• 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

1.)You are incorrect.
2.)The court has recognized a right to marriage, not a right to a state-sanctioned marriage.
3.) It is perfectly legal for states to get out of the marriage business altogether.
4.) If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can provide FACTS that support this instead of more STATEMENTS that do not.

5.)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.

1.) no i am 100% correct lol
2.) good thing i didnt say that, thats what you added on and has nothing to do with my statement, thanks, like i said my statement was right. Marriage is a right
3.) another thing i never said but marriage isnt a business its a contract
4.) since i never made any of the statements you made up its not need, MY actual statement is still 100% true,. Marriage is a right.

let me know when you want to discuss something i actually siad instead of making stuff up

5.) nope again you are wrong i didnt claim anything i pointed out the fact that its beyond thier power to do so and its 100% right. They don't determine equal rights has in the 14th if the violate it that sun constitutional. Yes they can make laws inside thier board as long as those don't violate the constitution. You didnt even say anything contrary to what i said LMAO.

again please stick to what was actually said and to avoid further confusion on your part instead of assuming or making stuff up, simply ask. Youll have better success.

Fact remains, marriage is a right :shrug:
 
1.) no i am 100% correct lol
2.) good thing i didnt say that, thats what you added on and has nothing to do with my statement, thanks, like i said my statement was right. Marriage is a right
3.) another thing i never said but marriage isnt a business its a contract
4.) since i never made any of the statements you made up its not need, MY actual statement is still 100% true,. Marriage is a right.

let me know when you want to discuss something i actually siad instead of making stuff up

5.) nope again you are wrong i didnt claim anything i pointed out the fact that its beyond thier power to do so and its 100% right. They don't determine equal rights has in the 14th if the violate it that sun constitutional. Yes they can make laws inside thier board as long as those don't violate the constitution. You didnt even say anything contrary to what i said LMAO.

again please stick to what was actually said and to avoid further confusion on your part instead of assuming or making stuff up, simply ask. Youll have better success.

Fact remains, marriage is a right :shrug:
I could go back and spoonfeed your quotes back to you, but won't bother wasting my time with a poster who makes argument-less "statements" that he can't back up and who refuses to engage in any sort of intelligent discussion. The fact that you can't support any of your claims speaks for itself.

Why try playing chess with someone who only wants to play tiddley-winks?
 
1.)I could go back and spoonfeed your quotes back to you
2.) but won't bother wasting my time with a poster who makes argument-less "statements" that he can't back up and who refuses to engage in any sort of intelligent discussion.
3.) The fact that you can't support any of your claims speaks for itself.

4.) Why try playing chess with someone who only wants to play tiddley-winks?

1.) PLEASE do so you will further fail because your made up statements still wont be there
2.) deflecting and posting lies wont help your failed statements. my statement still stands 100%
Marriage is a right and that statement can be backed up 100%
3.) sorry nobody educated, honest and objective buys this lie because my statement is supported, remind us what you have on your side besides "nu-huh"
ill stick to facts, and court cases over your foot stomping

SCOTUS ruled that way 14 times and many lower courts including ones recently on this very subject called marriage a right
Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights

list of rulings for equal rights which some repeat this
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

fact remains marriage is a right and you have posted ZERO to change that fact :)


4.) I agree this is why its a good move for you to stick to tiddlywinks and i accept your concession.
your post fails and facts win again

if you disagree simply bring facts to the table that prove the SCOUTS wrong and explain why we should listen to you over them.
I bet you dodge this because you know your post was factually wrong.
 
If they don't get to decide, then who does? A judge, two maybe three of them? Aren't "they" people too?


Tim-

When the judges strike down laws as unconstitutional, they are upholding the will of the people, that which is deemed most important to us found in the US Constitution, ensuring that everyone's rights are upheld, not just the majority's will.
 
Were not these same men in black robes OK with slavery at one point in time??? You don't need to answer that.

As was the will of the majority at that time. Judges are people who can get things wrong. That doesn't mean that they don't serve the role of deciding on what is constitutional or not, and should do so without considering whether it is the "will of the people", since that has anything to do with whether something is or should be constitutional or not.
 
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!

I had previously called June 2015. (end of the current SCOTUS session) It looked like I might be wrong after SCOTUS rejected cert before.

Now it looks like my schedule could be back on track. Depends on whether they go for an en banc hearing and if that drags out, it could force things to 2016.

I have to wonder about something pointed out in the dissent for this decision: the ruling seems so poorly thought out and supported that it almost seems like these judges wanted to create a circuit split so SCOTUS would be forced to take the case.

And that leads me to wonder whether or not this is the cover SCOTUS wanted in the first place. "Oh, well, looks like we HAVE to take the case now. Well, we tried to keep our hands off, but now we have to decide!"
 
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

But same sex marriage bans are not banning marriage based on being homosexual, but rather on being a certain sex trying to marry someone who is of that same sex, which is sex discrimination. You can fake being gay, but so can you fake being attracted to people of a different race, yet we still got the Loving decision.
 
the action is gay marriage. merely being gay is not the trigger to these laws

Then it easily compares to the Loving case, since the action was interracial marriage. The Lovings chose to be with each other, even if neither chose their race. They could have chosen to be with other people of their own race, but they didn't want to because they were attracted to each other. Just as same sex couples could choose to be with other people of the opposite sex, but the don't want to (and shouldn't have to) because they are attracted to each other. Those people in same sex relationships did not chose their sexes, their genders, anymore than the Lovings chose to be different races, despite their attractions. In both cases, these should be personal choices that other people cannot limit unless those other people can show that such limitations are necessary to further an (important in my opinion) but at least legitimate state interest.
 
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.

Most of these celebrities could easily avoid segregationist laws, yet all would be covered under the majority, if not all of them, since they were based on how much "nonwhite/black blood" a person had, not their actual looks (the laws themselves), but enforced by looks and knowledge (if you lived in a small community and they knew about your parentage, then the laws would be enforced against you).

http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/08/13/10-black-actors-who-are-successfully-passing-for-white/5/
 
Last edited:
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.

The SCOTUS has recognized a right to a state recognized marriage, many times. Plus, there is the right to equal protection under the law, which covers those things that may not in themselves be rights, such as getting a driver's license is not a right, yet laws regarding them must treat people equally.
 
I had previously called June 2015. (end of the current SCOTUS session) It looked like I might be wrong after SCOTUS rejected cert before.

Now it looks like my schedule could be back on track. Depends on whether they go for an en banc hearing and if that drags out, it could force things to 2016.

I have to wonder about something pointed out in the dissent for this decision: the ruling seems so poorly thought out and supported that it almost seems like these judges wanted to create a circuit split so SCOTUS would be forced to take the case.

And that leads me to wonder whether or not this is the cover SCOTUS wanted in the first place. "Oh, well, looks like we HAVE to take the case now. Well, we tried to keep our hands off, but now we have to decide!"

I dont know about SCOTUS but i do get the feeling that its possible this was ruled this way to push it upstiars and i actually suspected it would happen. Though i did not think now, i thought that last or next to last circuit would do it.
 
The SCOTUS has recognized a right to a state recognized marriage, many times. Plus, there is the right to equal protection under the law, which covers those things that may not in themselves be rights, such as getting a driver's license is not a right, yet laws regarding them must treat people equally.

That equal protection does not mean that if state A allows (or does not tax) X, then state B must also do so as well anymore than it means that if state B disallows (or taxes) Y then state A must do as well. There is little sense in having states if the wishes of a federal judge trump their power to pass laws that differ from one another. Laws concerning marriage, voting, guns and recreational drugs differ greatly among the several states yet there is but one constitution defining the rights of the people and powers of the federal gov't.
 
That equal protection does not mean that if state A allows (or does not tax) X, then state B must also do so as well anymore than it means that if state B disallows (or taxes) Y then state A must do as well. There is little sense in having states if the wishes of a federal judge trump their power to pass laws that differ from one another. Laws concerning marriage, voting, guns and recreational drugs differ greatly among the several states yet there is but one constitution defining the rights of the people and powers of the federal gov't.

correct and they can vary until they infringe on "rights" and then they get corrected which is exactly what the fed is supposed to do.
 
Deciding constitutional questions is not "legislating from the bench", it is in fact the very role of the judicial system in our system of checks and balances.


It's not a constitutional question. Both this court and the USSC have said as much. Nice try though.


Tim-
 
The reasoning of the "majority" fails to recognize the many changes to the laws since Baker, including the fact that the laws in Baker were not written into the state constitutions at that time. The legal definition of marriage at the time of Baker was based on personal views of what marriage should be not how marriage was restricted through the laws. There was no actual restriction written into the law at the time of Baker. The specific laws in these cases being challenged did not exist when Baker was ruled on. Plus, at the time of Baker, sodomy laws were still in place, homosexuality was still regarded as a mental illness by many, and there were pretty much no laws recognizing sexuality as a "classification" that could be protected. So there have been significant changes since the Baker decision that do affect how these courts should rule on these cases. In fact, Baker was based on "well marriage has always meant this so that means same sex couples simply do not qualify", which means the entire decision in Baker was flawed and most definitely does not apply today, when marriage does not include an inherent definition of "a man and a woman" in itself.
 
That equal protection does not mean that if state A allows (or does not tax) X, then state B must also do so as well anymore than it means that if state B disallows (or taxes) Y then state A must do as well. There is little sense in having states if the wishes of a federal judge trump their power to pass laws that differ from one another. Laws concerning marriage, voting, guns and recreational drugs differ greatly among the several states yet there is but one constitution defining the rights of the people and powers of the federal gov't.

No. It means that if a state allows someone of a certain sex to do something, such as marry someone of a certain sex, then they must allow a person of the opposite sex to marry that certain sex of person as well unless the state can show that restricting such marriages furthers an important state interest.

If a man can marry a woman, then equal protection says that a woman should also be able to legally marry a woman unless the state can show how not allowing a woman to marry a woman furthers an important state interest.
 
correct and they can vary until they infringe on "rights" and then they get corrected which is exactly what the fed is supposed to do.

If a right was defined in 1868 then it does not change in 2014. Are we to believe that SSM is a "right" that was defined in 1868 - or that (some) judges have changed their minds (evolved their positions?) on that matter?
 
No. It means that if a state allows someone of a certain sex to do something, such as marry someone of a certain sex, then they must allow a person of the opposite sex to marry that certain sex of person as well unless the state can show that restricting such marriages furthers an important state interest.

If a man can marry a woman, then equal protection says that a woman should also be able to legally marry a woman unless the state can show how not allowing a woman to marry a woman furthers an important state interest.

OK - what important state interest is served by imposing limits upon the days/hours of alcohol or fireworks sales? If states must constantly defend their laws, to any and all that can find a single federal judge to demand it, then any question of "why not X?" or "why Y?" becomes a burden placed upon the state to essentially prove innocence.
 
OK - what important state interest is served by imposing limits upon the days/hours of alcohol or fireworks sales? If states must constantly defend their laws, to any and all that can find a single federal judge to demand it, then any question of "why not X?" or "why Y?" becomes a burden placed upon the state to essentially prove innocence.

The problem is that they treat everyone the same. I don't agree with such laws either, but they are almost impossible to challenge under an equal protection claim, like marriage bans are being challenged under. It comes down to can the law be challenged and who has standing to do so. Same sex marriage bans can easily be challenged due to you can easily show that some group is being treated unequally by the law, due to the law or that it violates some other right specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution.

States must only defend their laws when those laws are challenged and the person challenging them can show standing.
 
If a right was defined in 1868 then it does not change in 2014. Are we to believe that SSM is a "right" that was defined in 1868 - or that (some) judges have changed their minds (evolved their positions?) on that matter?

marriage is a right, this fact will not change no matter how you try to spin it.
If this fact bothers you , your argument is with SCOTUS who and the many other court cases that affirm this fact

Are we to believe that your false opinion trumps theirs or that we should evolve on the matter and ignore facts based on your opinion?

nah, ill stick with facts and the fact remains marriage is a right :shrug:
 
correct and they can vary until they infringe on "rights" and then they get corrected which is exactly what the fed is supposed to do.


