• 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!

Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

logic does not equal bias, but continue with your programming



This makes no sense at all. But then, you have conceded my examples of Scalia being recused from a Same Sex Marriage decision was correct, so all is forgiven.
 
States only have that right unless it infringes on the liberty of a section of the population. Women's right to vote, Blacks right to vote are all issues which had to be made federal, as it involved a whole group's right to participate in state institutions. Marriage is one such institution, which issues the license to marry, and therefore will be decided on a national, not state, level.

Let me know when the feds start issuing the marriage certificates. It is a state level issue and it's up to the states if they want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I certainly hope that the courts make the rational decision and allow the states to govern within their jurisdiction. I also hope that they don't violate the rights of California voters who can vote on state constitutional amendments that may uphold the traditional definition of marriage as law.
 
Let me know when the feds start issuing the marriage certificates. It is a state level issue and it's up to the states if they want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I certainly hope that the courts make the rational decision and allow the states to govern within their jurisdiction. I also hope that they don't violate the rights of California voters who can vote on state constitutional amendments that may uphold the traditional definition of marriage as law.

No, not in a country. A state can't willy nilly deny a citizen of this country a right they have in another state. That's why we are in the Supreme Court now. To test the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Whichever way it goes, it's there because states cannot allow a person to do have civil rights in one state, and deny them in another. This is COUNTRY. And civil liberties are for us all.
 
“He is a good man. I believe he sees where the tide is going. I do trust him. I absolutely trust that he will go in a good direction.”

I'm a bit lost on why it matters which way the tide is going? I'm sorry but the constitutional basis of arguments is not affected by popular opinion. I realize he completely lacks honor, but I hope he is smart enough to realize this.
 
No, not in a country. A state can't willy nilly deny a citizen of this country a right they have in another state. That's why we are in the Supreme Court now. To test the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Whichever way it goes, it's there because states cannot allow a person to do have civil rights in one state, and deny them in another. This is COUNTRY. And civil liberties are for us all.

Among them is the right to vote and the state's right to define marriage. Louisiana's state constitution says it bans SSM and the state at the constitutional level will not recognize "marriages" performed in other states that are illegal in Louisiana. Why should one state essentially set the policy for another? A state may legalize marijuana and give someone a card that says it's their "right" to buy and smoke it. Does another state need to honor that?

On the flip side, since Louisiana (and others) completely forbid SSM. Why should Massachusetts approve of SSM when it's completely illegal for the other state to recognize it? The willy nilly denying citizens of this country a right would be denying the citizens of a state the right to vote and ratify their state constitutions to legally define marriage and uphold the traditional definition.
 
Among them is the right to vote and the state's right to define marriage. Louisiana's state constitution says it bans SSM and the state at the constitutional level will not recognize "marriages" performed in other states that are illegal in Louisiana. Why should one state essentially set the policy for another? A state may legalize marijuana and give someone a card that says it's their "right" to buy and smoke it. Does another state need to honor that?

On the flip side, since Louisiana (and others) completely forbid SSM. Why should Massachusetts approve of SSM when it's completely illegal for the other state to recognize it? The willy nilly denying citizens of this country a right would be denying the citizens of a state the right to vote and ratify their state constitutions to legally define marriage and uphold the traditional definition.

Which is why the Supreme Court gets cases like this. You CAN'T deny the individual rights of citizens allowed in one state. And THIS is now on the table for NATIONAL policy, removing it from the state level, as is constitutional correct to do.
 
Which is why the Supreme Court gets cases like this. You CAN'T deny the individual rights of citizens allowed in one state. And THIS is now on the table for NATIONAL policy, removing it from the state level, as is constitutional correct to do.

We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.
 
We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.

No such thing. No founding fathers said a thing about same-sex marriage. And neither did they prohibit same-sex marriage. The topic didn't come up. But they DID allow constitutional amendments to be added and allowed the FEDERAL government to overturn state laws which infringed on the rights of citizens.

Religious freedom is one thing. Being PERSECUTED BY RELIGION won't be tolerated in this secular nation.
 
His family issues. He should not rule on bias because of his lesbian cousin or have that factor at all in his decision making.

Actually it is everybody's family issue. Do we decide what a family is or does the State? Some people feel we need a chaperon to tell us what to do with our lives, some don't. I believe this country is based on freedom and individuality not chaperones.
 
Last edited:
Let me know when the feds start issuing the marriage certificates. It is a state level issue and it's up to the states if they want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I certainly hope that the courts make the rational decision and allow the states to govern within their jurisdiction. I also hope that they don't violate the rights of California voters who can vote on state constitutional amendments that may uphold the traditional definition of marriage as law.

But Digs, if a SS couple is married in one state, then moves to another that does not recognize SSM, there is going to be a problem.

Also, it's already been mentioned, civil rights should should not be put for a vote.
 
But Digs, if a SS couple is married in one state, then moves to another that does not recognize SSM, there is going to be a problem.

Also, it's already been mentioned, civil rights should should not be put for a vote.

On the flip side though why should one state that constitutionally makes it illegal for them to recognize SSM in other states be forced to follow the policy of another? Why should one state essentially have the right to nullify the constitution of the other and indirectly set policy for the nation?

I think the civil right lies in allowing the people to uphold or change the definition of marriage, not that a sexual orientation has the right to warp or redefine marriage because the fact remains that their relationship does not fit within the accepted definition. SSM should be a state policy issue that is changed through amendments and legislation.
 
On the flip side though why should one state that constitutionally makes it illegal for them to recognize SSM in other states be forced to follow the policy of another?

I think the civil right lies in allowing the people to uphold or change the definition of marriage, not that a sexual orientation has the right to warp or redefine marriage because the fact remains that their relationship does not fit within the accepted definition. SSM should be a state policy issue that is changed through amendments and legislation.

Because civil rights are not up for debate. They just are. Marriage, as you are debating it, is a religious definition, but there are more and more churches which will perform SSM ceremonies, so it's not an issue for some religions. Further, marriage is not exclusively a religious function and therein lies the problem. The intermingling of religion and government. The government bestows benefits and rights for marriage. So it has become a function of government and commerce in that insurance companies, for instance, allow for spouses to be covered by insurance, but not partners. There needs to be uniformity across the nation so as to avoid discrimination.
 
We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.

People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.
 
We'll see. I certainly hope that the courts uphold state's right and the right of a state to legally adopt the definition of marriage that has been commonly accepted since the founding of our nation and for hundreds of years.

Definitions like interracial bans? Is that a state's right? It was commonly accepted!
 
Because civil rights are not up for debate. They just are. Marriage, as you are debating it, is a religious definition, but there are more and more churches which will perform SSM ceremonies, so it's not an issue for some religions. Further, marriage is not exclusively a religious function and therein lies the problem. The intermingling of religion and government. The government bestows benefits and rights for marriage. So it has become a function of government and commerce in that insurance companies, for instance, allow for spouses to be covered by insurance, but not partners. There needs to be uniformity across the nation so as to avoid discrimination.

It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.

People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.

Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.
 
Last edited:
It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.

Correct, full faith and credit doesn't cover every state action. But marriage has a precedent of being a "basic civil right."
 
Correct, full faith and credit doesn't cover every state action. But marriage has a precedent of being a "basic civil right."

And marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the vast majority of states...
 
And marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the vast majority of states...

It was between a man and a woman of the same race before that. For some reason nobody is crying over the loss of that state right.
 
Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.

Really, you telling me that marriage equality throughout the US is discrimination against people? That's rich :roll:
 
It's not just a religious definition, but the secular traditional definition as well as has been used and legalized by the majority of states and for hundreds of years. SSM is a policy issue whether or not a state wants to redefine marriage and extend the legal definition to same sex couples. No state constitution and it's definition of marriage has anything legally to do with religion, and it's within people's rights to define marriage and vote based on their religious convictions just as it is for those to do so based on secular/atheistic convictions.

States can discriminate as is in line with their policies. Licensure in many professional areas is a prime example. When I graduate and take my board exams I will apply to be licensed in my state. It would be illegal for me to practice pharmacy in another state and they do not need to recognize my license. State boards of pharmacy and medicine also regulate scopes of practice and other legal issues. I may be able to prescribe medications without residency training under a collaborate practice agreement like NPs and PAs have, but another state that has additional requirements makes it illegal for me to do so in the other state. Pharmaceutical distributors must also be licensed by the FDA and state board of pharmacy. There was a lawsuit not to long ago where a physician was importing drugs from another state for office use, the distributor was not licensed in his state of practice and that was illegal. I could even work for the VA and prescribe medications under federal guidelines, but if I step outside of the VA and go to a state hospital across the street I could not do so since state law would prohibit it.

States do not need to recognize the policy of others. Not all licenses and recognitions are covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause and it's not unlawful discrimination for states to have differing policies. Equally so, it is discrimination against the voters of a state to say that their right to vote and their beliefs that have been legally placed into law regarding SSM cannot be honored due to one state setting policy for everyone else. If we want uniformity then the federal government needs to be the one issuing marriage certificates.



Exactly, and people don't have the right to tell others that they cannot keep the traditional definition of marriage when it's legally up to the state to do so. That's your opinion, but the fact remains that you shouldn't be allowed to deny people equal rights to vote within their state to set policy regarding changing the definition of marriage at a legal level just because you don't like the policy.

The laws are made to keep a minority of people from imposing their will on the civil rights of others. Even the majority of the people can't do that.

Bottomline is, we're dealing with the individual rights of people TO access government institutions, not the right of others to DENY access the right to state institutions.

Holy Matrimony is what you are thinking about. Church related. NOT a state marriage license.

laws have continually changed in this nation.

History of Marriage Rights - Timeline History of Laws Affecting Marriage Rights

1883
In Pace v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Alabama's ban on interracial marriages - and, with it, similar bans in nearly all of the former Confederacy. The ruling would stand for 84 years.
1953
Divorce has been a recurring issue in the history of U.S. civil liberties, starting with 17th-century laws that banned divorce altogether except in documented cases of adultery. Oklahoma's 1953 law allowing no-fault divorces finally allowed couples to make the mutual decision to divorce without declaring a guilty party; most other states gradually followed suit, beginning with New York in 1970.
1967
The single most important marriage case in U.S. Supreme Court history was Loving v. Virginia (1967), which finally ended Virginia's 276-year ban on interracial marriage and explicitly declared, for the first time in U.S. history, that marriage is a civil right.

Marriage has been declared a CIVIL RIGHT.
 
It was between a man and a woman of the same race before that. For some reason nobody is crying over the loss of that state right.

I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.
 
Back
Top Bottom