• 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!

Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

Redress said:
The idea that SCOTUS justices would be impeached over SSM rulings is laughable at best. They have ruled in far more controversial ways. And your knowledge of constitutional law is severely lacking. It gets very old as people bitch about every ruling they disagree with as re-engineering the constitution or activist judges, while ignoring the same in rulings they agree with.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but no cigar. I'm equally hard on SCOTUS and their re-engineering no matter how favorable I find the decision. You should know that by now. And that's WHY they wait. The court has shown a mastery of the tactic. They are there for a lifetime appointment.

My knowledge of constitutional law, where do you find it lacking?
 
When Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansa, refused to integrate a Little Rock public school in 1957, defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the law. I doubt this president would do anything like that, if the Court were to concoct a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and one or more of those states refused to amend its law to recognize that "right."

It is exactly because the Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions that it is so important those decisions be worthy of respect, rather than being nothing more than expressions of the personal views of a handful of judges. That's just what Roe v. Wade was forty years ago, a concocted decision that deserved no respect--and yet every state changed its laws to comply with it. It would be interesting to see if that is still how things are, or if any state is willing to engage in nullification.
 
It all boils down to rights.
Some people seem to think that because someone has rights to something they disagree with, then they are violating their rights, or its a war on their religion. Guess what? Just because you dont agree with it, doesnt mean they dont have the same rights as you.
 
matchlight said:
When Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansa, refused to integrate a Little Rock public school in 1957, defying the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, President Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the law. I doubt this president would do anything like that, if the Court were to concoct a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, and one or more of those states refused to amend its law to recognize that "right."

It is exactly because the Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions that it is so important those decisions be worthy of respect, rather than being nothing more than expressions of the personal views of a handful of judges. That's just what Roe v. Wade was forty years ago, a concocted decision that deserved no respect--and yet every state changed its laws to comply with it. It would be interesting to see if that is still how things are, or if any state is willing to engage in nullification.
Click to expand...

Actually, the laws of the state don't have to be "amended" at all to recognize same sex marriage when SCOTUS makes a ruling. Alabama and SC banned interracial marriages in their state constitutions until less than 20 years ago, yet neither state could legally deny an interracial couple a marriage license after the Loving ruling.
 
roguenuke said:
The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the people from the government, including when the people use government power to try to restrict their activities or treat them unequally. Just because you don't like how the SCOTUS rules in certain cases, you are trying to claim they are "rewriting" the Constitution at will.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So in all the rulings upholding the state's right to ban homosexual marriage and that banning homosexual marriage is NOT unequal treatment in the past, they were just joking right? Were they rewriting the constitution then, or now? And no, you should know better than to make that last claim with me.
 
roguenuke said:
There was more than reasonable doubt in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham and the murders/arson that he was charged with didn't even take place and that the fire was in fact accidental that killed his children. There is no real evidence of arson in that case since the "evidence" that it was arson was based off of proven false myths about certain marks in fire are not in fact signs of arson but develop from oxygen placement in fires.
Click to expand...

None of that even comes within a mile of being proof that man was not guilty. But propagandists against the death penalty really don't care about facts. Falsehoods will do just fine, too, as long as the gullible can be gulled into swallowing them.
 
clownboy said:
Just as I thought, that was all bias stream of consciousness bull**** that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic YOU posted.

And you're wrong, abortion and the death penalty aren't tied. Legally or morally.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
 
clownboy said:
Interesting. So in all the rulings upholding the state's right to ban homosexual marriage and that banning homosexual marriage is NOT unequal treatment in the past, they were just joking right? Were they rewriting the constitution then, or now? And no, you should know better than to make that last claim with me.
Click to expand...

And please share with us how many rulings that was? You seem to believe it was some sort of huge number especially in comparison to those rulings that claimed otherwise.

Nope. You made the claim, wrongly. The SCOTUS does not "rewrite" the Constitution. They uphold the Constitution, usually in support of people's rights (although they have had their instances).
 
JANFU said:
I answered what I thought to be your question.


1 Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
2 I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on (A)law abiding, (B) punishing & (C)on occasion possibly executing innocent people.
1, and or which part of 2. I numbered them and added letters to make it easier for ya.
Click to expand...

