• 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.

Mac and Jerry, when did the 10th amendment suddenly not apply to amendments 11 onward?

Because apparently based on what you're saying here, in whatever imaginary world you all are talking about states can freely break the EPC clause unless its discriminating in a way that is specifically word for word listed in the constitution, AND apparently a constitution exists that didn't establish a Supreme Court whose job is to interpret constitutional law.

That's not what either one of us are saying. The states have the right to enact laws to regulate their societies. If the laws they pass are unconstitutional the SCOTUS will strike them down. That doesn't mean the states no longer have the rights to make and enforce laws and it doesn't give the USG undue right to meddle in the affairs of the states.

States also very much do have the right to define categories of people that laws apply to and that they don't apply to.
 
But in this case, gay couples are not law evaders. You're playing semantics here, if you want to have a serious debate fine, if you're going to dissolve into ridiculous comparisons I'm not going to bother.

That was a little silly, I admit, but it was true. However, if the laws of the state define marriage as between a man and a woman..and two men get married....then they are what?

Exactly. What you said was irrelevant. I still don't see what that has to do with SSM.

No it wasn't...the state have the right to govern their societies. That includes everything from noise ordinances to construction code to marriage. That's just the way it is.

Also, it only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights.

Not completely true. Mainly since not everyone has the rights you think they do or should.
 
That was a little silly, I admit, but it was true. However, if the laws of the state define marriage as between a man and a woman..and two men get married....then they are what?
The laws? Violating the 14th amendment.

No it wasn't...the state have the right to govern their societies. That includes everything from noise ordinances to construction code to marriage. That's just the way it is.

Yes, but that doesn't have much to do with "Are the states allowed to pass laws designed to make the state a safe and pleasant place to live?". They do NOT have the right to make it more safe and pleasant (again, neither of which have to do with SSM) if it violates others' rights.
Not completely true. Mainly since not everyone has the rights you think they do or should.

Just because a state violates someone's rights doesn't mean it is justified.
Let's look at what I said.
"It (states) only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights."
You say its not true because "not everyone has the rights you think they do or should."
They don't have the rights BECAUSE the state violates them. This is not justification, this is explanation. Without the state barring them, they WOULD have that right.
 
The laws? Violating the 14th amendment.



Yes, but that doesn't have much to do with "Are the states allowed to pass laws designed to make the state a safe and pleasant place to live?". They do NOT have the right to make it more safe and pleasant (again, neither of which have to do with SSM) if it violates others' rights.


Just because a state violates someone's rights doesn't mean it is justified.
Let's look at what I said.
"It (states) only has that right so long as it doesn't step on other peoples' rights."
You say its not true because "not everyone has the rights you think they do or should."
They don't have the rights BECAUSE the state violates them. This is not justification, this is explanation. Without the state barring them, they WOULD have that right.

A SSM ban doesn't violate anyone's rights.

You never had the right to marry the same sex to begin with. It can't be taken from you because you didn't have it to begin with.

A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place.
 
A SSM ban doesn't violate anyone's rights.

You never had the right to marry the same sex to begin with. It can't be taken from you because you didn't have it to begin with.

A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place.

Did you have the right to OSM?
 
Did you have the right to OSM?

Me personally? No.

Though separated for 3 years, I'm still legally married, which means I can't marry anyone at all. I am now one of the black-listed groups, just like same-sex couples.

At least gays can show public affection, go on dates, live together and all that good stuff. If I tried that right now I'd face court martial.

Gays have more rights today then I do, and they want to bitch? ****'em. They should just shut the **** up. They don't know how good they have it.
 
Last edited:
Me personally? No.

Though separated for 3 years, I'm still legally married, which means I can't marry anyone at all. I am now one of the black-listed groups, just like same-sex couples.

When you were single, before you were married, did you have the right to OSM?
 
When you were single, before you were married, did you have the right to OSM?

What kind of stupid question is that? No, I didn't have that, that's why the state married us, 'cuz it was illegal. Duh.
 
What kind of stupid question is that? No, I didn't have that, that's why the state married us, 'cuz it was illegal. Duh.

Ok, so you did have the right.
"A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place."
So why didn't you have the right to a SSM?
 
Honestly, I'm really getting tired of this argument. The fact is that all the old farts are going to die and my generation is going to legalize it. Every five years the old farts claim that support for same sex marriage has peaked and this year was the first year that national support for same sex marriage has gone over 50%. The only reason that it is still an issue is because the old farts really don't want same sex marriage and the people who support it are not as galvanized for it as the opposition is against it.

DOMA will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I have no doubt at all about it because it is a flagrant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once that occurs, this will truly be a state issue and it will only be a matter of repealing each state amendment one at a time as the old farts die off. When same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for twenty years and people see that the world has not ended for our northern neighbors, all the idiocy surrounding the arguments that old farts are still trying to use will become completely apparent.
 
Ok, so you did have the right.
"A SSM ban doesn't violate my rights because I never had that right in the first place."
So why didn't you have the right to a SSM?

For the same reason I never had a right to marry a 1st cousin, a minor child, the mentally deficient, someone who was already married, etc.
 
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.

Right wing socialism at its best.
 
Honestly, I'm really getting tired of this argument. The fact is that all the old farts are going to die and my generation is going to legalize it. Every five years the old farts claim that support for same sex marriage has peaked and this year was the first year that national support for same sex marriage has gone over 50%. The only reason that it is still an issue is because the old farts really don't want same sex marriage and the people who support it are not as galvanized for it as the opposition is against it.

DOMA will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I have no doubt at all about it because it is a flagrant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Once that occurs, this will truly be a state issue and it will only be a matter of repealing each state amendment one at a time as the old farts die off. When same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for twenty years and people see that the world has not ended for our northern neighbors, all the idiocy surrounding the arguments that old farts are still trying to use will become completely apparent.

o_O how old are you?
 
o_O how old are you?

None of your business.

My point stands. Remember the "will of the people" argument your side always uses to argue that the majority should decide on the definition of marriage? Well guess what, 2011 is the year that the national balance finally tipped and now more people support marriage equality than oppose it. By 2031 I'll be surprised if there is a single state left with a Cosntitutional amendment against same sex marriage. And it will al be because of the "will of the people" so you guys won't get to bitch about it.
 
For the same reason I never had a right to marry a 1st cousin, a minor child, the mentally deficient, someone who was already married, etc.

You're equating SSM to these?
 
None of your business.

Hey, you brought up our ages. I'm 33, which is at the tail end of the X generation, so if you're calling me an old fart, that means you're part of genorationZ which begins with birth dates as of 1990, which means you're no older than 21 or your little rant is grossly inaccurate.

Tell me, how many 21 year olds are in SCOTUS, as it will be SCOTUS who decides SSM. How many 21 year olds are even in your local state legislature? How many 21 year olds are even out of collage, to make such a dramatic difference on the issue?

Oh, and way to discount all those 'old farts' who support SSM.

My point stands. Remember the "will of the people" argument your side always uses to argue that the majority should decide on the definition of marriage?

Can't say I've ever made that argument, no.

Well guess what, 2011 is the year that the national balance finally tipped and now more people support marriage equality than oppose it. By 2031 I'll be surprised if there is a single state left with a Cosntitutional amendment against same sex marriage. And it will al be because of the "will of the people" so you guys won't get to bitch about it.

Maybe the people who make that argument won't get to bitch about it, but I sure as hell will. You people keep making the same mistakes over and over.
 
Last edited:
The worst part is that you are allowed to marry your 1st cousin in some states and Jerry seems ignorant of that fact. :roll:

He was asking about ME, not anyone per-se, and no, no one could marry a 1st cousin in CA at the time before I got married. You seem to be ignorant of that fact.
 
Me personally? No.

Though separated for 3 years, I'm still legally married, which means I can't marry anyone at all. I am now one of the black-listed groups, just like same-sex couples.

At least gays can show public affection, go on dates, live together and all that good stuff. If I tried that right now I'd face court martial.

Gays have more rights today then I do, and they want to bitch? ****'em. They should just shut the **** up. They don't know how good they have it.

Jerry, there is a large, unsubtle difference between responsibility for actions and not having a right. Further, you do have more rights since you have the option to get a divorce and get married again. You where not denied a right for who you are, and had, and still have, more rights than gay people.

Rights is not my primary argument for gay marriage, but it is a part of the whole, and your argument on the rights issue was so wrong as to be laughable.
 
Jerry, there is a large, unsubtle difference between responsibility for actions and not having a right.

Mhmm, do you have a point or do you simply favor making statements which have no bearing on the discussion at hand?

Further, you do have more rights since you have the option to get a divorce and get married again.

Every right that I have, gays also have.

You where not denied a right for who you are, and had, and still have, more rights than gay people.

In fact I have less, as explained.

Rights is not my primary argument for gay marriage, but it is a part of the whole, and your argument on the rights issue was so wrong as to be laughable.

Aww look the liberal has an opinion. How cute. Maybe someday you'll actually pose an argument instead of clutter a thread with random half-statements you bought for a quarter from the generic insult machine in the DP lobby.

Like I give a **** what your argument is. How arrogant of you to assume what you say has any value. You're liberal, that means you are always wrong, regardless. Even the seemingly good things you support are for nefarious purposes. As a liberal, you have a backwards view of the Constitution, and favor anti-social behavior. You are to be opposed in every instance, because every word a liberal offers is a lie.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Jerry has been thread banned.

SIMPLE SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY RULE CHANGES:

* Thread Bans will be issued with a 0 point “Thread Ban Infraction” warning the poster that they are now thread banned and they should not post any further in the thread.
* Staying banned from a thread is not hard coded
* Any additional posts in a thread after a thread banning will result in a 5 point DBAJ infraction. All subsequent posts after will continue to have a similar infraction levied
* Thread Bans will always be announced in thread to help with enforcement and notification
* All are temporary measures until a hard coded “Thread Ban” system is able to be added to the forum.
 
@Jerry,

Most people in Gens X, Y, and Z support marriage equality.

As Baby Boomers and Greatest Gen die off, the issue will become a non issue. As politicians run for office, they will seek the younger generation's vote. They will appoint judges that are pro marriage equality. The end result is that your defeat on this issue is inevitable.

And yes, a 33 year old is an old fart compared to me. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom