• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

The short answer is committed couples raising children together are a public benefit, compared to the alternative.

And the tax and other monetary benefits are just a small part of the benefits of marriage. Among them, my wife is presumed to get a portion of my estate if I die, we are jointly liable on debt, either can make decisions on behalf of minors, etc. The list of benefits is very long and what they mostly do is provide some legal certainty in all kinds of cases where a live in boyfriend or girlfriend wouldn't. My wife and I have been married 23 years and don't have children, but we still enjoy the benefits of marriage.



I think that stat is misleading (as I understand it 50% of "marriages" do end in divorce, but far fewer married couples divorce because many people divorce more than once, e.g. Newt, Rush Limbaugh...), but it doesn't matter. There is still a benefit to raising children and in legal matters for the certainty that being married provides.

And what is the societal downside? Tax benefits? OK - end them. But that's a small part of the problem.



Sorry but I don't see perfectly "equal" treatment under the law necessarily a virtue. It's often/usually a virtue, but there is no problem in my view for society to grant benefits to activities that produce social benefits. We provide preferential tax treatment to adopting kids, which is a good thing. Also for charitable donations, and tax benefits for taking care of dependents, even dependent adults. All good things in my view.

Besides, it's not going to happen. We've rightly become accustomed to the benefits of marriage and no amount of sour grapes from fringe types that gays get to enjoy those benefits is going to turn the tide against "marriage" as a legal concept that comes with it certain benefits AND obligations.

Firstly, you give many examples of why marriage is a good idea yet none that require government sanction and reward.

Secondly, I love how you claim that "I don't see perfectly "equal" treatment under the law necessarily a virtue" and yet the basis of this Supreme Court ruling is just that.
 
The states do have the authority to regulate marriage and this does not change that.
However, state laws regarding marriage are still subject to the 14th amendment to the US constitution, wouldn't you agree?

I do, however the majority here didn't rely too much on that.. You read it, right?





5 is more than 4, and also Scalia doesn't count because that idiot didn't even attempt to respond to the actual legal arguments. His whole contention is that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to overturn laws.

Yes, we all know about your fascination with Scalia, but his rant wasn't about that at all.

Tim-
 
How very accepting of you. Funny how you're not interested in equal protection for all social relationship contracts, just the ones you support.

You're a foreigner, so it's understandable that you don't fully grasp all the details of the 14th amendment. Not all characteristics are protected in the same way.
 
And there you go!!!!

You just proved that marriage is relevent to the govt

Convenient how you dishonestly left out the part where I indicated that in the 21st century, marriage is no longer necessary for purposes of procreation and child rearing, but then I've come to expect nothing more.
 
I never made such a statement. I said, it should be hoped that after this victory the left does not become vindictive and attempt to have courts force churches and/or the religious to perform marriages that are against their religious teachings.

Looking back at your post, you did write that. Sorry. I don't think "the left" is stupid, they wouldn't try that in million years.. There are some on the right in this thread who thinks a church can be sued for refusing to marry a man and woman.
 
Good luck proving that having a second husband or wife negatively affects children. The majority opinion never mentions respecting or allowing legitimate state interests to override the fundamental right to marriage.

If you think this opinion overturned the doctrine of strict scrutiny, you obviously haven't read the opinion
 
Masha Gessen:

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.

I'm pretty sure they hate religion. Why shouldn't they, it calls them out for what they are.... sinners, deviants and perverts.
 
I'm pretty sure they hate religion. Why shouldn't they, it calls them out for what they are.... sinners, deviants and perverts.

The only thing I hate about religion is people trying to force it on me.
 
I'm pretty sure they hate religion. Why shouldn't they, it calls them out for what they are.... sinners, deviants and perverts.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
 
I'd have agreed with you yesterday, but if you take a look at the majority opinion, it simply claims the right to marry is fundamental and all but ignores the question of a "legitimate state interest". Precedent schmecedent (as far as Kennedy is concerned at least). There's no reason to believe that a similar ruling could be made with respect to "marriage equality" for polygamists.

This comes from a discussion of the new ruling over at Scotusblog: "A curious aspect of the new ruling was that, once again, Justice Kennedy did not spell out what constitutional test he was applying to a claim of gay equality. It simply discussed a series of court precedents, and his own recitation of notions of liberty, without saying what burden those challenging the bans had to satisfy before winning the right to equality."

So it appears that you have some basis for worrying about extending the reasoning, but I would be hesitant to read the lack of a discussion of an explicit constitutional test as a reading that a constitutional test does not exist.

By the way, I must admit that you were correct regarding my discussion of the most recent polygamist decision. I thought the Supreme Court had already issued a "cert. denied" order in regards to the Utah Supreme Court decision, but it appears that case is actually still awaiting an order from the circuit court.
 
You are depending now on the definition of "well known". I would argue that none of the cases are well known. The large majority of americans probably can't name even one of them



At one time yes. At another time, no. Your original statement didnt specify any time so it was wrong.

Semantics, semantics.. What I stated was correct.





That was so 1879 ago.. Sheesh man get with the times.. Homosexuals were thrown in jail then too.. :)





And?



Actually, the dissents are notably lacking in legal argument

Ha! Define legal argument for us would you? Are you suggesting that the 4 dissenting justices lacked citation in their arguments? I suspect you didn't actually read it if that's your contention? ;)

Tim-
 
Convenient how you dishonestly left out the part where I indicated that in the 21st century, marriage is no longer necessary for purposes of procreation and child rearing, but then I've come to expect nothing more.

It doesn't have to be necessary for procreation and child rearing in order to be a legitimate government interest. It only needs to be beneficial to child rearing and procreation in order to be a legitimate government interest.

In addition, marriage has other benefits in addition to those two
 
You're a foreigner, so it's understandable that you don't fully grasp all the details of the 14th amendment. Not all characteristics are protected in the same way.

Well, slaves weren't equal in the US at one time. Free black people weren't equal in the US at one time. Women weren't equal in the US at one time. So, even though I'm a foreigner, I'm well aware of the illustrious history of the US as it relates to people being equal except when they're not.
 
Growing so fast that it went from 0.4% to 0.9% in 7 years.

So the Muslim population grows at more than twice the rate. Factoring in other stuff (immigration, conversion, open borders) in 20 years the Muslim population will comprise 1/5 of the total population.

.4 x 225=.9

.9 x 300= 2.7

2.7 x 500= a large number

Next add in all the variables and coefficients and Muslims will be in the 100 millions or about one fifth of the total population,

This isn't to mention the fact that they will soon be the majority in Europe
 
Not in my country, USA, it doesn't. Are you willing to say that for Muslims as well?

My personal beliefs do.

Really want to compare Muslim and Christians regarding their feelings toward gays?
 
I know what Satan likes and he's loving today's ruling.

Are you dating Satan? I do not know the nature of the relationship you have with the guy but all these intimate details are creeping me out.
 
Semantics, semantics.. What I stated was correct.

No, it was clearly wrong.

That was so 1879 ago.. Sheesh man get with the times.. Homosexuals were thrown in jail then too.. :)

SCOTUS decisions don't have an expiration date.

Ha! Define legal argument for us would you? Are you suggesting that the 4 dissenting justices lacked citation in their arguments? I suspect you didn't actually read it if that's your contention? ;)

Tim-

If you don't understand what legal argument means, I can't help you
 
You know I think highly of you, and I understand the desire to kinda rub it in, but really, things like this are really unhelpful. Raising emotional ire is exactly the last thing that gay people and those who want to get SSM and live a happy life need. It just makes people mad, and they will then take it out on the most obvious targets. It is time to celebrate(and I am incredibly happy right now), but it is also time to start working on mending fences and getting past the ire. And I think it is those of us who have pushed for this to happen who should start doing the mending.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. However, they are going to be mad anyway. Social Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history on every issue in at least the last 200 years. They are classic authoritarians and in this case are getting angry about something that has zero impact on their lives.
 
Looking back at your post, you did write that. Sorry. I don't think "the left" is stupid, they wouldn't try that in million years.. There are some on the right in this thread who thinks a church can be sued for refusing to marry a man and woman.

That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.
 
That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.

I guess the "people of faith" have their hatred and disrespect excused because a book told them to be that way.
 
Even Regenerus himself said that his study was flawed.

Most studies of this type are flawed and they are almost always skewed to support whatever point a person wants to make for fun or profit or to fulfill an academic requirement or whatever. I have no clue why so many people want to diminish or discredit traditional marriage or why it is so important to them to change the definition. From what I have witnessed with my own eyes so far, what I have read, what I see of the evidence out there, I doubt that my opinion that kids, whether straight or gay, benefit from having a mom and a dad will change in my lifetime here on Earth.
 
- Study after study has shown a loving mother and father in the home is the very best circumstance for children growing up in that home. While there will always be exceptions, the children, whether straight or gay, are far less likely to have confusion about their own gender roles, are far less likely to experiment with harmful substances or engage in illegal activities, are more likely to form stable and healthy relationships themselves, and are far more likely to be socially and materially successful when they grow up in a traditional home. All traditional marriage laws in all 50 states were designed to be beneficial to any children born within the marriage.

- Study after study has shown that neighborhoods composed of mostly traditional families tend to be more prosperous and more stable, produce more voluntary social services, are more aesthetically pleasing, produce good neighbors, better schools, and provide a more secure and safe environment to bring up kids.

But only a very small minority of gay couples adopt children or have children and they are doing it today, even where SSM is not legal. I know several gay couples with children, not legally married in TN, so far....

So you're somehow assuming that gay couples with children getting married affects straight couples and reduces the likelihood of them getting or staying married or living in nice neighborhoods. I can't connect those dots. A gay couple lives a few doors down from me. If they marry, then...... nothing happens. I'm still married, so are all my married neighbors, etc.
--Traditional marriage throughout the ages has always been the means of establishing bloodlines and how people are related and in more modern times has been invaluable in studying genetics, dna, and how various issues are transmitted from generation to generation. It has helped people keep track of who their relatives are and prevented the unwanted consequences of inadvertent incest or marrying somebody too closely related.

Again, traditional marriage will be unaffected by SSM. And if gay couples marry, how does that harm any of these benefits?

While single parents and gay parents can do exemplary jobs bringing up children, and I know of many examples in which they do, they cannot provide the same dynamics that a loving mom and dad in the home can do. And strong family ties with the child's natural family are rarely maintained.

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm confident that there are maybe 100 or perhaps 1,000 single straight mothers, straight divorces, broken straight families for every one gay couple with a child or children. So we are, as I see it, focusing on the least of the problems with raising children in 2015 in America. In other words, I'd suggest the goal should be to strengthen ALL families instead of focusing on preventing or limiting the rights of a very small share of families with children.

And while I have long personally fought for gay people to have the necessary protections and benefits in our common society together, it is for the listed reasons and others that I have opposed changing the definition of marriage to something it never was before and was not intended to be.

I believe that the changed definition strongly signals to the young that marriage is pretty meaningless after all and is not a necessary or even a desirable goal. I cannot see how that will be a good or healthy thing for us as a society.

I appreciate the sentiment otherwise, but I don't see how more marriage or more people with the right to marry signals that marriage is meaningless. I'd argue the 180 degree opposite, that it signals that marriage is important to many families, including gay families.

What gives the signal that marriage is meaningless is a high rate of straight divorce.
 
No, it was clearly wrong.

Well if you say so?



SCOTUS decisions don't have an expiration date.

They expire when overturned..



If you don't understand what legal argument means, I can't help you

Nice dodge, I understand and have demonstrated many, many times on this forum exactly what a legal argument is.. Fail on your part. The dissenting justices provided ample legal precedence for their dissenting opinions.

Tim-
 
Meh. I used to be against gay marriage out of ignorance. My views evolved just as Obama's did. It's not a big deal. Why do you care hiding behind "Independent" yet espousing Christian conservative Republican views?

Why should I or any normal functioning modern person care what other people do in the privacy of their homes be it smoke weed or be gay? Why would I or anybody seriously care unless you have nothing better to care about in life?

Your 'views' evolved because you needed campaign cash too? Awesome. Funny though. Here you are admitting you and a sitting democrat had values you now despise...and you insist they must be Christian Conservative GOP views. And THATS what makes you so ****ing adorable. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom