• 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

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

However, if the LGBT activists could lose the demand to redefine the word, this matter would have been resolved years ago. The majority of people couldn't care less about the contractural/Fed benefits aspect that should be the point of the whole push.
 
digsbe said:
And marriage is the union of one man and one woman in the vast majority of states...
Click to expand...

And this pertains to the Supreme Court hearing a national case for same-sex marriage, how?
 
Your Star said:
Really, you telling me that marriage equality throughout the US is discrimination against people? That's rich
Click to expand...

It's true. You, and no one else, should have the right to tell others that their votes and beliefs or their state constitutions can't uphold the traditional definition of marriage. People in Louisiana can't tell Massachusetts that their state can't alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples and the people of Massachusetts can't tell the people in Louisiana that they must recognize same sex marriages. What's rich is the whole "oppression" and "discrimination" bull**** that gets tossed around along with the self righteous accusations of hatred and bigotry. States issue certificates, people have the right to vote and it's certainly within the law (or at least should be pending SCOTUS ruling) for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, period.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Licenses are not civil rights. They are earned through accreditation without discrimination as to who can obtain the qualification for the license. Standards which vary from state to state also do not discriminate against a person, but are qualifications as to knowledge/education to be met by the applicant.

It's apples and oranges. Licenses are not a matter of equal protection under the law.

I agree, marriage is not strictly a religious institution and demonstrated how it is intertwined in both religious tradition and as function of the state. You are arguing the religious position. It is against your religion, but your religion should have nothing to do with a homosexual couple's civil right to be married. It is a function of government, as I discussed, so the government cannot establish a religious barrier to that function. Yes, you can vote based on your beliefs, anyone can, but in this case, it may not prove to be allowed under the constitution.
 
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just our luck we got the Puritans. But same-sex marriage has been recognized the world over.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 20th and 21st centuries various types of same-sex unions have come to be legalized. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in eight European countries: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden; Luxembourg, Finland, France and the United Kingdom are currently in the process of legalization. Politicians in the United Kingdom have expressed their intention to promote legislation to allow same-sex marriage. Other types of recognition for same-sex unions (civil unions or registered partnerships) are as of 2012 legal in the following European countries: Andorra, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...
 
digsbe said:
It's true. You, and no one else, should have the right to tell others that their votes and beliefs or their state constitutions can't uphold the traditional definition of marriage. People in Louisiana can't tell Massachusetts that their state can't alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples and the people of Massachusetts can't tell the people in Louisiana that they must recognize same sex marriages. What's rich is the whole "oppression" and "discrimination" bull**** that gets tossed around along with the self righteous accusations of hatred and bigotry. States issue certificates, people have the right to vote and it's certainly within the law (or at least should be pending SCOTUS ruling) for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, period.
Click to expand...



Except if Louisiana is found to be violating the civil rights of citizens of this secular nation. THEN Louisiana is in violation of federal laws protecting its citizens.
 
digsbe said:
That's wonderful, it's up to those government to do so. Other nations allow for polygamy and others define it as one man one woman.
Click to expand...



It's an evolution of humankind. We need to stop thinking like PUritans and move forward with human rights.
 
digsbe said:
I certainly hope he doesn't put family issues and bias over legal matters.
Click to expand...

He is catholic. Do you worry he puts his religion over US law? If not, then why do you worry about a not all that close relative being gay might influence his decision?
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's an evolution of humankind. We need to stop thinking like PUritans and move forward with human rights.
Click to expand...

Wonderful, so when are we going to outlaw abortion?

Marriage is a civil right, but a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. A state can change that definition or uphold that definition, but marriage by default in this nation is not the union between any consenting adults. Your civil right to marry is within the guidelines of the definition, not what you want the definition to be.
Redress said:
He is catholic. Do you worry he puts his religion over US law? If not, then why do you worry about a not all that close relative being gay might influence his decision?
Click to expand...

When his relative is asking that he strike down Prop 8 so she can get married that is where I worry. If his Catholic family got involved and said "you better not strike down Prop 8" I would also be worried. The requests or emotional appeals of family should have 0 bearing and it's disrespectful and in poor taste in my opinion for family members to request that a judge rule on their behalf.
 
Henrin said:
Great job missing the point. If someone is moved to ignore the constitutional basis of an argument because a family member appears in front them that is fundamental failure of that persons character.
Click to expand...

Are you that weak willed? Then why do you assume he is?
 
digsbe said:
Wonderful, so when are we going to outlaw abortion?

Marriage is a civil right, but a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. A state can change that definition or uphold that definition, but marriage by default in this nation is not the union between any consenting adults. Your civil right to marry is within the guidelines of the definition, not what you want the definition to be.
Click to expand...


It's not my definition. Marriage was declared a civil right in 1967. And homosexuals have every reason to be allowed access to their civil rights. You may not want them to have a Holy Matrimony ceremony in your church, but it doesn't preclude them from having a state license to marry nor then allowing them a court ordered divorce.
 
digsbe said:
It's true. You, and no one else, should have the right to tell others that their votes and beliefs or their state constitutions can't uphold the traditional definition of marriage. People in Louisiana can't tell Massachusetts that their state can't alter the definition of marriage to include same sex couples and the people of Massachusetts can't tell the people in Louisiana that they must recognize same sex marriages. What's rich is the whole "oppression" and "discrimination" bull**** that gets tossed around along with the self righteous accusations of hatred and bigotry. States issue certificates, people have the right to vote and it's certainly within the law (or at least should be pending SCOTUS ruling) for a state to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, period.
Click to expand...

It is oppression, and discrimination, and people who are against SSM are bigots by definition. No one should be discriminated against because of the state they live in, just like states can't define marriage between people of the same race, or same religion, they can't just arbitrarily put limits on a civil right. It's wrong, and the LGBT people of this country deserve to be treated equally under the law, everywhere.
 
Rocketman said:
Actually he should recuse himself
Click to expand...

LoLz! He should also recuse himself for being catholic, as should all the justices who are part of a religion that preaches against gay rights. And all who have relatives who are against gay SSM. And...well, you get the idea.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's not my definition. Marriage was declared a civil right in 1967. And homosexuals have every reason to be allowed access to their civil rights. You may not want them to have a Holy Matrimony ceremony in your church, but it doesn't preclude them from having a state license to marry nor then allowing them a court ordered divorce.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the civil right of the homosexual in most states is to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with what the state allows :shrug:

I've never advocated religion at all, and religion is irrelevant to the fact that marriage in the vast majority of states is one man one woman. Like I've said before. MA cannot set marriage policy for LA and visa versa. The state issues the certificate, it's legal for the state to define marriage as one man one woman or as two consenting adults. The states cannot force the other to change their state constitutions. The constitution of LA has no bearing on what it is in MA.
Your Star said:
It is oppression, and discrimination, and people who are against SSM are bigots by definition. No one should be discriminated against because of the state they live in, just like states can't define marriage between people of the same race, or same religion, they can't just arbitrarily put limits on a civil right. It's wrong, and the LGBT people of this country deserve to be treated equally under the law, everywhere.
Click to expand...

Are not those that think their belief that SSM be recognize by every state regardless of what the law or people say also bigots by strict definition? After all, it's intolerance of the valid position that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

LGBT people do have equal rights, they can marry freely. However, marriage by definition is one man one woman in most places and that is the grounds for marrying freely. That does not need to change because LGBT people want to say that the traditional and largely legally accepted view does not conform to their relationships.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Are you that weak willed? Then why do you assume he is?
Click to expand...

I don't have much faith in Chief Justice Roberts after he voted to uphold Obamacare. :shrug:
 
digsbe said:
Yep, and the civil right of the homosexual in most states is to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with what the state allows :shrug:

I've never advocated religion at all, and religion is irrelevant to the fact that marriage in the vast majority of states is one man one woman. Like I've said before. MA cannot set marriage policy for LA and visa versa. The state issues the certificate, it's legal for the state to define marriage as one man one woman or as two consenting adults. The states cannot force the other to change their state constitutions. The constitution of LA has no bearing on what it is in MA.
Click to expand...

No, their civil rights are to marry whom they want and LA is one of many states who are violating their civil right to do so. Religion is the ONLY reason that this is not happening in the US. You can play that "it isn't about religion" most anywhere else in the world and someone may buy it, but the religious radical right has been attacking homosexuality and abortion for almost 4 decades, so that denial won't work in the USA.
 
digsbe said:
It's true. You, and no one else, should have the right to tell others that their votes and beliefs or their state constitutions can't uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. We have done it before numerous times with other issues.
 
digsbe said:
Wonderful, so when are we going to outlaw abortion?

Marriage is a civil right, but a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. A state can change that definition or uphold that definition, but marriage by default in this nation is not the union between any consenting adults. Your civil right to marry is within the guidelines of the definition, not what you want the definition to be.


When his relative is asking that he strike down Prop 8 so she can get married that is where I worry. If his Catholic family got involved and said "you better not strike down Prop 8" I would also be worried. The requests or emotional appeals of family should have 0 bearing and it's disrespectful and in poor taste in my opinion for family members to request that a judge rule on their behalf.
Click to expand...

So you think he is weak willed too? Do you have any evidence to base that on? If your mom asks you to provide her with narcotic pain meds without a prescription, will you give them to her? I bet not, and that is alot closer than a first cousin.
 
Henrin said:
I don't have much faith in Chief Justice Roberts after he voted to uphold Obamacare. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So your problem is he once did not interpret the constitution as you wanted him to. Bummer. He has also ruled in ways I do not like, but like I feel with the rest of the justices, I have some faith they will actually attempt to rule based on the law.
 
Redress said:
So you think he is weak willed too? Do you have any evidence to base that on? If your mom asks you to provide her with narcotic pain meds without a prescription, will you give them to her? I bet not, and that is alot closer than a first cousin.
Click to expand...

I absolutely would not do so. But if I was on the board of pharmacy or DEA setting the policy on narcs and my mom said "you need to try and change things so I can freely feed my addiction" and I considered that it would be a conflict. I don't think that Roberts would definitely act in bias, but the wrong does lie with his cousin and it's completely inappropriate for her to request that he make a ruling in her favor so she can get married to her girlfriend just as it would be completely inappropriate for my mother to ask me to rule on legal policy so she can feed an addiction more freely.
 
Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915), was an important United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with provisions of state constitutions that set qualifications for voters. It found grandfather clause exemptions to literacy tests to be unconstitutional. The Oklahoma Constitution, while appearing to treat all voters equally, allowed an exemption to the literacy requirement for those voters whose grandfathers had either been eligible to vote prior to January 1, 1866 or were then a resident of "some foreign nation", or were soldiers. It was an exemption that favored white voters while it disfranchised black voters, most of whose grandfathers had been slaves and therefore unable to vote before 1866.
"In 1915, in the case of Guinn v. United States, the Supreme Court declared the grandfather clauses in the Maryland and Oklahoma constitutions to be repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment and therefore null and void."This also affected similar provisions in the constitutions of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. While the grandfather clause was ruled unconstitutional, state legislatures worked to develop other means of restricting voter registration. It took years for cases challenging those laws to reach the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Guinn v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
digsbe said:
Are not those that think their belief that SSM be recognize by every state regardless of what the law or people say also bigots by strict definition? After all, it's intolerance of the valid position that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

LGBT people do have equal rights, they can marry freely. However, marriage by definition is one man one woman in most places and that is the grounds for marrying freely. That does not need to change because LGBT people want to say that the traditional and largely legally accepted view does not conform to their relationships.
Click to expand...

Nope, and the position that marriage is just a union between a man and a woman is not a valid position. It is bigotry, period.

And if LGBT people can not marry the people they love, then we do not have equal rights, you can say otherwise all day, doesn't make it true.
 
digsbe said:
I absolutely would not do so. But if I was on the board of pharmacy or DEA setting the policy on narcs and my mom said "you need to try and change things so I can freely feed my addiction" and I considered that it would be a conflict. I don't think that Roberts would definitely act in bias, but the wrong does lie with his cousin and it's completely inappropriate for her to request that he make a ruling in her favor so she can get married to her girlfriend just as it would be completely inappropriate for my mother to ask me to rule on legal policy so she can feed an addiction more freely.
Click to expand...

The point is, your mom asking for special considerations, or taking your family into account when ruling on the constitutionality of a law, would both be violations of ethics. I have seen no indication that any of the judges would do that, and do not assume they would simply because they have relatives, just as I assume you would not simply because you have relatives.
 
Your Star said:
Nope, and the position that marriage is just a union between a man and a woman is not a valid position. It is bigotry, period.

And if LGBT people can not marry the people they love, then we do not have equal rights, you can say otherwise all day, doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
It is a valid position, it's the most prominent legally recognized position by the majority of states, period.

Your right to marry is what the state allows. Your right to push to change the definition of marriage through legislation and free speech is also there, but you do not have the right to invalidate the laws and beliefs of others over your views. It is not your right to tell another state and the voters of that state that they must recognize LGBT relationships as marriage and change their legally adopted definition just as much as it is not anyone elses right to tell a state that they must change their position that allows for SSM.

Redress said:
The point is, your mom asking for special considerations, or taking your family into account when ruling on the constitutionality of a law, would both be violations of ethics. I have seen no indication that any of the judges would do that, and do not assume they would simply because they have relatives, just as I assume you would not simply because you have relatives.
Click to expand...

And he may not take his cousin into consideration. But if that becomes the case and evidence surfaces that this happened he needs to recuse himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom