• 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!

Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

R

RepublicanMcDuc

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
453
Reaction score
192
Location
no longer posting
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One side is going to be very butt hurt depending on how this goes down.
 
Gay marriage should have been legal years ago. I think those against gay marriage would have an arguement if they gave up the 1400 government hand outs gay couples are denied! The great thing is gay marriage by the end of the year. equal rights for all
 
I'm very excited, specifically to see the various arguments used by both sides. That said, I have almost no doubt as to the outcome. The ruling in Loving v Virginia will apply, and SSM will have to treated the same as any other marriage, much the same way the court ruled with regards to interracial marriage. Either way, the fight will be very entertaining.
 
I'm hoping they go a different route and lay the groundwork for the state to be removed from marriage altogether.
 

I doubt it. Loving involved discrimination based only on race which took a constituional amendment to enforce, this involves "choice" or "preference". At what point does "preference" become an overriding factor to state law? If something is not mentioned in the constitution as a federal power, then it is rightly left to the states. If I prefer to drink in a bar on sunday, marry two people or to gamble in a casino does that make it a right? If one state allows or condones something then must all others?
 
This case will be as much decided by legal skill as the actual circumstances of the case. The plaintiffs legal counsel are the lawyers from both sides of recount case with Bush and Gore, the defendants collapsed like a wet paper bag. Walker also wrote his legal ruling anticipating that it might go before the supreme court; he specifically cited cases ruled on by the current justices.
 

DOMA is discrimination based on gender.
 
Fascinating. We are going to see just how far the equal protection clause reaches. The battle lines are drawn. Frankly I can't think of a cogent argument why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. The arguments from the conservative side so far appear weak and archaic.

Of course Scalia and Thomas are knee jerk idiots so they will uphold DOMA regardless of the merits. But I think the rest of the Justices will have an open mind on this.
 

The issue will be that even without strict scrutiny does DOMA violate the equal protection clause, so Loving isn't going to matter much. I think it does. We'll see.
 
I think gay rights will likely win. But in somewhat abstract less than absolute language.
 
winston53660 said:
DOMA is discrimination based on gender.
Click to expand...

DOMA is unconstitutional, because it violates states rights. It is not discrimination to define a contract between one man and one woman. This has existed for centuries. It is no more discrimination to deny GLBT "marriages" than to offer them, it is simply a matter of state contract law. Why is not having SSM contracts any more discriminatory than not having polygamy contracts?
 

This logic would apply if sexuality were a conscious choice. Convince me that you choose to be straight and attracted to women.
 
head of joaquin said:
The issue will be that even without strict scrutiny does DOMA violate the equal protection clause, so Loving isn't going to matter much. I think it does. We'll see.
Click to expand...

DOMA does not violate equal protection, it violates the 10th amendment. Marriage is not a federal power, these are state contract law issues.
 
It is interesting that the court chose to hear US V Windser instead of the 2 DOMA cases from Massachusetts. Kagan would have had to recuse herself in the 2 Mass. cases, but can sit on Windser. I think that might be a big clue as to likely outcome. DOMA is almost certainly DOA, with a states rights argument appealing to conservative justices. The Prop 8 case is more up in the air, but the most likely ruling would bne against prop 8.

Edit: The Windsor case only will look at Section 3 of DOMA. This is the wording of that:

 
Will interesting to see if try argue based on discrimination towards homosexuals or on gender.

My personal hope is that they go the latter, as its a more simple constitutional case and less controversial as it does not require elevating sexual preference to a higher tier of scrutiny under the EPC
 
tessaesque said:
This logic would apply if sexuality were a conscious choice. Convince me that you choose to be straight and attracted to women.
Click to expand...

Convince me that prefering to have two (or more) wives is not equally as strong a desire.
 
DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts a state's right to legalize SSM. SSM is a state issue and hopefully the court will respect the rights of states that have defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not discrimination to define a contract between one man and one woman.
Click to expand...

The contract is based on gender.

This has existed for centuries.
Click to expand...

And women were treated like chattel for centuries and limited in various rights because of their gender.

It is no more discrimination to deny GLBT "marriages" than to offer them, it is simply a matter of state contract law. Why is not having SSM contracts any more discriminatory than not having polygamy contracts?
Click to expand...

When the SCOTUS gets a case involving polygamy we should diswcuss it. In the mean time the case being presented deals with DOMA and prop 8
 

Two problems here.

1) Loving will be used mostly or solely because it determined that marriage is a right. That is it's whole reason for being important.

2) Homosexuality is probably not a "choice" or "preference" based on best available research to date.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
DOMA does not violate equal protection, it violates the 10th amendment. Marriage is not a federal power, these are state contract law issues.
Click to expand...

The amount that you get wrong on this forum about American law is staggering. Of the four clauses in this post, all of them are wrong. Okay, one is half right. But it is wrong in spirit.

1) DOMA does violate equal protection, and equal protection will be used to strike it down. 2) This issue has nothing to do with the 10th amendment, and as I keep having to explain to people, the 10th amendment does not actually bar the federal government from doing anything. 3) Marriage is not a power. It is, however, a federally protected civil right. 4) Marriage is not covered under contract law. Family law is its own special body.

Seriously, learn something true about the US system of law before you make these pronouncements.



What would be so bad about that?
 
digsbe said:
DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts a state's right to legalize SSM. SSM is a state issue and hopefully the court will respect the rights of states that have defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue that point, since the regime sued Arizona over their immigration law.

The most unfortunate part of this, is that even a supreme court decision won't put it to rest.
 
I say let em' have it, they might as well suffer like the rest of us...
 
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…