• 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!

If SCOTUS overturns marriage equality...

Fishking said:
You're right in a way, it's not really about gay marriage so much as equal protection under the law. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support some of the decisions that have been made that forces private businesses to operate in a manner they do not want to (gay wedding cake type stuff), but that is a private citizen making their own decision with their private property.

This is different than the government. The government isn't a tool that should be used to dictate certain morals as long as there is no violations/harm being done to others. You want to do drugs? Not a good idea but, hey, your body. You want to have two dudes marry? Up to you.

I don't like liberals using their POV to push their morals on private citizens and neither should the opposition do the same.
Click to expand...
You understand equal protection under the law can be extrapolated to sports teams, grades, academic scholarships, astronaut requirements, gender equalness (Hillary's bag), racial equalness, etc.? To socialism?
 
CLAX1911 said:
I seem to recall you saying trump couldn't beat hillary back in the primaries. I guess you were wrong.
Click to expand...
He was employing a scare tactic in an attempt to dampen Trump enthusiasm.
 
Josie said:
Yep. The freak-out mode some people are in -- no more "reproductive rights", gays back in the closet --- is completely irrational.
Click to expand...

I don't understand it. Wait, yes I do. These people that say this wanted so desperately for trump to lose because, he plays for the "R" team and they are all "Ds." They got so caught up with insults they didn't know which ones were based in reality.

Just FYI I'm nit the least bit concerned. I know republicans aren't homophobic.
 
cabse5 said:
Which is why gay rights advocates can't demand marriage..because no one owns marriage.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Following that logic, nobody should be able to get married.

But that doesn't even matter. SSM is a thing, and it has been even before the Supreme Court ruling, since 37 states had already legalized it.
 
TheGoverness said:
SCOTUS is doing their job. That is what they are supposed to do. The fact that you personally disagree with the outcome of a ruling is really of no concern to me.
Click to expand...
You're saying the job of SCOTUS is to be magicians?
There isn't anything in The Constitution that talks about gay marriage rights.
 
TheGoverness said:
That makes no sense. Following that logic, nobody should be able to get married.

But that doesn't even matter. SSM is a thing, and it has been even before the Supreme Court ruling, since 37 states had already legalized it.
Click to expand...
I'm saying gay marriage advocates demand gay marriage as if they own it. How many of those 37 states put a gay marriage initiative up for vote? Less than 3? Gay marriage is not a populist movement. Gay marriage is a judicial movement.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
You understand equal protection under the law can be extrapolated to sports teams, grades, academic scholarships, astronaut requirements, gender equalness (Hillary's bag), racial equalness, etc.? To socialism?
Click to expand...

Nope. Private institutions are not the law so, for example, sports teams wouldn't be applicable. The law is the law so I'm talking about laws that specifically target a group of people, like homosexuals. Grades are not the law, they are the result of how well you answered the question.

It's not complicated. Laws are laws and don't make them that target a certain group that's not violating the rights/harming of another.
 
cabse5 said:
You're saying the job of SCOTUS is to be magicians?
There isn't anything in The Constitution that talks about gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The Supreme Court has specific powers. One of those powers is Judicial Review.
 
cabse5 said:
I'm saying gay marriage advocates demand gay marriage as if they own it.
Click to expand...

No, it's because they wanted to be treated equally under the law when they previously weren't. Now, thanks to the ruling, they are.
 
Fishking said:
Nope. Private institutions are not the law so, for example, sports teams wouldn't be applicable. The law is the law so I'm talking about laws that specifically target a group of people, like homosexuals. Grades are not the law, they are the result of how well you answered the question.

It's not complicated. Laws are laws and don't make them that target a certain group that's not violating the rights/harming of another.
Click to expand...
For your info, for example, grades discriminate against lower performing students. Scholarships discriminate against the low performing, the less athletic and majority ethnic groups of people, etc. The San Diego football fan is discriminated against because they have to sit and watch a home game in that eye sore Qualcomm Stadium.
 
cabse5 said:
For your info, for example, grades discriminate against lower performing students. Scholarships discriminate against the low performing, the less athletic and majority ethnic groups of people, etc. The San Diego football fan is discriminated against because they have to sit and watch a home game in that eye sore Qualcomm Stadium.
Click to expand...

Those things aren't laws. Why is that hard to understand?
 
Fishking said:
You're right in a way, it's not really about gay marriage so much as equal protection under the law. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support some of the decisions that have been made that forces private businesses to operate in a manner they do not want to (gay wedding cake type stuff), but that is a private citizen making their own decision with their private property.

This is different than the government. The government isn't a tool that should be used to dictate certain morals as long as there is no violations/harm being done to others. You want to do drugs? Not a good idea but, hey, your body. You want to have two dudes marry? Up to you.
Click to expand...
It's equal protection under the law extrapolated..socialist style. And a very real possibility. And gay marriage is not in The Constitution. That's my biggest beef against gay marriage.
 
CriticalThought said:
What will happen to my marriage?

This is actually bothering me a great deal. Now that Trump has won he will likely have the opportunity to replace several key Justices and sway the court hard to the right. I could then see a significant challenge to same-sex marriage coming before the court within a few years and Obergefell being overturned. The issue would then likely be left for each state to decide. My state had a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Would my marriage simply not be recognized by my state?
When we adopt children, will their birth certificate not be recognized because it has two dads?
Could the state refuse to acknowledge our adoption?
Will we have to go through power of attorneys and living wills to get some semblance of protection for our family?
Will my life insurance pay out to my husband if I kick the bucket? Would he be allowed to make funeral arrangements for my body?
Will I lose my health insurance since I am under his insurance?
Could my spouse make medical decisions for me if I am incapacitated?
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. Marriage has been considered a Right for longer than anyone here has been alive. They'd have to overturn 14 SCOTUS cases that found Marriage to be a fundemental Right since 1888.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right

Yes, I know, the source is a blog. But it does list the cases which you can then look up for yourselves.
 
cabse5 said:
It's equal protection under the law extrapolated..socialist style. And a very real possibility. And gay marriage is not in The Constitution. That's my biggest beef against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Not all fundemental Rights are listed in the Constitution. That should be evident by the wording of the 9th amendment.
 
cabse5 said:
You're saying the job of SCOTUS is to be magicians?
There isn't anything in The Constitution that talks about gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...

Nope, but it does talk about equal protection under the law.
 
Anagram said:
Most of Trumps justices on his list haven't though.

That said, I have a hard time believing that they'd overturn Obergefell. Directly overturning a precedent that quickly is, well, unprecedented. And another justice would have to leave anyway since the 5 in the majority are still on the court.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court apparently feels it has to wait at least nine years or so to overrule a decision to avoid having it look unseemly. That was the period which separated Usery (1976) from Garcia (1985.) That suggests that if the commie liar had won, the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, which the Court interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee in Heller in 2008, would not have been around much longer.

Obergefell is the substantive due process invention of Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow legislators. It is a lawless assault on the principle of self-government which deserves the respect of no one, and I strongly hope the Court will overrule it in due course. I suspect the Court would leave it to each state to decide how to treat homosexual marriages already performed there, and nothing would prevent a state where the majority included those marriages in its laws from continuing to do that.

Instead, the effect of overruling Obergefell would be to free states where the majority did not want to authorize homosexual marriages from being compelled to authorize them. Also, section two of the Defense of Marriage Act would no longer be a dead letter. Any state would once more be free to decline to recognize homosexual marriages that had been performed in another state.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So you think he is a hillary supporter?
Click to expand...
In the end, yes. Whatever it took to prevent Trump from being president. You'd have to ask him if he plans to assassinate Trump.:roll:
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Nope, but it does talk about equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
The ruling on gay marriage for gay marriage advocates was a ruling on the equal protection under the law clause of The Constitution on steroids. You espouse equal protection under the law for gay marriage advocates but you don't espouse equal protection under the law for under-performing students with the grades issue? For non-athletic and majority racial groups with the scholarship issue? For San Diego Charger football players, fans, coaches and owners who can't play, view and work in as nice a digs as Dallas Cowboy Stadium? Where do you draw the line on equal protection under the law?

Why do you draw the line on equal protection under the law if you believe in applying the equal protection under the law clause of The Constitution on steroids with gay marriage? Do you believe the glass ceiling should be broken as a part of equal protection under the law? Do you believe African-Americans deserve reparations via the equal protection under the law clause? If you believe the equal protection under the law clause of The Constitution on steroids should be applied for gay marriage, why not for reparations and glass ceiling breakage?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
I'm saying gay marriage advocates demand gay marriage as if they own it. How many of those 37 states put a gay marriage initiative up for vote? Less than 3? Gay marriage is not a populist movement. Gay marriage is a judicial movement.
Click to expand...

Civil rights should never be up to popular vote. If they were many in the South would have never ended Jim Crow or even recognized interracial marriages.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Civil rights should never be up to popular vote. If they were many in the South would have never ended Jim Crow or even recognized interracial marriages.
Click to expand...
Which civil rights are you referring to? Same sex marriage civil rights or all civil rights? Why not, for example, also investigate the civil rights violations of non-performing students' civil rights because of unproductive grades received for their work that could keep them out of good colleges, scholarships, and career advancements?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
You're saying the job of SCOTUS is to be magicians?
There isn't anything in The Constitution that talks about gay marriage rights.
Click to expand...

At the time of our founding, Jefferson was worried that if we had a Bill of Rights, that some fool would come along in the future thinking that those were the only rights the citizenry had. The constitution largely does not grant rights, it instead restricts the powers of government. In this case, the constitution restricts the power of government by requiring the government to treat everyone equally under the law. Thus the government cannot descriminate against same sex couples. Thus, same sex couples are entitiled to the same legal recognition of marriages that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Thus the government cannot tell a same sex couple that they cannot have the same legal recognition of their marriage that my wife and I enjoy.

It is that simple.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
At the time of our founding, Jefferson was worried that if we had a Bill of Rights, that some fool would come along in the future thinking that those were the only rights the citizenry had. The constitution largely does not grant rights, it instead restricts the powers of government. In this case, the constitution restricts the power of government by requiring the government to treat everyone equally under the law. Thus the government cannot descriminate against same sex couples. Thus, same sex couples are entitiled to the same legal recognition of marriages that heterosexual couples are entitled to. Thus the government cannot tell a same sex couple that they cannot have the same legal recognition of their marriage that my wife and I enjoy.

It is that simple.
Click to expand...
What is simple is the government overstepping it's authority in the gay marriage issue. Actually, overstepping by the federal government was something Jefferson was keenly afraid could happen with The Constitution and consequently Anti-Federalists (of which Jefferson was one) demanded the Bill of Rights as an attempt to protect citizens from an obtrusive federal government.

Any change to The Constitution was intended by the founders to be addressed via amendments and not these sneaky end runs SCOTUS makes on The Constitution that leaves the American people completely out of the change. This gay marriage initiative was never a populist issue but was a judicial issue. Quite frankly, Jefferson would roll in his grave if he knew the gay marriage initiative was instigated by state and federal judges and gay marriage advocates. A minority of the American people.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
What is simple is the government overstepping it's authority in the gay marriage issue. Actually, overstepping by the federal government was something Jefferson was keenly afraid could happen with The Constitution and consequently Anti-Federalists (of which Jefferson was one) demanded the Bill of Rights as an attempt to protect citizens from an obtrusive federal government.

Any change to The Constitution was intended by the founders to be addressed via amendments and not these sneaky end runs SCOTUS makes on The Constitution that leaves the American people completely out of the change. This gay marriage initiative was never a populist issue but was a judicial issue. Quite frankly, Jefferson would roll in his grave if he knew the gay marriage initiative was instigated by state and federal judges and gay marriage advocates. A minority of the American people.
Click to expand...

The basic principle of liberty is that your right to live your life the way you choose to do so extends so far as to not impede another individuals ability to do the same.

How does granting legal marriage recognition to same sex couples impact your life and liberty at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom