• 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]

Less important to whom?

I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.

I have no doubt there are same sex couples who are excited they can exercise their freedom to marry in any state they chose. However, this is a very small percentage of the population.

What the general population is demonstrating is that concept of marriage has less and less meaning to them. Facts and polls demonstrate this to be true.
 
There are reasonable state interests in not allowing closer than first cousins to be involved in sexual relations, especially if one grew up around the other, related to either undue influence in the relationship (real grooming) or there is a chance of offspring with birth defects (for 1st level relations, it can be close to 40% or more), or both are concerns.

As I said, there is no concern about genetic defects in offspring when the partners are of the same sex, or, for that matter, where at least one of them has chosen to be permanently sterilized.

I am not sure what you mean by "undue influence," which is a term from the law of wills and trusts. It's entirely possible that no family member has done anything whatever to cause either would-be incestuous partner to have a sexual attraction to the other.

I don't really see any reason not to allow case by case bases of marriage between siblings, even blood siblings, if they weren't raised together, since there is little likelihood of undue influence on the relationship.

It's the very nature of laws to apply generally, rather than "case by case." I know so-called liberals like to imagine technocrats who share their antidemocratic views exercising their undoubtedly superior wisdom and morality to determine who gets to do what with his life, or not. But despite Obergefell, we are still a nation of laws, and that can't happen.

There are state interests involved in limiting number of legal spouses as well.

The Chief Justice did not think those state interests were even as strong as those in the case of homosexual marriage. He said that a view of the Constitution that requires this great a leap away from traditional marriage to be recognized as a right must also require that for the even smaller leap of increasing the number of partners beyond two.

They don't involve tradition, "think of the children" with no science to back up any harm to children, or random possibilities of an unknown future, nor should the argument involve "the people voted for this" (since most of these laws were put in place by legislatures).

The majority could not have made more clear than it did in Obergefell that neither tradition nor the will of majorities as expressed through their elected legislators means a damn when five judges know better. The Court can only prevent adult incest and polygamy by fiat, but it just made its willingness to issue arbitrary dictates very clear.

It will revolve around how legal marriage works and protects the spouses from other legal family members, society (in some ways) and each other.

I don't know what that means. If a certain form of non-traditional marriage were already legal, what question of its legality would revolve around how it worked?

The arguments prior to any court challenge should include looking for ways to actually change some marriage laws to accommodate multiple spouses in a marriage

The debate about same-sex marriage that states were engaged in is the very thing the majority cut off in Obergefell. Why should anyone bother with the democratic process when it comes to other forms of non-traditional marriage, if the Supreme Court is only going to substitute the personal views of a handful of judges for the judgments of majorities anyway?

As with any SC battle, such cases would be decided on their own arguments, both for and against, not mainly on previous cases.

Again, I don't know what that means. The Supreme Court regularly considers its previous decisions in deciding the case before it. In Casey in 1992, Anthony Kennedy sure as hell made a big deal out of stare decisis when he needed a convenient excuse not to overrule Roe. Or maybe you are trying to say that neither legal reasoning nor the Constitution would have anything more to do with the Court's decision in a future case involving a challenge to state laws against adult incest or polygamy, than it did in Obergefell.

The notion that Obergefell was decided on the arguments is laughable. You might want to read more about how substantive due process works. Forget about the subject matter--just as a Supreme Court decision, the quality of this monstrosity is right down there with Roe v. Wade, another notorious substantive due process piece of junk.
 
In case you have forgotten, the point I made is that liberal/progressives have been fighting for same sex marriage at a time when the concept itself is becoming less and less important.

They are fighting more for the right to have the right, rather than the right to exercise it.

I don't know what you're writing has to do with that point.

Marriage isn't becoming less important though, not to many people. There are people who want to be married, even if they aren't currently married. There are those who don't think marriage is important, as there always have been such people (the group getting larger or smaller at various times in history), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to many other people.

There is no reason to not give them the right, even if they never exercise that right.

You are making a lot of assumptions here that don't really support reality, history. While there is currently an increase in those who don't want to ever get married, it is not a significant increase. And many of those still support others getting married, they just don't feel it is right for them. There is no telling how many more or fewer people will feel this way in the future. But this trend has nothing to do with same sex couples who are fighting for their right to marry, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been fighting for the removal of gender/sex restrictions on marriage, whether all, most, or even just some or a few same sex couples in the future decide to get married.

And it isn't just or even mainly liberals who are against marriage. The majority of those that I've seen against legal marriage are libertarians. There are also some religious fundamentalist groups who are against legal marriage as well, believing that the religious marriage is what counts.
 
That's what I find entertaining about all of this. More and more straight people are saying no to marriage and yet all the while gay people want in on the fun of marriage. I have a feeling the trend will find its way among gay people before long and when it does all I will be able to do is laugh.

I agree. Once they discover what a bitch it is to undo what they have done, and the legal ramification, financial obligations, etc., they might wonder what they were fight for in the first place.

I happen to support the ability for same sex couples to get married, but as you have seen, I do find some rather interesting irony in the effort. To me, this issue is just one part of a far greater effort. It has been more political, than philosophical.

Kind of makes me wonder what is next for liberal/progressives.

Now that this one final issue has been resolved, do gay pride parades need to continue, and if so, can heterosexual pride parades now be endorsed and underwritten by cities across the nation? Should heterosexual couple demand such recognition and endorsement?

Interesting times.
 
Marriage isn't becoming less important though, not to many people. There are people who want to be married, even if they aren't currently married. There are those who don't think marriage is important, as there always have been such people (the group getting larger or smaller at various times in history), but that doesn't mean it isn't important to many other people.

There is no reason to not give them the right, even if they never exercise that right.

You are making a lot of assumptions here that don't really support reality, history. While there is currently an increase in those who don't want to ever get married, it is not a significant increase. And many of those still support others getting married, they just don't feel it is right for them. There is no telling how many more or fewer people will feel this way in the future. But this trend has nothing to do with same sex couples who are fighting for their right to marry, homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been fighting for the removal of gender/sex restrictions on marriage, whether all, most, or even just some or a few same sex couples in the future decide to get married.

And it isn't just or even mainly liberals who are against marriage. The majority of those that I've seen against legal marriage are libertarians. There are also some religious fundamentalist groups who are against legal marriage as well, believing that the religious marriage is what counts.

Assumptions that don't exist? I think you are either living in a bubble, or not willing to see reality.

The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families | Pew Research Center

The transformative trends of the past 50 years that have led to a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, done in association with TIME, complemented by an analysis of demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau
 
The culture of a country is whatever is it at the current time. It's not some principle that you might think is important or what other people might find important, nor is it a goal that you or someone might have. Giving women certain rights has changed the culture of the country and the government in expected and unexpected ways both good and bad.

So you don't believe the principles of "liberty and justice" for all is a goal that American culture strives to achieve? Okie Dokie......
 
Assumptions that don't exist? I think you are either living in a bubble, or not willing to see reality.

The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families | Pew Research Center

The transformative trends of the past 50 years that have led to a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, done in association with TIME, complemented by an analysis of demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau

Your assumptions are that this is somehow a trend that is definitely going to continue or that is bad at all. The "traditional" family, the nuclear family, is actually a relatively new family form. Many societies have had extended families as the "traditional" family model.
 
So since you've thought about it, what are some examples and the reasons why they would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny given this decision?

In case you misread or misunderstood what I wrote I will say it again for you: I don't accept the slippery slope arguments which are very common in SCOTUS dissents. They rarely ever turn out to be the case. Most often they are just vitriolic rants from the losing side. The most recent tantrums and illogical arguments from this week are a perfect example.
 
Your assumptions are that this is somehow a trend that is definitely going to continue or that is bad at all. The "traditional" family, the nuclear family, is actually a relatively new family form. Many societies have had extended families as the "traditional" family model.

It's a retreat, a de-evolution into the clan model.
 
Originally Posted by katiegrrl0
Less important to whom?

I think this right will be exercised a lot. Many people who have been fighting as activists and those sitting on the sidelines will be exercising the right.
I have no doubt there are same sex couples who are excited they can exercise their freedom to marry in any state they chose. However, this is a very small percentage of the population.
The number of people who are excited does not lessen the impact on the nation. This has been one of the most talked about issues for years. People who usually are not political or deal with social issues have spoken on this issue. Almost everyone I would venture to say has an opinion.

What the general population is demonstrating is that concept of marriage has less and less meaning to them. Facts and polls demonstrate this to be true.
The concept marriage has altered statistics show this. No wait has the meaning changed of course not the value may be a better term. Easy divorce has changed this. Is it a bad thing? No it's not bad. Why should people live with someone they have grown to dislike. The nature of people has changed we are an instant gratification society. If the marriage gets boring I am out of here. Yet the new laws make the nation freer and we as humans have grown whether we like it or not. The US is different today.
 
Your assumptions are that this is somehow a trend that is definitely going to continue or that is bad at all. The "traditional" family, the nuclear family, is actually a relatively new family form. Many societies have had extended families as the "traditional" family model.

Please provide any data you have that it won't continue.

I'm really lost on what you are trying to debate. I'm beginning to think you don't know as well.
 
In case you misread or misunderstood what I wrote I will say it again for you: I don't accept the slippery slope arguments which are very common in SCOTUS dissents. They rarely ever turn out to be the case. Most often they are just vitriolic rants from the losing side. The most recent tantrums and illogical arguments from this week are a perfect example.

When have they not ended up being the case (the slippery slope argument)? Corporations became people, abortions became easier and easier to get, and with each decision we push farther away from the constitutional model and toward the Ayatollah model.
 
It's a retreat, a de-evolution into the clan model.

Extended families work pretty well, have many advantages over the nuclear family. This is likely one reason many in hard times revert back to it, because it makes sense, helps people all around.
 
The number of people who are excited does not lessen the impact on the nation. This has been one of the most talked about issues for years. People who usually are not political or deal with social issues have spoken on this issue. Almost everyone I would venture to say has an opinion.


The concept marriage has altered statistics show this. No wait has the meaning changed of course not the value may be a better term. Easy divorce has changed this. Is it a bad thing? No it's not bad. Why should people live with someone they have grown to dislike. The nature of people has changed we are an instant gratification society. If the marriage gets boring I am out of here. Yet the new laws make the nation freer and we as humans have grown whether we like it or not. The US is different today.

Of course people have been made aware of the issue. That has been the plan. It's one of many wedge issues that by themselves are important to a few, but carry the water for the larger agenda.

I think it's possible a "tolerance" level to these changes may be reached, if not already. I will be interesting to see if that is true.

The fact that the US is being made different today could be a catalyst for push back.
 
Please provide any data you have that it won't continue.

I'm really lost on what you are trying to debate. I'm beginning to think you don't know as well.

I've already provided the data. The information shows that marriage slowly increased from 1920 into the 50s, 60s to the high point you are talking about. That was a high point for marriage, within a single decade, coming from a point of low marriage rates before that. It is possible that it will continue to decline, but unlikely that it won't reach a low point, then head back up or even out to a steady rate.
 
If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".

Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.

Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.
 
If you don't like rules within a country, why would you not seek to change them? If you don't like the way people are treated within a country, why would you not seek to change that? That is the entire reason our country exists, because some people did not like something about the country and sought to change it. That doesn't mean that change cannot be an advancement for the country as well.

Greetings, roguenuke. :2wave:

I agree with most of what you posted, but I don't agree about why our country exists. Many of our original settlers came to America because they wanted religious freedom that they didn't have in Europe at that time. Later, millions of immigrants in the early 1900s came to our shores through Ellis Island because they were fleeing from countries whose laws they didn't agree with - the caste system, serfdom, dictatorship, famines in their countries, and other reasons, and for the most part they worked hard, obeyed our laws, learned our language, and became citizens, even though it wasn't made easy for them in many cases, since the welfare system as we now know it didn't exist, and they had to rely on friends, neighbors and church charities to help them until they could make it on their own, and they did that as quickly as possible.

Many laws had to be enacted, and revisions made, and we're still in the process of doing that today. Most make sense, while others are so new that we won't know until time passes if they are beneficial for everyone.
 
Of course people have been made aware of the issue. That has been the plan. It's one of many wedge issues that by themselves are important to a few, but carry the water for the larger agenda.

I think it's possible a "tolerance" level to these changes may be reached, if not already. I will be interesting to see if that is true.

The fact that the US is being made different today could be a catalyst for push back.

I do not think there will be a push back. Many issues are more important than same sex marriage and abortion and so on. These issues are important and I do not deflate them but at the moment economy, immigration and others are more important to the masses.
 
When have they not ended up being the case (the slippery slope argument)? Corporations became people, abortions became easier and easier to get, and with each decision we push farther away from the constitutional model and toward the Ayatollah model.

riiiiiiiiiight....because expansion of rights is so consistent with middle eastern politics.
 
Considering the lawless disregard of the Constitution the majority's exercise of judicial fiat involved, I think Justice Scalia's comments were, if anything, too moderate. He would have been nothing but truthful if he had called Kennedy an unprincipled liar and a disgrace to the Court. And Scalia's arguments were very solidly founded in logic, as were Justice Thomas's. I doubt you've read Obergefell, and I am sure you would not understand the legal issues raised in the dissenting opinions if you had. Having read your posts, I'm not the least surprised that you would accept Kennedy's high-sounding, incoherent gibberish as legal reasoning.

Obergefell is a direct attack on both democracy and the freedom of religion. Its sloppy, emotion-driven gobbbledygook has a special appeal for the witless. That includes most of the millions of pseudo-liberal lumps in the lumpenproletariat who are now taking up space in this once-great nation. Like their president, they care only about getting theirs, and they do not give a tinker's damn about this country, its Constitution, or the rule of law. The thought that a million American men have died to defend the rights of a such a bunch of simpering pajama boys is disgusting.

Your sour grapes are no more founded in logic than the dissenting opinions.
 
I don't believe the Bible is anything more than words written by men a long time ago, men who believed they were speaking for God, but didn't know anymore than the rest of us what God or any higher power really wants, thinks, believes.

They were men who were given the information from God.
 
riiiiiiiiiight....because expansion of rights is so consistent with middle eastern politics.

So, can't back up your statement then about the slippery slope argument used in dissents? And yes, "rights" are determined by the Ayatollahs. Ours were by Constitution, rather than the will of nine black robed authorities, WERE. Not any longer. And when even the Chief Justice notes the condition, it's silly to hide it from yourself.
 
So, can't back up your statement then about the slippery slope argument used in dissents? And yes, "rights" are determined by the Ayatollahs. Ours were by Constitution, rather than the will of nine black robed authorities, WERE. Not any longer. And when even the Chief Justice notes the condition, it's silly to hide it from yourself.

Hmmmmmm lets see.....gay marriage more likely in a middle eastern country or the position of anti-gay bigots more consistent with a middle eastern country? Ding Ding Ding....what is your answer Clownboy?
 
Hmmmmmm lets see.....gay marriage more likely in a middle eastern country or the position of anti-gay bigots more consistent with a middle eastern country? Ding Ding Ding....what is your answer Clownboy?

No one was talking about the likelihood of gay marriage in the middle east. It's about how/who makes the decision to restrict or allow the behavior. Our system, it used to be the Constitution that was the ultimate authority. Now it's the will of the Ayatollahs.
 
Interesting, isn't it?
No, I said it is funny that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your supposition about liberals "not caring" about marriage...... while expanding the right to marry. You can characterize your overlooking your contradiction as "interesting", but apparently it is not "interesting" enough for you to explore.
 
Back
Top Bottom