• 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!

Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The general public does.

given your antipathy towards them, i think i will take that notion and discard it.

Exact at what point did I explicitly state that I was shoving my preferred policy down your throat?

that would be the point at which you declared your willingness to overthrow popular soveriegnty.

No, what I said was that I am suing for a violation of my rights.

you. do. not. have. a. right. to. have. the. state. issue. you. a. marriage. liscence.

My gay and lesbian brethren are suing for their right to marry because homophobes like you will not voluntarily respect that marriage is a fundamental right. THAT is what my LGBT brethren are doing.

:roll: yeah okay. you know nothing about me but i'm a homophobe because i think your reasoning is emotion-driven at best and foolish at worst.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer

Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.

That was only three sentences.
I really wish the opposition had the intelligence to distinguish between "Marriage Law" and "Marriage."

A gay male or female couple can get married in any State, in a Church or private ceremony; and in all likelihood they have preformed marriages in some form in all US States. It's intellectual dishonesty to claim otherwise or dance around the issue.

The issue is that State marriage, as an institution, is a series of Laws. The Constitution requires that the Laws themselves should be equal in regards to the People and the full protection and rights they are owed by the US Government.

The issue is that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. They are a form of Right-wing political activism to try to legally enforce a private belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. It's an attempt to Christianize the Law.

I hope bigots burn in hell. :peace
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer

Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.

That was only three sentences.

It would have been shorter had you simply said, "States don't ban gay marriage, they simply define marriage as between one man and one woman."
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer

Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.

That was only three sentences.

If it doesn't exist, then why is it such a hot topic?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
given your antipathy towards them, i think i will take that notion and discard it.
No, I can produce concrete examples of times when regular people whave claimed that homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down heterosexuals throats.

that would be the point at which you declared your willingness to overthrow popular soveriegnty.

you. do. not. have. a. right. to. have. the. state. issue. you. a. marriage. liscence.
Oh, is THAT where this whole miscommunication lies?

If that's the case, I don't suppose you could provide some citation that marriage is NOT a funamental right.

:roll: yeah okay. you know nothing about me but i'm a homophobe because i think your reasoning is emotion-driven at best and foolish at worst.
YOUR reasoning is religion-driven at best and closed-minded at worst!
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It would have been shorter had you simply said, "States don't ban gay marriage, they simply define marriage as between one man and one woman."
It's the same thing.

If I sue someone, do I get a lawyer, or do I get an attorney? It's all the same!
My next door neighbor, who's a professional commercial truck driver; does he drive a big rig, or does he drive an 18-wheeler? There is no difference!

A gay marriage ban IS a marriage definition exclusive to opposite-sex couples.

A = B
B = A

There is no difference AT ALL!
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I hope bigots burn in hell. :peace

:) ah, tolerance.



:lol: and people say that there is no way that the homosexual advocacy movement would ever push to force churches to accept them.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No, I can produce concrete examples of times when regular people whave claimed that homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down heterosexuals throats.

:shrug: then i would point out that they are putting it awkwardly; but that the claim certainly has a center of truth. we live in a representative society - to a good extent the state is 'us'. and you are definitely attempting to force the state to alter it's definition of marriage to the one that you prefer without getting that populations' permission.

that would be the point at which you declared your willingness to overthrow popular soveriegnty.

still waiting on this one to be answered.

Oh, is THAT where this whole miscommunication lies?

If that's the case, I don't suppose you could provide some citation that marriage is NOT a funamental right.

that you don't have a right to have the state issue you a marriage certificate?

rights are negative, not positive.

you could argue that the state doesn't have a right to keep you from saying that you are married, introducing your partner as your spouse, or having a ceremony... and there you would definitely be correct.

but you do not have the right to insist that everyone else alter their definition of marriage simply to suit your preferences.

YOUR reasoning is religion-driven at best and closed-minded at worst!

not really. but then, you never bothered to find out my reasoning before you accused me of hatred, did you :).
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A gay marriage ban IS a marriage definition exclusive to opposite-sex couples.

interesting. carrying on our further point, does that mean that your definition of marriage as "between two people who come together to make a household" constitutes a polygamous marriage ban and a geographically separated marriage ban? is your definition of marriage to be considered a cousin marriage ban?

the answer is simple; no because under your definition none of these things are marriages in the first place. you cannot ban what does not exist.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:shrug: then i would point out that they are putting it awkwardly; but that the claim certainly has a center of truth. we live in a representative society - to a good extent the state is 'us'. and you are definitely attempting to force the state to alter it's definition of marriage to the one that you prefer without getting that populations' permission.
Let me make this perfectly clear: When the basis of said "definition" serves no purpose but to discriminate against a group they perceive to be morally wrong, without any secular reasoning behind it, then the population's permission doesn't mean sh*t.

still waiting on this one to be answered.
And, at exactly which point did I demonstrate a willingness to overthrow popular sovereignty, as opposed to, the tyranny of the majority?

that you don't have a right to have the state issue you a marriage certificate?

rights are negative, not positive.
Natural rights are those that you're born with.

but you do not have the right to insist that everyone else alter their definition of marriage simply to suit your preferences.
Prove it.

not really. but then, you never bothered to find out my reasoning before you accused me of hatred, did you :).
What else could it POSSIBLY be based on?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
interesting. carrying on our further point, does that mean that your definition of marriage as "between two people who come together to make a household" constitutes a polygamous marriage ban
Yes. There is a secular reason to ban polygamy.

There is no secular reason to ban same-sex marriage.

and a geographically separated marriage ban?
Are you talking about two lovebirds who have never met each other in person, in the first place, or just a soldier away from his family overseas, or a pro athlete who is on the road, playing games?

is your definition of marriage to be considered a cousin marriage ban?
There is a secular reason to ban incest.

you cannot ban what does not exist.
Then, why are so many states banning it?
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let me make this perfectly clear: When the basis of said "definition" serves no purpose but to discriminate against a group they perceive to be morally wrong, without any secular reasoning behind it, then the population's permission doesn't mean sh*t.

in your opinion, however, you don't know the heart of any of those people; and frankly you don't have the right to illegalize thought, either. the people have the right to define marriage however they please, it is their country and their government.

And, at exactly which point did I demonstrate a willingness to overthrow popular sovereignty

at the point at which you stated that if the people did not agree with your definition of marraige, screw them, you were going to have it imposed anyway.

as opposed to, the tyranny of the majority?

there is no tyranny involved here, your action is in no way coerced. the only calls for coercion are coming from the minority party in this debate.

Natural rights are those that you're born with.

a point which in no way counters the fact that our Constitutional rights are negative, not positive. even the "Constitutional Scholar" and redistributor-in-chief President Obama says that.

Prove it.

you're the one claiming the right to overthrow the will of the people here; the onus is on you to prove that you do.

What else could it POSSIBLY be based on?

well you have no idea because you are acting like a narrow minded bigot who prefers to demonize his opposition rather than understand them. that you move to instantly accuse said opposition of the same mindset is an interesting case of projection; but that's ultimately neither here nor there.

now, if you want to drop such a stance and move into actual reasonable debate where it is assumed that both sides are coming to the table in good will and with thoughtfullness then that would be just dandy. it would be significantly more maturity than we have witnessed (and this is sad) from much of the homosexual advocacy movement to date.
 
Last edited:

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,730
Reaction score
37,834
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes. There is a secular reason to ban polygamy.

so? why the people choose to support what they do is immaterial; they are free to think whatever they want. part of that "first amendment" thingy. ;)


incidentally, i'm still waiting for you to respond to our earlier posts on incest and polygamy; when i pointed out that your own arguments (against incest for example) invalidated your stance.

Then, why are so many states banning it?

they're not; they are specifically making sure that they have defined marriage in accordance with the will of their citizens.
 
Last edited:

Travelsonic

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
1,390
Reaction score
328
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A gay marriage ban IS a marriage definition exclusive to opposite-sex couples.

A = B
B = A

There is no difference AT ALL!

If expressed in a circuit using XOR gates, that would be simple since it only outputs a 1 [in binary] when there is inequality. :D

/geek
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
in your opinion,
No, that's the policy of the United States Supreme Court.

however, you don't know the heart of any of those people; and frankly you don't have the right to illegalize thought, either.
I agree, there.

However, I DO have the right to illegalize actions.

There's a big difference between having a thought and acting on that thought. You can hate black people if you want; it's when you actually start denying them jobs and promotions BECAUSE they're black, that it becomes a problem.

You are committing the action of not allowing gays to get married, and that is a problem.

I could care less if you hate gay people. I really couldn't care less. But, when you act on that hatred and deny them such fundamental rights as a marriage license, then it becomes a problem.

the people have the right to define marriage however they please, it is their country and their government.
It's OUR country and OUR government, too!

At what point did homosexuals and their supporters become non-citizens?

at the point at which you stated that if the people did not agree with your definition of marraige, screw them, you were going to have it imposed anyway.
On a secular level, yes.

there is no tyranny involved here, your action is in no way coerced.
LGBT persons are coerced to remain unmarried.

the only calls for coercion are coming from the minority party in this debate.
How so?

a point which in no way counters the fact that our Constitutional rights are negative, not positive. even the "Constitutional Scholar" and redistributor-in-chief President Obama says that.
Ok, I'll admit that I was a bit confused on the terminology, there.

After looking it up, I still maintain that marriage is a fundamental right, and you have no business denying it to anyone.

you're the one claiming the right to overthrow the will of the people here;
When the will of the people violate the rights of a politically powerless minority, then yes.

the onus is on you to prove that you do.
It has already been proven. The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger has proven that marriage is a fundamental right. The case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management has proven that marriage is a fundamental right. The case of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.

It has already been proven.

well you have no idea because you are acting like a narrow minded bigot
I could say the same for the people who think that gays don't have the right to be married.

who prefers to demonize his opposition rather than understand them.
Have YOU attempted to understand ME?

that you move to instantly accuse said opposition of the same mindset is an interesting case of projection; but that's ultimately neither here nor there.
Then, why do you bring it up?

now, if you want to drop such a stance and move into actual reasonable debate where it is assumed that both sides are coming to the table in good will and with thoughtfullness then that would be just dandy. it would be significantly more maturity than we have witnessed (and this is sad) from much of the homosexual advocacy movement to date.
I would actually want YOU to do the same to me.

so? why the people choose to support what they do is immaterial;
No, it is very relevant. If the people oppose gay marriage, but the only reason for doing that is due to moral disappoval of gays, then the ban does not pass rational basis review.

they are free to think whatever they want. part of that "first amendment" thingy. ;)
Who said anything about thought? ANYTHING AT ALL?!

incidentally, i'm still waiting for you to respond to our earlier posts on incest and polygamy;
I've already responded.

when i pointed out that your own arguments (against incest for example) invalidated your stance.
How did you do that?

they're not; they are specifically making sure that they have defined marriage in accordance with the will of their citizens.
They are saying that gay people cannot be married. Gay marriage is when gay people get married, so, by denying them the right to marry, they are banning gay marriage!
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
906
Reaction score
183
Location
Maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
MAG; does it ever occur to you that the 'bigot' and 'idiot' language is perhaps a major reason why your movement is producing such backlash? you don't win respect from the American people by deriding them.
Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?

I actually wish that the gay rights movement would pay PR even less attention than it does now. We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?

I actually wish that the gay rights movement would pay PR even less attention than it does now. We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.

Thank you.

I only hope that you are serious about that, and not being sarcastic.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
:) ah, tolerance.
Yep, I tolerate bigots. I also find it ironic that they will go to hell. Same deal with the earily American Christians who burnt 'witches' at the stake.

Those Christians will be roasting in hell for murder and I find the irony delicious. You will too, someday. You know they used to burn homosexuals too, but they put them in with the kindling, which is called a "faggot." That's where you get the term "fag" from burning homosexuals in Christian rituals. It's all terribly hilarious to me.
and people say that there is no way that the homosexual advocacy movement would ever push to force churches to accept them.
A. Who says that?
B. Who gives a crap what the Churches think? This is about equality in the Law, not in religion.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thank you.

I only hope that you are serious about that, and not being sarcastic.

Dude, stop the equality argument and just give the Conservative argument against same sex marriage bans.

The Constitution is the law of the land. The state can only place restrictions on us as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Part of the Constitution is Due Process which says...

No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Marriage has to deal with life, liberty, and property, whether you regard it as a right or privilege.

Since the marriage restriction is based on sex, it has to pass the Middle Tier of scrutiny of due process which says...

The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

So it has nothing to do with discrimination or even equal protection, it is a violation of due process and an unnecessary infringement of the state into our lives.

In other words, just ask cpwill what interest the state has in restricting marriage to one man and one woman. If he can't provide such an interest then it doesn't matter if even 99% of the population voted for it, it is the state intruding into our private lives and thus a violation of our Constitutional right to due process.

That is why true conservatives want the government out of marriage altogether and why fake conservatives like cpwill want to use the state to enforce a moral view.
 
Last edited:

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Since the marriage restriction is based on sex, it has to pass the Middle Tier of scrutiny of due process which says...
And THAT is where you are wrong.

Historically, the level of judicial review applied to issues about gay rights at the federal level has been rational basis, the bottom tier of scrutiny.

Fortunately, that's all we need.

If he can't provide such an interest then it doesn't matter if even 99% of the population voted for it,
I disagree, there. If 99% of the population voted for it, there would be enough support to pass a federal amendment.

That is why true conservatives want the government out of marriage altogether and why fake conservatives like cpwill want to use the state to enforce a moral view.
Libertarians want the government out of marriage altogether.

"Conservatives," i.e. Republicans, are the very people who want to restrict secular marriage to opposite sex couples!
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And THAT is where you are wrong.

Historically, the level of judicial review applied to issues about gay rights at the federal level has been rational basis, the bottom tier of scrutiny.

Fortunately, that's all we need.

Um...no. I'm not talking about sexual orientation. I'm talking about gender. Not gay versus straight. I'm talking about man versus woman. The marriage ban laws are written to say, "marriage is defined as between one man and one woman". In other words, the law doesn't distinguish between sexual orientation, it distinguishes between sex. The Walker ruling came down to the conclusion that the state has no interest in mandating gender roles. In other words, the state cannot enforce an opposite sex definition of marriage without unnecessarily intruding in the lives of people who would want to marry someone of the same sex. Hence, why it has to pass the second tier of scrutiny. It doesn't even matter if those people are gay or not, the state has no rational interest by which to restrict marriage on the basis of sex, so it is Unconstitutional.

I disagree, there. If 99% of the population voted for it, there would be enough support to pass a federal amendment.

I was speaking of 99% of the population in California. Yes, if 99% of the population of the United States voted for it, then it would easily pass as a Constituional Amendment.
 
Last edited:

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Um...no. I'm not talking about sexual orientation. I'm talking about gender. Not gay versus straight. I'm talking about man versus woman. The marriage ban laws are written to say, "marriage is defined as between one man and one woman". In other words, the law doesn't distinguish between sexual orientation, it distinguishes between sex. The Walker ruling came down to the conclusion that the state has no interest in mandating gender roles. In other words, the state cannot enforce an opposite sex definition of marriage without unnecessarily intruding in the lives of people who would want to marry someone of the same sex. Hence, why it has to pass the second tier of scrutiny. It doesn't even matter if those people are gay or not, the state has no rational interest by which to restrict marriage on the basis of sex, so it is Unconstitutional.
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court has yet to agree with you, on that.

Then again, there's a chance that they may not even state the level of review that they will use. They failed to do so during Lawrence v. Texas. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that SCOTUS used intermediate scrutiny in that case, and that is binding precedent on the 9th Circuit district courts, but, outside the 9th Circuit, it is still fair game to be rational basis.

Furthermore, Judge Walker explicitly stated that he was using rational basis review. He merely stated that homosexuals would qualify for strict scrutiny, but that Proposition 8 failed to even pass rational basis review.

I was speaking of 99% of the population in California. Yes, if 99% of the population of the United States voted for it, then it would easily pass as a Constituional Amendment.
Then, why didn't you specify the exact population to which you were referring?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Then, why didn't you specify the exact population to which you were referring?

Well 99% of any state in general. I just had California in mind. I should have specified between states and federal.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court has yet to agree with you, on that.

Then again, there's a chance that they may not even state the level of review that they will use. They failed to do so during Lawrence v. Texas. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that SCOTUS used intermediate scrutiny in that case, and that is binding precedent on the 9th Circuit district courts, but, outside the 9th Circuit, it is still fair game to be rational basis.

Furthermore, Judge Walker explicitly stated that he was using rational basis review. He merely stated that homosexuals would qualify for strict scrutiny, but that Proposition 8 failed to even pass rational basis review.

The point I am trying to make is that a "government intrusion" argument has better legs than an "equal rights" argument. If people feel that gay rights advocates have forced gay marriage down their throats they are likely to be resistant towards accepting it, but if people feel that gay rights advocates have limited the state's interference in people's personal lives, then they will probably be more likely to embrace it.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The point I am trying to make is that a "government intrusion" argument has better legs than an "equal rights" argument.
I disagree. I believe that they both have equal legs.

If people feel that gay rights advocates have forced gay marriage down their throats they are likely to be resistant towards accepting it, but if people feel that gay rights advocates have limited the state's interference in people's personal lives, then they will probably be more likely to embrace it.
I thought I had made it clear: I don't give a sh*t if the people accept gay rights.

I think the majority of the people want the governhttp://images.debatepolitics.com/buttons/reply_40b.pngment to interfere in daily lives... as long as the interference itself is something that they support.

Marijuana
Intelligent design, taught alongside evolution in public schools

These are various things that interefere in peoples' personal lives. Those who advocate them do not disagree that they are "interfering," but they feel that they have good reason for interfering.
 
Top Bottom