the vast majority of states don't allow for common law marriage anymore.


The States enacted Amendment and Statutory laws, you were backed into a corner and are now trying to deflect.



>>>>
 
Papa bull said:
I am not interested in excluding people based on their sexual preference. I am interested in marriage staying the sensible institution it has always been (for the most part), as a union of the opposite sex. Homosexual marriage makes no sense at all and is, in fact, an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Including gays makes no change to what you think is the sensible institution marriage is. In fact it more sensible to include gays then exclude them.

Same sex marriage makes perfect sense and there is nothing contradictory about same sex marriage.
 
Conservative said:
Still waiting for you to show me marriage in the Constitution. Equal protection is for laws in the Constitution not common law.
Click to expand...

Soon as you show me where it says the 14th amendment only applies to "laws in the constitution."

The premise of your query is rejected. By me and the Supreme Court.
 
Papa bull said:
I think we're done here. It seems no one is really interested in actual discussion and all I'm doing is agitating homosexuals. It's enough that my state hasn't capitulated to the politically correct insanity on this.
Click to expand...

No, you're the one simply declaring victory and having no intelligent argument to back you up. It's your side that's done and buried, you just haven't figured it out yet.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And the precedent of this Case is loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

So then there isn't an issue, solved in Loving vs. Va. Amazing how this ruling is what you want it to be when the actual ruling is all about race, not SSM
 
WorldWatcher said:
You said "or State Law".

When a State amends it's Constitution, that is not "common law" that is State Constitutional Law, when a State enacts statutes, that Is Statutory Law.



Typical reaction though, when you are getting your ass kicked on Constitutional Law deflect to incest and bestiality. Surprised you didn't throw in coffe table for inanimate objects and a 6-year old for raping a child.



>>>>
Click to expand...

I have had my ass kicked many times but never by you. The Constitution was written by our Founders who understood, unlike you, that too much power at the central level is no better than what they had in England thus they listed those powers in that Constitution. Equal protection and the 14th Amendment apply to the Constitution. You want marriage in the Constitution, then go for it
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Does the constitution not apply to the states?
Click to expand...

Of course it does but you seem to forget our history which isn't surprising as you probably never studied our history. The Constitution laid out the laws of the land leaving room for the states to make their own laws. If a law isn't in the Constitution, it isn't covered by the Constitution. Seems like a simple concept to understand but not for radical liberals.
 
roguenuke said:
This is absolute nonsense. You have been shown several times that the 14th Amendment refers to state laws, not anything in the Constitution itself, when talking about the EPC.
Click to expand...


So what you want is a big central govt. that tells you what that central govt. wants. What is absolute nonsense is the attitude of many on this thread and every other SSM thread. Marriage isn't in the Constitution, it is common law and a state issue thus the Constitution has nothing to do with it. You want marriage in the Constitution, go for it
 
JasperL said:
OK, the states have the "right" to discriminate. Sorry, but I won't be crying even crocodile tears that their precious right to withhold privileges from disfavored minorities is restricted.
Click to expand...

Discriminate against whom? You want gays to be a class of citizens? Wrong, being gay is a personal choice and personal choice isn't a civil right. 19 states recognize gay marriage, now you only have 31 more to go, go for it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom