• 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.

You conveniently ignored my post where I proved you wrong, let me repost it:

1. All of those laws are unconstitutional.
2. The right to be unconstitutional is NOT reserved for the states and the people which is why the 14th amendment was added to ensure equal protection under the law.
2. States and citizens have the right to create rights and laws that are constitutional - 14th amendment adds equal protection.

Defining marriage between a man and a woman is inherently unconstitutional because it goes against the 14th amendment. The Constitution does not specify any moral or ethical guides for defining marriage; therefore, it's definition must, by the 14th amendment and by the absence references to marriage, not exclude any citizens.

You conveniently ignore states rights.
 
It's not hard to understand that not everyone see it as a violation, clearly, or the SCOTUS would have struck down SSM prohibitions.

It's not a matter of opinion. As you said, the Constitution is based on morals, but only on the morals it specifies. These morals and principles are used to guide our laws. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection and no piece of the constitution references any morals that define marriage - marriage is irrelevant to the Constitution, that's why people want to add an amendment to ban gay marriage.

Gay marriage is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment and lack of any reference to the definition of marriage, which can only be defined in our laws as long as it is constitutional and agrees with the 14th amendment.
 
You conveniently ignore states rights.

States are not allowed to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. That's why every state had to abolish slavery, every state had to integrate schools and every state had to give black people and women the right to vote.
 
States are not allowed to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. That's why every state had to abolish slavery, every state had to integrate schools and every state had to give black people and women the right to vote.

If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been challenged and overturned anywhere by now?
 
If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been challenged and overturned anywhere by now?

These things take time, it took Jim Crow laws nearly a century before they were eradicated.
 
Because religion is a choice, and you can't deny someone rights based on the choice of religion.

Right, and that's specifically protected in the Constitution.
 
If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been challenged and overturned anywhere by now?

Why weren't slavery, women's rights, civil rights, rights for the handicapped, Title IX and many other laws implemented until we were well into being a nation?

Nonetheless, time is not a defense against whether or not something is constitutional. The only reason you're attacking time is because you can't argue with constitutionality since it's already been proven.

Gay marriage is unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment and lack of any reference to the definition of marriage, which can only be defined in our laws as long as it is constitutional and agrees with the 14th amendment.

It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize this just like it didn't matter how long it took us to realize that excluding blacks from voting was unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize or act on that something that is unconstitutional; if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Why do they take time? Stop bitchin and giterdun.

Admit that you're wrong mac. It's unconstitutional 100%. Stop attacking choice and time. Stop distracting everyone. Admit it.
 
Nonetheless, time is not a defense against whether or not something is constitutional. The only reason you're attacking time is because you can't argue with constitutionality since it's already been proven.

The only thing that has been proven is that you think equal protection applies to SSM, I don't think it does and obviously enough other don't either....which is why so many laws exist banning SSM.

It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize this just like it didn't matter how long it took us to realize that excluding blacks from voting was unconstitutional.

Actually it wasn't unconstitutional until an amendment made it so.

It doesn't matter how long it takes us to realize or act on that something that is unconstitutional; if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Right, and it having taken a while to realize it doesn't necessarily mean you're right.
 
Admit that you're wrong mac. It's unconstitutional 100%. Stop attacking choice and time. Stop distracting everyone. Admit it.

I don't think it's unconstitutional....I'll admit that.
 
But you would take it out, since it's a choice right?

No, I think things we have no control over (race, sex, ethnicity) are protected as rights, things we do have choices over need specific protections. Things such as Religion, Sexual preference...etc.
 
The only thing that has been proven is that you think equal protection applies to SSM, I don't think it does and obviously enough other don't either....which is why so many laws exist banning SSM.

The 14th amendment = equal protection. The Constitution has no opinion on marriage. A law that excludes people in its definition is unconstitutional.

Explain how this is not a fact and simply a matter of 'what I think'.

Actually it wasn't unconstitutional until an amendment made it so.

You know what I meant. Although Title IX and many laws against discriminating against the handicapped were passed after the 14th amendment, so you're wrong again (well not wrong, but my point is proven).

Right, and it having taken a while to realize it doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

I never said that taking long makes something unconstitutional; I said that things can be unconstitutional regardless of how long it takes.
 
Last edited:
I've directly addressed every one. Every single one. Usually repeatedly and frequently.

At this point, you have not at all explained how -

The 14th Amendment + The Constitution's lack of opinion on marriage = a definition based on inequality is constitutional.

You distracted from the argument by claiming that time determines constitutionality.
 
The 14th amendment = equal protection. The Constitution has no opinion on marriage. A law that excludes people in its definition is unconstitutional.

Explain how this is not a fact and simply a matter of 'what I think'.

Because the constitution grants to the states the right to make laws on everything the constitution missed. The constitution does not define marriage, so the states do.

You know what I meant. Although Title IX and many laws against discriminating against the handicapped were passed after the 14th amendment, so you're wrong again (well not wrong, but my point is proven).

No, I don't know what you meant. When things like this change in American society, we need an Amendment to codify it. Get an Amendment. Reality: I wasn't wrong, you were.

I never said that taking long makes something unconstitutional; I said that things can be unconstitutional regardless of how long it takes.

And I said the opposite can be true.
 
No, I think things we have no control over (race, sex, ethnicity) are protected as rights, things we do have choices over need specific protections. Things such as Religion, Sexual preference...etc.

The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under law, so it doesn't matter if sexual preference is mentioned in the Constitution, and even if it is a choice(and I know I didn't chose *****, ***** chose me) it doesn't matter. Equal protection is guaranteed to everyone who is a citizen of the US.
 
The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under law, so it doesn't matter if sexual preference is mentioned in the Constitution, and even if it is a choice(and I know I didn't chose *****, ***** chose me) it doesn't matter. Equal protection is guaranteed to everyone who is a citizen of the US.

Same-Sex Marriage & the 14th Amendment

"But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman."
 
Back
Top Bottom