• 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

Tetron said:
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
Click to expand...

The State redefined it with the Marriage License, which is a government issued and recognized contract. Got a problem with SSM? Get rid of the marriage license.
 
matchlight said:
Whether you think a law is outdated has nothing whatever to do with whether it violates anything in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Sodomy law has been found to be unconstitutional. It is being used against and targeting gays. The point is are you OK with this abuse of process?
 
wallaceschoolhouse.jpg


"MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- The marchers came to the old man in the wheelchair, some to tell him he was forgiven, some to whisper that he could never be forgiven, not now, not a million years from now. Yet to all of the people who retraced the steps of the Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights march 30 years ago, George C. Wallace offered an apology for a doomed ideal. The former Alabama governor, whose name became shorthand for much of the worst of white Southern opposition to the civil rights movement, held hands with men and women he had once held down with the power of his office. To one aging civil rights war horse, he mumbled, "I love you."

Three decades ago, he was preaching the evil of integration and found approval, even adoration, in the eyes of many white Alabamians. There was the legendary stand in the schoolhouse door to keep blacks from registering at the University of Alabama. It was his state troopers who used billy clubs and tear gas to control and intimidate marchers on the way to Selma......"My friends," the aide read, "I have been watching your progress this week as you retrace your footsteps of 30 years ago and cannot help but reflect on those days that remain so vivid in my memory. Those were different days and we all in our own ways were different people. We have learned hard and important lessons in the 30 years that have passed between us since the days surrounding your first walk along Highway 80....Those days were filled with passionate convictions and a magnified sense of purpose that imposed a feeling on us all that events of the day were bigger than any one individual," the speech continued in its borrowed voice. "Much has transpired since those days. A great deal has been lost and a great deal has been gained, and here we are. My message to you today is, 'Welcome to Montgomery.' May your message be heard. May your lessons never be forgotten. May our history be always remembered."
George Wallace Apologizes | 30 years later, Wallace apologizes to marchers - tribunedigital-baltimoresun
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Thank you. For sheer educational value, that article rivals even Pravda. Seldom have I seen innuendo used so cleverly.

Knowing what a immoral, racist country this is--and that Texas is among the worst parts of it--I of course assumed at first that this was the usual racism at work. I mean, we all know how Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Freddie Gray (among other innocent blacks) were lynched by the racist power structure. But no--this victim of judicial lynching was a white man!

It's sickening just to think what a moral degenerate that prosecutor is. His sworn duty was not to get convictions, but to see that justice was done. And yet he was so unprincipled, so bloodthirsty, so eager to lynch an innocent, grieving father, that he was willing to buy the false testimony of that jailhouse snitch with lavish favors. As usual, of course, all twelve of the jurors were idiots who just wanted to get it over with, and evidence be damned. And the fact the poor guy's "lawyer" only called ONE witness proves he's an incompetent dope who went to some back-of-a-matchbook law school.

No doubt the trial judge slept through half the trial, and was texting his girlfriend the rest of the time. He probably just looked up often enough to say "overruled" occasionally. And those bozos they get on state appeals courts are the worst. Their attitude was, "Don't bother us with that stuff about the arson evidence being full of holes--the bastard murdered his kids and deserves to die, and everybody knows it."

The whole appeals system in redneck hellholes like Texas--and that includes its so-called supreme court--is nothing but a rubber stamp. What do those yahoos know about the law and the Constitution, compared to the evolved and educated people who know their Brie and their brioches, and write for Newsweek? I say any state that could have made that reich-wing dimwit Ted Cruz its Solicitor General is populated by mental defectives.

No more state-sponsored murder!!!
 
JANFU said:
The Sodomy law has been found to be unconstitutional. It is being used against and targeting gays. The point is are you OK with this abuse of process?
Click to expand...

I don't accept the lurid claims of your articles as proof it is taking place. Even if there is a policy of falsely arresting people for violating invalid laws, both state laws and federal civil rights laws provide an adequate recourse for any victims of it. A police official has to be an utter fool to condone illegal stunts that end up costing his city lots of money in lawsuits, because he will surely be fired for it, and sometimes may even serve jail time.
 
matchlight said:
I don't accept the lurid claims of your articles as proof it is taking place. Even if there is a policy of falsely arresting people for violating invalid laws, both state laws and federal civil rights laws provide an adequate recourse for any victims of it. A police official has to be an utter fool to condone illegal stunts that end up costing his city lots of money in lawsuits, because he will surely be fired for it, and sometimes may even serve jail time.
Click to expand...

Reputable links, with the Sheriff basically stating it is on the books, we enforce it. What does it take to convince you?
You have that much of an issue with gays?
 
Tetron said:
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
Click to expand...

Marriage did not originate as a religious institution. It was largely a private, non-religious affair that had more to do with property rights than anything else. Religion had nothing to do with it.
 
Tetron said:
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
Click to expand...

This is complete horse**** on just about every conceivable level.
 
matchlight said:
Most of the people who founded this country were Christians, in particular English Protestants. The state criminal laws they made were based directly on English common law, which was substantially influenced by Christian teachings about right and wrong. No doubt those historical facts irk people who are hostile to Christianity.

But the notion that criminal laws violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they ultimately have a religious basis is silly. As I said, the fact laws against adultery codify the Seventh Commandment does not make them unconstitutional. In practice, religious beliefs are never "the only demonstrable basis" for laws like those. The Supreme Court discussed this issue in this case involving Sunday closing laws:


[T]he "Establishment" Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances, the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue.

McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).
Click to expand...

Uhh. Yeah? You're not reading my posts correctly. Merely matching some religious morality doesn't make something unconstitutional. Nobody said it did.
 
JANFU said:
The Sodomy law has been found to be unconstitutional. It is being used against and targeting gays. The point is are you OK with this abuse of process?
Click to expand...

I don't think it should have been used to "target" homosexuals, but that shouldn't make the law unconstitutional. The targeting should be addressed. Nothing unconstitutional about a state banning sodomy. As has been pointed out, homosexuals aren't the only ones who commit sodomy.
 
clownboy said:
I don't think it should have been used to "target" homosexuals, but that shouldn't make the law unconstitutional. The targeting should be addressed. Nothing unconstitutional about a state banning sodomy. As has been pointed out, homosexuals aren't the only ones who commit sodomy.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS thru out the law and one of these days, the public will be on the hook for a lawsuit due to some Officer not adhering to the law.
 
JANFU said:
SCOTUS thru out the law and one of these days, the public will be on the hook for a lawsuit due to some Officer not adhering to the law.
Click to expand...

They did so in direct violation of their oath then. Sodomy is not protected in the US constitution, nor by it's intent.
 
clownboy said:
They did so in direct violation of their oath then. Sodomy is not protected in the US constitution, nor by it's intent.
Click to expand...

Between consenting adults it is legal.
 
matchlight said:
Most criminal laws in this country, in the end, reflect the teachings of Christianity about right and wrong. But the fact a state law that makes adultery a crime codifies one of the Ten Commandments, for example, does not mean that law is an unconstitutional intrusion of religion into government.
Click to expand...

No they don't.
 
clownboy said:
They did so in direct violation of their oath then. Sodomy is not protected in the US constitution, nor by it's intent.
Click to expand...

So you think the government has business with what you do with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom?

Before you answer you should know several state sodomy laws extended to consensual sexual acts between heterosexuals, including oral and anal sex.
 
CriticalThought said:
So you think the government has business with what you do with a consenting adult in the privacy of your own bedroom?
Click to expand...

You're asking the same wrong question you always do. Is sodomy protected by the US Constitution? Yes or no. If yes, where?

CriticalThought said:
Before you answer you should know several state sodomy laws extended to consensual sexual acts between heterosexuals, including oral and anal sex.
Click to expand...

ALL sodomy laws apply to heterosexuals too. So?
 
clownboy said:
You're asking the same wrong question you always do. Is sodomy protected by the US Constitution? Yes or no. If yes, where?



ALL sodomy laws apply to heterosexuals too. So?
Click to expand...

You are asking if sodomy is protected by the Constitution, I am asking if your personal liberty and privacy are protected by the Constitution. Exactly what state interest is served by the government dictating your private sex life that justifies its intrusion into your individual liberty?
 
CriticalThought said:
You are asking if sodomy is protected by the Constitution, I am asking if your personal liberty and privacy are protected by the Constitution. Exactly what state interest is served by the government dictating your private sex life that justifies its intrusion into your individual liberty?
Click to expand...

So, you can't answer the question and thought you'd distract and move away from it as fast as possible. Again, is sodomy protected by the US Constitution yes or no. If yes, where?
 
clownboy said:
So, you can't answer the question and thought you'd distract and move away from it as fast as possible. Again, is sodomy protected by the US Constitution yes or no. If yes, where?
Click to expand...

Lawrence v. Texas did not find a right to sodomy. Your question was pointless. You are arguing the state can violate individual liberty to criminalize consensual and private sexual conduct for absolutely no reason aside from moral antipathy. You are free to have that opinion, but you can never call yourself a friend of liberty. I have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to DUE PROCESS. Do you know what that is? It means a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The state cannot deny my individual liberty just because some people find certain sexual acts between consenting adults to be yucky.

And I did not "move" anything. You are just ignorant of the rational that SCOTUS used to justify throwing out state sodomy bans and you have created an innane "right to sodomy" straw man because you are too lazy to educate yourself about the decision. But please continue to argue for more government intrusion into our personal lives so I can quote you in future threads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom