• 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!

States and the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation

Read OP:


  • Total voters
    25
You are confusing the sacrament of marriage with a blanket assumption about civil unions.

The "sacrament" of marriage has nothing to do with the marriage that we enter into when we sign the marriage license or are simply recognized in by the state. The "sacrament" of marriage is a personal part of marriage, between the couple and their God/gods, and not every couple enters into a "sacrament" when it comes to marriage (I don't consider "God", any of them, to be part of my marriage).
 
According to the Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. "1623 Catechism of the Catholic Church"

You cannot prove that marriage is not a sacrament, nor will you be able to redefine marriage!

It's really easy to prove that marriage is not a sacrament for all people. As well as that it is a sacrament to some same sex couples entering into it. That is because the sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with legal marriage, the marriage being discussed in this thread. The law has pretty much nothing to do with whether marriage is a sacrament. If all marriages stopped be recognized by the government, you could still become involved with the "sacrament" of marriage within your church.
 
I agree. You know the Constitution requires Congress to have a super majority rule to overturn a President's veto. What do you think about new law requiring a super majority in the Supreme Court to overturn state laws?

No. The SCOTUS is fine the way it is. The states need to have their rights restricted in favor of protecting the rights of individuals, which is the main point of the Constitution.
 
Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!

Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.

Show me a single marriage law within the US, ever, that requires married couples be able to procreate with each other.

I can show you several that say the opposite in fact, that certain couples must show they can't or are unlikely to procreate with each other in order to be able to legally marry.
 
I think there must be a collectivist website somewhere that is recommending the argument by analogy to Loving v. Virgian to all the comrades. It is sheer nonsense, for reasons I have gone into in detail several times here on other threads. The Virginia miscegenation statutes that made it a felony for a white person and a colored person to marry each other had its origins in slavery laws and was designed to maintain white supremacy. The statutes did the very thing it was the central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent.

The notion that the people who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and ratified it in 1868 ever meant it to guarantee homosexuals the right to marry each other against infringement by the states, or that it had ever been understood after that to guarantee any such right, does not even pass the laugh test. Justice Scalia made the point concisely in his dissenting opinion:

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway for that proposition; emphasis added)



Nowhere had the Supreme Court ever suggested before Obergefell, in Loving, Skinner, Meyer, Reynolds, or in any other decision where it had affirmed marriage as a basic right, that it was referring to anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. The claim that the Court ever meant "marriage, period" leads to the absurd conclusion the Court meant to say there was not only a fundamental right to homosexual marriage, but also to child marriage, incestuous marriage, bigamy, and polygamy.



I agree. Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow philosopher-kings had no right to force their personal definition of marriage on the many tens of millions of Americans, a majority in seventy per cent of the states, who did not agree with it.

And Pace argued and succeeded quite well just after the 14th was put into place that it was never meant to apply to interracial marriages.

The voters and legislators of those states had "no right" to deny entry into legal marriage on the basis of relative sex/gender because there is no legitimate state interest furthered in such a restriction.
 
I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, I was out having a few drinks. It's Saturday, sue me :lol:

I will. And then I will demand compensation for the intense emotional damages that have occurred as the result of this slight and rejection. I have had, since you cruelly implied that me - as a random internet person - wasn't worth your time, fear, stress, weight gain, bouts of depression, feelings of being overwhelmed, wounds received under assault from waves of flying monkeys, incontinence, impotence, and incense. My Feels > Your Drinks, Hatuey. :mad:

I perfectly understand where you're coming from. However, there are quite a list of bans/amendments which specifically singled out gay marriage

Agreed. Simply for the purposes of this, I think it's worth pointing out that you shouldn't lump all of the state moves that would prohibit SSM together.

Those that don't specifically mention gay marriage were adopted within the same political climate.

Which is immaterial. The law is (well, it is supposed to be) the law. In a scenario where the law stated simply that marriage was between a man and a woman, polygamous relationships would not be able to argue that "well, the climate was SSM, so really we're still good".

Though your post doesn't deny that, I think it's pretty clear that the rest of the amendments/bans were adopted to fit that climate, and were also adopted with gays in mind.

Probably. Just as the Civil Rights Act was adopted with blacks in mind, but would apply to asians, hispanics, jews, gentiles, turks, arabs, whites, and indians. But not hippies. Never hippies.

There simply was no wide scale movement to legalize other types of unions at the time. There still aren't.

No - it is still small. But they will be successful more quickly than the SSM folks were - a lot of their groundwork has already been laid.

So while some efforts to ban gay marriage were pretty up front about their intentions, others simply used vague wording that would cover it. Don't you think?

:shrug: I think that the law is the law - and that attempts to set down in stone what marriage was were attempts to set that down from all attempts to alter it. If it happened in the context of a debate over SSM, that does not mean that the clear text is also intended to protect against things like polygamy.
 
Show me a single marriage law within the US, ever, that requires married couples be able to procreate with each other.

I can show you several that say the opposite in fact, that certain couples must show they can't or are unlikely to procreate with each other in order to be able to legally marry.

Irrelevant to the definition of marriage as many states have Constitutionally defined it as being between a man and woman. It is not discriminatory to then allow and recognize same sex civil unions and marriages equally within the law. Anything less is intolerant to the strongly held beliefs of society as marriage has been defined for centuries and the majority that still define a marriage as such!
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant to the definition of marriage as many states have Constitutionally defined it as being between a man and woman. It is not discriminatory to then allow and recognize same sex civil unions and marriages equally within the law. Anything less is intolerant to the strongly held beliefs of society as marriage has been defined for centuries and the majority that still define a marriage as such!

No. Many state wrongfully placed restrictions on marriage based on relative sex of the participants, which has absolutely zero to do with furthering any state interest. Most of those states banned same sex civil unions with those amendments as well. And yes, it would be discriminatory to have same sex couples recognized by civil unions and opposite sex couples recognized by marriages, when they would be the exact same thing under the law in everything but name.

I don't care two squats about a few people's "strongly held beliefs". Strongly held beliefs were responsible for a good deal of the bad things in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, women having less rights than men for a long time, segregation, interracial marriage bans, and more.
 
No. Many state wrongfully placed restrictions on marriage based on relative sex of the participants, which has absolutely zero to do with furthering any state interest. Most of those states banned same sex civil unions with those amendments as well. And yes, it would be discriminatory to have same sex couples recognized by civil unions and opposite sex couples recognized by marriages, when they would be the exact same thing under the law in everything but name.

I don't care two squats about a few people's "strongly held beliefs". Strongly held beliefs were responsible for a good deal of the bad things in this country, including slavery, Jim Crow laws, women having less rights than men for a long time, segregation, interracial marriage bans, and more.

Read my post again and you will understand my position! What you want I will not give so stop your intolerance and try to understand.

Then again since you don't care "two squats" there is no reason for me to continue to discuss anything with you...another strongly held belief I am sure you disagree with but one I do not care what you think or reply over!
 
Last edited:
Read my post again and you will understand my position! What you want I will not give so stop your intolerance and try to understand.

Then again since you don't care "two squats" there is no reason for me to continue to discuss anything with you...another strongly held belief I am sure you disagree with but one I do not care what you think or reply over!

Your position is not based on any legal basis. States "defined" marriage at one time as being "between two people of the same race". That was just as much a spurious definition as defining it by the sex restriction. In reality, state marriage is defined in what it does, which is establishing a legal kinship between two people, a kinship that is known as spouses and that comes with certain rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under the law.
 
Your position is not based on any legal basis. States "defined" marriage at one time as being "between two people of the same race". That was just as much a spurious definition as defining it by the sex restriction. In reality, state marriage is defined in what it does, which is establishing a legal kinship between two people, a kinship that is known as spouses and that comes with certain rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities under the law.

A civil union would do the same thing, but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman. Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony. Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.
 
The Loving ruling was based on race and did nothing to alter the marriage definition from one man and one woman. A black woman is still a woman just as a gay woman is still a woman. If gender difference is not "required" (or even constitutional) then what (other than tradition) makes the marriage partnership, unlike a business partnership, limited to only two partners?

Nothing stops business partners from marrying. There is no fill-in-the-blank for 'reason.' Nothing stops any 2 consenting adults from marrying except blood ties (varies from state to state). People of the opposite sex married/marry all the time for reasons like green cards, benefits, etc. Some of which could even be considered business reasons. However such a contract also carries a burden with it if/when there is a desire to dissolve it. So it's not entered into casually (for business purposes) and there are generally better contracts for business partners to enter into.

As for polygamy....if there is a substantial group interest in promoting legislation for it...I'll look at the arguments for and against it, legally. I think it's a dumb deal for women if it's a multiple wife situation but hey...."consenting adult".
 
Show me where I am forcing anything on you! Interracial marriage, between a man and a woman, was upheld a long time ago! What is it about that that has you upset today? It is a human right because of the need to procreate. A civil union maybe a marriage or it may not be, but a marriage is between a human man and a human woman!

Living and let living is about tolerance, something the LGBT movement and anti-Christian's repeatedly fail to consider when discussing religious issues.

How is SSM preventing anyone from 'living and let living?'

And why does the LGBT 'community' have to consider any religion at all when it comes to law?

If marriage is legally recognized by the govt, then it is free of any religious constraints. If you want your union recognized by any church, etc, you are free to do that...with or without applying for a marriage license from the 'state.'

(btw, marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Loads of married couples dont procreate and loads of unmarried couples, gay or straight, procreate.)
 
A civil union would do the same thing, but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman. Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony. Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.


Funny how a decade ago it was the social authoritarians that were against Civil Unions. Now though, suddenly Civil Unions are supposed to be an acceptable compromise.

How come it wasn't an acceptable compromise a decade ago when they got amendments passed like this one from my State:

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.


>>>>
 
Government can't discriminate on any level; but, private citizens can, and businesses can. It's called freedom, and the right to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion...

That said, society clearly has a vested interest in maintaining order, and some form of decorum. An example would be incest - at what point does a society simply say, "... to he!! with it, anything goes - go ahead and marry your 6 year old daughter".

Beyond that, history gives pretty clear examples of how societies collapse - they collapse from within... just as America is collapsing today.

It's a can of worms, that's for sure... but it is clear that the Establishment that controls our country is using the courts to rip our society apart, and enforce everything PC. It's fascist, and it's disgusting.
 
A civil union would do the same thing, but marriage would be upheld as it has been throughout history and is still widely accepted today as between a man and a woman. Both sides would be happy and the intolerance of the left would be forgiven by the Christian community thus we could have social harmony. Unless bigots and hate-mongers will not compromise with the deeply held beliefs and religious rights of the majority of society, this fight will continue and will become the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century.

It's semantics. There is nothing that says marriage cannot change. It has never been held to any concrete definition "throughout history". And who cares how many people believe it is "between a man and a woman"? That number is changing, particularly in Western cultures such as our own.

And no, both sides would not be happy. You would have discrimination written into the laws just to appease a small minority who protest same sex couples using a word they do not legitimately own to describe their legal relationship, and you would have people on the other side pissed that same sex couples were able to receive the same benefits as opposite sex couples. Whether you want to believe it or not, a lot of anti-ssm people are not just against same sex couples being recognized under the legal term "marriage". There are plenty who don't want them to have any recognition whatsoever or at least less than opposite sex couples and even some who would prefer same sex relationships still be illegal.
 
Government can't discriminate on any level; but, private citizens can, and businesses can. It's called freedom, and the right to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion...

That said, society clearly has a vested interest in maintaining order, and some form of decorum. An example would be incest - at what point does a society simply say, "... to he!! with it, anything goes - go ahead and marry your 6 year old daughter".

Beyond that, history gives pretty clear examples of how societies collapse - they collapse from within... just as America is collapsing today.

It's a can of worms, that's for sure... but it is clear that the Establishment that controls our country is using the courts to rip our society apart, and enforce everything PC. It's fascist, and it's disgusting.

No, businesses cannot legally discriminate without facing legal consequences.
 
No, businesses cannot legally discriminate without facing legal consequences.

Like I said, the courts and our government have gone full-on fascist.

There's certainly no constitutional grounds upon which a private business can't refuse service to anyone.

But of course leftists have never cared about anyone's rights or the rule of law - they simply bully society thru the courts, and when they have enough power they pull out the guns. It's an old story.
 
Like I said, the courts and our government have gone full-on fascist.

There's certainly no constitutional grounds upon which a private business can't refuse service to anyone.

But of course leftists have never cared about anyone's rights or the rule of law - they simply bully society thru the courts, and when they have enough power they pull out the guns. It's an old story.

There's really nothing in the Constitution that prevents such laws (Public Accommodation laws) either.
 
There's really nothing in the Constitution that prevents such laws (Public Accommodation laws) either.

Yes there is - the 10th amendment; and the very foundation of our Constitution which spells out the "enumerated powers". The FedGov has no such "enumerated power". Only by tortured interpretation - which puts every citizen in danger from the government - can such power be found. The Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry FROM GOVERNMENT.

Again, the courts, dominated by activist, leftist jurists have declared war on the Constitution, the rule of law, and our society. Of course they are just carrying out the design of the Establishment - which, as with all oligarchies, seeks to concentrate as much power centrally under its control as possible.

This is nothing new... it has been going on for millennia. Just as with Rome - baby steps at first, and power creep from there.

In terms of the rule of law?? America is in a very advanced state of decay.
 
Like I said, the courts and our government have gone full-on fascist.

There's certainly no constitutional grounds upon which a private business can't refuse service to anyone.

But of course leftists have never cared about anyone's rights or the rule of law - they simply bully society thru the courts, and when they have enough power they pull out the guns. It's an old story.

So then ending Jim Crow laws was wrong?
 
So then ending Jim Crow laws was wrong?

No, as I said in my earlier posts in this thread - the distinction lies between government and private individuals and businesses.

The government cannot discriminate against a citizen, but individuals and private businesses can. Everyone has the freedom to associate, or not associate with anyone they wish - it is called freedom.

If the government steps in and forces one party into a relationship with another party against their will - then the government is violating the rights of that party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Only the government can violate someone's rights; whereas if an individual should visit harm upon another person or business, that may be breaking the law, but nowhere in the Constitution is the government authorized to force a private citizen or business into a relationship with another private individual or business - such a law would be unconstitutional and therefore itself illegal.

Hence my point that the government has violated the Constitution in such cases where it does force such a relationship. The government either by legislation or thru the courts has no such power.
 
Ok, interracial marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry someone of another race. That was found unconstitutional for the same reason SSM was. And it wasn't just a few SCOTUS's, it was 13. Marriage is a fundamental human right and you don't have the right to force your definition on others. Live and let live.

Can't get what you want done the right way, do it the wrong way. Who cares about the constitution, after all it's only a piece of paper. :roll:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
 
No, as I said in my earlier posts in this thread - the distinction lies between government and private individuals and businesses.

The government cannot discriminate against a citizen, but individuals and private businesses can. Everyone has the freedom to associate, or not associate with anyone they wish - it is called freedom.

If the government steps in and forces one party into a relationship with another party against their will - then the government is violating the rights of that party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Only the government can violate someone's rights; whereas if an individual should visit harm upon another person or business, that may be breaking the law, but nowhere in the Constitution is the government authorized to force a private citizen or business into a relationship with another private individual or business - such a law would be unconstitutional and therefore itself illegal.

Hence my point that the government has violated the Constitution in such cases where it does force such a relationship. The government either by legislation or thru the courts has no such power.

So then they can make the anti-discrimination laws and private businesses can choose whether or not to actually be in that business and follow the law...or not go into that business? Is that what you mean?
 
So then they can make the anti-discrimination laws and private businesses can choose whether or not to actually be in that business and follow the law...or not go into that business? Is that what you mean?

No, the FedGov has no authority to make anti-discrimination laws that apply to individuals and businesses.

Of course they have done just that - but there is no constitutional foundation for it - it is the government acting outside the bounds of its power. The courts rubber stamped it, and the people cheered - but make no mistake, it is an example of the government acting lawlessly itself - which of course is far more dangerous than an individual acting like a bigot.

Once the citizenry accepts that the government can operate with open-ended, unaccountable power, it is only a matter of time before that government swallows the rights and liberties of all the citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom