• 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!

Federal judge rules against Kansas's gay marriage ban

AlabamaPaul said:
Exactly how is the government being constrained with regards to this discussion?
Click to expand...

The government is being constrained from imposing its will in place of the Constitutional Rights that we all have. The government in this discussion is the people, and in a vote (Direct Democracy) the majority of the people can vote the minority out - out of power, out of town and out of existence.
 
Beaudreaux said:
When a cities citizens vote to allow illegal immigrants to have safe haven in that city, doesn't that apply under the law? If a state's citizens vote to have people of one particular race not allowed to have access to certain rights that the other races have, doesn't that apply under the law?

What you are saying is that Direct Democracy should trump the law, and the Constitution. That the majority should have the ability to vote the minority into a hole.

Think about that.
Click to expand...

You're taking an argument out of context, but governments are a creation of society, and as such are a reflection thereof...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're taking an argument out of context, but governments are a creation of society, and as such are a reflection thereof...
Click to expand...

Yep. And your argument is clearly no longer a reflection of this society.
 
Deuce said:
And it is ruling that marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is required to be recognized under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

Glad we're all caught up.
Click to expand...

Key word being "ruling", not by government but the courts...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Let me point out that in no way are "those damn old people" have more rights than you.
Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you. The fact that you have to meet preconditions to receive specific government goods or services does not mean that you are being denied equal treatment under the law.
 
Deuce said:
Yep. And your argument is clearly no longer a reflection of this society.
Click to expand...

Society disagrees with you by a wide margin, otherwise there would be no need to use the courts...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're taking an argument out of context, but governments are a creation of society, and as such are a reflection thereof...
Click to expand...

True, to a point. The people are also a reflection of the laws they place upon society. We have a Constitution in place to prevent us from harming ourselves, and those that we have the power otherwise to harm.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Key word being "ruling", not by government but the courts...
Click to expand...

A convenient way to define government when government does something you disagree with.
 
Beaudreaux said:
True, to a point. The people are also a reflection of the laws they place upon society. We have a Constitution in place to prevent us from harming ourselves, and those that we have the power otherwise to harm.
Click to expand...

If the Constitution was followed, I would be content, but its now the decisions of a few judges that control our country...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Society disagrees with you by a wide margin, otherwise there would be no need to use the courts...
Click to expand...

This was true years back, it is not now. The polls are quite clear.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I choose not to be ruled, thank you...
Click to expand...

No, you choose to rule others by forcing them to comply with your personal beliefs on marriage.

Me? I am choosing not to support my government forcing that decision on people.
 
Deuce said:
This was true years back, it is not now. The polls are quite clear.
Click to expand...

If you were correct, states would be passing bills overwhelmingly in support of your beliefs, but that's not happening...
 
Deuce said:
No, you choose to rule others by forcing them to comply with your personal beliefs on marriage.

Me? I am choosing not to support my government forcing that decision on people.
Click to expand...

WTF are you posting about. I'd rather the government get the hell out of marriage...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If the Constitution was followed, I would be content, but its now the decisions of a few judges that control our country...
Click to expand...

So, then how do we follow the Constitution without the courts to enforce it? The honor system? Each person gets to decide what parts of the Constitution apply to whom and what parts do not apply to others?

The purpose of the court is to apply the law fairly and equitably the way it is written. Regardless of the will of the people at any given time. If we don't like the law, we have the ability to change it through our elected representatives, and then the court would have to enforce those changes. Until that, we have to all live under the same law, adjudicated by those appointed or elected to the bench to do just that.
 
Beaudreaux said:
So, then how do we follow the Constitution without the courts to enforce it? The honor system? Each person gets to decide what parts of the Constitution apply to whom and what parts do not apply to others?

The purpose of the court is to apply the law fairly and equitably the way it is written. Regardless of the will of the people at any given time. If we don't like the law, we have the ability to change it through our elected representatives, and then the court would have to enforce those changes. Until that, we have to all live under the same law, adjudicated by those appointed or elected to the bench to do just that.
Click to expand...

Purpose and application are two different things...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
WTF are you posting about. I'd rather the government get the hell out of marriage...
Click to expand...

Marriage is a license to enter into a contract between two people, issued and arbitrated by the government, and has been throughout history (in the Christian religion anyway) since Martin Luther defined it such in the sixteenth century.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If you were correct, states would be passing bills overwhelmingly in support of your beliefs, but that's not happening...
Click to expand...

Inertia. Many states passed constitutional amendments, and the requirement to overturn that is higher.

Of course, many states no longer need to do this. Courts work just as well.

AlabamaPaul said:
WTF are you posting about. I'd rather the government get the hell out of marriage...
Click to expand...

You only decided this once it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to become legal nationwide. Admitting that to yourself is the first step.
 
Deuce said:
Inertia. Many states passed constitutional amendments, and the requirement to overturn that is higher.

Of course, many states no longer need to do this. Courts work just as well.



You only decided this once it became obvious that same-sex marriage was going to become legal nationwide. Admitting that to yourself is the first step.
Click to expand...

Do not pretend to know me nor my thoughts. Do you agree with the other court which has upheld states' ban on the issue?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Do not pretend to know me nor my thoughts.
Click to expand...
:shrug: In the end, you only need to convince yourself. What I think isn't important.

Of course, getting the government out of marriage entirely isn't going to happen, as both of us know.

Do you agree with the other court which has upheld states' ban on the issue?
Click to expand...

No. Their legal argument was weak. So weak, in fact, that one wonders if they were intentionally creating the circuit split just to force SCOTUS to take the case.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
WTF are you posting about. I'd rather the government get the hell out of marriage...
Click to expand...

See now, there's the problem. Libs want government not only in marriage, but in any damn thing they can get it in, as long as they think it will get them votes.
 
Anthony60 said:
See now, there's the problem. Libs want government not only in marriage, but in any damn thing they can get it in, as long as they think it will get them votes.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Don't act like "government shouldn't recognize any marriage or grant any of its benefits" is some mainstream conservative platform. It's a tiny minority of faux-libertarians expressing this idea, and the vast majority of those people are only saying it because now it's obvious same-sex marriage will happen, so they want to take "their" ball and go home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom