• 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

Gay Marriage has NOTHING to do with raising children as Gays can already LEGALLY raise children without gay marriage.

This is yet another of the poor "Think of the children" excuses that the right likes to throw out when they've lost any credible debate on a subject of legality.

In my experience as a foster parent, the gay couples foster-parenting and/or adopting children were the some of the best examples of unconditional parent-child love that I've ever seen.

I was truly humbled by the level of love and understanding they brought the difficult role of foster parent.

What I'm saying is that the gay parents I've met were awesome people and outstanding parents.:)
 
Inferno is a well spoken and thoughtful person, so let the woman speak for herself. She's challenged me before, maybe she will again here.

LOL -- Get over yourself, jerry...:roll:
 
Like all other women, you can marry any man that will have you.

This reasoning was struck down in Loving v. Virginia.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

Replace "race", or likewise words, in the entire ruling with "sexuality" and the reasoning is fundamentally the same.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The only difference I see is that the Court will probably not use strict scrutiny to draw its conclusion, they may use rational basis scrutiny. The government will need to have a legitimate interest rationally related to the government action. As far as I can see, there is no rational reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

If it is decided that this is a sex-based discrimination, the Court could use intermediate scrutiny. This would require an important government interest that is furthered by substantially related means. I cannot see an argument that serves this review either.

To say that a homosexual has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender is no right at all. Being a homosexual means a person seeks out a certain companionship with a person of the same sex. A law that only recognizes opposite-sex couples to marry is removing homosexuals from the institution and that makes it unequal. Hence, the Equal Protection Clause.
 
This reasoning was struck down in Loving v. Virginia.

"There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause."

Replace "race", or likewise words, in the entire ruling with "sexuality" and the reasoning is fundamentally the same.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value.
 
Who he marries is none of your business. Or mine. Or Jerry's or Benjamin Franklins or George Washington's or Ron Paul's.

Marriage, by definition, is a social institution, hence not truly private.

If two people want to live their life in privacy, they should not seek out a marriage license, which is a public record.
 
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value.

I think you are saying that the issue of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage must be exactly alike in order for the Court to use one in a ruling with the other.

The courts have always used precedent from previous rulings in order to draw a conclusion on the issues in question. They do not need to be exactly alike, only similar. The argument made was that gays can marry persons of the opposite gender just like heterosexuals can. This is similar to Loving v. Virginia where the argument was struck down that whites were free to marry other whites and blacks free to marry other blacks equally.

The Court will without a doubt address this argument and Loving will be cited. The point I am making is that the Court has already addressed this argument and found it to be no good. The Iowa Supreme Court also dealt with this argument, in a same-sex marriage case, and struck it down for the reasons I stated previously.
 
Marriage, by definition, is a social institution, hence not truly private.

If two people want to live their life in privacy, they should not seek out a marriage license, which is a public record.

Is marriage a contract between people and society? Is it a contract between people and the government?

It is a contract between the people involved and no one else. The people involved are not making any commitments to the government or society, they make commitments to each other.
 
I think you are saying that the issue of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage must be exactly alike in order for the Court to use one in a ruling with the other.
No. I am saying that you have to be comparing apples and apples. The apples need not be the same, but they do both need to be apples.

The point I am making is that the Court has already addressed this argument and found it to be no good.
No... it addressed the agument regarding race, not sexual orientation.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value -- that you are comparing apples to apples.
 
No. I am saying that you have to be comparing apples and apples. The apples need not be the same, but they do both need to be apples.

No... it addressed the agument regarding race, not sexual orientation.
For this to hold water, you have to make the argument that the two issues can be interchanged at full value -- that you are comparing apples to apples.

I have already addressed this.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/48987-bush-v-gore-lawyers-take-gay-marriage-ban-6.html#post1058048045
 
Is marriage a contract between people and society? Is it a contract between people and the government?

It is a contract between the people involved and no one else. The people involved are not making any commitments to the government or society, they make commitments to each other.

Marriage is a social contract where you ask for others to recognize something that could easily be kept private if so chosen.
 
This doesnt show that the two issues are interchangeable, this is you arguing that they eill be found interchangeable on the baisis that they are interchangeable.

It is on the basis of different cases that are similar being interchangeable when dealing with precedent.

For example:Lawrence v. Texas was an issue of homosexual privacy, a primary case that was used to come to the conclusion that it is was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (abortion privacy). Homosexual privacy and abortion privacy are not apple and apples yet the Court used Casey to establish a right to homosexuals.

Similar cases are fair game to use in other cases. That has always been.
 
Marriage is a social contract where you ask for others to recognize something that could easily be kept private if so chosen.

Contracts are promises made between parties. What promises are people making to society when entering a marriage contract?
 
It is on the basis of different cases that are similar being interchangeable when dealing with precedent.
Yes... and you have not shown how race and sexual orientation are similar in this regard - that is, how sexual orientation holds a position similar to race and gender, when determining if a given class of persons is beng unlawfully discriminated against.
 
Yes... and you have not shown how race and sexual orientation are similar in this regard - that is, how sexual orientation holds a position similar to race and gender, when determining if a given class of persons is beng unlawfully discriminated against.

Argument 1: Gays can marry people of different genders the same as heterosexuals.

Argument used in Loving v. Virginia:
White can marry white the same as blacks can marry blacks.

The arguments are similar so Loving can be used to counter the first argument. Gays are being removed from the legal institution of marriage when the law says they can only marry people of opposite gender. The essence of being homosexual is the fact that people seek companionships from people of the same gender. That is discrimination against a class of people because the law does not allow homosexual people to seek legal marriage as it allows heterosexuals.
 
Marriage, by definition, is a social institution, hence not truly private.

If two people want to live their life in privacy, they should not seek out a marriage license, which is a public record.

Something being public record has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. Marriage licenses were of public record before and after blacks were allowed to marry whites. The fact that it's a public record changed nothing when it came to legalizing interracial marriage. It is still a private contract between the individuals involved. Not the individuals and the public.
 
Last edited:
Contracts are promises made between parties. What promises are people making to society when entering a marriage contract?

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?
 
Something being public record has absolutely nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. Marriage licenses were of public record before and after blacks were allowed to marry whites. The fact that it's a public record changed nothing when it came to legalizing interracial marriage. It is still a private contract between the individuals involved. Not the individuals and the public.

the state is the principal party in the contract.
 
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?

I am not aware of any marriage contract containing a promise that the parties involved will be deemed advantageous to the state. The promises made are between the individuals involved, not the state, so the principle parties are individuals.
 
Argument 1: Gays can marry people of different genders the same as heterosexuals.

Argument used in Loving v. Virginia:
White can marry white the same as blacks can marry blacks.

The arguments are similar....
But they are not necessarily similar enough for the legal position ion one instance to be legitimately applied to the other -- one is based on race, and the other is based on orientation.

I have been asking you to show that, in terms of resolving discrimination issues, that orientation is on par with race and gender. You havent done that.
 
the state is the principal party in the contract.

Show how this was succesfully used as an argument against interracial marriage and you'll have something. Until then the state being the 'principal party' to a private matter that doesn't concern the public is irrelevant.
 
But they are not necessarily similar enough for the legal position ion one instance to be legitimately applied to the other -- one is based on race, and the other is based on orientation.

I have been asking you to show that, in terms of resolving discrimination issues, that orientation is on par with race and gender. You havent done that.

I have shown that arguments against racial marriage are similar to same-sex marriage, you have been cutting them out of my responses.
 
I am not aware of any marriage contract containing a promise that the parties involved will be deemed advantageous to the state. The promises made are between the individuals involved, not the state, so the principle parties are individuals.

Secular marriage only exists because a collective of individuals deem it advantageous to recognize it.

The state that issues a secular marriage license is a principal party in the contract. This is a fact.
 
Show how this was succesfully used as an argument against interracial marriage and you'll have something. Until then the state being the 'principal party' to a private matter that doesn't concern the public is irrelevant.

You seem to be confused about what you are debating.

I’m not defending the origins of the marriage license.
 
Back
Top Bottom