DP runs wild in Texas- read up on it. Educate yourself.
Did you miss where I posted "possibly".
 
matchlight said:
None of that even comes within a mile of being proof that man was not guilty. But propagandists against the death penalty really don't care about facts. Falsehoods will do just fine, too, as long as the gullible can be gulled into swallowing them.
Click to expand...

I support the death penalty. But I have researched this case and in accordance with our laws, they executed a man who should not have been found guilty. There was plenty of evidence to show that he should have been given another trial due to the evidence that showed the fire investigator, who was the lead witness in this case, was wrong and there was no actual evidence of arson, as he claimed those marks proved.
 
clownboy said:
Well I did that, the first time I asked the question. Your post was #1, my question with the quote was #2. But nice try with the obfuscation. :roll:
Click to expand...

DP runs wild in Texas- read up on it. Educate yourself.
Did you miss where I posted "possibly".
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, the laws of the state don't have to be "amended" at all to recognize same sex marriage when SCOTUS makes a ruling. Alabama and SC banned interracial marriages in their state constitutions until less than 20 years ago, yet neither state could legally deny an interracial couple a marriage license after the Loving ruling.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to make a point, I don't know what it is. If state marriage laws no longer are constitutional because of a Supreme Court decision, complying with that decision requires states to amend or repeal those marriage laws. Otherwise, they cannot continue to perform marriages. The fact a law for whatever reason may remain on the books after it has become invalid does not make it any less invalid. The provisions in the state constitutions you refer to were unenforceable as soon as Loving was decided.
 
Marriage as a concept predates government as a concept. While there are exceptions to the rule of marriage being between a man and a woman by the very nature of them being exceptions they prove the rule. Throughout the history of man the principle of marriage, and the religious institution of marriage has always been Man to Woman, for the procreation of children. The governmental recognition of this institution is in no way an interference in church and state as the government is allowed to recognize religious institutions.

As mentioned homosexual couples want the word marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do, and this is absolutely true. Homosexual couples want their union to be declared as normal as the union between heterosexual couples. They want the government to legislate the moral equivalency of these marriages. As this is in contrast with the history of the concept of marriage it is an attempt to redefine a basic concept in order to alter the morality of a same sex union. While in the legal sense the traditional view of marriage does not own that word, the redefinition of that word to include new groups under its heading is problematic. This would require that marriage not be based on historical concepts but based on the idea that if any grouping of people want to get married they can and are due all protections and benefits under the law. The first issue with this is that it creates a false moral equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. But beyond this it creates other issues. Why for instance do those who advocate same sex marriage rail against polygamous marriages. If marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, why cant one man have multiple wives. On the same topic why cant a man marry any woman, or man of any age.

There is a reason marriage has held its definition through the ages. Marriage as it is traditionally recognized created a much needed social stabilization. The joining together of a reproductive unit for the purpose of having and supporting offspring created a stable nucleus around which to build a society. This concept over time obtained legal trappings but the very fact that marriage between a homosexual couple is not already an existing concept proves that it is outside the traditional definition of marriage. If it was in fact an equivalent union then an institution would already exist. The very debate shows that it is outside the historical concept of marriage.

If homosexual couples wish to insure that their spouses are legally entitled to their benefits, or belongings then there are legal procedures that can be instituted for such requirements. It is even possible to endow civil unions with such rights without having to alter the traditional institution of marriage. The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.
 
Tetron said:
.
The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.
Click to expand...

Im going have to disagree with this statement... they are seeking equal rights...and for it to be legal, so their partner can have legal rights.
 
matchlight said:
If you are trying to make a point, I don't know what it is. If state marriage laws no longer are constitutional because of a Supreme Court decision, complying with that decision requires states to amend or repeal those marriage laws. Otherwise, they cannot continue to perform marriages. The fact a law for whatever reason may remain on the books after it has become invalid does not make it any less invalid. The provisions in the state constitutions you refer to were unenforceable as soon as Loving was decided.
Click to expand...

No, complying with the constitutional interpretation of the SCOTUS does not require "amending" the actual laws. Amending a law is an actual process, completely outside of a law being made valid or not. No laws have to be "amended" to comply with a SCOTUS ruling that makes same sex marriage bans unconstitutional.
 
roguenuke said:
And please share with us how many rulings that was? You seem to believe it was some sort of huge number especially in comparison to those rulings that claimed otherwise.
Click to expand...

You can start here (look under Case Law):
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

roguenuke said:
Nope. You made the claim, wrongly. The SCOTUS does not "rewrite" the Constitution. They uphold the Constitution, usually in support of people's rights (although they have had their instances).
Click to expand...

No, they rewrite it. Take for instance copyright law. The constitution explicitly states 14 years as the period of patent before it enters the public domain. The SCOTUS ruled that could mean 2000 years if congress set that as the figure. That is a direct rewrite of the text of the constitution.
 
Tetron said:
Marriage as a concept predates government as a concept. While there are exceptions to the rule of marriage being between a man and a woman by the very nature of them being exceptions they prove the rule. Throughout the history of man the principle of marriage, and the religious institution of marriage has always been Man to Woman, for the procreation of children. The governmental recognition of this institution is in no way an interference in church and state as the government is allowed to recognize religious institutions.

As mentioned homosexual couples want the word marriage for the same reason heterosexual couples do, and this is absolutely true. Homosexual couples want their union to be declared as normal as the union between heterosexual couples. They want the government to legislate the moral equivalency of these marriages. As this is in contrast with the history of the concept of marriage it is an attempt to redefine a basic concept in order to alter the morality of a same sex union. While in the legal sense the traditional view of marriage does not own that word, the redefinition of that word to include new groups under its heading is problematic. This would require that marriage not be based on historical concepts but based on the idea that if any grouping of people want to get married they can and are due all protections and benefits under the law. The first issue with this is that it creates a false moral equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. But beyond this it creates other issues. Why for instance do those who advocate same sex marriage rail against polygamous marriages. If marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman, why cant one man have multiple wives. On the same topic why cant a man marry any woman, or man of any age.

There is a reason marriage has held its definition through the ages. Marriage as it is traditionally recognized created a much needed social stabilization. The joining together of a reproductive unit for the purpose of having and supporting offspring created a stable nucleus around which to build a society. This concept over time obtained legal trappings but the very fact that marriage between a homosexual couple is not already an existing concept proves that it is outside the traditional definition of marriage. If it was in fact an equivalent union then an institution would already exist. The very debate shows that it is outside the historical concept of marriage.

If homosexual couples wish to insure that their spouses are legally entitled to their benefits, or belongings then there are legal procedures that can be instituted for such requirements. It is even possible to endow civil unions with such rights without having to alter the traditional institution of marriage. The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.
Click to expand...

Marriage as a concept predates all current religions. It was mainly about joining families for various reasons, especially as a recognizable social construct.

There are no "legal procedures" equivalent to marriage in the US. Marriage already exists for opposite sex couples and same sex couples, whether you approve of them using the term "marriage" or not. You nor religion nor opposite sex couples own that term. You must "share" it.
 
roguenuke said:
The SCOTUS does not "rewrite" the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The hell it doesn't. Some of its decisions have tortured the meaning of this or that part of the Constitution beyond recognition. Its substantive due process decisions in general have involved the justices in substituting their personal views for the constitutional text. The Court itself commented on that very problem in at least one decision, in effect saying it recognized it had been guilty of excesses in the bad old days of the "Substantive Due Process Era" from 1904 to 1937, and pledging to sin no more. And in the context of economic regulations, which most of the SDP Era decisions involved, it hasn't. But it has felt no need for restraint when it comes to other social issues. In Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Court went on a real SDP bender, making the Constitution say whatever it wanted it to.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
You can start here (look under Case Law):
Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



No, they rewrite it. Take for instance copyright law. The constitution explicitly states 14 years as the period of patent before it enters the public domain. The SCOTUS ruled that could mean 2000 years if congress set that as the figure. That is a direct rewrite of the text of the constitution.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not talk of copyright law so they do not in any way rewrite the text of the Constitution by ruling on any such laws. You are making absolutely no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom