• 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!

Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

BOSTON (AP) -- The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston
Click to expand...
Wait...
The state defines the ionstititon of marriage? Creates said institution thru legislation?
How then can marriage be a right?
 
Goobieman said:
Wait...
The state defines the ionstititon of marriage? Creates said institution thru legislation?
How then can marriage be a right?
Click to expand...

I think the kind of humorous aspect of this ruling is that it would equally apply to a national legalization of gay marriage which superseded the states as well as makes it so that marriage itself is not considered a right.
 
Goobieman said:
Wait...
The state defines the ionstititon of marriage? Creates said institution thru legislation?
How then can marriage be a right?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a right left to the state. The Fed has no authority to regulate it.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think the kind of humorous aspect of this ruling is that it would equally apply to a national legalization of gay marriage which superseded the states as well as makes it so that marriage itself is not considered a right.
Click to expand...

This judge just shot down my idea for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
 
Jerry said:
This judge just shot down my idea for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Amendments would take priority over rulings, if I have things correct. It would make the federal authority to define marraige constitutional.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

digsbe said:
The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it does today but it's a matter of time before that is ripped away from bigots. Oh I can't wait to smell the despair and hear the wailing when that day comes.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

jallman said:
Perhaps it does today but it's a matter of time before that is ripped away from bigots. Oh I can't wait to smell the despair and hear the wailing when that day comes.
Click to expand...

....along with nationalized healthcare, skyrocketing taxes, the legalizing of drugs, and amnesty for illegals, that smell in the air might be secession.
 
Tucker Case said:
I think the kind of humorous aspect of this ruling is that it would equally apply to a national legalization of gay marriage which superseded the states as well as makes it so that marriage itself is not considered a right.
Click to expand...

It's actually tied to the right to contract being protected and all other SCotUS rulings that declare marriage a right rise from that.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
....along with nationalized healthcare, skyrocketing taxes, the legalizing of drugs, and amnesty for illegals, that smell in the air might be secession.
Click to expand...

Well you can get rid of all the others except the legalization of drugs. I am all for that one as it can only save the country money and end the disastrous war on drugs along with taking the market right out from under the cartels.

Secession ain't happening in any event.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is a right left to the state. The Fed has no authority to regulate it.
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that states have the right to create the legal institution of marriage.
That the state defines the ionstititon of marriage and creates said institution, in total, thru legislation, however, proves that marriage itself is not a right.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I think the kind of humorous aspect of this ruling is that it would equally apply to a national legalization of gay marriage which superseded the states as well as makes it so that marriage itself is not considered a right.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Many do not think that far ahead.
 
jallman said:
It's actually tied to the right to contract being protected and all other SCotUS rulings that declare marriage a right rise from that.
Click to expand...

Ah. Good point. Marriage, as a contract, is a right. It's the defining of that contract which is determined by the States.
 
jallman said:
It's actually tied to the right to contract being protected and all other SCotUS rulings that declare marriage a right rise from that.
Click to expand...

This is what I am seeing. The federal government cannot say that a legal contract made by the state does not have to be recognized, but it can create new contract types(ie gay marriage). I am not a lawyer though, so I could be way off base in that understanding.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

jallman said:
Well you can get rid of all the others except the legalization of drugs. I am all for that one as it can only save the country money and end the disastrous war on drugs along with taking the market right out from under the cartels.

Secession ain't happening in any event.
Click to expand...

It's on a LOT of people's minds these days. I worry about it frankly.

Why go down the drain with California and New York, who's problems seem to have passed the point of no return.
 
Goobieman said:
There is no doubt that states have the right to create the legal institution of marriage.
That the state defines the ionstititon of marriage and creates said institution, in total, thru legislation, however, proves that marriage itself is not a right.
Click to expand...

The existence of regulation does not show that the right therefore does not exist; otherwise as the state regulates many other forms of private contracts, the right to contract itself does not exist for gays to point to said right to contract and claim a grievance.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah. Good point. Marriage, as a contract, is a right. It's the defining of that contract which is determined by the States.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is why marriage, as a legal institutun, is a privilege.
 
Jerry said:
The existence of regulation does not show that the right therefore does not exist
Click to expand...
This is true -- but if the institution exists only because of the actions of the state that created it, then said institution cannot be a right.
 
Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Erod said:
It's on a LOT of people's minds these days. I worry about it frankly.

Why go down the drain with California and New York, who's problems seem to have passed the point of no return.
Click to expand...

I am kind of concerned about people getting the silly notion in their heads. However, the reason secession isn't likely this time around is because, unlike the circumstances of the civil war, the schisms have no geographic boundaries to secede along.

I can see some chaotic civil unrest being likely, however.
 
Goobieman said:
This is true -- but if the institution exists only because of the actions of the state that created it, then said institution cannot be a right.
Click to expand...

Essentially, the right involved here would be the right to enter into a contract, correct?
 
Goobieman said:
This is true -- but if the institution exists only because of the actions of the state that created it, then said institution cannot be a right.
Click to expand...

The institution has been around for melenia, so of course the State was going to define how it was going to regard marriage when the state came around.
 
jallman said:
Except that SCotUS has determined it to be a right.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Which is stupid, IMO, but as long as they've done so they've pretty much shot themselves in the foot regarding the current discrimination practices.
 
rivrrat said:
Which is stupid, IMO, but as long as they've done so they've pretty much shot themselves in the foot regarding the current discrimination practices.
Click to expand...

It's right there in Article I of the constitution...that we have the right to contract. It was there long before SCotUS ruled on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom