• 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!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Crovax said:
No they arent the same gun rights are explicit in the constitution and much more essential to freedom than the privileges afforded to married couples.
Click to expand...

Well that's wrong because it's not about "married couples" and their "privileges". It's about equal rights which is also explicit in the constitution.You see how it all connected right? How it all connects in to discrimination protection and right to work etc etc. Ranking gun rights over equal rights is insanity. While I also fight for guns rights, making me get a back ground check or having to have a license to conceal carry is nothing like denying me equal rights as a woman or based on sexual orientation. I'm shocked anybody could even think that, good lord.
 
roguenuke said:
The only thing I have an issue with this about is that first cousins only increases chances of birth defects by 2%, putting the chance at 4%. When it comes to siblings or parent/child getting together, it is around 40%. The risk is not really big enough when it comes to firsts cousins (pretty sure the risk is higher for people over 40 than it is for first cousins, so long as it is single generation). Plus, the undue influence over the relationship isn't nearly as likely, since we tend to live separate from our first cousins here in the US for the most part. Most people really aren't raised with them.
Click to expand...

Pet peeve time: if you go from 2 % chance to 4 % chance, that is a 100 % increase...
 
Crovax said:
No they arent the same gun rights are explicit in the constitution and much more essential to freedom than the privileges afforded to married couples.
Click to expand...

Not every thread is about guns.
 
The 10th Amendment seems in conflict with the 14th Amendment.
That conflict resolution shouldn't be decided by portrayals in (e.g.) movies that over time encourage changes in public attitude that over time encourage obsequious politicians one way or the other.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Cruz is an idiot, elected by idiots.
Click to expand...

Cruz's uncontrollable rants is a blot on the right-wing Republican Party. Ted Cruz, junior senator from Texas, is the darling of the Tea Party and never in this lifetime would have gotten elected without that unorthodox Tea Party group backing him.....mainstream America run from the Cruz type as if the devil himself were after them. I will admit, Cruz, even though its said he received a superior first class education, is living proof he did not learn much and seemingly falls more into the idiot category than not....By his own words he looks down upon everyone else with a nauseating, unthinkable smugness, thinking himself an elitist from the academic world. Cruz has so alienated the establishment Republicans that when he enters the room, most Republicans look down at their shoes. Yet, this jackass is running for president! He's truly a waste of time and energy.
 
bubbabgone said:
The 10th Amendment seems in conflict with the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

It does not. They work together, as does the whole constitution.


That conflict resolution shouldn't be decided by portrayals in (e.g.) movies that over time encourage changes in public attitude that over time encourage obsequious politicians one way or the other.
Click to expand...

That has exactly nothing to do with the 10th, nor the 14th, nor SSM.
 
Redress said:
It does not. They work together, as does the whole constitution.
Click to expand...


That has exactly nothing to do with the 10th, nor the 14th, nor SSM
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

1) States Rights can be seen in conflict with Federal Rights guarantee.
2) Public opinion shouldn't have anything to do with the resolution but it does.
 
bubbabgone said:
1) States Rights can be seen in conflict with Federal Rights guarantee.
Click to expand...

States have never had the right to violate the consitution, and the 10th is clear on that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See the part in bold. That covers the 14th.

2) Public opinion shouldn't have anything to do with the resolution but it does.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Rule of law will determine the outcome. Essentially, if states can define why it has a legitimate reason to deny SSM couples getting married(at the least, it is possible Intermediate Scrutiny would apply, especially if the justices buy the argument that SSM bans are a form of gender discrimination), then they can define marriage in such a way as to not allow SSM. That is a legal question, not a popularity question.
 
chromium said:
ted cruz and bobby jindal certainly do want to do so. They've said nothing that i've seen that indicates they want to limit it to "states' marriage rights"
Click to expand...

Wanting to allow people of the states to determine if the State is going to recognize a legal arrangement is a far cry from locking up people just because of their sexual orientation. Get real.
 
bubbabgone said:
The 10th Amendment seems in conflict with the 14th Amendment.
That conflict resolution shouldn't be decided by portrayals in (e.g.) movies that over time encourage changes in public attitude that over time encourage obsequious politicians one way or the other.
Click to expand...

No they work together and when one oversteps the system fixes itself. Unfortunately sometimes this takes a very long time.
I don't see how movies or public opinion play any role because neither matter. What are you talking about?
 
roguenuke said:
Marriage is more than a legal agreement though. And slippery slope is still a logical fallacy. If it is opened by allowing same sex couples to marry, then it was already opened by allowing opposite sex couples to marry and taking on any marriage case to determine constitutionality of state laws, including Loving, Redhail, and Turner.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
Again, this is wrong. Legally, making more than one person another person's legal spouse causes major legal issues, including which spouse would be the legally "closest" relative? How much legal entitlement does each spouse have to shared assets? How much legal responsibility/rights does each spouse have to any children within the marriage? These are questions that have already been handled with single spouse a piece marriages.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
There is really no such thing as "gay marriage" legally. There is only "marriage" And so long as two people of the opposite sex can legally make each other spouses, then it violates equal protection guaranteed by the 14th to not allow two people of the same sex to make each other spouses legally. And since marriage is the only method available in the US to make people legal spouses, that means there is a right to same sex couples to marry so long as opposite sex couples can marry.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
And this is the problem, you expect an argument to allow same sex marriage. That isn't how it works. The Constitution says that the government must give an argument for why something should not be allowed, and those arguments are different (at least some of them when it comes to polygamy). There is legitimate arguments connected to preventing a person from having multiple legal spouses that in no way apply when speaking about trying to prevent people from having a same sex spouse. Legally, logistically, there is no difference for anyone to have a same sex spouse than there is to have an opposite sex spouse because the sexes are legally considered the same under the law in everything dealing with spouses. There is a huge legal and logistical difference between having one spouse and having more than one spouse, due to how we treat spouses and their kinship status under the laws of the US.
Click to expand...

roguenuke said:
Then you missed the 9th Amendment, which pretty much says just because something is not specifically listed in the Constitution, does not mean it isn't a right.
Click to expand...

You really couldn't of summed that all up in one post? Sad thing is, I actually missed on of your posts...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Just because people are in favor of SSM, doesn't mean they now oppose traditional marriage Jasper...
Click to expand...

...huh? Does anyone who supports same-sex marriage oppose traditional marriage by that logic?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Just curious, and this really isn't a rhetorical question but do you think we should have topics such as polygamy go up to a popular vote?
Click to expand...

Actually no. Same as incest. It should be simple enough to produce a reason(s) to ban polygamy/incest that meets some legitimate state purpose. If not, then let those bans go by the wayside.

Also the same sort of question as whether Islam or Buddhism or the worship of the FSM (assuming that's legitimate for this purpose) should enjoy the same religious protections as Christianity.
 
LaylaWindu said:
No they work together and when one oversteps the system fixes itself. Unfortunately sometimes this takes a very long time.
I don't see how movies or public opinion play any role because neither matter. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
And that's what ultimately matters.
So, yes, it may end up that the Constitution was not given more than lip service in order to decide SSM.
Years ago we were told over and over that the Constitution was a Living Document.
That was meant to convince you that it could mean whatever you want it to mean.
That's still going on.


As to your first point, since the Constitution doesn't provide a Federal definition of marriage, would the 10th Amendment apply?
 
Redress said:
States have never had the right to violate the consitution, and the 10th is clear on that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." See the part in bold. That covers the 14th.



Not really, no. Rule of law will determine the outcome. Essentially, if states can define why it has a legitimate reason to deny SSM couples getting married(at the least, it is possible Intermediate Scrutiny would apply, especially if the justices buy the argument that SSM bans are a form of gender discrimination), then they can define marriage in such a way as to not allow SSM.
That is a legal question, not a popularity question.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You're not that naïve.
See #219
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
And that's what ultimately matters.
So, yes, it may end up that the Constitution was not given more than lip service in order to decide SSM.
Years ago we were told over and over that the Constitution was a Living Document.
That was meant to convince you that it could mean whatever you want it to mean.
That's still going on.


As to your first point, since the Constitution doesn't provide a Federal definition of marriage, would the 10th Amendment apply?
Click to expand...

While influence can happen it obviously also doesn't matter. How did influence work in Loving Vs Virginia? It certainly had nothing to do with movies and public opinion and pop culture. Many black of the time didn't even support interracial marriage that decision was based on rights.

As for the 10th its limited by the constitution and history proves, an example is the aforementioned loving vs Virginia. The 10th doesn't give states unlimited power.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
And that's what ultimately matters.
So, yes, it may end up that the Constitution was not given more than lip service in order to decide SSM.
Years ago we were told over and over that the Constitution was a Living Document.
That was meant to convince you that it could mean whatever you want it to mean.
That's still going on.


As to your first point, since the Constitution doesn't provide a Federal definition of marriage, would the 10th Amendment apply?
Click to expand...

You might want to go look at when the current justices where appointed. Hint: there was little to no positive portrayals in popular media when most where appointed. And not a single one of the presidents who has appointed a current justice ran significantly on SSM. It was also highly unlikely to be a factor in any of their appointments, and certainly not on those who would be considered "swing" votes. So your popular media thing is just silly.

And I do not think any one is claiming the 10th does not apply. It does. So does the 14th. And since the 14th is part of the constitution, guess which takes precedence. Please learn the US Constitution, it is a very important document that I am rather fond of.
 
Redress said:
Pet peeve time: if you go from 2 % chance to 4 % chance, that is a 100 % increase...
Click to expand...

Still not huge when talking about what is being discussed. Relatively small chance whether at 2% or 4%, despite being a 100% increase. When speaking of closer relatives potential, it is a percent increase in the 1000s.
 
LaylaWindu said:
While influence can happen it obviously also doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
How did influence work in Loving Vs Virginia? It certainly had nothing to do with movies and public opinion and pop culture. Many black of the time didn't even support interracial marriage that decision was based on rights.

As for the 10th its limited by the constitution and history proves, an example is the aforementioned loving vs Virginia.
The 10th doesn't give states unlimited power.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Influence ultimately & absolutely matters.
USSC decisions are rarely unanimous.
Justices base their reasoning on something.
And clearly something influences them differently from each other.
And to think they don't bring the ideology with them that they developed over time is pretty preposterous.
Face it, a Liberal POTUS will appoint Justices whose decisions & reasoning they like & trust and a Conservative POTUS will do the same.
I thought by now everyone accepted that as a given.

Now, which type Justice would be more faithful to the Constitution as written is a matter for another thread.
 
bubbabgone said:
Influence ultimately & absolutely matters.
USSC decisions are rarely unanimous.
Justices base their reasoning on something.
And clearly something influences them differently from each other.
And to think they don't bring the ideology with them that they developed over time is pretty preposterous.
Face it, a Liberal POTUS will appoint Justices whose decisions & reasoning they like & trust and a Conservative POTUS will do the same.
I thought by now everyone accepted that as a given.

Now, which type Justice would be more faithful to the Constitution as written is a matter for another thread.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown any evidence of "ultimate and absolute"
Who said POTUS wouldn't pick judges they like? You are really all over the map with random claims.

I notice you didn't answer my question or acknowledge the fact the 10th is limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom