• 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

vesper said:
From what I gather Cruz's bill is focused on states rights. If states stop issuing marriage licenses, what then?
Click to expand...

Full Faith and Credit Clause. Pesky Constitution makes anti gay bigotry rather difficult.
 
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...

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.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I want them to have the ability, it's clearly a form of discrimination for government to favor one form of marriage over the other. It's just the consequences that we'll have to deal with that makes it less savory..

Marriage is a right? Must of missed that in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
What?
Click to expand...

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
 
CriticalThought said:
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Click to expand...

Yeah, and your point is?
 
sawdust said:
That kind of tortured logic is why the constitution has turned into a joke. If you twist it like a pretzel you can do anything you want with the all powerful Federal government.
Click to expand...

I think its funny how using the Constitution to protect the rights of individuals has turned it "into a joke".
 
Samhain said:
Yes they can regulate, and they do without objection: Age, # of existing spouses, & blood relation.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is not true that a new law would immediately become enforceable until it went back up to the Court. For instance, a state could not make a law reenacting segregation or punishing interracial couples for getting married, banning interfaith couples from getting married and legitimately believe that such laws would be enforceable. People will likely try to enforce them, but that doesn't mean they couldn't face legal penalties/punishment of some kind for doing so since we already have Court decisions dealing with these issues.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah, and?
Click to expand...

State's can certainly choose what they want for their own state as far as a definition for marriage, until SCOTUS rules otherwise, but they cannot deny the rights and privileges granted by another state, in other words they must give it "full faith and credit." The full faith and credit clause is in Article IV of the Constitution... hence, trying to use the federal government in this way is blatantly unconstitutional. It is DOMA by another name.
 
sawdust said:
That kind of tortured logic is why the constitution has turned into a joke. If you twist it like a pretzel you can do anything you want with the all powerful Federal government.
Click to expand...

I am sorry the equal protection clause has made this country such a terrible place.
 
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...

Well then, you shouldn't live in the US. Several states allow some form of incest to exist legally, including Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Ohio. In New Jersey, so long as they are over 18, it is legal. There are no criminal incest statutes anymore in Rhode Island, but they are not allowed to legally marry.
 
nota bene said:
Here is a blog response that you might find useful: CounterPoint: Yes, Virginia, States Really Do Have Rights - The Liberty Papers

There has been tension between states rights and federal powers since the beginning.
Click to expand...

As I stated in another thread though, that tension almost always is due to states and the people within them wanting to violate the Constitution and infringe upon the rights of individuals. Segregation, Jim Crow laws, interracial marriage, sodomy, same sex marriage, and so many others from our past involved the state trying to restrict individual rights, and the federal government stepping in via the SCOTUS (after those citizens that were being restricted challenged the law) to declare those laws unconstitutional.
 
bicycleman said:
God defined marriage when he made Adam and Eve. He sure didn't make Adam and Steve.
Click to expand...

Actually, He made Adam and Lilith first, then Eve. Plus, likely many more people since those wives and babies to Cain and Able had to come from somewhere.

In reality, you can't prove this so this argument fails. Adam and Eve could not be shown to exist, and even if they could be, they had nothing like the marriages we have today. No judge, paperwork, ring, questions about child custody, assets, divorce, etc.
 
bicycleman said:
I used to work with a guy named Bill, but he preferred everyone address him as William. Everybody called him Bill, instead.
Click to expand...

I had grandparents who everyone called "Chuck and Bill". (Their names were not even close to either of these nicknames.)
 
Wouldn't matter even if it did pass. Without a constitutional amendment, which failed even under Bush II, the supreme court would invalidate such legislature in june.

But yes, he is a monster and a complete liar (obama has never pushed for such a thing), and it's disgusting anyone would vote for him, other than for the office of "town dunce"
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Butchering of English grammar aside, I'm actually semi-okay with this and here's why: essentially what he is arguing for is to protect a state's ability choose if it wants to allow SSM in the state or not. Mainly because the way the electorate is going anyways, even if said bill was passed, eventually every state will legalize SSM anyways.
Click to expand...

Let's put his marriage up for a vote instead
 
CMPancake said:
I'm sure he's ambitious enough to one to be President one day, but he's not stupid enough to think it'll happen in the next 4-8 years.
Click to expand...

Will be even worse then, when his opponent surely brings up in the prez debates all the bigoted filth vomited out of cruz's mouth
 
Hamster Buddha said:
This isn't some backwater African government that wants to ban any expression or support for homosexuality.
Click to expand...

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"
 
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...

Consent is very difficult to firmly establish with something like that, because blackmail would be prevalent ("marry me or your inheritance goes bye bye"). For similar reasons, it's generally taboo for a supervisor to marry or date an employee. How do you truly know it's consensual?

It's also, i would argue, a compelling state interest to not have tons of deformed babies. There are often laws against first cousins marrying as well for this reason.
 
chromium said:
Consent is very difficult to firmly establish with something like that, because blackmail would be prevalent ("marry me or your inheritance goes bye bye"). For similar reasons, it's generally taboo for a supervisor to marry or date an employee. How do you truly know it's consensual?

It's also, i would argue, a compelling state interest to not have tons of deformed babies. There are often laws against first cousins marrying as well for this reason.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AGENT J said:
Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
Click to expand...

Wow that is just a dip**** move. I'll never understand the push to stop people from having rights. I mean don't get me wrong people can believe whatever they want but who they hell are they to try to deny others the same great rights, protections and freedoms we share in this country? It's childish and pathetic, it reminds me of watching bullies on some tv show hahaha
 
LaylaWindu said:
Wow that is just a dip**** move. I'll never understand the push to stop people from having rights. I mean don't get me wrong people can believe whatever they want but who they hell are they to try to deny others the same great rights, protections and freedoms we share in this country? It's childish and pathetic, it reminds me of watching bullies on some tv show hahaha
Click to expand...

do you have the same opinion about gun control laws?
 
Kobie said:
It amazes me that so many GOPers are willing to hitch their wagon to such a clear losing issue.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not one of them! I mean by some people standards I'm probably not a "GOPer", I'm an independent who leans right but this is something I'd never even want associated with. Its disgusting! Like I said people are free to think its wrong but denying others rights is a very sickening concept to me. It simply reminds me of the hatred towards minorities and my own gender, it's repulsive.
 
Crovax said:
do you have the same opinion about gun control laws?
Click to expand...

Not the "same" but similar that's for sure. It's not the same trying to make somebody a second class citizen and trying to make it harder for people to get a gun. They are both oppression but the first one is foul, humanly disgusting, oppression. FYI I have my LCP :)

You don't honestly think those are the same do you? They are only similar in a very general sense.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Not the "same" but similar that's for sure. It's not the same trying to make somebody a second class citizen and trying to make it harder for people to get a gun. They are both oppression but the first one is foul, humanly disgusting, oppression. FYI I have my LCP :)

You don't honestly think those are the same do you? They are only similar in a very general sense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom