• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

Charles Martel said:
As we see DC become the fifth 'locale', joining 4 other states, it appears clear why a national amendent would have made sense during Bush's first term. Many who oppose same sex marriage opposed an amendment to our Constitution, this would have prevented this issue from being yanked from constitutent's decisions-making processes
Click to expand...

No, this is exactly in line with the constituents' decision-making process. DC's city council and mayor were elected by the voters of DC. The voters have the power to vote them out of office if they're upset. Similarly, gay marriage has been legalized in other states by courts that were appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The voters have the power to vote their officials out of office and elect people who promise to appoint anti-gay judges instead, if that's what they want.

On the other hand, an amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage *would* yank the issue from the constituents' decision-making process.

Charles Martel said:
Where I support this as it's a 'legislative move', it isn't the standard legislature as DC isn't a state. Congress holds ultimate authority, and there is a DoMA law currently written, my guess is Democrats will forego and ignore the law signed by President Clinton and approve ssm anyway torching off much more debate.
Click to expand...

As they should. Frankly it shouldn't be any of Congress' goddamn business what we decide to do in DC, except inasmuch as it affects the workings of the federal government.

Charles Martel said:
...and why...like my state...an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage and specifically not recognizing other state's decisions on this matter become even more critical. We the People need to define what marriage is...not a court....not some Executive Mayor or some House member...We the People must remain the ultimate deciders, we're the one's who need to specifically define and make laws pertaining and regarding marriage. End of story.
Click to expand...

Why? Why do we the people need to decide that, instead of our elected representatives? :confused:
 
Jerry said:
So no the policies don't leave with them.

Some of these things can not be repealed once enacted.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Why couldn't it be repealed? I've never heard of a law that couldn't be repealed.
 
texmaster said:
Please bold the word "marriage" any where after that.

My God Redress they even give examples after that statement and none of them are marriage.

Its amazing you think you can infer something without any evidence to support the theory.
Click to expand...

You are being intentionally dense now. Let me snip out the relevant passage, without all those other words for it to hide it: "in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to". Now, they are not limiting themselves to the examples(so much for that stupid argument), and marriage certainly is an "aspect of life", so your argument falls apart. Now, where any of those words too big for you, or is this concept too complicated?
 
Will of the people in regards to referendums. laughable.

It in not majority will with regards to the populace, it is will of the outspoken minority. The whole push for this (among other "hot=button" issues) to go before a vote to get shot down is a matter of "we know our staunchly opposed minority" will flood the polls while the other side, being more blase in their support, but still being numerically superior as a whole will not have as strong a showing.

this is not will of the people. it is the will of the highly opinionated.
 
jallman said:
Hot, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Sizzlin. And allows me a smile as this perspective of Christmas...this "hot" picture" is telling me I have no grasp on reality.

Uhhhh.....yeah. :roll: Moving on.
 
Redress said:
You are being intentionally dense now. Let me snip out the relevant passage, without all those other words for it to hide it: "in all aspects of life, including, but not limited to". Now, they are not limiting themselves to the examples(so much for that stupid argument), and marriage certainly is an "aspect of life", so your argument falls apart. Now, where any of those words too big for you, or is this concept too complicated?
Click to expand...

How much slower can I type for you?

They give examples of "all aspects of life" and then say including then list the inclusions and guess what, marriage isn't one of them.

You are being intentionally dishonest when you claim marriage is covered when it isn't mentioned once even in the examples.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
How much slower can I type for you?

They give examples of "all aspects of life" and then say including then list the inclusions and guess what, marriage isn't one of them.

You are being intentionally dishonest when you claim marriage is covered when it isn't even mentioned once even in the examples.
Click to expand...

Tex, Redress has a point: "but not limited to" is the magic elastic phrase that can be extended to mean marriage. Also, they talk about "amusement" which I suppose marriage can be pretty amusing at times...

also: Inclusions, yes, exclusions, no. So once again, leaves wiggle room.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Tex, Redress has a point: "but not limited to" is the magic elastic phrase that can be extended to mean marriage. Also, they talk about "amusement" which I suppose marriage can be pretty amusing at times...
Click to expand...

She doesn't because they list the examples "but not limited to"

Using her loose definition, I could claim murder was a human right because they included that phrase "but not limited to". Its a ridiculous claim.
 
texmaster said:
How much slower can I type for you?

They give examples of "all aspects of life" and then say including then list the inclusions and guess what, marriage isn't one of them.

You are being intentionally dishonest when you claim marriage is covered when it isn't mentioned once even in the examples.
Click to expand...

The examples are not inclusive. They are examples, and the language specifically states that it is not limited to those examples. "All aspects of life" is pretty clear.
 
texmaster said:
She doesn't because they list the examples "but not limited to"

Using her loose definition, I could claim murder was a human right because they included that phrase "but not limited to". Its a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot claim that. Murder is not an "aspect of life".
 
texmaster said:
She doesn't because they list the examples "but not limited to"

Using her loose definition, I could claim murder was a human right because they included that phrase "but not limited to". Its a ridiculous claim.
Click to expand...

FFS Tex, stop it. You're really being ridiculous on this one, and I don't know why...

You cannot compare marriage to murder.
 
Redress said:
No, you cannot claim that. Murder is not an "aspect of life".
Click to expand...

Funny how they start clawing for any hold they can when they've been shown to be more emotional about the issue than reasoned and logical. Any hold they can, no matter how irrelevant.
 
jallman said:
Funny how they start clawing for any hold they can when they've been shown to be more emotional about the issue than reasoned and logical. Any hold they can, no matter how irrelevant.
Click to expand...

When logic fails, bring up 12 year olds getting marriage, polygamy and murder. Bestiality comes next, wait for it. Appeals to emotion are so weak, and so predictable.
 
jallman said:
The law of the land has already been decided. It's called the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution does it say anything concerning atrernative life styles?


I just expect the courts to rule on the proper interpretation of that. If that does not succeed, then a ballot measure would suffice to get it changed in our favor.
Click to expand...


Call me old fashioned, but I don't recall granting the SCOTUS legislative authority.


And no, there is no middle ground anymore. That time is past. Now is the time to make key strikes that will cost us little but cost the opposition millions in legal fees, etc. Tire them out and exhaust their resources and will to keep fighting it.
Click to expand...


These are government entities that you are up against. Their pocket book is limitless. I think you have to win the hearts and minds of the voter to win overall.


That was an editorial "you". I probably should have made that a little more clear. As for the personal "you", no, I have never seen you post anything that I would take great exception to. In fact, you seem to be about where I was a year ago.
Click to expand...


Thank you.


We didn't create the system. But if it's going to be used against us, we have every right to use the system to fight back, also.
Click to expand...


Gone about in the proper way, I see no reason to disagree. But, a subversion exists when you speak of law through judicial fiat IMHO.


Honestly, I think it's complex enough to deserve it's own thread. But cliff notes version is this: division politics that use religion and liberty as opposing forces, consumerism, and degradation of personal adherence to tradition.
Click to expand...


Using your own definition here, tell me how the supposed "right to marry" is not negated as destructive to society as you define it above.

***Personally, I don't think it would necessarly be, but rather if gone about in the heavy handed way you describe, I think it would be.****


j-mac
 
marduc said:
Will of the people in regards to referendums. laughable.

It in not majority will with regards to the populace, it is will of the outspoken minority. The whole push for this (among other "hot=button" issues) to go before a vote to get shot down is a matter of "we know our staunchly opposed minority" will flood the polls while the other side, being more blase in their support, but still being numerically superior as a whole will not have as strong a showing.

this is not will of the people. it is the will of the highly opinionated.
Click to expand...

How many times has the "silent majority" theory been shot down now? anyone? Please there are just as many people who are passionately for same sex marriage as there are against, so lets not pretend that a referendum is un-democratic which is preposterous.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
When logic fails, bring up 12 year olds getting marriage, polygamy and murder. Bestiality comes next, wait for it. Appeals to emotion are so weak, and so predictable.
Click to expand...


I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Which is where the solution I proposed fifty comments ago comes in...
 
j-mac said:
I don't think that these arguments have any merit at all. However, if one wanted to open that door, the argument could go along religious grounds, since the term "Married" is most often affiliated with a church ceremony. Could not one argue civil unions with all the legal bindings of an actual church ceremony are one in the same?


j-mac
Click to expand...

That is a much better argument. I don't agree with it, but at least it is based in logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom