• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

CriticalThought said:
It seems to me the majority wanted to force a circuit break. It is hard for me to accept they would wait until two days after the election and issue a ruling with such lackluster reasoning. I am the biggest advocate for same-sex marriage on this forum and I could have written a better argument for same-sex marriage bans. This wreaks of political maneuvering. They wanted to force SCOTUS to take this up sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I don't get what the election has to do with it, since most of even the repub candidates ran away from this issue now.
 
CriticalThought said:
Ask yourself whether you think someone as smart as Sutton is incapable of discerning differences between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Or maybe, he is savvy enough to recognize that SCOTUS is intentionally dragging its feet long enough on the issue by refusing to take up the issue so that same-sex marriage has been instituted in as many states as possible and become as accepted and commonplace as possible before they do. If he is a diehard federalist it would make sense he would want to force their hand as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

It's already legal in what, 34 states? That's pretty similar to the situation prior to Loving v Virginia. It's too late for him to make any difference, and i can't think of much that's more contradictory than a "diehard federalist" federal judge.

If he were so savvy as you theorize, his circuit would not have been overturned now 25 of 26 times by SCOTUS. I'm only struggling to figure out whose lobotomy was more debilitating, his or scalia's.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Decisions issued by this court were reversed 25 out of the 26 times that they were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court since Oct., 2008, a higher frequency than any appeals court.

I predict that this ruling will suffer the same fate. SSM is coming nation-wide in the USA, wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being the same rights that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...

1) that statistic is true but it doesn't tell the whole story

2) if the court is going to clearly sustain a decision, they won't take it up

so unlike appellate courts hearing district court appeals (which circuit courts have no choice but to take) when the USSC takes a case, it is a sign that at least some of the justices seek to reverse it

3) a better indication is how many requests for cert to the USSC are granted for each circuit
 
chromium said:
I don't get what the election has to do with it, since most of even the repub candidates ran away from this issue now.
Click to expand...

Sadly, about a month ago I told my friends that the decision would be issued within a few days after the election. It became obvious when it took them months. The Majority did not want this ruling to be used to drum up the liberal base is my guess.
 
Hatuey said:
You do realize that Dred Scott is regarded as a terrible decision because it was made in order to uphold the will of the (Southern) people
Click to expand...
. Yes? :lol: I don't think you actually thought that argument through too well.
Click to expand...



That was a long time ago. All of those people are dead now and their ideas are buried with them.
 
chromium said:
It's already legal in what, 34 states? That's pretty similar to the situation prior to Loving v Virginia. It's too late for him to make any difference, and i can't think of much that's more contradictory than a "diehard federalist" federal judge.

If he were so savvy as you theorize, his circuit would not have been overturned now 25 of 26 times by SCOTUS. I'm only struggling to figure out whose lobotomy was more debilitating, his or scalia's.
Click to expand...

You really think the man is intellectually incapable of discerning any significant difference between polygamy and same sex marriage? Somehow it seems like a stretch to me. Harvard would take back his degree.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) that statistic is true but it doesn't tell the whole story

2) if the court is going to clearly sustain a decision, they won't take it up

so unlike appellate courts hearing district court appeals (which circuit courts have no choice but to take) when the USSC takes a case, it is a sign that at least some of the justices seek to reverse it

3) a better indication is how many requests for cert to the USSC are granted for each circuit
Click to expand...

Which is why the fact they punted on the other appeals completely reveals how they'll rule on this one. That the 6th in this instance ruled so clearly in defiance of this suggests they have little regard for SCOTUS, or the constitution for that matter. I'm going out on a limb that 25 is well above average
 
CriticalThought said:
You really think the man is intellectually incapable of discerning any significant difference between polygamy and same sex marriage? Somehow it seems like a stretch to me. Harvard would take back his degree.
Click to expand...

Refer back to what i said about compartmentalized insanity (aka religion)

There's a line from this ruling on marriage between man/woman has been the norm since Genesis was written. He's not the first zealot dumbass on a power trip to graduate from Harvard i can assure you (see: GW Bush)
 
Hicup said:
I'm just wondering when AGENTJ will come in here and concede that this "law" is now fact.. Of course it's an opinion like all the other laws in the land, but it will give me a smile in any event watching how he tries to reacquaint himself with a shred of consistency. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

I am kind of lost. Same-sex marriage was banned in those states prior to the ruling and it still is after the fact.
 
chromium said:
Refer back to what i said about compartmentalized insanity (aka religion)

There's a line from this ruling on marriage between man/woman has been the norm since Genesis was written. He's not the first zealot dumbass on a power trip to graduate from Harvard i can assure you (see: GW Bush)
Click to expand...

If he was such a religious zealot why would he concede that same-sex couples can make excellent parents?
 
chromium said:
Which is why the fact they punted on the other appeals completely reveals how they'll rule on this one. That the 6th in this instance ruled so clearly in defiance of this suggests they have little regard for SCOTUS, or the constitution for that matter. I'm going out on a limb that 25 is well above average
Click to expand...

I disagree with your take on this. "little regard for the SCOTUS" is hyperbolic and the same with the constitution. LIke it or not gay marriage or even being gay is not quite the black and white issue some would say it is when it comes to inalienable rights. What you are arguing for is a "right to marry someone you find attractive". gay men can marry women the same as straight men can
 
CriticalThought said:
If he was such a religious zealot why would he concede that same-sex couples can make excellent parents?
Click to expand...

Same reason he knew better than to insert "queers" in every other line. Even most zealots these days have learned how to 'mask' their hate.

I don't see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt as you're doing. Guess what, Scalia went to Harvard too. Is he too not a bigot despite his myriad anti gay rulings and references to "culture wars" and "americans don't want homosexuals as neighbors"? The reason they equate polygamy and SSM is they are *bigots*, in spite of their education. They have something in common with the local redneck bar.
 
AWESOME!!!!

a circuit break!
which was thought to happen to make SCOTUS take it up after they passed on it

this means that there is a very high probability that SCOTUS will hear it now and there ruling will become national with one case!

While I figured it would take probably till 2016 and all 12 would just eventually rule leaving SCOTUS out of it now they are thrown into the game.

My guess now is they rule in 2015 in line with the other 24 decisions and almost 50 judges that its unconstitutional and that will be that.

I also like this path better because we'll never have to hear the crybabies say "SCOTUS never ruled on it"

Equality is coming!
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree with your take on this. "little regard for the SCOTUS" is hyperbolic and the same with the constitution. LIke it or not gay marriage or even being gay is not quite the black and white issue some would say it is when it comes to inalienable rights. What you are arguing for is a "right to marry someone you find attractive". gay men can marry women the same as straight men can
Click to expand...

That is why the dissent chastised the majority for treating the plantiffs as abstractions. It has more to do than "attraction". These are people with kids. There are real consequences to their families by not having these rights. They are being punished because they are not in a traditional family structure and then belittled and told that their family would be worthy of marriage if they had chosen a partner of the right sex.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is why the dissent chastised the majority for treating the plantiffs as abstractions. It has more to do than "attraction". These are people with kids. There are real consequences to their families by not having these rights. They are being punished because they are not in a traditional family structure and then belittled and told that their family would be worthy of marriage if they had chosen a partner of the right sex.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that where SSM recognition is most "needed" is not for raising children but when something happens to one of the partners and that relationship is traumatically ended-such as the case where District Judge Tim Black (one of the very best in Ohio) ruled that a SS Couple that had one partner dying of ALS was deemed to be "married" to his partner so the trust of guy who was not dying would be met in that the family grave site was restricted to "spouses" of members of the family

or when one gay partner is declared "brain dead" and the partner wants to make the call to pull the plug or donate the organs to those who need them

rather than not having the family structure "belittled"
 
TurtleDude said:
I disagree with your take on this. "little regard for the SCOTUS" is hyperbolic and the same with the constitution. LIke it or not gay marriage or even being gay is not quite the black and white issue some would say it is when it comes to inalienable rights. What you are arguing for is a "right to marry someone you find attractive". gay men can marry women the same as straight men can
Click to expand...

Take a look at the protected classes under employment discrimination. Many of them are far more questionable in terms of life choices (putting oneself into said class): race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran, genetics

What is the basis for a hetero marriage right, if not someone they find attractive? Raising kids? Gays can do that too and many married hetero couples do not. But being gay is pretty clearly an established identity by this point, as affirmed in various anti discrimination laws, numerous studies, and common sense. If it wasn't a real identity, there wouldn't be this uproar about 'gay agenda' to begin with. If it's an identity, then yeah, inalienable rights come with it.

Now i take equal protection to mean precisely what it says. You can't rule that interracial marriage bans violate equal protection but gender marriage bans do not. You can't decide infertile couples can marry but gay couples cannot.
 
Very thorough, detailed constitutional analysis by the majority--I can't fault any of it. Weak dissent that's long on personal opinion and emotion, and short on law. The assertion at the end about the Framers' reason for creating the Supreme Court, for example, is wildly inaccurate and--understandably--not supported by not a single citation.
 
chromium said:
Take a look at the protected classes under employment discrimination. Many of them are far more questionable in terms of life choices (putting oneself into said class): race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, citizenship, familial status, disability, veteran, genetics

What is the basis for a hetero marriage right, if not someone they find attractive? Raising kids? Gays can do that too and many married hetero couples do not. But being gay is pretty clearly an established identity by this point, as affirmed in various anti discrimination laws, numerous studies, and common sense. If it wasn't a real identity, there wouldn't be this uproar about 'gay agenda' to begin with. If it's an identity, then yeah, inalienable rights come with it.

Now i take equal protection to mean precisely what it says. You can't rule that interracial marriage bans violate equal protection but gender marriage bans do not. You can't decide infertile couples can marry but gay couples cannot.
Click to expand...

I am not a good person to argue the ED stuff with-I don't have much use for those laws on a federal level since I don't believe that the federal authority was legitimately delegated to the government but your point has some merit.

I don't oppose gay marriage as I have noted. but its almost impossible to "fake" being black or Hispanic or pregnant
 
TurtleDude said:
I was under the impression that where SSM recognition is most "needed" is not for raising children but when something happens to one of the partners and that relationship is traumatically ended-such as the case where District Judge Tim Black (one of the very best in Ohio) ruled that a SS Couple that had one partner dying of ALS was deemed to be "married" to his partner so the trust of guy who was not dying would be met in that the family grave site was restricted to "spouses" of members of the family

or when one gay partner is declared "brain dead" and the partner wants to make the call to pull the plug or donate the organs to those who need them

rather than not having the family structure "belittled"
Click to expand...

To put it simply, you would not argue that a heterosexual couple wish to marry only because they are "attracted" to each other. And yet that gross simplification is deemed appropriate for same-sex couples. The majority wants to ignore that these are families with the same needs as families headed by heterosexual couples.
 
TurtleDude said:
I was under the impression that where SSM recognition is most "needed" is not for raising children but when something happens to one of the partners and that relationship is traumatically ended-such as the case where District Judge Tim Black (one of the very best in Ohio) ruled that a SS Couple that had one partner dying of ALS was deemed to be "married" to his partner so the trust of guy who was not dying would be met in that the family grave site was restricted to "spouses" of members of the family

or when one gay partner is declared "brain dead" and the partner wants to make the call to pull the plug or donate the organs to those who need them

rather than not having the family structure "belittled"
Click to expand...

It's actually all very true, depending on individual circumstance. There was even a documentary made of a guy in his 20s who died suddenly on a trip overseas. The surviving partner couldn't even attend the funeral, thanks to the vindictive family. But CT is also right that their kids and the couple themselves will be deprived of a 'legitimate' family
 
TurtleDude said:
I am not a good person to argue the ED stuff with-I don't have much use for those laws on a federal level since I don't believe that the federal authority was legitimately delegated to the government but your point has some merit.

I don't oppose gay marriage as I have noted. but its almost impossible to "fake" being black or Hispanic or pregnant
Click to expand...

“Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.” -Colin Powell

They are different but significant in their own ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom