• 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!

Maryland Gay Marriage Bill sent back to cmte. Shelved for this year at least.

Jerry said:
Since you can not establish your right to marry the same sex, the government hase free reign to limit it at will.
Click to expand...

Rejected.

As I said, I don't have to argue that I have a right to marry the same sex.

I have a right to marry the person that I choose.

The government has no basis to deny me the freedom of who I choose to marry on the basis of my sex.
 
CriticalThought said:
Rejected.

As I said, I don't have to argue that I have a right to marry the same sex.

I have a right to marry the person that I choose.

The government has no basis to deny me the freedom of who I choose to marry on the basis of my sex.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, and on many other things, as Jerry pointed out.
 
CriticalThought said:
The government has no basis to deny me the freedom of who I choose to marry on the basis of my sex.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State."
Click to expand...
a-68-05.doc.html


***
The government denies your choice of spouse based on familial relation even in the fact of 1. familial relation being a federal protected class, and 2. people who's children will have other more drastic inheritable genetic disorders are NOT barred from marriage.


***
The government denies polygamy even though 1. religion is a federally protected class, and 2. polygamy is more stable than monogamy.


***
It doesn't really matter if gays were born that way. Choosing the same sex is like choosing a second wife or a 1st cousin. It's an inc=valid choice. You are the one who is in the wrong for wanting that.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Sure it does, and on many other things, as Jerry pointed out.
Click to expand...

Oh really? :roll:

Exactly why does the government, solely on the basis of my sex, have the right to limit who I choose to marry?
 
Jerry said:
Everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex, while no one has the right to marry the same sex. I think you framed that correctly.
Click to expand...

However, when we look at other situations of the EPC this type of rationalization doesn't work. "Everyone has the right to marry the same race, but no one has the right to marry another race" is unconstitutional. equally unconstitutional would be mandating that everyone has the right to marry someone not of their race, but no one has the right to marry someone of their race.

Men are able to marry women, women can't. Women are able to marry men, men can't. Each sex is able to do something the other cannot do under the law.

Because you are the same sex of that individual.
Click to expand...

Your point?

If you don't love them, then when you recite your vows in the solemnization process you are committing fraud on the other person and they can sue you accordingly.
Click to expand...

Wedding vows are not required to engage in marriage. Nor, technically, is love an absolute requirement under the law.

Right, it's gender discrimination, and that's ok. Perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

Actually its not. Sex is a middle teir protected entity under the EPC. The "acceptability" of discriminating based on it with regards to marriage is a bit up in the air and is far from "perfectly" acecptable. At most its questionably acceptable.

Anti-incest is familial discrimination
Click to expand...

Lowest tier of the EPC, not comparable with sex.

anti-polygamy is marital-status/religious discrimination.
Click to expand...

Lowest tier of the EPC with regards to marital status, thus not comparable with sex. Religious discrimination would only come into play if private polygamous marriages were punishable by law. The law is not constitutionally required to change to allow something to become legal simply because your religion says so...IE you can't claim religious discrimination for murdering someone because your religion says its okay. Religious discrimination under the EPC is if the goverment is discriminating specifically against you due to your religion which would not be the case here.

So what? So you're being discriminated against....who cares.
Click to expand...

That pesky thing called the constitutional potentially cares.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
a-68-05.doc.html
Click to expand...

As I keep saying to you, and which you refuse to listen, I am not arguing that I have a right to same sex marriage. I am arguing that I have a right to choose who I marry and the government has no right to limit that freedom on the basis of my sex.

I'm defending my right to choose who I marry, not defending a right to marry the same sex.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I have a right to marry the person that I choose.
Click to expand...

You don't have that right at all. No one has the right to simply marry the person they choose, period, end of discussion. There are numerous, legitimate, unquestionably constitutional restrictions placed on marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
However, when we look at other situations of the EPC this type of rationalization doesn't work. "Everyone has the right to marry the same race, but no one has the right to marry another race" is unconstitutional. equally unconstitutional would be mandating that everyone has the right to marry someone not of their race, but no one has the right to marry someone of their race.
Click to expand...

It didn't work in Loving because other races could marry whites. Only blacks were barred.

That doesn't apply here as we only have 2 sexes, whereas we have a plethora of races.

Zyphlin said:
Men are able to marry women, women can't. Women are able to marry men, men can't. Each sex is able to do something the other cannot do under the law.
Click to expand...

Each sex can marry the opposite sex, neither sex can marry the same sex.

Zyphlin said:
Wedding vows are not required to engage in marriage. Nor, technically, is love an absolute requirement under the law.
Click to expand...

Wedding vows are required as they fulfill the solemnization process required under the law.

Zyphlin said:
Lowest tier of the EPC with regards to marital status, thus not comparable with sex. Religious discrimination would only come into play if private polygamous marriages were punishable by law. The law is not constitutionally required to change to allow something to become legal simply because your religion says so...
Click to expand...

Polygamy IS punished in SD, and the law doesn't have to change just because your dick says so.
 
CriticalThought said:
As I keep saying to you, and which you refuse to listen, I am not arguing that I have a right to same sex marriage. I am arguing that I have a right to choose who I marry and the government has no right to limit that freedom on the basis of my sex.

I'm defending my right to choose who I marry, not defending a right to marry the same sex.
Click to expand...

You don't have that right. You never did. Just like I never had the right to own missiles or WMDs. You want to get married? You have the right to marry any qualified person, just like you can own any qualified firearm.

You can't marry a man, own a grenade, marry a child, or carry a Stinger missile around.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Oh really? :roll:

Exactly why does the government, solely on the basis of my sex, have the right to limit who I choose to marry?
Click to expand...

Here's exactly why:

On the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has struck down laws that have unconstitutionally targeted gays and lesbians for disparate treatment. Although plaintiffs rely on the federal cases to support the argument that they have a fundamental right to marry under our State Constitution, those cases fall far short of establishing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage "deeply rooted in the traditions, history, and conscience of the people of this State."
Click to expand...

a-68-05.doc.html
 
Jerry said:
It didn't work in Loving because other races could marry whites. Only blacks were barred.

That doesn't apply here as we only have 2 sexes, whereas we have a plethora of races.

Each sex can marry the opposite sex, neither sex can marry the same sex.
Click to expand...

I don't discount that it is a legitimate argument. It is by far not an argument that you can use to say its "perfectly" acceptable constitutionally because its predicated completley off assumption. No where in those arguments are you going to find discussion by the judges stating that if they had restricted all other races, not just blacks, from marrying whites that it'd have been constitutional. I ask you again, do you believe it would be constitutional to require individuals of a particular race to have to marry someone only of their race, and require that of every race? The fact there is only two in this case doesn't change the fact that an argument can be made that a man and a woman can do something the other can't. You may disagree with that argument, you may find a semantical way to say the argument should really be stated a different way, but your explanation of what is happening is absolutely zero percent more valid than mine.

Which is why claiming it as an unquestionable fact is beyond ridiculous and simply constitutionally ignorant.

Wedding vows are required as they fulfill the solemnization process required under the law.
Click to expand...

You got a link showing it? Perhaps in your state? In Virginia I know there is no such law nor requirement. I also know in most states you could make your own vows and I am unaware of any stating the created vows must assert love as a component of it.

Polygamy IS punished in SD, and the law doesn't have to change just because your dick says so.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. I think its a ridiculous and potentially unconstitutional law then with regards to individuals engaging in a private joining with absolutely no affect on the law. That said, its rather irrelevant to the point of this thread.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't discount that it is a legitimate argument. It is by far not an argument that you can use to say its "perfectly" acceptable constitutionally because its predicated completley off assumption. No where in those arguments are you going to find discussion by the judges stating that if they had restricted all other races, not just blacks, from marrying whites that it'd have been constitutional.
Click to expand...

I offer it in reaction, as a counter point or clarification, not as a stand alone argument.

Zyphlin said:
I ask you again, do you believe it would be constitutional to require individuals of a particular race to have to marry someone only of their race, and require that of every race?
Click to expand...

My objections to interracial marriage are fact-dependent on the dynamics unique to interracial marriage and do not carry over to other types of unions. While I don't argue for a ban of interracial marriage, I strongly advocate mandatory comprehensive pre-marital counseling, as unresolvable cultural differences are what places mixed-marriage in a high-rick-of-divorce state. Also, mixed unions can produce a few medical problems in children which the parents need to be aware of and prepared for. Once the state can certify that the couple does in fact have all the information to truly make an informed choice, then the state shall issue the license.

I would support the state in denying mixed couples a marriage license if they refused such pre-marital counseling.

Zyphlin said:
The fact there is only two in this case doesn't change the fact that an argument can be made that a man and a woman can do something the other can't.
Click to expand...

Both are under the same restrictions, both have the same liberty. This is proven where SSM is legalized, as the ability to marry the same sex is not conferred only on one group or another, but on everyone. It's something no one could do before, which was not the case with interracial marriage.

Zyphlin said:
You got a link showing it? Perhaps in your state? In Virginia I know there is no such law nor requirement. I also know in most states you could make your own vows and I am unaware of any stating the created vows must assert love as a component of it.
Click to expand...

South Dakota Codified Laws
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.
Click to expand...

25-1-24. Time allowed after license for solemnization of marriage. Marriage licenses issued under the provisions of this chapter shall become void and of no effect unless the marriage be solemnized within twenty days following the issuance thereof.
Click to expand...


Zyphlin said:
Wonderful. I think its a ridiculous and potentially unconstitutional law then with regards to individuals engaging in a private joining with absolutely no affect on the law. That said, its rather irrelevant to the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

When someone mentions polygamy everyone's knee-jerk reaction is to think of some Mormon compound were some cultist is abusing children.

I'm here to tell ya that the Native Americans haven't quite parted with their tradition of polygamy, and I'm sure it's something Muslims would like the freedom to do here as well.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
You don't have that right. You never did. Just like I never had the right to own missiles or WMDs. You want to get married? You have the right to marry any qualified person, just like you can own any qualified firearm.
Click to expand...

So there are "qualified" people you can marry? :roll:

You are definitely no small government conservative Jerry. You are advocating for government intrusion into personal lives.

The fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States established that marriage is a fundamental right and the state has no grounds to dictate who you can and cannot marry without a legitimate basis for doing so.

Repeatedly posting a ruling from a state Supreme Court is not going to change that fact.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I would support the state in denying mixed couples a marriage license if they refused such pre-marital counseling.
Click to expand...

That is about as socailly conservative as you can get.
 
CriticalThought said:
So there are "qualified" people you can marry? :roll:

You are definitely no small government conservative Jerry. You are advocating for government intrusion into personal lives.

The fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States established that marriage is a fundamental right and the state has no grounds to dictate who you can and cannot marry without a legitimate basis for doing so.

Repeatedly posting a ruling from a state Supreme Court is not going to change that fact.
Click to expand...

You only have the right to marry if you are not already married.

If you are not married, and you are a US citizen, of legal age or have your parent's written consent, are not deemed mentally deficient, are sober, and do not have a blood born disease; then you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, who is not closely related to you, of legal age or has their parent's written consent, is not deemed mentally deficient, is sober, and does not have a blood born disease.

I mean forget about taking anything off the list, I want to expand it. Without comprehensive pre-marital personal and financial counseling, mixed religion, mixed race, and any person raising small children should be out-of-bounds.
 
mac said:
SSM is not necessarily an automatic under equal protection. The states have the right to restrict applicability of law.
Click to expand...

Not under the Supremacy Clause. If the SCOTUS rules under equal protection it is binding on the states.
 
disneydude said:
No.....Straight people would have that right as well.
Click to expand...

If we can't do it now either, gays can't say we can do something they can not, hence there is no discrimination.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh really? :roll:

Exactly why does the government, solely on the basis of my sex, have the right to limit who I choose to marry?
Click to expand...

Well, gee, that's easy.

Marriage is only legal between a man and a woman, silly.
 
mac said:
Well, gee, that's easy.

Marriage is only legal between a man and a woman, silly.
Click to expand...
He asked "Exactly why does the government". What authority is given to the government to decide who its legal between?
 
iamitter said:
He asked "Exactly why does the government". What authority is given to the government to decide who its legal between?
Click to expand...

The 10th Amendment.

Marriage is not a right specifically reserved to the people or given to the federal government, so as per the 10th amendment it falls to the state.

In this way marriage is business the State engages in with the people, not something the people do by themselves and ask the state to merely certify or notarize.

Far from a private contract, marriage is first an agreement with the state and second an agreement with your spouse.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The 10th Amendment.

Marriage is not a right specifically reserved to the people or given to the federal government, so as per the 10th amendment it falls to the state.
Click to expand...

And it is taken from the people and given to the states why?
 
iamitter said:
And it is taken from the people and given to the states why?
Click to expand...

The people didn't have it in the first place for it to be taken from them.

It was never given to the people or the fed, that's why it was given to the state.
 
Last edited:
iamitter said:
He asked "Exactly why does the government". What authority is given to the government to decide who its legal between?
Click to expand...

Remember that part in the constitution that says anything not covered is the right of the states or people to decide? I paraphrased of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom