• 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

Are you really under the impression that the people in the south were against segregation and those dastardly judges forced it on them?

Actually Deuce your whole party was for slavery back then. Be it judges or the average joe, the democrats were all about segregation and slavery for people that felt were inferior to them(white democrats). I would think you would have done some research on your party of choice?
 
To help me not have to read the entire ruling, and since it wasn't described in the article (which I did read), what citation from the Constitution did the court cite as the basis of the ruling?
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.

Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf

The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.


She nailed it.
 
Also, fun fact: Over the past 5 years, 24 out of the 25 decisions by the sixth circuit appealed to SCOTUS have been reversed. That's the worst in the nation. Not a very good track record.
 
Actually Deuce your whole party was for slavery back then. Be it judges or the average joe, the democrats were all about segregation and slavery for people that felt were inferior to them(white democrats). I would think you would have done some research on your party of choice?

So it was the will of the people?
 
Your understanding of Roe v Wade is fatally flawed.

You don't say. Fatally, yet! Well, come ahead, then. Don't just make a one-sentence assertion and run away--tell us all just how and why it's "fatally flawed." I haven't said anything the foremost constitutional law experts in the U.S. haven't been saying for forty years. Press the point, and I will quote some of their withering criticisms of that God-awful turkey of a decision.

Please, draw on your undoubted expertise in substantive due process doctrine and the implied constitutional right to personal privacy to explain what I'm failing to understand. Feel free to discuss the line of cases beginning with Meyer and Pierce, and extending through Skinner, Loving, Moore, Griswold, etc.
 
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.

Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf

The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.


She nailed it.


Now how on earth could any federal judge imagine that federalism, or the right of the people of a state to make their laws, had anything to do with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
 
Now how on earth could any federal judge imagine that federalism, or the right of the people of a state to make their laws, had anything to do with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The 14th amendment was created for the express purpose of limiting federalism when it comes to individual rights. State governments cannot treat people differently under the law based on irrational prejudice.
 
Yes slavery was the will of the southern democrats also known as "people" just like racist judges can also be refered to as "people"

Ok great. So upholding segregation was judges upholding the will of the people.
 
Now how on earth could any federal judge imagine that federalism, or the right of the people of a state to make their laws, had anything to do with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The people of a state do not have the right to make laws that violate the 14th amendment. Yet the discussion in the majority opinion surrounded not on the question of "do these laws violate the 14th amendment rights of the plaintiffs" but "What is the best means for deciding same-sex marriage." Federalism is relevant, but the lengthy discourse of it in the decisions in lieu of a sufficient discussion of the issue at hand is erroneous.
 
One can appreciate the ruling which in effect says that courts should interpret law established by legislatures and not establish law from the bench.

That said, I'm incredibly tired of the whole debate. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and how they want to do it. Get the government out of this mess and let people live their own lives as they see fit - want a church/religious marriage, find a church to marry you - want a civil marriage, visit a lawyer, create a contract, sign off on it and you're done.

Government is far too intrusive in the personal lives of citizens and this nonsense is a prime example of it.

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

:agree: I care less than you do, if that's possible, with one exception - age limitations. If you are 15 or younger, you're still considered a child by most states - but there are states that allow marriage at 15! Kansas allows marriage at age 15, and New Hampshire is 13 for bride, 14 for groom. These two States, plus the other 48 do require approval from a judge and one or both parents if the persons involved are less than 18 years of age or younger, however. In Shakespeare's tale of Romeo and Juliet, both committed suicide when they couldn't marry at 16 and 13 respectively. Stupid, silly teenagers!

For the rest of the populace, marry whomever you wish and good luck! "I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life." >>Rita Rudner.
 
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.

Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf

The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.


She nailed it.

Yeah the wholly fails to grasp the constitution is why those 2 judges should be impeached
 
Also, fun fact: Over the past 5 years, 24 out of the 25 decisions by the sixth circuit appealed to SCOTUS have been reversed. That's the worst in the nation. Not a very good track record.

Yet apparently they are brilliant legal "superstars" according to the OP.
 
Ok great. So upholding segregation was judges upholding the will of the people.

Some people I guess, you know like slave holders and racist judges. Just remember some people also believe Elvis is still alive. Any ruling a judge will make will be upholding the will of somebody so the point is moot.
 
The 14th amendment was created for the express purpose of limiting federalism when it comes to individual rights. State governments cannot treat people differently under the law based on irrational prejudice.

Not very accurate. The chief purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent states from depriving blacks of their civil rights. It was not intended to interfere with federalism, which is a structural feature of the Constitution as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment. See New York v. U.S.; Printz v. U.S.

Of course irrational prejudice is not a valid basis for any law, state or federal. That would be relevant if state laws excluding same-sex partners had no rational basis. Since they do, it is not.
 
The people of a state do not have the right to make laws that violate the 14th amendment. Yet the discussion in the majority opinion surrounded not on the question of "do these laws violate the 14th amendment rights of the plaintiffs" but "What is the best means for deciding same-sex marriage." Federalism is relevant, but the lengthy discourse of it in the decisions in lieu of a sufficient discussion of the issue at hand is erroneous.

Of course I don't accept that state marriage laws violate either equal protection or due process by excluding partners of the same sex, any more than they violate those rights by excluding partners who are too closely related, multiple partners, or partners who are already married.
 
No you're arguing that the courts should overturn the will of the people,

Lol, nice try. I've argued that the will of the people is irrelevant to judicial decisions. :shrug:

as in the state constitution of MI. Which they did, now stop whining although you wear it well.

What part of - the will of the people, doesn't get to deny people rights, privileges or benefits - do you have a problem with? Whether it's put into a state constitution is irrelevant. I... wear whining well? Wha?
 
Last edited:
No it was a decision made by men in black robes who were racist bigots. It had nothing to do with the will of the "southern people" it had everything to do with the will of racist judges. This really isn't that hard if you would take the time to think it through. Who's hard up for an argument?? Nice try but you failed miserably.

Lmao, you do know that President Buchanan actually pressured SCOTUS to vote in a manner that would prevent war with the Southern States yes? He actually pressured one of the Northerners on the court to vote in against Scott so that the decision wouldn't look like it was made along ideological South/North lines? Right? No - you really have no idea what you're discussing. Dred Scott was a will of the people decision made to please some people. As such, it is hailed as one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS. Again, pointing out it was made by Democrats or Republicans doesn't make your ridiculous argument that majorities get to deny rights any less ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
They aren't very bright at all if this is how they ruled

Then again, the best i could say for them is compartmentalized insanity

there might be 6 federal judges in the country as smart as Sutton.
 
Wasn't this heavily expected? I imagine now we can finally have the Supreme Court rule and end the SSM discussion.

on the 6th circuit, you could have had a 2-1 the other way if say Judge White (appointed by Bush to appease Democrats, she is Carl Levin's niece and a liberal) had been on the panel instead of Cook. This may well end up in front of the entire 6th Circuit

Donald, Stranch, White, Gilman, Clay, Moore, are all juges I believe would have voted with Judge Daughtrey on this matter.
 
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.

remind me your views on say popular gun control laws or progressive taxes like the death tax
 
Back
Top Bottom