• 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!

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — An Arkansas judge on Friday struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, opening the door for gay couples to wed.Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said the 2004 amendment's definition of marriage as allowable only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional and violates the rights of same-sex couples.
The ruling came nearly a week after state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced he personally supports gay marriage rights but that he will continue to defend the constitutional ban in court.
McDaniel's office is expected to quickly appeal Piazza's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The 2004 constitutional amendment was passed with the overwhelming support of Arkansas voters.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled that a law forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Since then, lower-court judges have repeatedly cited the Supreme Court decision when striking down some of the same-sex marriage bans that were enacted after Massachusetts started recognizing gay marriages in 2004.
Click to expand...


Read more @: Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

Another step in the right direction. Soon all 50 states will all recognize SSM.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

Another step in the right direction. Soon all 50 states will all recognize SSM. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

i am going to give you a hypothetical.

lets us say marriage is a Right, can someone who wishes to marry, .....use law to force [a church].. [a private business]..... [or government] to marry them?

and if marriage is a right.....is it [a natural right]......or is it a [legal right /civil right].....[civil rights being privileges of government]
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am going to give you a hypothetical.

lets us say marriage is a Right, can someone who wishes to marry, .....use law to force [a church].. [a private business]..... [or government] to marry them?

and if marriage is a right.....is it [a natural right]......or is it a [legal right /civil right].....[civil rights being privileges of government]
Click to expand...

Marriage is not done by the church. A wedding is done by a church. Marriage is recognized by the state.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marriage is not done by the church. A wedding is done by a church. Marriage is recognized by the state.
Click to expand...

that is not what i am asking..........what kind of a right is it?

and can that right be exercised on an institution......church, business, or government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is not what i am asking..........what kind of a right is it?

and can that right be exercised on an institution......church, business, or government.
Click to expand...

A right recognized by the state.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am going to give you a hypothetical.

lets us say marriage is a Right, can someone who wishes to marry, .....use law to force [a church].. [a private business]..... [or government] to marry them?

and if marriage is a right.....is it [a natural right]......or is it a [legal right /civil right].....[civil rights being privileges of government]
Click to expand...

You don't have to even go into the realm of hypothetical. The courts have ruled the marriage is a fundamental right. What I do not understand is how so many people believe the idiocy that declaring marriage a fundamental right that should be afforded same sex couples that this means they force a church to marry them. That is rediculous. No law states that a church must marry same sex couples. It just states that if the church chooses to marry same sex couples the state will recognize that marriage. Unlike making same sex illegal which has been done in some states. Where could be actually against the law to marry same sex couples. Thereby making a minister of church who wishes to perform same sex marriage, regardless of whether or not the state will recognize it, guility of crime. Therefore, although proponents of same sex marriage are not using the law to force churches to perform same sex marriages the opponents of same sex marriage are using the law to make performing same sex marriage a criminal act. Now who is violating whose religious freedom?
 
smb said:
You don't have to even go into the realm of hypothetical. The courts have ruled the marriage is a fundamental right. What I do not understand is how so many people believe the idiocy that declaring marriage a fundamental right that should be afforded same sex couples that this means they force a church to marry them. That is rediculous. No law states that a church must marry same sex couples. It just states that if the church chooses to marry same sex couples the state will recognize that marriage. Unlike making same sex illegal which has been done in some states. Where could be actually against the law to marry same sex couples. Thereby making a minister of church who wishes to perform same sex marriage, regardless of whether or not the state will recognize it, guility of crime. Therefore, although proponents of same sex marriage are not using the law to force churches to perform same sex marriages the opponents of same sex marriage are using the law to make performing same sex marriage a criminal act. Now who is violating whose religious freedom?
Click to expand...

what is a fundamental right?......

there are fundamental laws.

The Organic Laws /fundamental law of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

if there are fundamental rights?...then they have to be natural or civil, .....because the constitution does not cover the word fundamental
 
ernst barkmann said:
is that a natural right or civil right?

because the constitution only recognizes natural and civil.
Click to expand...

Well since we are signess of the UN Human Right Charter they claim its a natural right...
But since recognized federal civil rights law in the US is grounded in our Constitution and is interpreted by the USSC, I believe theretofore marriage has long been established as a civil right.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well since we are signess of the UN Human Right Charter they claim its a natural right...
But since recognized federal civil rights law in the US is grounded in our Constitution and is interpreted by the USSC, I believe theretofore marriage has long been established as a civil right.
Click to expand...


alright, then you have to agree then that the 14th amendment is about civil rights then, ..would you not?
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is not what i am asking..........what kind of a right is it?

and can that right be exercised on an institution......church, business, or government.
Click to expand...

Just because you have a right does not mean you can force people to do things, especially certain things related to religious practices. The SCOTUS declared marriage a right in Loving v VA and then again in several other rulings, including Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. And yet, churches are still allowed to turn away any couple, for any reason from getting a marriage in their church or performed by their clergyman. In fact, not too long ago, a black couple was denied a marriage in a church because some of the congregation didn't want them to be allowed to marry in the church. (The minister even did the wedding for them still, just in a different church.) The most common practice for churches/clergy when it comes to weddings is to deny performance of a wedding ceremony based on religion.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marriage is not done by the church. A wedding is done by a church. Marriage is recognized by the state.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the wedding is more or less just a useless ritual to make the couple feel good... Marriage is a bunch of documents...

The amount of fail with this one who is ernst barkmann is big.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Exactly, the wedding is more or less just a useless ritual to make the couple feel good... Marriage is a bunch of documents...

The amount of fail with this one who is ernst barkmann is big.
Click to expand...

Actually, marriage is generally only one document for the couple, with a bunch of laws that cover people who are in a legally recognized marriage.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Exactly, the wedding is more or less just a useless ritual to make the couple feel good... Marriage is a bunch of documents...

The amount of fail with this one who is ernst barkmann is big.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a person who didn't bother with the useless ritual of obtaining an education and instead simply bought the document.
 
Taylor said:
Sounds like the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a person who didn't bother with the useless ritual of obtaining an education and instead simply bought the document.
Click to expand...

A series of actions or type of behavior regularly and invariably followed by someone = ritual

I guess school is a ritual, but yes I am educated and am still continuing the process of education right now :)
 
ernst barkmann said:
again....... what kind of right is it.....a natural right to be married, or a civil right to be married?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a natural right - it exists in all cultures in some form or fashion and has been in some state of concept since the dawn of man.
 
Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

A judge on Friday struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, saying the state has no "rational reason" for preventing gay couples from marrying.

Read more here: Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban




I am certainly glad to see this happen, but it will of course be appealed, since there are plenty of people in the USA who will never accept gay marriage.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because you have a right does not mean you can force people to do things, especially certain things related to religious practices. The SCOTUS declared marriage a right in Loving v VA and then again in several other rulings, including Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. And yet, churches are still allowed to turn away any couple, for any reason from getting a marriage in their church or performed by their clergyman. In fact, not too long ago, a black couple was denied a marriage in a church because some of the congregation didn't want them to be allowed to marry in the church. (The minister even did the wedding for them still, just in a different church.) The most common practice for churches/clergy when it comes to weddings is to deny performance of a wedding ceremony based on religion.
Click to expand...

the constitution recognizes two different rights..

natural rights which come from our humanity.

civil rights / legal rights/ IE..privileges which are dispensed by government to the people, these privileges are to be dispensed in an equal fashion to all people [EQULITY under the law], unless [as you and I have discussed before] the state can show it is in their interest not to give a person a privilege.

natural rights do not NEVER violate privileges, they have no power of force behind them to force another citizen to provide a good or service.

privileges created by government do sometimes violates the natural rights of people .......because they are created by governments.

therefore any privilege government creates and dispenses... which violates natural rights....life, liberty, and property of others citizen's is unconstitutional
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its about being treated equal under the law.
Click to expand...

that is correct it about being treated equal, though the use of privileges and immunities....

the 14th directs STATES, to treat all of its people equal when it creates civil rights...IE. PRIVLEDGES.....meaning a state cannot make Jim crow laws.

it does not direct citizens or business to treat everyone equal.......because they do not make laws.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution recognizes two different rights..

natural rights which come from our humanity.

civil rights / legal rights/ IE..privileges which are dispensed by government to the people, these privileges are to be dispensed in an equal fashion to all people [EQULITY under the law], unless [as you and I have discussed before] the state can show it is in their interest not to give a person a privilege.

natural rights do not NEVER violate privileges, they have no power of force behind them to force another citizen to provide a good or service.

privileges created by government do sometimes violates the natural rights of people .......because they are created by governments.

therefore any privilege government creates and dispenses... which violates natural rights....life, liberty, and property of others citizen's is unconstitutional
Click to expand...

The original constitution violated "natural rights" by your definition.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is correct it about being treated equal, though the use of privileges and immunities....

the 14th directs STATES, to treat all of its people equal when it creates civil rights...IE. PRIVLEDGES.....meaning a state cannot make Jim crow laws.

it does not direct citizens or business to treat everyone equal.......because they do not make laws.
Click to expand...

You are right it does not permit businesses directly. It overrides all laws that permit businesses that do not direct them to treat people equally. " It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom