• 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!

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

True, but they can't extend these privileges to some while having an overarching discriminatory policy against others.

They cannot create a privileged class.

Amen. And so long as homosexuals and same-sex unions of any type do not receive the same benefits as different-sex marriages, then it's total bull****. Now, should homosexuals have the right to legally refer to it as marriage? I think they can live without a word...and who cares about a word??? They should seek instead to get the RIGHTS rather than the word. Both sides can give a little to meet in the middle, but I highly doubt either side will.
 
True, but they can't extend these privileges to some while having an overarching discriminatory policy against others.

They cannot create a privileged class.

A state may pass any law that does not contradict the state constitution. It does not mean that the law will stand up in a state or federal court if it breaks other already existing laws. But what we are talking about here is a refusal of the State of New York to change the legal definition of the term marriage within the state. Some may claim that changing that definition would create a privileged class.
 
It falls under "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Property (Happiness)" and as such should not have to be GIVEN by the state, but rather protected from being taken away without due process or a damn good reason.
If a state repeals all its marriage laws, then marriage as a legal entity ceases to exist. As such, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

You could still go thru a marriage ceremony and then SAY that you are married, but doing so carries no legal meaning -- and it is something that anyone and everyone, including homosexuals are presently fully free to do.
 
Amen. And so long as homosexuals and same-sex unions of any type do not receive the same benefits as different-sex marriages, then it's total bull****. Now, should homosexuals have the right to legally refer to it as marriage? I think they can live without a word...and who cares about a word??? They should seek instead to get the RIGHTS rather than the word. Both sides can give a little to meet in the middle, but I highly doubt either side will.

I used to believe that, but I no longer do. As long as the institution is separated out, even just by name, it is going to be a point of contention. I do not believe for one minute that NARTH or Focus on the Family or any of these other family advocacy groups would stop at a separate but equal institution. But if the institution is the exact same, I highly doubt the would be inclined to screw with it for fear of screwing themselves over in the process.
 
That may be true in the most gross oversimplification of the issue, but the fact is that the State is not permitted to grant privileges to some without granting equal privileges to all. The State is not permitted to create a state sanctioned privileged class.
Your assertion is false.
My assertion it true, as you agree, above.

Now, you -may- be correct in that the state cannot deny privilieges to some without granting them to all -- which is debateable and depends on a great many things -- but the fact is, the state is -still- granting a privilege.

The RIGHT in question here is not the right to marry, but the right to equal protection.
 
My assertion it true, as you agree, above.

Now, you -may- be correct in that the state cannot deny privilieges to some without granting them to all -- which is debateable and depends on a great many things -- but the fact is, the state is -still- granting a privilege.

The RIGHT found here is not the right to marry, but the right to equal protection.

Jeebus Christ the sky is going to fall.

We actually agree on something.
 
I used to believe that, but I no longer do. As long as the institution is separated out, even just by name, it is going to be a point of contention. I do not believe for one minute that NARTH or Focus on the Family or any of these other family advocacy groups would stop at a separate but equal institution. But if the institution is the exact same, I highly doubt the would be inclined to screw with it for fear of screwing themselves over in the process.

Point of contention or not, we're adults. Defining our happiness with words should not be more important than getting what we need or desire from said ceremony. I don't care one way or the other, so long as everyone gets what they're entitled to. Is it easy to determine? No. But can people stop being whiney bitches and give a little to get a little? Yes. Very much so. And the States would be a happier place to live if we all just learned to give a little. It's hard for me to see because even most conflict for me is water off a duck's back. I don't give a **** if it's not going to kill me, hurt me, or screw me financially.
 
Jeebus Christ the sky is going to fall.

We actually agree on something.
We've actually agreed on several things.
:mrgreen:
 
Point of contention or not, we're adults. Defining our happiness with words should not be more important than getting what we need or desire from said ceremony. I don't care one way or the other, so long as everyone gets what they're entitled to. Is it easy to determine? No. But can people stop being whiney bitches and give a little to get a little? Yes. Very much so. And the States would be a happier place to live if we all just learned to give a little. It's hard for me to see because even most conflict for me is water off a duck's back. I don't give a **** if it's not going to kill me, hurt me, or screw me financially.

It's not just about the word. It's about the legal openings that will be left in the wake of another attempt at "separate but equal".

I don't really care one way or another about the word either. They call it "buttbuddy unions" for all I care except for the fact that the legal distinction between two institutions will leave the possibility of bigoted groups like Narth to continue raising challenge after challenge of the rights and privileges individually within the institution.

Take for instance adoption: they will be able to challenge adoption access for the gay marriage institution while leaving it alone in the straight marriage institution. If it is legally the same for both right down to the name, challenges such as this would be much less likely for fear of messing with their own access, too.
 
It's not just about the word. It's about the legal openings that will be left in the wake of another attempt at "separate but equal".

I don't really care one way or another about the word either. They call it "buttbuddy unions" for all I care except for the fact that the legal distinction between two institutions will leave the possibility of bigoted groups like Narth to continue raising challenge after challenge of the rights and privileges individually within the institution.

Take for instance adoption: they will be able to challenge adoption access for the gay marriage institution while leaving it alone in the straight marriage institution. If it is legally the same for both right down to the name, challenges such as this would be much less likely for fear of messing with their own access, too.
The Constitutional Argument for Same-Sex Marriage - News- msnbc.com

Among those who voted against the bill was Senator Hiram Monserrate, a heterosexual accused of battering his girlfriend with a broken glass. He was convicted of committing a misdemeanor assault.

Although Monserrate’s record can hardly inspire confidence in his ability to make sound judgments on human relationships, you can feel empathy for many others on both sides of the issue. They bared family secrets. They disclosed some of their deepest feelings in this historic debate.

Yet, ultimately, it seems clear, the issue of gay marriage has to be decided on the basis of our Constitution, our laws and the very essence of our nation’s history.

The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

” Does the “pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration, justify same sex marriage?

The equal protection clause of the Constitution, embodied in the 14th Amendment provides that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” --does that justify same sex marriage?

The issue is difficult but the solution ultimately must come from the remarkable documents that our founding fathers created more than two centuries ago.

In an uncanny way, these patriots of yesterday seemed to anticipate the most difficult issues of today. We can hope that their words will continue to guide us and inspire us -- and give us solutions to our most vexing problems.
 
The Constitutional Argument for Same-Sex Marriage - News- msnbc.com

Among those who voted against the bill was Senator Hiram Monserrate, a heterosexual accused of battering his girlfriend with a broken glass. He was convicted of committing a misdemeanor assault.

Although Monserrate’s record can hardly inspire confidence in his ability to make sound judgments on human relationships, you can feel empathy for many others on both sides of the issue. They bared family secrets. They disclosed some of their deepest feelings in this historic debate.

Yet, ultimately, it seems clear, the issue of gay marriage has to be decided on the basis of our Constitution, our laws and the very essence of our nation’s history.

The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

” Does the “pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration, justify same sex marriage?

The equal protection clause of the Constitution, embodied in the 14th Amendment provides that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” --does that justify same sex marriage?

The issue is difficult but the solution ultimately must come from the remarkable documents that our founding fathers created more than two centuries ago.

In an uncanny way, these patriots of yesterday seemed to anticipate the most difficult issues of today. We can hope that their words will continue to guide us and inspire us -- and give us solutions to our most vexing problems.

Our founding fathers were all against gay marriage. Everyone back then was.
 
Our founding fathers were all against gay marriage. Everyone back then was.

I dont believe it was even an idea that was addressed back then. I hardly think they had any opinion on it at all because it just wasn't a discussion to them.
 
I dont believe it was even an idea that was addressed back then. I hardly think they had any opinion on it at all because it just wasn't a discussion to them.

So what changed?


I mean if today's marriage laws violate the Constitution, how come the people who wrote the Constitution didn't realize that?
 
So what changed?


I mean if today's marriage laws violate the Constitution, how come the people who wrote the Constitution didn't realize that?


Cuz they didn't write the 14th Amendment, and the 'due process' clause?
 
Cuz they didn't write the 14th Amendment, and the 'due process' clause?

Just replace "Constitution" with "14th Amendment" then.

That's what I was talking about anyways.
 
So what changed?


I mean if today's marriage laws violate the Constitution, how come the people who wrote the Constitution didn't realize that?

First of all, the 14th Amendment came well after them. And a lot has changed since their time. White people don't have a few blacks that they own running their errands for them anymore. We have automobiles and electricity and quick transferrence of information on a global scale. We have antibiotics and space travel, an understanding of psychology and genetics.

Shall we continue listing all these game changers?
 
First of all, the 14th Amendment came well after them. And a lot has changed since their time. White people don't have a few blacks that they own running their errands for them anymore.

Like I said above... when I said "Constitution" I meant "14th Amendment".

We have automobiles and electricity and quick transferrence of information on a global scale. We have antibiotics and space travel, an understanding of psychology and genetics.

Shall we continue listing all these game changers?

Don't see how any of this changes anything in regard to gay marriage.
 
So what changed?


I mean if today's marriage laws violate the Constitution, how come the people who wrote the Constitution didn't realize that?
for the same reason it never occured to them that blacks should be considered equal.
 
for the same reason it never occured to them that blacks should be considered equal.

That did occur to many of them. ESPECIALLY the one who wrote the 14th amendment.
 
for the same reason it never occured to them that blacks should be considered equal.
On the contrary -- there was quite a lively debate on the issue. Slavery was one of the more difficult hurdles that the people that wrote the Constitutiion had to get over in order to create a document all the states would accept?

Where do you suppose the 3/5 compromise came from? And the end of importing slaves?
 
That did occur to many of them. ESPECIALLY the one who wrote the 14th amendment.
it's an amendment, and not written at the time our country was founded. they fixed it.......now it's time to recognize that gays should be allowed to marry.
 
Like I said above... when I said "Constitution" I meant "14th Amendment".



Don't see how any of this changes anything in regard to gay marriage.

Well first of all, it's now accepted that homosexuality doesn't come from disease, mental defect, or devils possessing a person.

Also, being a homo isn't punishable by stoning or burning at the stake anymore. Sort of dropped that practice along with whipping "niggers" that talk back.

So yeah, all of that changes everything in regard to gay marriage.
 
First of all, the 14th Amendment came well after them. And a lot has changed since their time. White people don't have a few blacks that they own running their errands for them anymore. We have automobiles and electricity and quick transferrence of information on a global scale. We have antibiotics and space travel, an understanding of psychology and genetics.

Shall we continue listing all these game changers?

Please tell me you are kidding.

Relating slavery to gay marriage?
 
Back
Top Bottom