• 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!

Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Deuce said:
No important state interest is served by defining marriage as between a man and a woman, therefore the laws that do so are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Since you specifically say "important"...

Are you suggesting your reading of it is based on gender discrimination?

Or are you asserting that sexual orientation falls within middle teir scrutiny despite no case law supporting that at at the highest level?

Or were you just using a word that sounded good and were not quoting the actual notions of levels of state interesting as they related to the EPC?
 

yet these people will be making the same case. i forget the name of the organization. i agree it is disgusting, and i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.

actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear. how can you tell two people that love each other they can't marry. they are wanting to define marriage as anyone that loves another person.
 
You're in favor of heterosexual marriage, therefore you must allow heterosexual child marriage!

See, it is a fallacy. The arguments for same-sex marriage do not apply to pedophilia or bestiality. Animals and children cannot sign legal contracts, and a rational state interest is served by keeping it that way.

once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Love isn't relevant to this discussion.

we are not talking race, we are not talking gender.
we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a right, as recognized by the courts. Marriage is not a "lifestyle choice." And defining marriage as between a man and a women is a gender-based classification.

you can't say that gay people and heterosexuals can marry but polygamist or any other alternate lifestyle can't. if you do then you are being a bigot and whatever other name you call people. your own view then fails to it's own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
You can't say heterosexuals can marry but polygamists can't, or you're a bigot. Right? You can't say interracial marriage is fine but bestiality isn't. Right?

if you don't think that this won't be pressed in court for the same reasons think again. then we will see where you really stand on the matter.
the fact that you are speaking out against it pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...
Just because it's pressed in court doesn't mean it will be successful. "You allowed interracial marriage, therefore you must allow me to marry a chair!" Go ahead and try that argument if you think it will work.
 
ludin said:
polygamists are lining up along with other non-traditional marriage arrangements to press the same argument and there is nothing you can do to argue against it.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do...especially when you're so amazingly wrong about it.

First, there's no argument that can be made regarding polygamy that qualifies as an already established middle or higher tier of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. So already, the level of difficulty on the part of the state to justify it's discrimination is lower than it would possibly be for Same Sex Marriage on the basis of gender.

Second, even when it comes to the issue of sexual orientation, there is FAR more case law pushing sexual orientation closer to a middle tier level of scrutiny then there is for pushing polygamists that direction.

Third, there are additional factors regarding polygamy that legitimately can impact the discussion that aren't present under the notion of Same Sex Marriage, instantly making it more difficult to compare the two as exact analogs. By having multiple people signing into a marriage contract you open up entirely new pitfalls into the law. Changing most marriage laws from a man and a woman to two people requires little but verbage change. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different when you start allowing people to get married to multiple people.

Tax law, inheretance, power of attorny, property rights, divorce law, child custody, etc all would not simply need a verbage change but a complete rewrite to account for this. This is an additional burdern onto the government that absolutely can be taken into account and is absolutely not present in the same sex marriage debate.

So one would need to argue for a less crucial state interest, and need show a lesser degree of importance to that interest in regards to the dsicrimination, when it comes to polygamy over same sex marriage. It wouldn't be hard at all to argue for one and not the other unless someone was arguing from a non-sensical and laughable emotionally laden point like "Everyone should marry who they love!".

For those that actually speak about things from the notion of constitutionality and the law...not from a stance of morality or emotions or religion...it's not difficult in the least to argue for one of those and against another.

once you redefine marriage into a generic definition of just people that love each other then everything else doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

True, but most SSM people don't use "people that love each other" as the foundation of their argument.

we are talking about peoples lifestyle choices. lifestyle choices are not a protected class like race and gender.
Click to expand...

One, we absolutely COULD be talking about Gender

Two, there's far more research and evidence towards sexual orientation not being a "lifestyle choice" then there is towards polygamy regardless of your PERSONAL opinion on the matter.
 

I think same-sex marriage bans fall under at least intermediate scrutiny because they are defining marriage as between a man and a woman - a gender-based distinction. While the intent is clearly to discriminate against homosexuals, the method chosen for that discrimination is through the use of gender-based distinctions. Some recent cases seem to hint at heightened scrutiny, but don't really state it outright.

edit: Some argue for strict scrutiny on the grounds that marriage has been called a "fundamental" right by SCOTUS, but I'm not sure I really buy that.

I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue. But then again, lots of things are constitutional until they aren't. While this type has traditionally been applied to treating women differently than men, I don't see any reason it shouldn't apply to any gender-based distinction.

Quite frankly I don't think same-sex marriage bans even meet a rational basis.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
yet these people will be making the same case.
Click to expand...

Let them. If they make the "Same" case they'll fail miserably, because there are aspects of the Same Sex Marriage case that isn't inherent WHAT SO EVER in the under-age marriage camp...and vise versa...that make each thing relatively unique. If they stupidly want to use the "same" case to make their argument then they'll fail.

i forget the name of the organization.
Click to expand...

Probably NAMBLA

i find no basis but that is not going to stop them from arguing it.
Click to expand...

And they're free to argue for it. Hell, if they feel strongly they should argue for it. That's our system. But I don't think they'll succeed, because the case law is weighed against them far more than it is for same sex marriage. We have case after case of judicial rulings that speak to the constitutionality of discriminating on the basis of age.

actually love is stupid to base a law on yet that is one of the number 1 arguments i hear.
Click to expand...

Then you have massively selective hearing. Just looking at this thread alone I'm seeing a multitude of arguments more than I'm seeing "Two people who love each other should be able to get married" as the primary justification. If that's the number 1 you hear, it's because you tune out any others.
 

Gotcha. That's my take on it as well

I'm aware that SCOTUS has not written anything that says it's a gender discrimination issue.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that as well...but SCOTUS has written that gender discrimination is of a middle teir.

My comments regarding SCOTUS not ruling yet was on whether or not sexual orientation would be "middle teir".

I think it's reasoanble to go "SCOTUS has ruled in the past that gender discrimination is middle teir....I can make an argument this is gender discrimination....thus it falls under middle teir".

I think it's a lot more questionable to go "SCOTUS has never ruled that sexual orientation is middle teir...but I think it is...and I think this is sexual orientation discrimination...thus it falls under middle teir."

I was trying to figure out which of those two thought processes you were going with. It appears its the first one. Which I particularly agree with, and explains why you used "important".

So thanks for clarifying
 

Actual most, if not all, of these cases rely on rational basis, not any heightened scrutiny.
 
Deuce said:
Read the virginia constitution. Literally the first thing.
Click to expand...

She is a Federal judge ruling on the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Exactly where does the Virginia Constitution have anything to do with her statement?

I'm just surprised she didn't also say that we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is also in the Constitution!
 
Is this yet another one of those threads that uber-cons confuse "natural" and "normal"? If so, I really don't wanna read.
 

This is where you go wrong. Judges have rules, and likely will continue to rule, that SSM bans fail even under Rational Basis Review. While the consensus among the judges ruling so far seems the be that Intermediate Scrutiny would apply since SSM is ultimately a question of gender, I know of no ruling yet that has stated that bans on SSM would pass Rational basis Review, and several have specifically said it would not. The judges who have ruled such have stated that the SSM bans are arbitrary, not based on a rational basis.
 

There is no law against pedophilia. There are laws against having sex with children since they cannot give informed consent. You might want to learn about the laws of this country, and also about logical fallacies and how to avoid making them.
 

Are you at all worried that this might accelerate a battle at the Supreme Court before the Court is ready to give such a sweeping ruling? In that event you'd calcify existing SSM bans forcing you to fight them one by one.
 

your above is a strawman.
a clear distortion of the argument.

if you support gay marriage but not polygamy then you are being just as a bigot as people that think marriage is between 1 man and 1 women.
which is the next step and the next argument in courts.

they are going to use the same arguments as gay couples are using.

i will leave the whole nambla thing out of it since that will fail no matter what. polygamists on the other hand have an argument to make and it is just as strong as gays.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes. gay couples have kids. who is the father or mother of the child and who is the one that supplies the child support etc...
all of these are causing a lot of issues. who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.
 
Red and Wolf. Thanks for that info. I'm still interested to see what SCOTUS rules on it, as ultimately they're the ones that are going to truly matter. That notion doesn't really change my feeling that ultimately I don't care too much about the various results of these lower court decisions becuase they're basically secondary to the only one that will have any meaningful impact.
 

Both parents are parents.
The one that pays alimony is the higher wage earner.

Just like in heterosexual marriages.
No laws need to be changed.
 
ludin said:
zyphlin
actually it is causing a lot of changes.
Click to expand...

Sure, it causes changes. However, I specifically spoke to changes of LAW. Let's see what you reference

who is the father or mother of the child
Click to expand...

Not really an issue of the Law but of definition within ones own family.

and who is the one that supplies the child support etc
Click to expand...

To my understanding, this is not something currently under the law that is determined singularly by "Whose the mother and whose the father". Both women and men can potentially have to pay child support depending on where custody lies. Not seeing a significant change or rework in the law here.

who pay the alimony in the marriage is the marriage fails.
Click to expand...

Again, under the current rules both the wife or the husband could end up having to pay alimony. As such, it'd still remain...either spouse could end up having to pay alimony. Are you under a misconception that only "husbands" pay it?

in any event yes there is in fact a lot of laws that have to be changed.
Click to expand...

Laws will have to be changed, but not to any significant impact and largely in superficial matters.

Take the Tax Law for example. The only significant change is allowing for two spouses rather than specifically husband/wife if it's written into law. Under a polygamous marriage though, an entire new subsection of laws would need to be written. Why's that you ask?

Person A marries Person B. Person B marries person C. Person A is not marrie to person C, however Person B is sharing income with both person A and person B. What income goes to which tax returns? Can Person C claim a child of Person A and Person B as a dependent since it's technically the chlid of the person they're married to? And I can go on and on.

How about spousal privledge with medical conditions. Person B in the above situation is in the hospital, incapacitated. Which spouse, A or C, has the right to make medical decisions?

The addition of additional individuals into the marriage contract creates a whole host of new issues and situations that are ENTIRELY non-existant in the two person dychotomy and must be account for. Where as with same sex marriage, the primary thing that has to be accounted for is simply VERBAGE.
 

I suspect that with great agony eventually the biological Mom or Dad will have preference in family court, however I do see a situation developing where it will be successfully argued that one of the non-bio parents will be the psychological parent of the child, and there's already been some precedent to back that up, juts not in a gay coupling case. In terms of the court there is no material difference between a psychological parent and that of a biological one. The courts are already moving in this direction, BUT oh boy I see a big USSC case on this issue looming. Secondly, child support is easy to figure out. They take both parents incomes, and depending on the number of children a percentage is decided, usually 25% for one kid 27% for two etc.. Then they pro rate the parent who does not have physical custody and that will be their payment each month out their gross pay, tax free to the other parent. Pretty sweet deal eh? Problem is, with two equally qualified parents, there will have to be shared physical custody, and that again will bring legal challenges to the courts, I guarantee it. Thirdly, maintenance is also an easy calculation, the working partner pays the non working partner usually for a period that is at least equal to how many years they have been married. Or, you give the house and alimony goes away.


Tim-
 

If I had to guess, I suspect, at least in the short run, SCOTUS will punt. Simply not accepting any of these cases, leaving intact the lower court rulings and the ability of the court to revisit it at another time. What I think we learned with Windsor and Hollingsworth is that SCOTUS did not really want to tackle the meat of the issue beyond reaffirming that the federal government has to recognize marriages performed by states(a states rights issue more than an SSM one).
 
Redress said:
If I had to guess, I suspect, at least in the short run, SCOTUS will punt. Simply not accepting any of these cases, leaving intact the lower court rulings and the ability of the court to revisit it at another time.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the SCOTUS put stays on actions in Utah (and now Virginia) where the laws were over turned, thus disallowing them from actively ALLOWING same sex marriages?

If my understanding of that is correct, I can't see SCOTUS punting. To me that says they very much plan to take up this issue and rather than having lower courts create a jumbled mess of situations as people try to fight the change/enforce the change they are simply saying "Stay with the status quo until we deal with this".

I don't see how they could do that, and then just sit on it and not take action.

Unless my understanding of the stays in places like Utah are off base, I have to imagine within the next year the SCOTUS will come down with a ruling on one of these cases that either clearly asserts that 1) same sex marriage is constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can't deem otherwise OR 2) Same sex marriage is not constitutionally protected under the US Constitution, so states can deme otherwise. I don't really see a third way to really go there.


And I agere there to a point. The problem is that both sides are grabbing Windsor and using it as a means of suggesting that the SCOTUS either are saying state laws ARE unconstitutional or saying that they aren't. I think they tried to go for a middle way (The federal government has to recognize it, but states can determine their own) and both sides basically said "NO DICE!" and the only real resolution is an either/or decision.
 

The judge herself who made the ruling in Virginia put the stay in place until the appeals court rules(cite: Federal Judge Rules Va. Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional | NBC4 Washington). Utah's stay did come from SCOTUS, but was until the Appeals court rules in the case(cite: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010614zr_2co3.pdf). So until the appeals court rules in each case, SCOTUS will not look at it.



Neither Windsor nor Hollingsworth ruled on the merits of SSM bans. While both for minor victories for SSM proponents, the preponderance of cases all with the same outcome on the merits of SSM are actually much more important. Judges are seemingly almost unanimous in that SSM bans fail even Rational Basis Review. This makes it more and more unlikely that SCOTUS will overrule them.

However, with 4 justices going to be retiring most likely soon(Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer...expect Ginsberg at the very least to retire while Obama is still president) the makeup of the court could very well change in the near future and that would leave things very interesting.
 
Paleocon said:
What about people who want to marry children? Why should pedophiles be treated as second class Citizens? Why do want pedophiles to die while on hold with 911?
Click to expand...

Lamest attempt at an arguement was never created when they came out with this. Getting married requires informed consent. Children are not old enough to make informed consent to anything, much less marriage.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lamest attempt at an arguement was never created when they came out with this. Getting married requires informed consent. Children are not old enough to make informed consent to anything, much less marriage.
Click to expand...

The marriageable age is based on existing legal tradition. A group like NAMBLA could argue that "it's been done this way" isn't a valid argument.
 
As a former Virginian, this is awesome. It's like watching domino's fall
 
Henrin said:
How many of us were actually thinking about politics twenty-five years ago?
Click to expand...

Considering I was arguing this subject in high school about 18 years ago, I'm willing to bet many were. In fact, DOMA was passed through Congress 20 years ago. Plenty of people on here who are older than I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…