• 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!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

CriticalThought said:
Are you kidding me? Even corprorations in our country are recognized as having Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they are considered individuals in that respect.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you do see, there -are- reasons that the protections of the 14th do not necessarily apply to everyone - that certain people -can- be denied privilges enjoyed by others without violating the 14th.
Click to expand...

Yes. The only problem is, your example was an example of emancipation and those individuals who are considered minors. And unfortunately for your example, we're not discussing minors. We are discussing homosexual adults. And if you are going to deny an adult immunities and privileges, you're gonna need due process. That's straight out of the Constitution of the USA.
 
Last edited:
Well this will be an excellent opportunity for the state to assert, rather than "presume", that procreation is the state interest for marriage. As it is right now, Walker is correct. The state has not argued that its interest in limiting marriage to a man and woman is based procreation. Furthermore, Walker has provided that the state has another, much more important interest in marriage, and that is providing stable homes for children. Something which same sex couples are will equipped to do, and which would provide a great benefit to the state. So not only will the state need to assert that its interest in marriage is for procreation, but that it is the primary interest in comparison to providing stable homes for children
Click to expand...

Of which it is my opinion that it is.

I will state this one more time. Fundamental, as it is understood in the context of the Constitution, relates to life, liberty, and property
Click to expand...

Wrong on both parts. It is neither fundamental to the constitution, that life, liberty, and property are defining criteria, but also that this is your definition for fundamental. They may be fundamental, "things", but they are not, by themselves, enough to define fundamental.

Now you can go find 50 different definitions of "fundamental" but the only one that is relevant to the courts are those that are related to Due Process, which are life, liberty, and property
Click to expand...

How obtuse of you? Seriously? Life is a fundamental right, liberty is a fundamental right, property, well maybe not so much a fundamental right - they do not define fundamental in any legal context. Not even close!


Tim-
 
Goobieman said:
No - you did not read what he said..
Under (certain) current law, straight men cannot marry another man. Gay men cannot marry another man.
As such, -every- group is denied the privilege of marrying a person of the same sex, and as such, there's no discrimination againt gays because the same restriction applies to everyone.
Click to expand...

No, I understood perfectly. You are discussing 'under (certain) current law', as am I. The only difference is you are attempting to interpret the 14th Amendment, and I was reading it literally. And being that the lawyers argued the case on this very point (and won), then there you have it. You may certainly disagree with same sex marriage, but in a court of law, you'd better be ready to prove that the privilege is not Constitutionally protected. Given the wording of the Amendment, it's pretty much cut-and-dried unless you engage in interpretation; in which case, every Amendment would potentially be subject to interpretation regardless of how plain the wording.
 
Hicup said:
Of which it is my opinion that it is.
Click to expand...

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and not providing stable homes for children?

Interesting opinon.

Wrong on both parts. It is neither fundamental to the constitution, that life, liberty, and property are defining criteria, but also that this is your definition for fundamental. They may be fundamental, "things", but they are not, by themselves, enough to define fundamental.
Click to expand...

I'm going by the actual defintiion of fundamental in Constitutional law. And your counterargument makes absolutely no sense.

How obtuse of you? Seriously? Life is a fundamental right, liberty is a fundamental right, property, well maybe not so much a fundamental right - they do not define fundamental in any legal context. Not even close!
Click to expand...

All right. Provide me with Constitutional law's definitoin of fundamental. Not wikipedias or some dictionaries, but the actual definition that courts will consider.
 
Harshaw said:
But rights are individual things. It's not a right of "couples." It's a right of an individual person to marry.

Are you saying, though, that sexual attraction to each other is a necessary part of marriage?
Click to expand...

And isn't that what was argued in court, the right of the individual to marry his/her same sex partner?

Regarding your second question, I would answer with one of my own. Why would someone get married to a partner that he/she was not sexually attracted to nowadays? Do you know of such examples personally? And given that it's a possibility, would those be healthy marriages, you think?
 
Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage and not providing stable homes for children?
Click to expand...

This is one result from marriage, but not a gaurante. So what comes first, CT, the marriage or the children? You pick.. :)

I'm going by the actual defintiion of fundamental in Constitutional law. And your counterargument makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

Oh, right I forgot. And that definition again is, what?

All right. Provide me with Constitutional law's definitoin of fundamental. Not wikipedias or some dictionaries, but the actual definition that courts will consider
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought you knew? At least I provided you a link, you, thus far, have not extended the courtesy. Why don't you show me where fundamental is defined and charactrized in US law as pertaining to life, liberty, and property?

I'm waiting... Tic... Tic...Tic... :)



Tim-
 
Singularity said:
If I were against gay marriage, I would do everything in my power to keep this from going to the Supreme Court, because it's pretty much a guarantee that Prop 8 would be struck down given the nature of this case. Literally, the 14th Amendment states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

There is no way to twist the meaning of that section. No state can enforce any law which abridges the privileges of U.S citizens, and since most gay marriage opponents believe marriage to be a privilege and not a right, then there you have it.

Seems pretty open and shut to me.
Click to expand...

digsbe said:
Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege?
Click to expand...

/me points up
 
BDBoop said:
/me points up
Click to expand...

I already pointed out how that says nothing about marriage, sexuality, and redefining something to mean what it isn't. Homosexual unions being recognized as marriag is not a constitutional right.
 
Hicup said:
This is one result from marriage, but not a gaurante. So what comes first, CT, the marriage or the children? You pick.. :)
Click to expand...

Well given that I have seen children adopted in wonderful homes by married couples both gay and straight, and I've also seen some birth parents who neglect, abuse, and abandon their chldren, I don't really put the same value on procreation that you seem to. In fact, I don't even understand the value you put on procreation.

Oh, right I forgot. And that definition again is, what?

Wait, I thought you knew? At least I provided you a link, you, thus far, have not extended the courtesy. Why don't you show me where fundamental is defined and charactrized in US law as pertaining to life, liberty, and property?

I'm waiting... Tic... Tic...Tic... :)
Click to expand...

Sure thing. I guess you can't be bothered to go look in a legal dictionary yourself.

Fundamental right

"In constitutional law, certain rights protected by the due process or equal protection clause that cannot be regulated unless the regulating law passes a rigorous set of criteria (strict scrutiny). Fundamental rights, as defined by the Supreme Court, include various rights of privacy (such as marriage and contraception), the right to interstate travel, and the right to vote."

-Nolo's Plain English Law Dicationary

fundamental right definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

Fundamental right

"a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference."

-Webster's New World Law Dictionary

fundamental right - Legal Definition
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I already pointed out how that says nothing about marriage, sexuality, and redefining something to mean what it isn't. Homosexual unions being recognized as marriag is not a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

In which case, you believe it's a privilege. So, what does it mean when the Constitution of the US specifically states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? (14th Amendment)

If you can come up with an ironclad answer to this question which is incapable of being deconstructed and dismissed, then there are a number of anti-gay marriage groups that will pay you good money for such a defense.
 
Singularity said:
In which case, you believe it's a privilege. So, what does it mean when the Constitution of the US specifically states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? (14th Amendment)

If you can come up with an ironclad answer to this question which is incapable of being deconstructed and dismissed, then there are a number of anti-gay marriage groups that will pay you good money for such a defense.
Click to expand...

Everyone has access to marriage. Gays can marry someone of the opposite sex too. There is no privilege being denied, just a proper upholding of the definition of what marriage is.
 
Singularity said:
In which case, you believe it's a privilege. So, what does it mean when the Constitution of the US specifically states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? (14th Amendment)

If you can come up with an ironclad answer to this question which is incapable of being deconstructed and dismissed, then there are a number of anti-gay marriage groups that will pay you good money for such a defense.
Click to expand...

Without a rational reason for doing so.

Catch up will ya?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Without a rational reason for doing so.

Catch up will ya?


Tim-
Click to expand...

How fitting. I provided the legal definitions you requested, and it appears you have decided to ignore them.
 
digsbe said:
Everyone has access to marriage. Gays can marry someone of the opposite sex too. There is no privilege being denied, just a proper upholding of the definition of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

And since it's the definition they are seeking to change to include themselves as a couple, that is why we're having such debates. And unfortunately for your side, there is no substantial scientific or legal reasons to keep them from doing so. And since the anti-gay marriage crowd used that defense you just typed in the prop 8 trial, perhaps you should focus on developing a different strategy to defend your version of marriage.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Everyone has access to marriage. Gays can marry someone of the opposite sex too. There is no privilege being denied, just a proper upholding of the definition of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

Do you want me to help you out digsbe and post Walker's response to that argument in his ruling. or would you like to go look it up yourself?
 
Hicup said:
Without a rational reason for doing so.

Catch up will ya?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Page 15, post #149. I caught up a few pages back. You may reply to that post at your leisure.
 
Singularity said:
And since it's the definition they are seeking to change to include themselves as a couple, which is why we're having such debates. And unfortunately for your side, there is no substantial scientific or legal reasons to keep them from doing so. And since the anti-gay marriage crowd used that defense you just typed in the prop 8 trial, perhaps you should focus on a developing a different strategy to defend your version of marriage.
Click to expand...

Of course there is scientific and legal reasons for doing so. Legally and logically, marriage is defined as a union between a husband and wife. A man can't be a wife, nor a woman a husband. A homosexual union is incompatible with this legal definition, nor is it logical to warp the English language. What scientific reasons do you need? We could say that a heterosexual marriage is unique and scientifically different in that it is the foundation for the family and human procreation. Scientifically, homosexuals cannot procreate with each other, their union requires other means of procreation. I would imagine the pro-ssm group doesn't have a logical reason for redefining marriage, nor is there a scientific basis for altering the roles of a husband and wife in that relationship. Perhaps the pro-ssm side should stop warping the constitution. By that very clause I could say abortion should be illegal because it obviously deprives unborn persons of life, liberty, property, and all privileges.
 
CriticalThought said:
Do you want me to help you out digsbe and post Walker's response to that argument in his ruling. or would you like to go look it up yourself?
Click to expand...

Yes it was gender discrimination. So? It's part of what makes up an individual identity, but not intrinsically exclusive to the individual. Gender imparts function to a society, at least outside of biologoy, and that function is arbitrary. Why would an arbitrary "thing" have fundamental rights? Unless, the gender bond is fundamental to the posterity of the state?

See.. It all boils down to procreation.


Tim-
 
CriticalThought said:
That or you ignored it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-state-defend-prop-8-a-16.html#post1058969986
Click to expand...

Fundamental right

"In constitutional law, certain rights protected by the due process or equal protection clause that cannot be regulated unless the regulating law passes a rigorous set of criteria (strict scrutiny). Fundamental rights, as defined by the Supreme Court, include various rights of privacy (such as marriage and contraception), the right to interstate travel, and the right to vote."

-Nolo's Plain English Law Dicationary

fundamental right definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

Fundamental right

"a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference."

-Webster's New World Law Dictionary

fundamental right - Legal Definition
Click to expand...

And??? ..... So..... How are you right again?


Tim-
 
So then, is it gender discrimination that women don't have to sign up for the selective service but men do? Is it illegal and gender discrimination for men to not have the right to abort the role of fatherhood but a mother does? Here is a history lesson, the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and it's goal was stated in section 1 as "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This was denied and is not part of the constitution. It is not illegal to formerly and legally define marriage as a union between a man and a union. Nor is it unconstitutional to do so.
 
digsbe said:
Of course there is scientific and legal reasons for doing so. Legally and logically, marriage is defined as a union between a husband and wife. A man can't be a wife, nor a woman a husband. A homosexual union is incompatible with this legal definition, nor is it logical to warp the English language.
Click to expand...

There are no scientific studies supporting your argument. In fact, wasn't that the main reason you guys lost the prop 8 trial? On the stand, there were no studies or social science that had been peer reviewed or stood up to scrutiny. Your opinion is one thing, but in a court of law, you're gonna need expert testimony, accuracy, and scientific fact - none of which your side provided.

digsbe said:
We could say that a heterosexual marriage is unique and scientifically different in that it is the foundation for the family and human procreation. Scientifically, homosexuals cannot procreate with each other, their union requires other means of procreation. I would imagine the pro-ssm group doesn't have a logical reason for redefining marriage, nor is there a scientific basis for altering the roles of a husband and wife in that relationship. Perhaps the pro-ssm side should stop warping the constitution. By that very clause I could say abortion should be illegal because it obviously deprives unborn persons of life, liberty, property, and all privileges.
Click to expand...

One glaring error that you made here - there is no 'warping' of the Constitution. The wording is quite specific, and applicable. I realize that you don't like it; however, that's the wild thing about living in a democracy. We all gotta live with folks from different nationalities, ethnicities, and yes, sexual orientations. You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Two women or two men in love believe that they can include themselves in marriage, and what's to stop them? Your belief that they shouldn't? You're gonna need a better reason than that, my friend. And you're gonna need better legal representation, too.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
There are no scientific studies supporting your argument. In fact, wasn't that the main reason you guys lost the prop 8 trial? On the stand, there were no studies or social science that had been peer reviewed or stood up to scrutiny. Your opinion is one thing, but in a court of law, you're gonna need expert testimony, accuracy, and scientific fact - none of which your side provided.
Click to expand...
My argument was that it's biologically impossible for two men/two women to conceive a child... There are obvious differences between the hetero and homosexual unions. the relationships are not the same, nor should they be recognized as the same. We lost the prop 8 trial because a bias gay judge ruled illogically.

There are a few errors that you made here. First off, there is no 'warping' of the Constitution. The wording is quite specific, and applicable. I realize that you don't like it; however, that's the wild thing about living in a democracy. We all gotta live with folks from different nationalities, ethnicities, and yes, sexual orientations. You believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Two women or two men in love believe that they can include themselves in marriage, and what's to stop them? Your belief that they shouldn't? You're gonna need a better reason than that, my friend. And you're gonna need better legal representation, too.
Click to expand...
The wording is specific, and I can take it to mean (like I stated) that abortion should be illegal. It clearly says you can't deny a person life, liberty, privileges, etc. I believe that applies to fetuses as they are unborn human people. By the same application of the clause abortion should be struck down.

Who is to stop someone from labeling an apple tree as a corn stalk? No one, they will just wrongfully label different plants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom