• 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

1750Texan said:
Correct, states do have the historical authority to regulate marriage...just as they do not have a constitutional authority to violate the rights of their residents in that regulation.
Click to expand...

100% correct
 
`
Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Yes, to wit;

"Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage . As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:"

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (source)
Click to expand...


While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right.
​


PS - States cannot "regulate" marriages insofar as to who a person can or cannot marry. Loving v Virgina shot down all the miscegenation laws in the US which by regulation, would not legally recognize a black/white marriage.
`
`
`
`
`
 
Last edited:
sawdust said:
Regulation of marriage is not a Federal responsibility constitutionally. I don't oppose gay marriage but the authority to regulate it belongs with the states. Gay marriage is also not the leading problem of our day and too much time is wasted on it.
Click to expand...
True, as contract law is much the province of the state, not the federal.

I don't oppose recognition, but not under the term "marriage", as it, obviously, violates respect for words and their true meaning and the reasonable and customary beloved social cultures built upon them, which is why I don't call a cat a dog or try to enter a cat in a dog show.

Regardless, such determination, whether out of intelligence or ignorance, belongs to the state from a federal constitutional perspective.

And, regarding much time wasted on this issue, oh that is soooo true! The vast majority of Americans really don't care one way or the other from a social perspective. When people are asked to weigh in on a poll, then they make a choice, but it's just a choice on a question, not all that important.

In fact, in a recent relevant poll on the matter, 37% favored the oxymoronic "gay marriage", 33% favored recognition but under a different term than marriage (like, say, "homarriage", or something), and 30% were opposed to recognition at all. This makes it crystal clear that there is no cultural traditional long-standing precedent for the oxymoronic "gay marriage", as although 70% favor recognition, 63% oppose the oxymoronic "gay marriage" in these polls.

If the SCOTUS said state's rights, the great majority would be just fine with that. If the SCOTUS said state's rights but that recognition is required under a different term, the great majority would be just fine with that.

Sadly, the Supreme Court is loaded now with enough left-wing ideologist weight, thanks to Obama's two appointees, that the relevant matter before the SCOTUS could be 4-4 .. leaving the quiet megalomaniac Kennedy to once again stamp his signature on "an earthshaking" decision, about which the great majority of Americans would be opposed .. but most of whom really wouldn't care all that much.

Truly sad.
 
AGENT J said:
in many ways i agree wholeheartedly and have said so in other threads.
Its not how I think it should be but in 2015 the political atmosphere will make it that way.
any candidate that has recently fought hard against equal rights or makes it part of thier running campaign to overturn it will lose the election, and yes you are right hand Hilary a large win
Click to expand...

We agree. Because of the history of this political fight, the fallout is a level of polarization that by the numbers is putting social conservatives into a minority. The further we go, the more it appears that minority status is not going to improve. Politically cornered, especially given where certain voter blocks are holding the Republican Party hostage to yesteryear ideologies. Democrats on the other hand have already transitioned from the days of Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Just during Obama's time we have seen the marriage equality support numbers jump up enough to ensure Republicans have a national level losing position on this. Hence, trying to make this a State's rights issue.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) true, good thing they are not regulating it
2.) true, and they are free to regulate it
neither of those are an issue :shrug:

the fed is enforcing the constitution and protecting individual rights, when the states make a regulation that violate rights they are over stepping thier power. Thats the issue and what is factually happening with the banning and why the states are bign corrected. The system is working just like it is supposed too.

3.) equal rights will always be a large issue but I do agree to much time is wasted on it, bigots need to simply stop infringing on it
Click to expand...

You can't support states rights which regulate the institution of marriage and then claim the states don't have the right to regulate the actions of the people who are affected by the regulation. It's laid out in article 1 section 8. If the country decides the constitution needs to be amended, there is a procedure for that. I wouldn't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the way the document is being abused.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I've yet to hear an argument for allowing SSM that couldn't be applied to polygamy or incest.
Click to expand...

Incest isn't hard - there are well documented health risks associated with it. And if it's between parent and child, obvious issues of control, coercion, etc.

Someone against polygamy will have to make that argument - I'm agnostic so haven't given it much thought or any study. If six women want to marry Romney.... whatever.... Not my life, not my choice is my initial reaction.
 
`
A marriage is a legal contract covered by the federal Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted by all 50 states.
 
Ontologuy said:
True, as contract law is much the province of the state, not the federal.

I don't oppose recognition, but not under the term "marriage", as it, obviously, violates respect for words and their true meaning and the reasonable and customary beloved social cultures built upon them, which is why I don't call a cat a dog or try to enter a cat in a dog show.

Regardless, such determination, whether out of intelligence or ignorance, belongs to the state from a federal constitutional perspective.

And, regarding much time wasted on this issue, oh that is soooo true! The vast majority of Americans really don't care one way or the other from a social perspective. When people are asked to weigh in on a poll, then they make a choice, but it's just a choice on a question, not all that important.

In fact, in a recent relevant poll on the matter, 37% favored the oxymoronic "gay marriage", 33% favored recognition but under a different term than marriage (like, say, "homarriage", or something), and 30% were opposed to recognition at all. This makes it crystal clear that there is no cultural traditional long-standing precedent for the oxymoronic "gay marriage", as although 70% favor recognition, 63% oppose the oxymoronic "gay marriage" in these polls.

If the SCOTUS said state's rights, the great majority would be just fine with that. If the SCOTUS said state's rights but that recognition is required under a different term, the great majority would be just fine with that.

Sadly, the Supreme Court is loaded now with enough left-wing ideologist weight, thanks to Obama's two appointees, that the relevant matter before the SCOTUS could be 4-4 .. leaving the quiet megalomaniac Kennedy to once again stamp his signature on "an earthshaking" decision, about which the great majority of Americans would be opposed .. but most of whom really wouldn't care all that much.

Truly sad.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this. Personally, I'm more interested in process and protection of the constitution than anything else. There is a process to deal with gay marriage which is constitutional. It's proponents however have chosen the easy road to get what they want which is to treat the constitution as a living document which can be changed on the fly by opinion.
 
OrphanSlug said:
We agree. Because of the history of this political fight, the fallout is a level of polarization that by the numbers is putting social conservatives into a minority. The further we go, the more it appears that minority status is not going to improve. Politically cornered, especially given where certain voter blocks are holding the Republican Party hostage to yesteryear ideologies. Democrats on the other hand have already transitioned from the days of Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act. Just during Obama's time we have seen the marriage equality support numbers jump up enough to ensure Republicans have a national level losing position on this. Hence, trying to make this a State's rights issue.
Click to expand...

well no amount of magic will ever make its a state rights issue, theres no honest logic supporting that not to mention history, rights and the many cases already on the books
its over on this issue, they will have to pick another
 
sawdust said:
1.)You can't support states rights which regulate the institution of marriage and then claim the states don't have the right to regulate the actions of the people who are affected by the regulation.
2.) It's laid out in article 1 section 8. If the country decides the constitution needs to be amended, there is a procedure for that.
3.) I wouldn't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the way the document is being abused.
Click to expand...

1.) of course i can because anybody with common sense knows that how it works LMAO
the states regulations ENDS at the constitution and individual rights, basic rights 101 this isnt rocket science, states have powers but they dont get to violate the constitution or my individual rights.

example" can a state decide thier own death penalty procedures? yes
can the state just start using the death penalty on anybody or using anyway to kill a person they want? no if it violates rights and the Constitution.

very simple concept

2.) constitution doesnt need amended for equal rights
3) in this case its not
 
Paxaeon said:
PS - States cannot "regulate" marriages insofar as to who a person can or cannot marry. Loving v Virgina shot down all the miscegenation laws in the US which by regulation, would not legally recognize a black/white marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes they can regulate, and they do without objection: Age, # of existing spouses, & blood relation.


1750Texan said:
He can argue till Kingdom come...but when the courts rule that a state does not have the right to ban marriage based on sexual orientation...a federal law will not trump that ruling.
Click to expand...

That's not how the US system of laws work. A new law immediately becomes enforceable and trumps a court decision, until a new court decision(injunction, constitutional review, etc) is made.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) of course i can because anybody with common sense knows that how it works LMAO
the states regulations ENDS at the constitution and individual rights, basic rights 101 this isnt rocket science, states have powers but they dont get to violate the constitution or my individual rights.

example" can a state decide thier own death penalty procedures? yes
can the state just start using the death penalty on anybody or using anyway to kill a person they want? no if it violates rights and the Constitution.

very simple concept

2.) constitution doesnt need amended for equal rights
3) in this case its not
Click to expand...

Rights aren't created because you say they exist. Words mean things and law codifies our rights. Again, I don't oppose equal rights but gay rights are something created in the courts in the late 20th century. It's a clumsy way to handle the issue and because they were created in the courts and not the legislature, now it's nothing but a cluster phuque.

I will say this, and some may disagree. I don't know when gay's were granted a special class like those granted to people of different race, nationality or gender, but they are the only class who are identified by an activity. I believe that some people are born with identity differences and some people are gay as a result of nurture. I don't mean to denigrate anyone in the class and I wouldn't personally discriminate or agree with anyone who discriminates with anyone who is gay, but laws protecting their rights should have been structured much differently because their class is a recent construct and they are not identified by physical traits of birth.
 
sawdust said:
1.)Rights aren't created because you say they exist.
2.) Words mean things and law codifies our rights.
3.) Again, I don't oppose equal rights but gay rights are something created in the courts in the late 20th century.
4.) It's a clumsy way to handle the issue and because they were created in the courts and not the legislature, now it's nothing but a cluster phuque.
5.) I will say this, and some may disagree. I don't know when gay's were granted a special class like those granted to people of different race, nationality or gender, but they are the only class who are identified by an activity.
6.) I believe that some people are born with identity differences and some people are gay as a result of nurture. I don't mean to denigrate anyone in the class and I wouldn't personally discriminate or agree with anyone who discriminates with anyone who is gay
7.) but laws protecting their rights should have been structured much differently because their class is a recent construct and they are not identified by physical traits of birth.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree goodd thing i never claimed otherwise
2.) 100% correct another thing i never said differently
3.) again never said you did and no they weren't created, nobody honest buys that lol, they were simply no longer DENIED
4.) no what was clumsy is denying them and the cluster **** is that people think that since they were denied them before its ok and they dont deserve them and dont want them to have them (not saying you just saying)
5.) gays aren't a special class nor are they identified by an activity
6.) not being rude but your beliefs dont matter on the subject nor do mine or anybody's
7.) no they are perfectly fine the way they are, they are not a recent construct by any means, and physical traits of birth are meanignless to rights . .. . see RELIGION . . . see DISABLED . . .and see AGE discrimination etc etc . . .

it seems you have some serious studying up on this subject and how rights work.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) i agree goodd thing i never claimed otherwise
2.) 100% correct another thing i never said differently
3.) again never said you did and no they weren't created, nobody honest buys that lol, they were simply no longer DENIED
4.) no what was clumsy is denying them and the cluster **** is that people think that since they were denied them before its ok and they dont deserve them and dont want them to have them (not saying you just saying)
5.) gays aren't a special class nor are they identified by an activity
6.) not being rude but your beliefs dont matter on the subject nor do mine or anybody's
7.) no they are perfectly fine the way they are, they are not a recent construct by any means, and physical traits of birth are meanignless to rights . .. . see RELIGION . . . see DISABLED . . .and see AGE discrimination etc etc . . .

it seems you have some serious studying up on this subject and how rights work.
Click to expand...

I know how rights work. Some people say that some rights are inalienable. My observation is that rights are created by government. When I said special class you can interpret that as minorities. Certainly government created extra rights for disabled with the ADA. I cannot claim a handicapped parking space by limping. Government says I need a sticker, and that sticker grants a handicapped person the right to park there the rest of society doesn't have. That's what I mean by extra rights. Gays were not a minority recognized by government in the 50's and had no legislation protecting their rights. As I said, that changed in the late 20th century and now their class is among the other protected minorities. Gay's are indistinguishable from the rest of the population and can only be part of the protected class by claiming they are gay. A closeted gay cannot claim protection for housing violations without coming out and claiming to be part of the class for example. That's part of what I meant when I said activity, excluding the sex part of coarse.

I know that my opinions are my opinions. Put me in charge and I'd fix all this crap.
 
sawdust said:
1.)I know how rights work. Some people say that some rights are inalienable. My observation is that rights are created by government.
2.) When I said special class you can interpret that as minorities.
3.) Certainly government created extra rights for disabled with the ADA.
4.) I cannot claim a handicapped parking space by limping.
5.) Government says I need a sticker, and that sticker grants a handicapped person the right to park there the rest of society doesn't have. That's what I mean by extra rights.
6.) Gays were not a minority recognized by government in the 50's and had no legislation protecting their rights.
7.) As I said, that changed in the late 20th century and now their class is among the other protected minorities.
8.) Gay's are indistinguishable from the rest of the population and can only be part of the protected class by claiming they are gay.
9.) A closeted gay cannot claim protection for housing violations without coming out and claiming to be part of the class for example.
10.) That's part of what I meant when I said activity, excluding the sex part of coarse.
11.)I know that my opinions are my opinions.
12.)Put me in charge and I'd fix all this crap.
Click to expand...

1.) it doesnt seem you do from some of your claims
2.) minorities arent a special class
3.) just equal protections
4.) correct
5.) nor is it needed
6.) they dont have legislation now nor is it needed, they were always protected under equal rights people simply denied them that protection
7.) what other protected minorities? there are none this is a perfect example of why you dont understand rights
8.) so is race sometimes and so is religion and religion :shrug:
9.) 100% false, another example of how you dont understand rights. since the illegal discrimination is against sexual orientation, its not needed for them to come out.??????
10.) and again like the fact i pointed out, there doesnt have to be an activity
11.) yes they are but the issue is you are pushing some of this as fact and it simply is not, its 100% wrong
12.) fix what crap? the fix is easy and its already on its way, equal rights . . . .

how would you fix it?
 
JasperL said:
Incest isn't hard - there are well documented health risks associated with it. And if it's between parent and child, obvious issues of control, coercion, etc.

Someone against polygamy will have to make that argument - I'm agnostic so haven't given it much thought or any study. If six women want to marry Romney.... whatever.... Not my life, not my choice is my initial reaction.
Click to expand...

I would hate to see a nation where one day incest would be allowed, however, it does need to be pointed out that the risks associated with incest have been forever and always overstated. Also, isn't it the liberal tenant that a person, man or woman, is in control of their own bodies, and the decisions they make are theirs and theirs only? If a daughter and a father wanted to marry each other after the age of consent, and decided to make babies, what legal precedence allows the government to interfere? Well you could say, well there is a statistical chance that the baby being born would have defects, but then again, that argument can be made for a whole host of natural occurrences among men and women. We don't say that people over the age of 40 can't procreate, BUT we know that statistically their chances of having a child with health problems goes up dramatically. The issue is informed consent. If someone wants to take the chance, who are we to stop them?


Tim-
 
AGENT J said:
1.) it doesnt seem you do from some of your claims
2.) minorities arent a special class
3.) just equal protections
4.) correct
5.) nor is it needed
6.) they dont have legislation now nor is it needed, they were always protected under equal rights people simply denied them that protection
7.) what other protected minorities? there are none this is a perfect example of why you dont understand rights
8.) so is race sometimes and so is religion and religion :shrug:
9.) 100% false, another example of how you dont understand rights. since the illegal discrimination is against sexual orientation, its not needed for them to come out.??????
10.) and again like the fact i pointed out, there doesnt have to be an activity
11.) yes they are but the issue is you are pushing some of this as fact and it simply is not, its 100% wrong
12.) fix what crap? the fix is easy and its already on its way, equal rights . . . .

how would you fix it?
Click to expand...

Most of this is nonsense however I'll address one issue in particular. I've owned rental homes. I've refused to rent to people who I didn't find to be credit worthy and also to people who I was not comfortable with. If however I refused to rent to a person because I knew they were gay, I would wind up in court. Truth is that most gays are probably good tenants. However if the person I refused to rent to didn't claim to be part of the class, but was gay he would have no standing to sue me for discrimination. That's the way it works, sorry if you don't get it.
 
sawdust said:
1.)Most of this is nonsense
2.)however I'll address one issue in particular. I've owned rental homes. I've refused to rent to people who I didn't find to be credit worthy and also to people who I was not comfortable with.
3.) If however I refused to rent to a person because I knew they were gay, I would wind up in court.
4.) Truth is that most gays are probably good tenants.
5.) However if the person I refused to rent to didn't claim to be part of the class, but was gay he would have no standing to sue me for discrimination.
6.) That's the way it works, sorry if you don't get it.
Click to expand...

1.) deflection is common when a poster cant back up thier claims or thier claims have been factually proven wrong, calling it nonsense doesnt make it so, if you think somethign is nonsense step up and prove it
2.) and thats your right
3.) 100% correct
4.) im sure they follow the avg
5.) again false, discrimination is also based on PERCEPTION . . . .if you didnt rent to that person based on your perceived gender, religion, race, sexual orientation etc you could still end up in court

the action is YOURS not theirs, YOU have to illegal discriminate . . . . they dont have to do anything, cases like this are already on the books

6.) actually law and facts prove otherwise and im sorry you in fact, dont get it.

let me know if there any other confusions i can clear up for you

have you figured out the part where you false claimed there are protected minority groups even though there are none? i can help you with that next if you like?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
There is no "slippery slope" and there is no reason to think that current bans on incest and polygamy will be declared unconstitutional. I'm afraid those that believe so are just showing their bigotry against SSM.
Click to expand...

Really? It takes no thinking to dismiss arguments that irk you as motivated by bigotry. Anyone could just as easily speculate that people who take your position are just cheerleading for homosexuals, while showing their bigotry against people who want to enter into incestuous, bigamous, polygamous, or other forms of non-traditional marriage.

I notice you don't explain, for example, if the Supreme Court had decreed a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other, what legitimate interest a state would any longer have in prohibiting a homosexual marriage between first cousins while allowing it between second cousins. Or, for that matter, what legitimate state interest would be served by prohibiting even more closely incestuous homosexual marriages. Maybe you are concerned about the increased risk of genetic defects in the offspring of homosexuals who are so closely related.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Wait, are you saying there's over 200 Libertarians in DC right now!?!?!

Click to expand...


Very few people are crazy enough to vote for libertarians. Thank goodness.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) deflection is common when a poster cant back up thier claims or thier claims have been factually proven wrong, calling it nonsense doesnt make it so, if you think somethign is nonsense step up and prove it
2.) and thats your right
3.) 100% correct
4.) im sure they follow the avg
5.) again false, discrimination is also based on PERCEPTION . . . .if you didnt rent to that person based on your perceived gender, religion, race, sexual orientation etc you could still end up in court

the action is YOURS not theirs, YOU have to illegal discriminate . . . . they dont have to do anything, cases like this are already on the books

6.) actually law and facts prove otherwise and im sorry you in fact, dont get it.

let me know if there any other confusions i can clear up for you

have you figured out the part where you false claimed there are protected minority groups even though there are none? i can help you with that next if you like?
Click to expand...

You haven't cleared up anything. I think you are wrong about most of what you've written and because I don't respect your opinion I don't want or need your help. Your condesention is outstanding however.
 
The whole concept of states' rights is riiculous to me. States don't have rights, people do. Like the right to enter into contract and the freedom of association.
 
Hicup said:
I would hate to see a nation where one day incest would be allowed, however, it does need to be pointed out that the risks associated with incest have been forever and always overstated. Also, isn't it the liberal tenant that a person, man or woman, is in control of their own bodies, and the decisions they make are theirs and theirs only? If a daughter and a father wanted to marry each other after the age of consent, and decided to make babies, what legal precedence allows the government to interfere? Well you could say, well there is a statistical chance that the baby being born would have defects, but then again, that argument can be made for a whole host of natural occurrences among men and women. We don't say that people over the age of 40 can't procreate, BUT we know that statistically their chances of having a child with health problems goes up dramatically. The issue is informed consent. If someone wants to take the chance, who are we to stop them?


Tim-
Click to expand...

OK, that's fine. Then the people who want to marry their daughters can challenge state laws, take them to court, all the way to the Supreme Court. Good luck to them. They'll need it but if the state can't articulate a compelling reason to ban incest, the state deserves to lose. "I'm against incest" isn't enough to strip those adults of their right to marry their consenting, adult daughters. Same thing with polygamy. If opponents have no compelling basis to prohibit polygamy, THEY will lose and Mormons might soon get the right to marry multiple women back. That's the way it works.

The reason SSM keeps winning is the state cannot produce any compelling reason to deny gay couples the right to get married. That's the burden the state needs to meet and they can't do it beyond citing tradition or the Bible.
 
Are they hoping to bring back the bans on inter-racial marriage? Unless the Supreme Court reverses the Loving decision, it will take a constitutional amendment to allow states to impose discriminatory marriage laws.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom