• 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!

Bush v. Gore lawyers take on gay marriage ban

Discriminate against somebody for being gay in the workplace and they can sue you for discrimination.

Discriminate against somebody because of their skin color in the workplace and they can sue you for discrimination.

A few bigots kill a white lesbian in Texas because of her sexuality and they get charged with hate crimes on top of murder.

A few bigots kill a black woman in Texas because of her skin color and they get charged with hate crimes on top of murder.

Attack somebody based on ther color of the skin and you get hate crimes on top of assault.

Attack somebody because of their sexual orientation and you get hate crimes on top of assault.

For people to still argue that race, gender and sexuality aren't on the same level seems pretty ridiculous considering how our laws view discrimination.
 
ARealConservative said:
You seem to be confused about what you are debating.

I’m not defending the origins of the marriage license.
Click to expand...

You seem to not be able to understand anything that doesn't have a Ron Paul sticker on it. A marriage license being public record means nothing as far as wether it should be legalized or not. Bringing up marriage licenses is a red herring. :)
 
Alex said:
I have shown that arguments against racial marriage are similar to same-sex marriage, you have been cutting them out of my responses.
Click to expand...
No.. you have taken race-based decisions and said they can apply to orientation-based cases. What you have NOT shown is that orientation is a class on par with race and gender when dealing with disctimination.

You want to use the classes interchangeably, without having shown that they are interchangeable.

We all know that the law does not allow for blanket discrimination based on race and gender, but it DOES allow for specific discrimination based on same -- that there are specific isntances where is IS OK to discriminate on race and gender.

What we do NOT know is the extent to which discrimination based on orientation is allowed -- you ASSUME the limits are the same because you ASSUME that orientation is of the same class as race/gender, but you have done nothing to SHOW that this is the case.
 
ARealConservative said:
The promise to enter into a relationship that the state deems advantageous to the state.


a marriage license is a secular contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that contract. Since the state is the principal party to the contract, how exactly is it private?
Click to expand...

Where is these licenses does it say the parties are required to be advantageous to the state?

MarriageLicense.jpg


MarriageLicense.jpg
 
Goobieman said:
No.. you have taken race-based decisions and said they can apply to orientation-based cases. What you have NOT shown is that orientation is a class on par with race and gender when dealing with disctimination.

You want to use the classes interchangeably, without having shown that they are interchangeable.

We all know that the law does not allow for blanket discrimination based on race and gender, but it DOES allow for specific discrimination based on same -- that there are specific isntances where is IS OK to discriminate on race and gender.

What we do NOT know is the extent to which discrimination based on orientation is allowed -- you ASSUME the limits are the same because you ASSUME that orientation is of the same class as race/gender, but you have done nothing to SHOW that this is the case.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/48987-bush-v-gore-lawyers-take-gay-marriage-ban-6.html#post1058047950
 
Alex said:
Where is these licenses does it say the parties are required to be advantageous to the state?

MarriageLicense.jpg


MarriageLicense.jpg
Click to expand...


I notice you stopped pursuing the accuracy of how the state is a party to the contract.

The license does not need to explain why the state chose to be a party to the contract. If you wish to believe that this was done for reasons that have nothing to do with creating a favorable environment for the state, it doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t private.
 
ARealConservative said:
I notice you stopped pursuing the accuracy of how the state is a party to the contract.

The license does not need to explain why the state chose to be a party to the contract. If you wish to believe that this was done for reasons that have nothing to do with creating a favorable environment for the state, it doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t private.
Click to expand...

Because the issue of the state being a party has been addressed. I try to avoid circular debating.
 
Goobieman said:
No.. you have taken race-based decisions and said they can apply to orientation-based cases. What you have NOT shown is that orientation is a class on par with race and gender when dealing with disctimination.

You want to use the classes interchangeably, without having shown that they are interchangeable.

We all know that the law does not allow for blanket discrimination based on race and gender, but it DOES allow for specific discrimination based on same -- that there are specific isntances where is IS OK to discriminate on race and gender.

What we do NOT know is the extent to which discrimination based on orientation is allowed -- you ASSUME the limits are the same because you ASSUME that orientation is of the same class as race/gender, but you have done nothing to SHOW that this is the case.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/48987-bush-v-gore-lawyers-take-gay-marriage-ban-7.html#post1058048273
 
Alex said:
Because the issue of the state being a party has been addressed. I try to avoid circular debating.
Click to expand...

You didn’t address the fact that the state is a party to the contract. You tried to pretend they weren’t. You even claimed that it is a contract between two people, then posted documents showing that the state is a principal party in the contract.

I agree you are going around in circles to avoid admitting that your side of the debate is based on emotion and not fact
 
See what I'm talking about?
 
ARealConservative said:
You didn’t address the fact that the state is a party to the contract. You tried to pretend they weren’t. You even claimed that it is a contract between two people, then posted documents showing that the state is a principal party in the contract.

I agree you are going around in circles to avoid admitting that your side of the debate is based on emotion and not fact
Click to expand...

The state recognizes the legality of the marriage, but that is where the involvement of the state ends. The main (and therefore "principle") parties of the contract are the people in the marriage. What role does the state play during a marriage? None. There is no requirement that the people involved in a marriage should be "advantageous to the state." There is nothing in a marriage contract that says anything like that.

I have yet to see any case where the married persons must be "advantageous to the state". That is not a requirement of marriage, never has been. I have yet to hear any marrying person say, "I cannot wait to be advantageous to the state", or "I cannot wait to be married to the state", or anything remotely close to it.

As far as me basing my side of the debate on emotions, I have been the one citing case law, and I have provided copies of marriage licenses to prove my point. That doesn't seem like someone basing their debate on emotions. Basing this on emotions would probably seem more related to someone who is not supporting their opinions with evidence.
 
Alex said:
The state recognizes the legality of the marriage, but that is where the involvement of the state ends.
Click to expand...

That is all the involvement required to make the statement that marriage is private to be false.

Secular Marriage involved a collection of individuals recognizing, and even bestowing privilege on people. There is absolutely nothing private about it.
 
Alex said:
What role does the state play during a marriage?
Click to expand...

There are several one being the right to inheritance of the spouses home should one die tax free. And I know you are saying "during". Another right the right of hospital visitation.
 
ARealConservative said:
That is all the involvement required to make the statement that marriage is private to be false.

Secular Marriage involved a collection of individuals recognizing, and even bestowing privilege on people. There is absolutely nothing private about it.
Click to expand...

What role does the state play during a marriage?
 
winston53660 said:
There are several one being the right to inheritance of the spouses home should one die tax free. And I know you are saying "during". Another right the right of hospital visitation.
Click to expand...

That is not the state getting involved with the marriage, it is the state getting involved with the hospital. The state is not saying a spouse has to visit the other spouse, it is saying the hospital must allow the option of visitations by a spouse. It is an issue of the hospital, not the marriage.
 
ARealConservative said:
That is all the involvement required to make the statement that marriage is private to be false.

Secular Marriage involved a collection of individuals recognizing, and even bestowing privilege on people. There is absolutely nothing private about it.
Click to expand...

Lets say for argument's sake that we agree on marriage not being private, what does this have to do with my argument involving equal protection? Privacy would be more of a due process liberty thing, and I can see an argument with that, but I more so support equal protection than due process with this issue.

Does marriage have a legal aspect to it? If so, then equal protection should apply.
 
Alex said:
That is not the state getting involved with the marriage, it is the state getting involved with the hospital. The state is not saying a spouse has to visit the other spouse, it is saying the hospital must allow the option of visitations by a spouse. It is an issue of the hospital, not the marriage.
Click to expand...

Okay I see your train of thought. But with out the marriage the State would not be involved.
 
Alex said:
Lets say for argument's sake that we agree on marriage not being private, what does this have to do with my argument involving equal protection? Privacy would be more of a due process liberty thing, and I can see an argument with that, but I more so support equal protection than due process with this issue.

Does marriage have a legal aspect to it? If so, then equal protection should apply.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing against any form of equal protection. I simply questioned the notion that marriage is private.

I don't argue against gay marriage. I like how my state of Iowa did it. They didn't usurp the federal constitution, but rather found that the protection afforded to gay individuals comes from the state constitution, which is how it should be IMO.
 
hazlnut said:
I told you, the 18,000 legally married gay couples in CA changes the game, as it were, entirely.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, and I replied to this comment already.
hazlnut said:
Do you think the Supreme Court is made up of conservative judicial activists? (Scalia aside)
Click to expand...

I don't see what my opinion on that topic has to do with this topic at all, but no, I don't.

hazlnut said:
Didn't do your homework, I see. Still don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Well I know someone knows better than me when they demonstrate it ;)

hazlnut said:
You've quoted nothing to me.
Click to expand...

You didn't say my knowledge had to be directed to you specifically in order to actually exist at all. We were just through this on another thread, sorry you missed it.

hazlnut said:
Even if the Domestic Partnership laws covered EVERYTHING, which they don't, not even close, the bottom line is--separate is not equal.
Click to expand...

There are only a very few itoms CA's Domestic Partnership Law does not cover and that will be cleared up in no time. Topic like Immigration are the result of Federal law, not CA law, yet can still be remedied at the state level.

hazlnut said:
Does that sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Sure does, you folks don't want to let go if the same-oll arguments even when they keep failing time and again.

hazlnut said:
Now we have a legal class same-sex married in CA. The 'new' CA constitution bars other same-sex couples from joining that class.
Click to expand...

See this has nothing to do with Marxist class warfair, and even if it did, I don't care.

Assuming gays actually were "second class citizens" right along with polygamists and familial couples, I don't care about gays because they don't appear to be anything my concept of a family. I can't relate to them. So, I don't care about them. Let them live as second class citizens if those premises are true, it's not like they can't change their "station" at the drop of hat.

If it's truly an issue of class, fine, void the existing gay-marriages. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
Alex said:
Contracts are promises made between parties. What promises are people making to society when entering a marriage contract?
Click to expand...

I know that Jallman's sources conclude that marriage is not a strictly legal contract, and that this concept is not one remotely subscribed to by pro-gm.
 
Goobieman said:
Repeating your posts does nothing to address the criticism of the points you made in your posts.
Click to expand...

And cutting out the answers in your responses to the criticisms you raise does no better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom