• 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!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    Votes: 13 31.0%

  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
Kal'Stang said:
If you are talking about doma then you do know that the amendments trump any other law right? And last I knew Doma was not an amendment.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage as discrimination, and leaves it for each state to decide. So as I stated the amendments do not apply.
 
Blackdog said:
Irrelevant. The Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage as discrimination, and leaves it for each state to decide. So as I stated the amendments do not apply.
Click to expand...

Well let's see what SCOTUS eventually decides.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes lets. But this has nothing to do with my argument. But thanks for the fallacy anyway.
Click to expand...

What fallacy?? The SCOTUS might recognize gay marriage bans and or the DOMA a sagender discrimination per the 14th.
 
Blackdog said:
Irrelevant. The Federal Government does not recognize gay marriage as discrimination, and leaves it for each state to decide. So as I stated the amendments do not apply.
Click to expand...

How do amendments not apply? The whole point of them is that they are the highest laws of the land.

Also I believe you were saying previously that marriage is a religious institution in America, which is demonstrably false based on the fact that atheists and mixed religion couples can be married. The legal definition of marriage is not in anyway Christian, the marriage practiced in churches are Christian and they differ from denomination to denomination but they are irrelevant because they would not be affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage.
 
winston53660 said:
What fallacy?? The SCOTUS might recognize gay marriage bans and or the DOMA a sagender discrimination per the 14th.
Click to expand...

And it has nothing at all to do with the point I was making. They mite, so what? I am talking about the way it stands now.

Your response was the equivalent of: "Well wait until my big brother gets here!" nothing more.
 
Blackdog said:
And it has nothing at all to do with the point I was making. They mite, so what? I am talking about the way it stands now.

Your response was the equivalent of: "Well wait until my big brother gets here!" nothing more.
Click to expand...

If something is obviously unconstitutional that is an argument against it. For example this would be a way to make a legal argument against slavery in America besides the various moral arguments you could make against it.
 
YamiB. said:
How do amendments not apply? The whole point of them is that they are the highest laws of the land.
Click to expand...

They do not apply in this situation.

Are any of you really reading this stuff? Or are you just browsing over and coming to stupid conclusions?

YamiB. said:
Also I believe you were saying previously that marriage is a religious institution in America, which is demonstrably false based on the fact that atheists and mixed religion couples can be married.
Click to expand...

No I did not.

YamiB. said:
The legal definition of marriage is not in anyway Christian, the marriage practiced in churches are Christian and they differ from denomination to denomination but they are irrelevant because they would not be affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Please actually go back and read what I posted. I am not going to have another debate over the same thing again.
 
YamiB. said:
If something is obviously unconstitutional that is an argument against it. For example this would be a way to make a legal argument against slavery in America besides the various moral arguments you could make against it.
Click to expand...

I also don't see it as unconstitutional, neither did the SCOTU when the DOMA was passed.

I do see it as a state issue.

No. And this is not slavery.
 
The point being is that just because a law is passed stating something does not mean that it is a valid law. SCOTUS's job is to review those laws when put before them and decide weather or not the law follows the constitution. In this case the question being asked is "Does DOMA violate the 14th Amendment?". If it does then you're whole arguement flies out the window. And puts the whole arguement back into federal hands. Remember, Amendments trump laws. Also remember that new laws can be introduced via federal government which can nullify DOMA if it does happen to pass SCOTUS.
 
Blackdog said:
I also don't see it as unconstitutional, neither did the SCOTU when the DOMA was passed.

I do see it as a state issue.

No. And this is not slavery.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS does not review weather a law is uncontitutional until after someone challenges it and brings it before them. This cannot be done until AFTER a law has passed.

And Loving vs Virginia was never about slavery also.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I also don't see it as unconstitutional, neither did the SCOTU when the DOMA was passed.

I do see it as a state issue.

No. And this is not slavery.
Click to expand...

When was a case about the DOMA ever in the SCOTUS?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
The point being is that just because a law is passed stating something does not mean that it is a valid law. SCOTUS's job is to review those laws when put before them and decide weather or not the law follows the constitution. In this case the question being asked is "Does DOMA violate the 14th Amendment?". If it does then you're whole arguement flies out the window.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I mean. How does a future event that has nothing at all to do with my argument "fly out the window" on something that may or may not happen in the future?

Just stupid. :roll:

Kal'Stang said:
And puts the whole arguement back into federal hands. Remember, Amendments trump laws. Also remember that new laws can be introduced via federal government which can nullify DOMA if it does happen to pass SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

So what? Still completely irrelevant to the argument I was making. :doh
 
Blackdog said:
They do not apply in this situation.

Are any of you really reading this stuff? Or are you just browsing over and coming to stupid conclusions?
Click to expand...

How do they not apply? If a law contradicts the constitution that law is unconstitutional and thus it would be immediately justifiable to repeal it.



No I did not.
Click to expand...
Fact: The majority of US Citizens see it exactly how I do. It is a religious institution and recognized as such and has been for the history of this nation. It is part of our traditions and heritage. To deny this as you are trying to do is nothing but a fallacy.
Click to expand...
So you saying that a majority of US Citizens as well as yourself as a religious institution, yet for some reason what I said is false?


Please actually go back and read what I posted. I am not going to have another debate over the same thing again.
Click to expand...

I don't see how what I have attributed being said by you is misleading, would you care to actually say where I am misunderstanding you?

I also don't see it as unconstitutional, neither did the SCOTU when the DOMA was passed.
Click to expand...
I don't think that they have ever evaluated it as unconstitutional so I don't know how you could say that the Supreme Court didn't find it to be unconstitutional. How is it constitutional to make laws that directly contradict a part of the constitution as well as previous rulings (Loving v. Virginia).

I do see it as a state issue.
Click to expand...
It can't only be a state issue because marriage has federal rights attached to it.

No. And this is not slavery.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it's called an analogy. I took something that would obviously contradict the constitution. Another example would be enacting a law that made it illegal for women to vote. There are various moral reasons to be against these things, but because they contradict the constitution there is also a simple legal argument to have them repealed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
SCOTUS does not review weather a law is uncontitutional until after someone challenges it and brings it before them. This cannot be done until AFTER a law has passed.
Click to expand...

Then why has no one done it in 13 years?

Kal'Stang said:
And Loving vs Virginia was never about slavery also.
Click to expand...

So what?
 
OK this is to all of you as you seem pretty ignorant at this point.

Go back and read my first post in this thread. Then actually follow the arguments.

You people assume way to much for no reason.

I have never seen such ignorance on any board I have ever posted on before. Oh wait, yes I have: the Democrat underground.

Goodbye.
 
Blackdog said:
Then why has no one done it in 13 years?
Click to expand...

There is currently a lawsuit in progress to try doing just that. With some quick research it seems that there have been previous appeals to the Supreme Court, but they have not accepted it as one of the limited number of cases they rule on each year.
 
Blackdog said:
Well instead of having everyone who disagrees with you post all over again. Why don't you take some initiative and actually read the thread as your question has been addressed ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

And you're still on the side opposite me? You like being on the wrong side?

No wonder you ad nauseams to the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom