• 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!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

disneydude said:
Yes....loving was based on inter-racial marriage. However, the underlying principle in the case recognized that the right of consenting adults to marry the person of their choice is a right. The underlying principle was not based on race.
Click to expand...

Yes it was, the decision even states as much.
 
winston53660 said:
It is gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

It has to be a "fundamental right" to be "discrimination" under the law.

There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same-sex just as there is no fundamental right to marry a person in your family or a minor or the mentally disabled.

Therefore, it's not discrimination.

That's how these other Federaly protected classes can be excluded from marrying and it be perfectly legal.

This is exactly likes trying to tell some Libertarian that banning private ownership of missiles is not a violation of the 2nd, because you never had the right to own missiles in the first place.

No one ever had the right to marry the same-sex.

If heteros could marry the same-sex, then and only then could gays point to that right and claim discrimination.
 
Last edited:
And now for something completely different....

A U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah
when they came upon an Iraqi insurgent, badly injured
and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was
an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.
The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid
was given to both men, the squad leader asked the
injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving
north along the highway here, and coming south was a
heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both
took cover in the ditches along the road. I yelled to
him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scum
bag who got what he deserved, and he yelled back that
Ted Kennedy is a fat, good-for-nothing, left wing
liberal drunk who doesn't know how to drive, and that
Obama is an idiot. So I said that Osama Bin Laden
dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian.
He retaliated by yelling, "Oh yeah? Well, so does
Nancy Pelosi!"

"And, there we were, in the middle of the road,
shaking hands, when a truck hit us."
 
Blackdog said:
Yes it was, the decision even states as much.
Click to expand...

No....the underlying decision started with the premise that the court recognized marriage as a basic human right. It then analyzed the state based limitation under an equal protection analysis and decided that there was no legitimate state interest that justified limiting the right of marriage to same race couples.
 
Jerry said:
It has to be a "fundamental right" to be "discrimination" under the law.

There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same-sex just as there is no fundamental right to marry a person in your family or a minor or the mentally disabled.

Therefore, it's not discrimination.

That's how these other Federaly protected classes can be excluded from marrying and it be perfectly legal.

This is exactly likes trying to tell some Libertarian that banning private ownership of missiles is not a violation of the 2nd, because you never had the right to own missiles in the first place.

No one ever had the right to marry the same-sex.

If heteros could marry the same-sex, then and only then could gays point to that right and claim discrimination.
Click to expand...


No Jerry...you are wrong.

Under equal protection analysis, "Fundamental" rights receive a higher degree of scrutiny. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a right to be fundamental to be scrutinized under equal protection. Quite the opposite.
 
disneydude said:
No....the underlying decision started with the premise that the court recognized marriage as a basic human right. It then analyzed the state based limitation under an equal protection analysis and decided that there was no legitimate state interest that justified limiting the right of marriage to same race couples.
Click to expand...

It was stated plainly in the decision as to why.

No cigar.
 
disneydude said:
No Jerry...you are wrong.

Under equal protection analysis, "Fundamental" rights receive a higher degree of scrutiny. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a right to be fundamental to be scrutinized under equal protection. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Maybe instead of saying "No, You are wrong" you should say "Ok, well here's what I think"

If someone really is wrong, and you present the true information, they'll come around.


Maybe?



hmmmm?





Huh, big guy?




You wanna give it a try?
 
Blackdog said:
It was stated plainly in the decision as to why.

No cigar.
Click to expand...

Gender discrimination is a no no just like racial discrimination is. Equal protection 14th amendment.
 
winston53660 said:
Gender discrimination is a no no just like racial discrimination is. Equal protection 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

But gay marriage isn't about gender, Both men and women are affected by this legislation, it's about sexual preference.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Maybe instead of saying "No, You are wrong" you should say "Ok, well here's what I think"

If someone really is wrong, and you present the true information, they'll come around.


Maybe?



hmmmm?





Huh, big guy?




You wanna give it a try?
Click to expand...

I do that with young children....I assume that we are all adults here and can accept someone pointing out when we are wrong....but I will try to temper it some....
 
Gays see how well marriage is going for the rest of us, so they want to try it. :rolleyes:
 
EpicDude86 said:
But gay marriage isn't about gender, Both men and women are affected by this legislation, it's about sexual preference.
Click to expand...

a man can do something a woman can not do and vice versa solely because because of their gender.
 
American said:
Gays see how well marriage is going for the rest of us, so they want to try it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They obviously don't see the divorce rates. A relationship can take a VERY bad turn once you wake up and realize you're legally bound to that bastard/bitch until death or nullification of said contract. Either way, it's an expensive set of chains to try and take off. Let em have it. >: D and if their divorce rate skyrockets up past the straights, we can rub their noses in it. OR we just all live happily ever after humping whatever gets our rocks off.
 
I just hope we can get more openly gay people out of the army, and more openly radical muslims in!:doh
 
EpicDude86 said:
haha I'll ask them right after I ask them which traditions (aside from walking and pooping) have remained the same throughout history. :lol:
Click to expand...

Walking is a tradition?

nnUTYURpMpz4katrfRoIXLp5o2_400.jpg


:2razz:
 
disneydude said:
No Jerry...you are wrong.

Under equal protection analysis, "Fundamental" rights receive a higher degree of scrutiny. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a right to be fundamental to be scrutinized under equal protection. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Your mere disagreement and say-so means exactly dick. Provide evidence that I'm wrong.
 
winston53660 said:
Gender discrimination is a no no just like racial discrimination is. Equal protection 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Age discrimination is a no-no, but you have to be of legal age to marry.

Familial relation discrimination is a no-no, but you can't marry your first cousin.

Disability discrimination is a no-no, but you can't marry the mentally incompetent.

Sex discrimination is a no-no, but you can't marry the same-sex.

Discriminating against marital status is a no-no but you can't marry someone if you and/or they are already married.

Medical information is private, but you have to divulge any STD or other permanent illness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom