• 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 Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

Blackdog said:
I am not denying anyone anything? How many times do I have to repeat that? Please point out where I have gay hostages tied up so they can't get married?

I also support civil unions, so again by keeping marraige between 1 man and woman I am not denying anyone anything.
Click to expand...

Supporting policies against same sex marriage is not denying marriage for gay people? Oooooookay.

Unfortunately most of our society does not consider 2 men a marraige. This is so much so a majority of state have written it into the Constitutions of the state.
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad populum

So, it does not apply.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is recognized in 8 out of the 50 states and can be performed in 5.

where did you come off with this repugnance thing? Please point out where I have said anything about sex in any way? I am talking about the life style as a whole.
Click to expand...

Define lifestyle.

You are getting into things and accusing me of things that have little or nothing to do with my arguments or beliefs.
Click to expand...

I may be mixing you up a bit with K-1.

Your tone is getting angry and abusive. You need to calm yourself down and understand not everyone agrees and live with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry in the least bit. Very disappointed that in this day and age there are still people who wish to deny civil rights to others based on little more than their personal beliefs and not on a reasonable argument. The Supreme Court has historically held marriage as a civil right and only now that gays want it is there any talk of how it is a "privilege" and a "sacred word". I can't see it for anything but what it is, another attack on gay rights by people who condemn them for who they are.
 
CriticalThought said:
With something called the Constitution of the United States, which is the law of the land and a particular 14th amendment to that document which includes something called the Equal Protection Clause which states that no state shall deny people equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

If it were so simply a 14th Amendment issue, the matter could have been decided and disposed of long ago.

The problem is, if a state defines marriage as that between one man and one woman, that applies equally to everyone in the state. Sure, a gay man can't marry a gay man, but two straight men can't marry each other, either -- or a straight man marrying a gay man, or whatever. The law does apply equally.

The 14th Amendment argument is not a winner. A much better argument is free association.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is still easy when you are shifting between threads to get members and their arguments mixed up.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's true. Especially if the threads are dealing with similar issues.
 
CriticalThought said:
Supporting policies against same sex marriage is not denying marriage for gay people? Oooooookay.
Click to expand...

Please explain if civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marraige, what is the problem?

CriticalThought said:
Argumentum ad populum
Click to expand...

Makes it no less a fact.

CriticalThought said:
Same sex marriage is recognized in 8 out of the 50 states and can be performed in 5.
Click to expand...

Same sex marraige has been outlawed by the Constitutions of 6 states and is illegal in the other 31.

CriticalThought said:
Define lifestyle.
Click to expand...

lifestyle n

1. a set of attitudes, habits, or possessions associated with a particular person or group

CriticalThought said:
I may be mixing you up a bit with K-1.
Click to expand...

I can't help you with that.

CriticalThought said:
I'm not angry in the least bit. Very disappointed that in this day and age there are still people who wish to deny civil rights to others based on little more than their personal beliefs and not on a reasonable argument.
Click to expand...

Again: I AM NOT DENYING ANYONE ANYTHING. :roll:

My argument IS reasonable to many people. It is your opinion that it is not.

CriticalThought said:
The Supreme Court has historically held marriage as a civil right and only now that gays want it is there any talk of how it is a "privilege" and a "sacred word". I can't see it for anything but what it is, another attack on gay rights by people who condemn them for who they are.
Click to expand...

And that is well and fine, you are entitled to YOUR opinion.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
If it were so simply a 14th Amendment issue, the matter could have been decided and disposed of long ago.

The problem is, if a state defines marriage as that between one man and one woman, that applies equally to everyone in the state. Sure, a gay man can't marry a gay man, but two straight men can't marry each other, either -- or a straight man marrying a gay man, or whatever. The law does apply equally.

The 14th Amendment argument is not a winner. A much better argument is free association.
Click to expand...

No, because the Court moves slowly. Just look to Loving v Virginia to see how wrong you are. It took the Court 99 years after passage of the 14th amendment to use it to strike down laws that prohibited interracial marriage. According to your logic, it should've happened years earlier. Try explaining that.

So if a state defines marriage as that between one black man and one black woman, and one white man and one white woman; it applies equally to everyone in the state. Sure a black person couldn't marry a white person, but neither could a white person marry a black person; therefore no discrimination. Care to explain why the Court didn't buy that argument?

The 14th will eventually be used to strike down all laws prohibiting gay marriage.
 
Blackdog said:
Please explain if civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marraige, what is the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is, they don't. DOMA sees to that.

Also, people aren't as willing to give civil unions to gay couples as many would think. The fight in the state of Washington over "everything but marriage" was narrowly won by those who advocated that gays should get the same rights as straights.
 
Charles Martel said:
And why I could be talked into a Constitutional Amendment settling this issue once and for all.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need an amendment. All it needs is for the laws to be applied equably across the board.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It doesn't need an amendment. All it needs is for the laws to be applied equably across the board.
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage needs to be finalized, obviously the DOMA hasn't kept the issue from wasting our court system time. An amendment that was carefully structured and could not be misinterpretted by the most radical of courts is sorely needed.
 
Charles Martel said:
The definition of marriage needs to be finalized, obviously the DOMA hasn't kept the issue from wasting our court system time. An amendment that was carefully structured and could not be misinterpretted by the most radical of courts is sorely needed.
Click to expand...

You mean an amendment that says that marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation?
 
Blackdog said:
Please explain if civil unions give all the same legal benefits of marraige, what is the problem?
Click to expand...

If civil unions truly did offer all the same legal benefits of marriage, then gays would not have an extraordinary argument to make for same sex marriage. However, it is an irrelevant argument to make because civil unions don't offer all the same legal benefits as marriage. There are over a thousand federal rights that are reserved specifically for marriage.

Makes it no less a fact.
Click to expand...

It makes it a fallacy, and therefore invalid and irrelevant.

Same sex marraige has been outlawed by the Constitutions of 6 states and is illegal in the other 31.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
You mean an amendment that says that marriage is between two consenting adults regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

As we've just seen the holidays come and go, namely Christmas...you no doubt took time to watch Yukon Cornelius on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer...and in his infamous words..you eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat. We gnash teeth, we debate above board, we present both points of view, and then We the People decide our cultural institutions ans what the definitions are. If a court misinterprets, we rewrite the law. If an exec take it upon him or herself to write in law, we use our Constitutional right to referendum and strike it down.

Those preferring to wed their sisters....as it passes your muster above...those wishing to marry more then one person at the same time....whether it passes your moral compass or not...will all have their say. Will all help determine the outcome and definition.
 
Charles Martel said:
As we've just seen the holidays come and go, namely Christmas...you no doubt took time to watch Yukon Cornelius on Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer...and in his infamous words..you eat what you eat, I'll eat what I eat. We gnash teeth, we debate above board, we present both points of view, and then We the People decide our cultural institutions ans what the definitions are. If a court misinterprets, we rewrite the law. If an exec take it upon him or herself to write in law, we use our Constitutional right to referendum and strike it down.

Those preferring to wed their sisters....as it passes your muster above...those wishing to marry more then one person at the same time....whether it passes your moral compass or not...will all have their say. Will all help determine the outcome and definition.
Click to expand...

Except, you can't pass laws that violate the 14th amendment.

If you guys want discriminatory laws to remain constitutional, then you'll have to amend the 14th amendment. Why not try that tactic?
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
No, because the Court moves slowly. Just look to Loving v Virginia to see how wrong you are. It took the Court 99 years after passage of the 14th amendment to use it to strike down laws that prohibited interracial marriage. According to your logic, it should've happened years earlier. Try explaining that.

So if a state defines marriage as that between one black man and one black woman, and one white man and one white woman; it applies equally to everyone in the state. Sure a black person couldn't marry a white person, but neither could a white person marry a black person; therefore no discrimination. Care to explain why the Court didn't buy that argument?
Click to expand...

Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? It's not very hard to distinguish. The Loving court said that race is irrelevant to the institution. To wit, you had some men and women who could marry each other, but some men and women who couldn't, for an arbitrary reason. That's unequal application. And a re-definition of marriage along racial lines is discriminatory on its face.

But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
 
Harshaw said:
But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
Click to expand...

I can do something a woman can not do. Marry a woman.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Except, you can't pass laws that violate the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

We do it all the time, what in heavens name are you talking about? Can you wed your first cousin in your state? Cuz...you cannot in mine. Cannot the 14the amendment apply to first cousins....or even brother/sister....why...of course it can. But we do not permit a license to be given to first cousins. And if you're already in a marriage contract, we deny you as well, the 14th amendment doesn't apply there either. Same with same sex marriage, and when we amend, we amend speaking to the 14th amendment, speaking to marriage, using clear and concise language so that it cannot be misinterpreted.

If you guys want discriminatory laws to remain constitutional, then you'll have to amend the 14th amendment. Why not try that tactic?
Click to expand...

Because we consistently don't believe this is a judicial matter. We would rather take the much more appropriate path of a legislative endeavor that specifically defines marriage and if any court claims it unconstitutional....we simply return and rewrite or amend the Constitution.

My state a perfect example, the Legislature went to the judiciary and asked for language......that couldn't be confused. What language or how should we amend our state Constitutuion so that this law cannot be misinterpretted? The Courts said we disagree with our Constituents decisions but....in if we actually intended to specifically define marriage, here would be the language needed.

And another reason why I support a federal amendment. To finally and outright define this institution and make the courts clearly aware of We the People's wishes on the matter. Close this case for good....it's a political distraction anyway, meaningless to our nation as well as any others.
 
Harshaw said:
Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck? It's not very hard to distinguish. The Loving court said that race is irrelevant to the institution. To wit, you had some men and women who could marry each other, but some men and women who couldn't, for an arbitrary reason. That's unequal application. And a re-definition of marriage along racial lines is discriminatory on its face.

But when defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there's no one who can do something that someone else can't. There is no prima facie discrimination and no unequal application.
Click to expand...

Discrimination on the basis of race is no worse than discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Discrimination on the basis of race is no worse than discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

You're making a novel argument that's well outside the holding of Loving. There's no prima facie discrimination, and the gender classifications are not irrelevant to the institution.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Discrimination is a judicial matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if the Constituency wishes to disciminate against first cousins....or bother/sister...or mother/son....or polygamists...that's up to them, correct....to define their own cultural institutions. No court on this planet would care if you're already married or not, they'd consider each contract separate. However, We the People define marriage as a unique contract, once entered into, you cannot enter into another until the previous one is dissolved and so...we disciminate. No court would care if you're trying to enter into a contract with your mother's sister's daughter either....but We the People may very well care...and therefore we discriminate. No court might care if you are of the same gender, We the People obviously do.:cool:
 
Blackdog said:
:2wave:

Have a good night!
Click to expand...

Why are you dodging this question? I have not asked it of you before, or any variation of it, nor have I seen you explain this. It was not meant disrespectfully, only wanting to understand your mindset.
 
I would like to see you people on the left quit trying to compare the plight of Blacks with the plight gays face.........The two situations are nothing alike...It is ridiculous to even make the comparison and you are insulting Balcks by doing so..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom