• 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!

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

You can vote until your blue in the face, but if the law you vote in is unconstitutional it will not stand. Sorry.

Yes well that's the issue, are such bans unconstitutional? Does the fed have the grant (constitutionally speaking) to define the marriage contract? Is this a constitutional matter of equal rights? Everyone has opinions on the answers to those questions, however, the sole determiner in law has yet to conclusively ring in on those answers. In fact they've gone to great lengths to avoid answering.
 
You've once again managed to perfectly describe your own posts, good work!

translation: you still got nothin and post 185 destroyed your posts
 
You can vote until your blue in the face, but if the law you vote in is unconstitutional it will not stand. Sorry.




Some people don't like it, but in the USA you can't vote other people's rights away.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Then we agree, your continued use of this tactic is laughable.

yes watching facts destroy your posts is very VERY amusing to us
 
This sure seems like opinion (because it is).

No, that is the way the laws work. States can not pass laws that violate the constitution and expect them to stand.
 
Yes well that's the issue, are such bans unconstitutional? Does the fed have the grant (constitutionally speaking) to define the marriage contract? Is this a constitutional matter of equal rights? Everyone has opinions on the answers to those questions, however, the sole determiner in law has yet to conclusively ring in on those answers. In fact they've gone to great lengths to avoid answering.

So far many cases have said that marriage falls under the 14th amendment. One would assume that judges know a thing or two about constitutional law.
 
States can not pass laws that violate the constitution and expect them to stand.

Your opinion on the constitutionality is an opinion.

So far many cases have said that marriage falls under the 14th amendment. One would assume that judges know a thing or two about constitutional law.

Marriage never meant gay.
 
Your opinion on the constitutionality is an opinion.



Marriage never meant gay.

Yes it is not traditional marriage like one man and a few women :p
 
I believe the several States should know better by now; Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States. It was ratified by the several States.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
 
I believe the several States should know better by now; Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States. It was ratified by the several States.

Bring on the concealed carry licences applying to all state.
 
Bring on the concealed carry licences applying to all state.

It is about privileges and immunities that apply to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

Why should a person need to conceal their Arms?
 
It is about privileges and immunities that apply to civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated.

Why should a person need to conceal their Arms?

Ask every single state why, as they all have concealed carry of some sort.
 
Our Second Amendment claims a well regulated militia is a States' right.

What are you talking about? The militia is the population, and well regulated means well equipped.
 
What are you talking about? The militia is the population, and well regulated means well equipped.

How ever did you reach your conclusion?

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That is where, wellness of regulation is defined.
 
How ever did you reach your conclusion?

That is where, wellness of regulation is defined.

The founders wrote down things.

And you are referencing currently state employed militia, which differs from the militia as a whole which is all the population.
 
The founders wrote down things.

And you are referencing currently state employed militia, which differs from the militia as a whole which is all the population.

Our Second Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land; any Thing else is only an appeal to ignorance of our own supreme law of the land; any questions?
 
How ever did you reach your conclusion?



That is where, wellness of regulation is defined.

What does it mean wellness of regulation? If you have a gun you must get background checked first of all? You must practice marching and shooting and such?
 
What does it mean wellness of regulation? If you have a gun you must get background checked first of all? You must practice marching and shooting and such?

It is prescribed by our federal Congress:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
Back
Top Bottom