• 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

“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.

true, one is discriminating against actions and the other is discriminating against someone's intrinsic characteristics.
 
true, one is discriminating against actions and the other is discriminating against someone's intrinsic characteristics.

What action does a person have to take to be gay or straight? Do I have to do anything specific to fall in love with someone of the same sex or opposite sex?
 
the action is gay marriage. merely being gay is not the trigger to these laws

How is it not?

I have been with my partner for four years. It seems to me that my family, which was dictated by my sexual orientation, is prohibited from marriage.
 
Last edited:
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

I understand not everyone believes 'protected class' should exist, but so long as it does, the lack of sexuality being among it is certainly noticed.

"Faking" sexuality to what end? Enter a sham marriage or lie repeatedly to prying coworkers? Conjure a fake girlfriend and then kill her off when the sports team suspects something's up? It's not easy, actually incredibly stressful, and just caters to prejudice.
 
the action is gay marriage. merely being gay is not the trigger to these laws

It is...we can't help who we fall in love with. This in turn leads to a desire to marry. If not gay, the action wouldn't follow
 
How is it not?

not to mention thats the weakest counter i have ever heard, anything could be added to it, its not very well thought out at all


"the action is gay marriage (employment, running for office, furthering one's education, shopping, getting a drivers licenses, voting). merely being gay (having a race, gender, age, disability etc) is not the trigger to these laws


I dont discriminate against blacks for being black I discriminate against them because they want to work at my company, the trigger is them wanting a job at my business
 
I understand not everyone believes 'protected class' should exist, but so long as it does, the lack of sexuality being among it is certainly noticed.

"Faking" sexuality to what end? Enter a sham marriage or lie repeatedly to prying coworkers? Conjure a fake girlfriend and then kill her off when the sports team suspects something's up? It's not easy, actually incredibly stressful, and just caters to prejudice.

Not to mention there were light skinned black people who "passed" as white in the past in order to get around all kinds of segregationist laws.
 
I understand not everyone believes 'protected class' should exist, but so long as it does, the lack of sexuality being among it is certainly noticed.

"Faking" sexuality to what end? Enter a sham marriage or lie repeatedly to prying coworkers? Conjure a fake girlfriend and then kill her off when the sports team suspects something's up? It's not easy, actually incredibly stressful, and just caters to prejudice.

that lack wont be there for much longer, equality is coming

just like i knew the dominoes would quickly fall with DOMA simply by default and design of the system this too will hit the gas and its right around the corner.

SO happy its gonna happen in my life time.
 
Since when is a couple liberal Dbags in black robes wiser the millions of MI voters?

Lived in MI my whole life and i'm all too aware a retarded gorilla has greater mental faculty than most MI voters. I go to class and work with people from around the country and world and all of them impress me a hell of a lot more, even by age 20, than almost any michigander i've met. Those single moms and their bimonthly rotating boyfriend, with the "Jesus not obama" handwritten sign pinned to their front yard tree (which falls on the trailer's roof during a stiff breeze) couldn't reference a single court decision other than Roe v Wade. Judges at least are *educated in the law*, unlike 98% of this state.

Even so, that ballot was 10 freaking years ago. Yeah, it's made me question the wisdom of near universal adult suffrage, but there's no chance that even the neanderthal MI voters will oppose SSM in perpetuity.
 
not to mention thats the weakest counter i have ever heard, anything could be added to it, its not very well thought out at all


"the action is gay marriage (employment, running for office, furthering one's education, shopping, getting a drivers licenses, voting). merely being gay (having a race, gender, age, disability etc) is not the trigger to these laws


I dont discriminate against blacks for being black I discriminate against them because they want to work at my company, the trigger is them wanting a job at my business

Yeah it does seem like an easy way out for any discrimination. Reminds me of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." The distinction is irrelevant when the intrinsic characteristic leads directly to the action
 
Yeah it does seem like an easy way out for any discrimination. Reminds me of "Love the sinner, hate the sin." The distinction is irrelevant when the intrinsic characteristic leads directly to the action(bigotry/discrimination/infringing on rights)

100% correct but it makes some feel better to use different words
now to be fair to turtle though i dont think he was doing that i just think his lawyer reflexes got the best of him and he spoke before thinking it all the way through
 
100% correct but it makes some feel better to use different words
now to be fair to turtle though i dont think he was doing that i just think his lawyer reflexes got the best of him and he spoke before thinking it all the way through

Yeah seems to be making a legal case on behalf of a judge he respects overall

Problem is it comes across "I support SSM but here's reason after reason to not allow it."
 
I don't think anyone is questioning what you accept. The problem is you have no rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. And the judge ignored that largely
You either didn't read the opinion or had a difficult time understanding it. This is an area he talks about in detail, recognizing "at least two" arguments that satisfy rational basis review.
 
What action does a person have to take to be gay or straight? Do I have to do anything specific to fall in love with someone of the same sex or opposite sex?
I dunno, but unless you do something, the concept becomes fairly meaningless - the tree that makes no noise because there is nobody there to hear it.
 
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.

That was a very long read but thank you, sometimes ive had trouble finding all the rulings but i have read them all.

Yes the Dissent nails it while i feel the ruling talks endless circles, more logic based on personal opinion and not law and a ruling that feels. . . well . .. . not like a ruling at all but like a complete dodge of the issue. How he circle talked and danced around whether a state has an interest was almost eye numbing. Referring to cases like Abbot but at the same time basically ignoring them is hilarious.

IMO I think the dodge and lack of a solid ruling was done on purpose but thats just my opinion. It was done to push it up the chain, which is fine by me. Forcing SCOTUS to rule is likely a faster path to equal rights.

I pointed out how DOMA was HUGE and would create dominoes and it did, ive been saying that i feel it wont be any longer than 2016 but now it might as well be as soon as next year.

Im actually happy theres a circuit break because IMO i think the road to equal rights victory will be even faster now.
 
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.
You see this is why many believe it should be left to the states. Some states allow it and some don't. You can go where it's allowed and live. On the Left they believe that all aspects of life should be decided at the federal level.
 
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.

Good morning Lady P - agree with you completely - I can't imaging a child as young as 13 being "worldly" enough and having experienced life enough to be prepared to commit to marriage - I know 50 yr olds who aren't mature and experienced enough!!

And I love your Rudner quote - very true!
 
You see this is why many believe it should be left to the states. Some states allow it and some don't. You can go where it's allowed and live. On the Left they believe that all aspects of life should be decided at the federal level.

states dont get to decided equal rights and individual rights, sorry thats silly.

what happens when a married couple is in a state that doesnt protect thier rights?

So if you and your spouse are in a state that doesnt recognize your legal marriage and you get in an accident now what? you cant visit your spouse and have no medical say cause you have no marriage?

What if your spouse goes to that state and cheats, its fine cause your rights arent protected there.

Or better yet your spouse dies in that state with you at home. You have no power to see the body or have it shipped back, also the car and possessions that are there stay there because you have no right to them. That adopted kid? they become property of the state now too.


no thanks, ill stick with equal rights being protected nationally
 
states dont get to decided equal rights and individual rights, sorry thats silly.

what happens when a married couple is in a state that doesnt protect thier rights?

So if you and your spouse are in a state that doesnt recognize your legal marriage and you get in an accident now what? you cant visit your spouse and have no medical say cause you have no marriage?

What if your spouse goes to that state and cheats, its fine cause your rights arent protected there.

Or better yet your spouse dies in that state with you at home. You have no power to see the body or have it shipped back, also the car and possessions that are there stay there because you have no right to them. That adopted kid? they become property of the state now too.


no thanks, ill stick with equal rights being protected nationally

I'm not sure marriage is a right is it? I mean you have to get a license for it. I think it's legally more of a contract.
 
I'm not sure marriage is a right is it? I mean you have to get a license for it. I think it's legally more of a contract.

SCOTUS ruled 14 times it is and yes it is a legal contract which needs protected not infringed on by states
 
states dont get to decided equal rights and individual rights, sorry thats silly.what happens when a married couple is in a state that doesnt protect thier rights?So if you and your spouse are in a state that doesnt recognize your legal marriage and you get in an accident now what? you cant visit your spouse and have no medical say cause you have no marriage?What if your spouse goes to that state and cheats, its fine cause your rights arent protected there. Or better yet your spouse dies in that state with you at home. You have no power to see the body or have it shipped back, also the car and possessions that are there stay there because you have no right to them. That adopted kid? they become property of the state now too.no thanks, ill stick with equal rights being protected nationally
There is no Constitutional right to have a state recognize gay marriage, or any marriage, so the argument fails. Many "rights" are determined at the state or even local level.
 
1.)There is no Constitutional right to have a state recognize gay marriage, or any marriage, so the argument fails.
2.) Many "rights" are determined at the state or even local level.

1.) Sorry SCOTUS disagrees and say it is a right :shrug:
so no the STATEMENT (not an argument) is backed by facts, rights and court cases and doesnt fail at all
if this fact bothers you, your argument is with them, not me
2.) never said otherwise
 
1.) Sorry SCOTUS disagrees and say it is a right :shrug:so no the STATEMENT (not an argument) is backed by facts, rights and court cases and doesnt fail at allif this fact bothers you, your argument is with them, not me2.) never said otherwise
You are incorrect. The court has recognized a right to marriage, not a right to a state-sanctioned marriage. It is perfectly legal for states to get out of the marriage business altogether. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can provide FACTS that support this instead of more STATEMENTS that do not.

And yes, you claimed that states don't get to determine equal rights. This is false. They can't write laws that conflict with the Federal law, but they do determine those rights within their borders.
 
Last edited:
I think I've been pretty evolving on my view of taxes. I don't necessarily see them as an infringement of rights as they serve a net benefit in theory. Low taxes mean there are entire urban communities who have no access to clean water, food, electricity and transportation.

Actually, taxes that are too low means there are entire rural communities that would have no access to clean water, food, electricity, and transportation. In almost all states, the tax bases in the cities float the rural areas. For example, in Kansas if it were not for the tax base on the Kansas side of Kansas City, they would be lucky to have a flush toilet, much less a paved road, in western Kansas. Most wealth transfers are not between rich and poor, but rather from urban areas to rural areas and from young to old.
 
Back
Top Bottom