If that's the case, then why is it I cannot buy a handgun in NY State even though I have zero criminal history, age 46 and have no mental instability, BUT, I can go to another state and buy one off the street? Last I checked the 2nd amendment was in the Constitution, however, the states do indeed get to decide how they procure my "rights" under the USC.

Seems a tad inconsistent, no? This decision outlined the concept of "laboratories" in it's ruling, and rightfully so. Sutton actually double dog dared the USSC to overturn him, by shoving the history and precedent of constitutional authority in their faces.


Tim-
 
If that's the case, then why is it I cannot buy a handgun in NY State even though I have zero criminal history, age 46 and have no mental instability, BUT, I can go to another state and buy one off the street? Last I checked the 2nd amendment was in the Constitution, however, the states do indeed get to decide how they procure my "rights" under the USC.

Seems a tad inconsistent, no? This decision outlined the concept of "laboratories" in it's ruling, and rightfully so. Sutton actually double dog dared the USSC to overturn him, by shoving the history and precedent of constitutional authority in their faces.

Tim-

Because laws haven't been corrected doesn't mean that others shouldn't be corrected as they come up.

Plus, I'm willing to bet you could buy handguns on plenty of streets in NY state, it just wouldn't be legal.
 
The problem is that they treat everyone the same. I don't agree with such laws either, but they are almost impossible to challenge under an equal protection claim, like marriage bans are being challenged under. It comes down to can the law be challenged and who has standing to do so. Same sex marriage bans can easily be challenged due to you can easily show that some group is being treated unequally by the law, due to the law or that it violates some other right specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution.

States must only defend their laws when those laws are challenged and the person challenging them can show standing.


But that's the point, and was explained in the decision by Sutton. "Equally" in terms of this question is really a matter of opinion, of which no material evidence exists that homosexuals compliment each other in the way the people have decided they want marriage to do so. That's about it in a nutshell. Society has decided that, notwithstanding full inclusion to all sorts of marriage arrangements, lacking material data to suggest otherwise, society has decided that one form of marriage is the most suitable for society to continue.

Tim-
 
But that's the point, and was explained in the decision by Sutton. "Equally" in terms of this question is really a matter of opinion, of which no material evidence exists that homosexuals compliment each other in the way the people have decided they want marriage to do so. That's about it in a nutshell. Society has decided that, notwithstanding full inclusion to all sorts of marriage arrangements, lacking material data to suggest otherwise, society has decided that one form of marriage is the most suitable for society to continue.

Tim-

And Sutton is wrong. The same sex couples have standing under the 14th Amendment because they are being treated differently by the laws based on their relative genders, the fact that their genders together do not constitute what others consider "marriage" eventhough their relative genders/sexes do not conflict legally with actual marriage laws.
 
1.)If that's the case, then why is it I cannot buy a handgun in NY State even though I have zero criminal history, age 46 and have no mental instability, BUT, I can go to another state and buy one off the street? Last I checked the 2nd amendment was in the Constitution, however, the states do indeed get to decide how they procure my "rights" under the USC.

Seems a tad inconsistent, no? This decision outlined the concept of "laboratories" in it's ruling, and rightfully so. Sutton actually double dog dared the USSC to overturn him, by shoving the history and precedent of constitutional authority in their faces.


Tim-

1.) i agree, that shouldn't be the case, if it bothers you fight it :shrug:
I fight for guns rights myself, unfortunately gun laws are harder to fight by default.

a married gay couple moving to a state that has bigoted and discriminating laws and fighting for them or somethign natural happens like health, death, property or child issues that forces them to fight for thier rights is easier since theres no crime involved.

me leaving PA and takign my gun into the heart of NYC, getting caught, arrested and charged with a felony and then fighting for my rights is a touch more difficult.

but again, fight against that wrong! It seems you want a wrong mean somethign more than it does, it doesnt lol

2.) you are free to have that opinion but to me it just seemed like he sidestep. I saw nothing of what you speak whatsoever, it was almost eye numbing, just big double talk, circle talk and a very weak nonrulling that will now force SCOTUS to rule. which i like!

like I said i expected a broken circuit and welcome it! I think this will speed things up and now equality will happen sooner then my guess of 2016 but possibly next year.

fact still remains states infringing on rights can get corrected and its unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom