• 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!

Marriages without children should be dissolved

Marriages without children should be dissolved


  • Total voters
    54
I am simply looking for your reasoning behind why they choose to draw the line there, eventhough there is nothing besides the gender of both people involved in the couple that separates them from all those other couples that they do endorse. You don't seem to accept that if we allow the government to draw an arbitrary line, with no basis for that line besides gender, then they can move that line to restrict couples even further, without explainations for why.

Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not an expanation of why that line is for the "general welfare". I could say that restricting heterosexual marriage to only those couples who plan to have children is for the "general welfare", and I could even effectively argue this point. It would even be acceptable to me. But the rules of marriage contradict that that is why the government is restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, with no regard to whether they can or plan to have children.

Again,... I think the question has to be asked.

"Are we talking about marriages or the government's recognition and validation of marriages" here?

They are not the same thing.
 
Again,... I think the question has to be asked.

"Are we talking about marriages or the government's recognition and validation of marriages" here?

They are not the same thing.

We are talking about civil marriages. Why the federal government chooses to recognize and give Full Faith and Credit Clause protection to all opposite sex marriages, no matter what the couple's ability or even view on having and/or raising children is, but refuses that same recognition and protection to same sex marriages? Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not a valid reason, because it does not cover why the "line in the sand" was actually drawn where it is between opposite and same sex couples. What specifically makes it in the "general welfare" of the people to recognize and protect all opposite sex marriages, but not same sex marriages?
 
We are talking about civil marriages. Why the federal government chooses to recognize and give Full Faith and Credit Clause protection to all opposite sex marriages, no matter what the couple's ability or even view on having and/or raising children is, but refuses that same recognition and protection to same sex marriages? Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not a valid reason, because it does not cover why the "line in the sand" was actually drawn where it is between opposite and same sex couples. What specifically makes it in the "general welfare" of the people to recognize and protect all opposite sex marriages, but not same sex marriages?

The answers to your questions are going to depend on who you ask.

According to the Constitution, Congress gets to decide.

Are you willing to concede that at the time the Constitution was wriiten,.... that there was no question as to how marriage would be defined either for the purpose of naturalization or anythng else?

It has taken over 200 years for this to become the issue that it is today. And it still is the exception to the rule.

Human beings as 'generally' heterosexual.

Our relationships are 'generally' heterosexual.

The Congress is charged (where this is concerned) with meeting the "general" needs.

The Congress is NOT charged with granting "equal benefits to all."
 
Public Poll, eh?

How do we find out who voted 'yes'?

Where do I click to reveal those two great 'thinkers'...??
 
The answers to your questions are going to depend on who you ask.

According to the Constitution, Congress gets to decide.

Are you willing to concede that at the time the Constitution was wriiten,.... that there was no question as to how marriage would be defined either for the purpose of naturalization or anythng else?

It has taken over 200 years for this to become the issue that it is today. And it still is the exception to the rule.

Human beings as 'generally' heterosexual.

Our relationships are 'generally' heterosexual.

The Congress is charged (where this is concerned) with meeting the "general" needs.

The Congress is NOT charged with granting "equal benefits to all."

Actually you are wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment has the Equal Protection Clause in it. This clause states ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since homosexuality is, at the moment, a "suspect class" it is only subject to reasonable basis of a state interest. Although, it can be argued that with present evidence that homosexuality is most likely not a choice, that sexuality as a class, actually deserves at least intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Either way, the government must at least have a reasonable basis for it being a "state interest" to limit marriage to opposite sex couples only. With the current arguments from the same sex marriage side, it is looking less and less like the "state" has a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage being provided equal protection.
 
Public Poll, eh?

How do we find out who voted 'yes'?

Where do I click to reveal those two great 'thinkers'...??

You click on the number of people who voted for either option. That is what worked for me.
 
Actually you are wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment has the Equal Protection Clause in it. This clause states ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since homosexuality is, at the moment, a "suspect class" it is only subject to reasonable basis of a state interest. Although, it can be argued that with present evidence that homosexuality is most likely not a choice, that sexuality as a class, actually deserves at least intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Either way, the government must at least have a reasonable basis for it being a "state interest" to limit marriage to opposite sex couples only. With the current arguments from the same sex marriage side, it is looking less and less like the "state" has a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage being provided equal protection.


Where do you get that marriage is somehow the same thing as "protection" as mentioned in the 14th?

You are really stretching now.
 
Where do you get that marriage is somehow the same thing as "protection" as mentioned in the 14th?

You are really stretching now.

Marriage was viewed as such in Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is not only considered under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment, but also the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". The biggest question is not whether marriage is covered under the Amendment, but rather if homosexual couples have a case under that Amendment. The main part of that is determining if the state can prove a reasonable interest in limiting marriage.
 
Marriage was viewed as such in Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is not only considered under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment, but also the "Full Faith and Credit Clause". The biggest question is not whether marriage is covered under the Amendment, but rather if homosexual couples have a case under that Amendment. The main part of that is determining if the state can prove a reasonable interest in limiting marriage.

Loving v. Virginia was a case regarding a bi-racial marriage between "one (white) man and one (black) woman." A sentiment that is in keeping with the traditional (now under DOMA) concept.

How do you make the leap that their decision would automatically mean that same sex couples unions should be so recognized?

Consider your own points against DOMA and such,... that it was too vauge or that it was poorply defined.

Certainly, if the courts under Loving wanted to include "same sex unions" they could have.

But they didn't.
 
Loving v. Virginia was a case regarding a bi-racial marriage between "one (white) man and one (black) woman." A sentiment that is in keeping with the traditional (now under DOMA) concept.

How do you make the leap that their decision would automatically mean that same sex couples unions should be so recognized?

Consider your own points against DOMA and such,... that it was too vauge or that it was poorply defined.

Certainly, if the courts under Loving wanted to include "same sex unions" they could have.

But they didn't.

Anti miscegenation were based on race. Anti gay marriage laws are based on gender. The government can not discriminate against either.
 
Not very clever.

I think you have confused "sexual preference" with "gender" and you are expecting me to share in your confusion.

The government does in fact have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for the "general welfare" and specifically with regards to naturalization (article 1, section8)

You (and your like minded friends) keep ignoring that fact.
 
I think you have confused "sexual preference" with "gender" and you are expecting me to share in your confusion.

Not confused in the least. I can do something legally that a woman can not do simply because I have a penis.

The government does in fact have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for the "general welfare" and specifically with regards to naturalization (article 1, section8)

You (and your like minded friends) keep ignoring that fact.

, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

I'll ask this even though marriage is not mentioned in the clause. Just how does keeping state recognition of gay marriage protect the general welfare of the populace?
 
Loving v. Virginia was a case regarding a bi-racial marriage between "one (white) man and one (black) woman." A sentiment that is in keeping with the traditional (now under DOMA) concept.

How do you make the leap that their decision would automatically mean that same sex couples unions should be so recognized?

Consider your own points against DOMA and such,... that it was too vauge or that it was poorply defined.

Certainly, if the courts under Loving wanted to include "same sex unions" they could have.

But they didn't.

That is a rather narrow way of looking at it. Especially considering the fact that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, homosexuality was still deemed to be a mental disorder. It has only been in the last 25 or 30 years that medical and psychological organizations in this country have come to classify homosexuality as a normal, healthy lifestyle of humans and has started to believe that a sexuality isn't a person's choice at all.

The Court had no reason to make such a leap at that time. However, since now it is recognized that homosexuality is most likely not a choice and is a normal, healthy lifestyle, then there is no reason to continue to discriminate against them.
 
That is a rather narrow way of looking at it. Especially considering the fact that at the time of Loving v. Virginia, homosexuality was still deemed to be a mental disorder. It has only been in the last 25 or 30 years that medical and psychological organizations in this country have come to classify homosexuality as a normal, healthy lifestyle of humans and has started to believe that a sexuality isn't a person's choice at all.

The Court had no reason to make such a leap at that time. However, since now it is recognized that homosexuality is most likely not a choice and is a normal, healthy lifestyle, then there is no reason to continue to discriminate against them.

It is no more an act of discrimiation forthe government to not recognize a gay union than it is a poligamist relationship or an incestual relationship.

Article 1, section 8 gives the Congress the power and the authority to decide... to "draw" the line,... and their guideline is the "general welfare" clause. Their guidline is not "if you recognize one you must recognize them all."

Sorry.
 
It is no more an act of discrimiation forthe government to not recognize a gay union than it is a poligamist relationship or an incestual relationship.

Article 1, section 8 gives the Congress the power and the authority to decide... to "draw" the line,... and their guideline is the "general welfare" clause. Their guidline is not "if you recognize one you must recognize them all."

Sorry.

Congress can make limits to marriage, or other things protected under the "Equal Protection Clause", however, to put restrictions on marriage, the state must show that the restriction is "reasonably related" to a legitimate state interest.
 
Congress can make limits to marriage, or other things protected under the "Equal Protection Clause",

Actually it's article 1,section 8,... but Thank you.

however, to put (further) restrictions on marriage, the state must show that the restriction is "reasonably related" to a legitimate state interest.

That's better.
 
Actually it's article 1,section 8,... but Thank you.



That's better.

No, I am discussing the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. You are the one that keeps bringing up the Article pertaining to what Congress can do. Since we have the Equal Protection Clause and discrimination laws, then they must be used to determine if it is actually Constitutional for Congress to restrict marriage in the promotion of the "general welfare", without an explanation of why such restrictions would be promoting the "general welfare".

Also, no. Any restrictions placed on marriage must actually meet the reasonably related to a legitimate state interest rule unless it concerns gender or race, and then it would be held at a higher standard, which personally I don't agree with, but we are discussing what is presently applicable to Constitutional law. Someone could challenge the marriage laws regarding the limit of it being between two people only, but they would have to show where it isn't in the state's interest to restrict it far enough to get the SCOTUS to accept their case.
 
No, I am discussing the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. You are the one that keeps bringing up the Article pertaining to what Congress can do. Since we have the Equal Protection Clause and discrimination laws, then they must be used to determine if it is actually Constitutional for Congress to restrict marriage in the promotion of the "general welfare", without an explanation of why such restrictions would be promoting the "general welfare".

And you once again are twisting the DOMA and Congress's definition of marriage.

It's not a restriction.

As DOMA points out one State doesn't not have to recognize the same sex unions of another. Rather they can't be forced to recognize them.

So, clearly if a State wants gay marriage,... they can have it.

Being treated with indifference is not the same thing as being discriminated against.
 
Last edited:
That's one of my thoughts Exactly!

whoops my bad:3oops:

Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
I'll ask this even though marriage is not mentioned in the clause. Just how does keeping state recognition of gay marriage illegal protect the general welfare of the populace?
 
And you once again are twisting the DOMA and Congress's definition of marriage.

It's not a restriction.

As DOMA points out one State doesn't not have to recognize the same sex unionsof another. Rather they can't be forced to recognize them.

So, clearly if a State wants gay marriage,... they can have it.

Being treated with indifference is not the same thing as being discriminated against.

Congress is still not giving an explanation as to why it is not forcing the states to honor the 14th Amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause, as it must do for any other marriage. And since they aren't even giving an explanation of why not making the FF&CC be honored is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest, then they are wrong. There are good arguments for why it is not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest, so then the proof must be brought out as to why is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. This could be why the SCOTUS agreed to hear Gil v. Office of Personnel Management. The US government is going to have to explain in this case why it is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest to limit marriage, and the protections, benefits, and privileges that go with it to opposite sex couples only, and restrict these same benefits and privileges from same sex couples.
 
whoops my bad:3oops:

Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
I'll ask this even though marriage is not mentioned in the clause. Just how does keeping state recognition of gay marriage illegal protect the general welfare of the populace?

It doesn't,... but then again, it doesn't have to.

For the umpteeeenth time "indifference and discrimination are not the same thing."

A brother can't marry his brother and expect marital benefits (even in a gay marriage is legal State),.... are those brothers being discriminated against?
 
It doesn't,... but then again, it doesn't have to.

Then why did you even bother to bring the clause up in the first place?

A brother can't marry his brother and expect marital benefits (even in a gay marriage is legal State),.... are those brothers being discriminated against?

Yes they are being discriminated against because they are related.
 
Back
Top Bottom