• 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]

This is a bad week for America and Americans. The moral fabric of the USA is coming apart at the seams. The SCOTUS has just redefined "marriage". The Red Diaper Doper babies are succeeding in taking down America from the inside without even firing a shot. Just as Krustev promised a half century ago.

And here comes the morality police under the title "very conservative" which is supposed to mean smaller government.
 
Ok then, the federal judiciary recognized marriage to be a fundamental right in three well known cases, however, the question of who could marry outside of race, and ethnicity, was left to the states to regulate. They said nothing about same sex, or plural marriage, or any other kind of marriage because, those things were, as it were, unrecognizable. Now the USSC has said, oh, wait, sorry states, we know say that you are free to regulate marriage BUT, you must not regulate gender, or sexual orientation as criterion... Next it will be, oh sorry states, yes you are free to regulate marriage as you see fit, however, you may not regulate marriage to exclude multiple partners.. But other than that, go ahead and regulate to your hearts content. ;)

Tim-

Your post is riddled with errors

There are more than three cases which hold that marriage is a fundamental right

States were not allowed to regulate who could marry outside of [their] race.

SCOTUS has ruled that laws forbidding polygamy are constitutional

There is no "other kind of marriage" that is relevant here. We're discussing civil marriage and civil marriage alone

And as far as the courts limiting the power of states to regulate marriage, the court is unable to do so arbitrarily. Your implication that this decision was legally unjustified and arbitrary is contradicted by the scores of pages of text in this decision in which they demonstrate the constitutional requirements for not allowing states to prohibit SSM.
 
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.

Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.

All his dissents do. Read yesterday's scalia dissent on obamacare.
 
It would be hard to legitimately strike down those restrictions based off this decision, because there is no distinction of people bring discriminated against there, are legitimate legal considerations for such restrictions on number of legal spouses a person has, as well as very few if any of the arguments made for or against polygamy are the same arguments for or against same sex marriage.

How very accepting of you. Funny how you're not interested in equal protection for all social relationship contracts, just the ones you support.
 
Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?

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.

Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?

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.

How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?

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.
 
Unless the government has a societal interest in the well being of divorce attorneys, that's just bull**** in the 21st century.

Other than for purposes of procreation and child rearing, marriage is irrelevant to government.

And there you go!!!!

You just proved that marriage is relevent to the govt
 
A religious college has the right to dictate the morale compliance of it's students. it is a religious college. that should be a protected right.
however as was told during the trial this ruling tramps on religious organizations protected religious freedoms.

Why? It's a college. Funded in part by government monies. It has no more right to dictate morality than does a baker in a bakery.
 
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.

Because one gay person doesn't like the idea of marriage? That is her opinion, and yours, which is wrong.
 
Why would god create people with the ability to piss him off so badly he punishes them for eternity. Yea, sounds like love to me. :roll:

It's called free will. Read your Bible.
 
Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?

How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?

Well let me play devil's advocate and tell you why heterosexual marriage should have been protected and preserved as well as encouraged by the federal government in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare:

I will say it as IMO to avoid having to dig up numerous links and resources--most of which I have posted in other threads here over the years--that traditional (one man, one woman) marriage was recognized and encouraged by the federal government because:

- 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.

--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.

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.

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.
 
Hmm...it's been a busy week at the Supreme Court, it seems.

Nah.. It's seasonal. They heard these cases months ago and they sit on their decisions for months and release the rulings right before they go on break.
 
the problem with that argument is that the slave's KNEW they were slaves and people who couldn't vote KNEW they couldn't vote. a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it. this....this....thing....issue of being denied "rights" he didn't even know he was being denied until the lefte decided to MAKE IT a right they were being denied.

i know, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me either. why try to understand it. I'm just going to smile and nod like I know what's going on. enjoy your victory.

The first challenge to laws that forbid same sex couples from getting married was in 1970, when homosexuality was still deemed a mental illness. Many knew then though that they were oppressing people, gay people, but they had a supermajority of support to do so with little public sympathy.
 
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.

If by freedom you mean freedom to oppress I suppose.
 
you must be to young to have been around then, but I was. So take my word for it: this wasn't an issue anyone ever heard of until the mid to late 90s. go ask anyone alive then and they will be happy to verify that.

You said in your post that the idea of SSM wasn't even conceived until the 90's. You also asked for proof of gay groups demanding marriage in the '80s because "there were none" (paraphrased).

Guess what, I just showed you that you were wrong on both counts.

And fyi, I remember the 80's just fine. I remember quite clearly that SSM was being talked about.
 
It's good that gays get equality. I'm sick of hearing Christian Southern Conservatives sit there and lecture straight Atheists such as myself on their rigid versions morality then turn around and openly discriminate against gays for no better or more logical reason than they discriminate against atheists such as myself.

They're all Republicans too. So comical to see Christian Republicans sit here and claim conspiracy after conspiracy when we all know they're the ones out in real life that make life hard on everyone else simply because we don't share their Christian religiosity fanaticism.

How very "moderate" of you. What do you think about Christian Democrats, and Christian Northern Liberals, such as the overwhelming majority of black people of faith, who oppose same sex marriage?

Perhaps you need to get out more.
 
Mark my words... The next conservative move on this topic is the ol.... Take my ball and go home.... Move. They'll try to abolish marriage as a whole in their states as retaliation. And this will backfire on them immensely as wedding plans already laid out have the potential of getting obliterated by this conservative temper tantrum.

I also wouldn't be surprised to hear talk of secession again in small corners over this.
 
You said in your post that the idea of SSM wasn't even conceived until the 90's. You also asked for proof of gay groups demanding marriage in the '80s because "there were none" (paraphrased).

Guess what, I just showed you that you were wrong on both counts.

And fyi, I remember the 80's just fine. I remember quite clearly that SSM was being talked about.

well then ask anyone besides yourself and they will tell you. it was not an issue anyone heard of. stop it.
 
I said this earlier in the thread, but I suspect old polygamy challenges can be dusted off and made more compelling by adding most of the majority opinion. Roberts' decent made this exact point.

But the basic problem with prohibitions on gay marriage is the opposition to SSM couldn't articulate a compelling reason other than, paraphrased, "We don't like it" or "The Bible tells me so" for those prohibitions.

Frankly if in a court of law the opponents of polygamy can't do better than those opposed to SSM, then it should be legal. I'm agnostic - never thought about the subject and don't care to investigate the pros and cons - so I'm not supporting it, but knowing what I know now (not much) I'd say to those folks, "your life, your choice." I don't really feel it's my business to interfere with someone else's family arrangement unless I can articulate a VERY strong argument why, because I don't care what you (in a broad sense) think about mine.
 
It would be hard to legitimately strike down those restrictions based off this decision, because there is no distinction of people bring discriminated against there, are legitimate legal considerations for such restrictions on number of legal spouses a person has, as well as very few if any of the arguments made for or against polygamy are the same arguments for or against same sex marriage.

You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?
 
Well let me play devil's advocate and tell you why heterosexual marriage should have been protected and preserved as well as encouraged by the federal government in order to fulfill its constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare:.

I notice that you keep making a reference to "study after study" without actually providing a citation to any study, let along multiples. On the other hand, here is a study published very recently in the Social Science Research journal that found there was no evidence that children of same sex couples are negatively impacted.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615103946.htm
 
Equal rights is something promised by our constitution. For too long those of a religious mindset have demanded that rights should only be granted as they see fit. I don't expect to change the minds of anyone who is against gay marriage, especially since most of them base it on superstition not empathy. I do, however feel the need to say congratz to those vindicated today with their victory towards equality.

I feel no pity for those who oppress others in the name of their religion for their lose of right to discriminate.
 
How very "moderate" of you. What do you think about Christian Democrats, and Christian Northern Liberals, such as the overwhelming majority of black people of faith, who oppose same sex marriage?

Perhaps you need to get out more.

I think they're just as silly considering their faith in a non-existent entity is a silly reason to be against those who don't believe in that fairy tale or who have other lifestyle. So what? Live and let live.


Let's be honest. It boils down to a lot of fat white conservative guys who aren't getting laid. That's what it boils down to and we all know it. Fat white conservative men can't get the women they want so they band together under the guise of religion to seek revenge against anyone who can or who has another world view.
 
Back
Top Bottom