• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]


Wrong, a civil union can be whatever you want it to be as can a domestic partnership. Marriage is not an equal protection issue it is a state issue no matter how many times you state it. Exactly what benefits do married people have that cannot be provided in a civil union or domestic partnership
 
Paperview said:
Ah, so you're against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Well alrighty then.
Click to expand...

What part of stupidity don't you understand. A private business owner should be allowed to be stupid and lose their business because of that stupidity.
 
Paperview said:
BTW: Heads up: The AZ law was vetoed.

Too bad. So sad.
Click to expand...

No person who believes in free enterprise and capitalism should ever deny another business person's right to be stupid and lose their business. You seem to not understand that concept
 

Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

  • Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
  • Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
  • Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
  • Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
  • ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
  • Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
  • Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
  • Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
  • The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. LINK
I suspect you knew this though.
 

This will certainly be good for Republicans in the coming elections.
 

Wrong, the federal government does not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. If the federal government does not recognize them then they do not get those 1100+ benefits and legal protections that go with marriage. That is not equal protection of the law.
 

Of course I knew that and also know that it is as easy as changing the law in Congress to grant those rights to a civil union but no, you want to overturn centuries of common law and tradition and the question is why?
 

Sounds like an easy solution to me vs. what you are doing
 
Conservative said:
Never really understood why people like you would openly support stupidity. Let these dumbasses go out of business
Click to expand...

100 years of segregating them and denying them equal rights - after slavery --, and decades and decades of Jim Crow laws shouted they would have just gone out of business. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.


So what if people are denied equal protection, amirite? Let that invisible hand of the free market work it's magic.

lol You people crackle me up.
 


Again, you miss the point, why would you support by spending your money in a location that didn't want you as a customer? You people are the ones cracking me up. Anyone that discriminates should lose their business because of stupidity and losing business yet you prop them up by forcing customers into their business. That makes absolutely no sense
 

I'd be fine with calling it a civil union if we did that for all marriages. Otherwise it's "seperate but equal" which is unconstitutional.

So I wonder if you felt the same way about the legal challenge to Obamacare - malcontents who did get their way?
 
Conservative said:
Sounds like an easy solution to me vs. what you are doing
Click to expand...

Changing every law concerning marriage to include civil unions is easier that removing the gender restriction?

Seriously? There are thousands of laws that are related to marriage and the benefits and protections of marriage. There is one gender restriction per state. Are you claiming that changing 27+/- laws is more difficult than changing THOUSANDS of laws and all government forms that pertain to marital status?
 

You people are really brainwashed, marriage isn't in the Constitution no matter how many times you say it. As for Obamacare, that is a personal choice issue that shouldn't be handled by the Federal Govt. either and should be a state issue. You big govt. liberals are all alike
 

Marriage is common law, not a civil rights issue. There are a lot of common law issues so tell me what is next on the spoiled child list to overturn?
 

They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
 

Equal protection is, no matter how much you wish otherwise.

It's a gender-based distinction to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Therefore it is subject to challenge under equal protection, thus forcing the state to justify that distinction. You can whine about it all you want, but this is how equal protection works in this country and there's a century of case law backing me up.
 
Last edited:

Separate but equal is unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court at least. This was a state law, which was challenged. Texas does have to follow the Constitution, I'm sorry if you don't like it.

You're calling me brainwashed? You're the one who likes court challenges when you don't like the law, but if you do it's "malcontents not getting their way." Keep drinking that red Kool Aid.
 
Deuce said:
They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
Click to expand...

Well that was different because, you know, it just was.
 
Deuce said:
They said that about interracial marriage bans. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

Rejected.
Click to expand...

Last I checked in Loving vs. Va one was a man and the other was a woman. Had nothing to do with gender but everything to do with race. Such passion you people have for this issue. Sure glad to see your priorities are straight. High unemployment, no problem, high debt, no problem, low economic growth, no problem, but focus on those social issues and all will be well. You people are really screwed up
 

Except when it comes to common law and state issues. you don't like the law change it in the states, quit looking to the courts to do the work for you.
 

Marriage is a fundament right that predates the US constitution. Just as the right to self defense does also. Those are right held by the people for eons prior to 1787.

Marriage is a quarenteed rights upheld countless times in American Jurisprudence precent. The Spreme court in Loving v Virginia ruling made marriage a right protected by the US Constitution.


That is pretty clear marriage is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:

It is indeed a fundamental right to marry under the laws of the state. You are entitled to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you and to make anything more than that out of the ruling is wishful thinking on an issue that isn't really worth the effort other than malcontents throwing a tantrum.
 
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…