• 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!

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

  • Total voters
    105
winston53660 said:
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

Which rights are being denied or disparaged?
 
winston53660 said:
All marriages recognized by the State are civil marriages irregardless if a preist, rabbi or witch doctor performs the ceremony.
Click to expand...

My own marriage was performed by a Navy wife who was doing them to make extra money for her family. She was ordained over the internet and authorized by the state to sign marriage certificates as an officiant for that state.
 
roguenuke said:
On the same grounds that have been used by many judges in the past for other issues, including segregation and interracial marriage, to name a few, people being treated differently based on arbitrary traits and the difference in treatment by the law cannot be shown to actually further a state interest. That violates our 14th Amendment.

But your contention was that the SCOTUS would find same sex marriage unconstitutional. In order for that to occur, same sex marriage would have to violate a Constitutional Clause. You would need to show what actual Constitutional Clause is violated by same sex marriage being legal. Even the judges' rulings finding marriage could not be restricted to opposite sex only couples is not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If, for example, a test case was brought before the Iowa Supreme Court saying that SSM (declared by that state) denied the rights of the christian religion, and violated the first amendment, there you go. A SSC decision will have to be made. It's really not all that hard. Maybe, wait for judges to retire, to have judges with a different ideology than the ones that deemed SSM.
 
What is this right to marriage?
 
windowdressing said:
this assumes that the Justices don't have an agenda and always rule on the basis of the constitution ...
Click to expand...

No. It assumes that if 5 or more Justices honestly tried to pull some crap saying that same sex marriages were unconstitutional, they would have to provide the actual Constitutional Clause that made same sex marriages unconstitutional. They can say that states have a right to ban same sex marriage. But without a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning same sex marriages, then there is no reasoning available from the Constitution to support such a ruling. It would likely cause a major issue with our SCOTUS. The public would be demanding the Court be held responsible for trying to say something that is in no way supported by the Constitution itself.

The Court has never declared something besides a law or act or government action unconstitutional, and even then, it was a restriction on actions by the government on some party in pretty much all cases.
 
No. Gay marriage can be declared unconstitutional and therefore, sacked.
 
cabse5 said:
If, for example, a test case was brought before the Iowa Supreme Court saying that SSM (declared by that state) denied the rights of the christian religion, and violated the first amendment, there you go. A SSC decision will have to be made. It's really not all that hard. Maybe, wait for judges to retire, to have judges with a different ideology than the ones that deemed SSM.
Click to expand...

Except this couldn't happen because same sex marriage being legal cannot be shown to deny any rights to Christians, nor does it violate the 1st Amendment because they are still completely free to practice their religion, including denying same sex couples marriages. It would be like trying to claim that interfaith marriage denies rights to some Jews or Mormons or Orthodox Greeks because they don't approve of such marriages and would not allow such couples to be married in their churches. There is no legal argument there.
 
cabse5 said:
No. Gay marriage can be declared unconstitutional and therefore, sacked.
Click to expand...

No, it can't because it does not violate the Constitution.

The only way same sex marriage could ever be declared unconstitutional would be if there was an Amendment put into the Constitution that said marriage was only between a man and a woman.
 
roguenuke said:
My own marriage was performed by a Navy wife who was doing them to make extra money for her family. She was ordained over the internet and authorized by the state to sign marriage certificates as an officiant for that state.
Click to expand...
Why did you post this in a thread debating the pros and cons of SSM?
 
cabse5 said:
What is this right to marriage?
Click to expand...

It is from the 9th Amendment and has been ruled a right by the SCOTUS many times.

Now, that being said, there is certainly a valid argument that the state could refuse to recognize marriages for anyone if enough people agreed to it. However, they would also have to stop recognizing other legal relationships, such as blood relatives, or a person could argue that the state is taking away their right to choose who is most important in their lives. It isn't likely this will happen though since most people believe people should be able to marry. The state could certainly cut some benefits it gives marriages/married people, but that isn't the same thing as not allowing people to marry.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it can't because it does not violate the Constitution.

The only way same sex marriage could ever be declared unconstitutional would be if there was an Amendment put into the Constitution that said marriage was only between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat... SSM could be declared unconstitutional if it violated some other part of the constitution.. like the first amendment.
If the ideology of judges changed.
 
cabse5 said:
Why did you post this in a thread debating the pros and cons of SSM?
Click to expand...

As a response to someone mentioning that legal marriages are legal regardless of who performs the ceremony. My marriage is legal, despite not being performed by a "traditional" officiant or one paid by the state. It is also called a "marriage".
 
cabse5 said:
Let me repeat... SSM could be declared unconstitutional if it violated some other part of the constitution.. like the first amendment.
If the ideology of judges changed.
Click to expand...

It does not violate the 1st Amendment. Same sex marriage would have to be shown to violate the 1st Amendment but it doesn't do that. So you have no case. Your argument has to be based in logic, not simply you claiming something.

I could claim that restrictions on owning nuclear missiles violates the 2nd Amendment or restrictions on yelling fire in a crowded theater violates the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean my claim holds any legal grounds.
 
Enlighten me on the 9th amendment. Is that the one where state provisions should be adopted by the whole union?
 
roguenuke said:
It does not violate the 1st Amendment. Same sex marriage would have to be shown to violate the 1st Amendment but it doesn't do that. So you have no case. Your argument has to be based in logic, not simply you claiming something.

I could claim that restrictions on owning nuclear missiles violates the 2nd Amendment or restrictions on yelling fire in a crowded theater violates the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean my claim holds any legal grounds.
Click to expand...

The state is determining a national religion. And marriage is part of that national religion.
 
cabse5 said:
The state is determining a national religion. And marriage is part of that national religion.
Click to expand...

No. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, not when it is the state recognition of marriage. Marriage is recognition as two people as each other's legal spouse, which is a legally recognized relationship, nothing more. Nothing religious in that.
 
cabse5 said:
Enlighten me on the 9th amendment. Is that the one where state provisions should be adopted by the whole union?
Click to expand...

No, that would be the one that says that just because a right isn't listed in the Constitution, it doesn't mean the government can restrict that right. And the 14th Amendment would be the one that applies the BoRs to the states, including the 9th Amendment.
 
roguenuke said:
No. It assumes that if 5 or more Justices honestly tried to pull some crap saying that same sex marriages were unconstitutional, they would have to provide the actual Constitutional Clause that made same sex marriages unconstitutional. They can say that states have a right to ban same sex marriage. But without a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning same sex marriages, then there is no reasoning available from the Constitution to support such a ruling. It would likely cause a major issue with our SCOTUS. The public would be demanding the Court be held responsible for trying to say something that is in no way supported by the Constitution itself.

The Court has never declared something besides a law or act or government action unconstitutional, and even then, it was a restriction on actions by the government on some party in pretty much all cases.
Click to expand...

don't underestimate what justices can come up with ... remember when they used the tax argument to say ACA was constitutional?
 
windowdressing said:
don't underestimate what justices can come up with ... remember when they used the tax argument to say ACA was constitutional?
Click to expand...

Which, although I disagree with it, it is still nowhere near the same thing as trying to claim that same sex marriage being legal violates the Constitution in any way. If they did, it would include other types of marriage that would also violate the Constitution, and that would cause many issues.

No, it is not reasonable to believe that any SCOTUS would declare same sex marriage unconstitutional.
 
roguenuke said:
Which, although I disagree with it, it is still nowhere near the same thing as trying to claim that same sex marriage being legal violates the Constitution in any way. If they did, it would include other types of marriage that would also violate the Constitution, and that would cause many issues.

No, it is not reasonable to believe that any SCOTUS would declare same sex marriage unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's important to understand that judges, including the Supremes, often know what their ruling is going to be on the day they hear the case. They then research the law for precedent or statute to back up what they already decided they wanted.

With regard to SSM, although we might have a larger step towards SSM endorsed, it would be too sweeping and transformational for the Supreme Court to declare it the law of the land. A little something for everybody, no clear victory for anyone. Everyone remains angry and upset, just like with abortion and immigration. America travels further down the road to permanent status as an angry desperate country filled with hate and devoid of a common culture.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
Which, although I disagree with it, it is still nowhere near the same thing as trying to claim that same sex marriage being legal violates the Constitution in any way. If they did, it would include other types of marriage that would also violate the Constitution, and that would cause many issues.

No, it is not reasonable to believe that any SCOTUS would declare same sex marriage unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

All of those Catholics on the bench make me nervous. I do think that you're right, the court will make the right call, but I'll be very surprised if it's 9-0. What do you think it will be?
 
Ray410 said:
It's important to understand that judges, including the Supremes, know what their ruling is going to be on the day they hear the case. They then research the law for precedent or statute to back up what they want.
Click to expand...

the constitution says whatever a majority of the justices say it says ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom