Society/Culture Marriage equality debate - Part 1

[Lebbo73]

Reported for abuse.

Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?

 

[CM86]

Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?

Nope, I'm not a fan of discrimination.

I reported you again for harassment.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Obama spoke against gay marriage before he was elected then did a u-turn once he got into office. I suspect this issue is not yet over in the USA. Many blacks and hispanics would have voted for Obama just because he is "black", or many would not have bothered to vote at all. But there's a large religious contingent amongst those groups that might vote based on the gay marriage issue.

I doubt Obama gives a s**t he can't run for president a third time yanks use the party to get elected, they don't care about what happens to it afterwards.

 

[Lester Burnham]

There've been split decisions come out of the Supreme Court since time immemorial. You're not the first to get the grumps with a decision, and you won't be the last, I'd invite you to cast you're critical eye over every single one of them, and give me your view on each of them, and how they act as examples of the will of the people being overridden.

I would be opposed to every decision by the Supreme Court that makes law as opposed to interpreting the law.

Only a handful of states in the US have legalised gay marriage by government policy. Most of the states that have legalised gay marriage have had that decision decided by various courts. Now we see a decision by one unelected judge that overrides the will of two thirds of the states.

 

[Gough]

In every case there is a plaintiff, and a respondent, and they are bringing a pre existing law, or amendment in this case, to be adjudicated by the court. Their honours didn't just sit down over coffee and decide, you know what, let's let NTTAWWTs get married for the lols.

 

[CM86]

Did you report cartwright? Or are you a fan of discrimination?

I got your PM.
I haven't reported you... I'm just winding you up.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I would be opposed to every decision by the Supreme Court that makes law as opposed to interpreting the law.

Only a handful of states in the US have legalised gay marriage by government policy. Most of the states that have legalised gay marriage have had that decision decided by various courts. Now we see a decision by one unelected judge that overrides the will of two thirds of the states.

The SCOTUS didn't make law, They ruled on the legality of laws based on their interpretation of the US constitution. EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

like it or not, legislators are bound by and must follow the constitution. No legislator as an absolute right to pass laws, part of being a representative democracy means that legislators have restrictions on what they can and can not do. those restrictions ensure that democracy is not infringed by those legislators. they can only pass laws that fall within there limited power.

and no countless judges did not rule against it, All SCOTUS did was reinforce the original district courts ruling which said they weren't legal, The only court that ruled in favour of the states was appeals court said they could not overturn the legislation on the grounds that a district court could not make that decision, they may have worded it with fancy talk but that was the decision. The head judge also recommend the plaintiffs takes the case to SCOTUS for it to be decided. SCOTUS found the law unconstitutional by majority not one vote by majority the same way all court cases are decided.

SCOTUS has always done this from gun laws to abortion to euthanasia. it is why the court exists. they did not over turn the will of two thirds of the states, they protected the american people from having their individual rights stripped by the legislators, Abusing the position they were entrusted with.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The 'founding fathers' set up a system that thwarted not only wannabe Kings, but numerical majorities (the will of the people).

They were no democrats.

 

[Gough]

I'm prepared to be corrected but I think, more people approve the legislation of weed, than disapprove of the legislation of gay marriage in this country.

 

[camsmith]

You quoted Scalia.

The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.

If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.

Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.

I have already said that matters of racism and abortion are different.

 

[camsmith]

One of these statements is bullshit.

I'm sorry is it too hard for you to understand? I can support something on principle but not agree with how it has been implemented.

 

[Gough]

I'm finding it odd that nobody is opposed to gay marriage anymore, but a lot of people who had previously shown no interest in the comings, and goings of the SCOTUS are suddenly concerning themselves with judicial activism.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I have already said that matters of racism and abortion are different.

Your appeal to state's rights is an advocacy of segregation and apartheid.

 

[camsmith]

even if you think that it doesn't change the ruling, the ruling was two parts not just the right for someone to get married but due process. Part of due process means that no legislation can discriminate against an individual.

you brought up relo's and marriage in another post. But you miss the point, Incest is crime, in the US marriage has with it an expectation of sexual relations occurring between the couple. In fact refusal to engage in sexual activity of any kind can be grounds for divorce in many states. Hence it becomes a completely different argument. Because if the state grants a marriage licence to siblings it questions the validity of those incest laws and several arguments can be brought.

Marriage between siblings is banned because of incest laws. (or at least that is what would be argued) in this case due process is afforded these couples in relation to marriage. Its that it affects existing laws. Now whether your for or against brothers sisters having a shag on a sunday afternoon its another matter entirely, the fact is as long as you can't **** a member of your family you can't marry them, same as you can't **** and hence can't marry dogs and 12 years olds.

Gays however, sodomy is no longer on the books, there is no question about homosexual relations being legal in US. And this leads us to due process, gays are committing no crime, by shagging each other, no crime by living together, no crime by pooling there wealth together, no crime by raising kids together. this is the modern definition of marriage.

and this is where the due process comes into play. The State must afford the same due process to everyone, everyone must be bound with the same rules. and this applies with all laws right across the park. including marriage, If homosexuality was illegal you would have a point. but you don't the US was founded on individual rights as well as state rights, one of the restrictions on the state is due process. Unless the state can provide a valid LEGAL reason why they need to prevent gays specifically from tying the knot you're infringing on that due process.

Pedo's, sistershaggers and horserooters are all s**t out of luck because their relationships are seen as criminal.

Appreciate the thought out post. You make a good point regarding the cases of incest etc.. (not sure if that logic extends to polygamy however?).

The issue really is:

"due process means that no legislation can discriminate against an individual"

That is pretty wide-ranging given the 14th Amendment was made in relation to African American rights following the civil war. It gets back to both the issue whether same-sex marriage is a "right" and therefore transcends state law and therefore whether states can enforce their own social policies especially in the area of marriage which has always been an issue for states.

If as Justice Samuel Alito says and this is basically a "new right" drawn somewhere from the constitution then it's manifestly wrong to be decided (or created) by the SCOTUS and not the legislative body.

Aside from this, it will be interested how this extends to issues such as concealed carry or "religious liberty".

 

[camsmith]

So what did you think about the ACT having same sex marriage then having it removed?

Did that court not point out that the ACT's Marriage Act did not line up with the Federal Marriage Act and the (federal) Marriage Act needs to be amended for same-sex marriage to be legal? The court just cited the law which is exactly what they're there to do.

Obviously it's a bit different here in terms of states and especially territories and their jurisdiction.

 

[camsmith]

You quoted Scalia.

The judicial branch is not completely divorced from elective democracy. It is President's, afterall, who select nominees and a committee of Congress people who then send it to the Senate.

If it were up the will of the majority in Southern states, blacks may still be in officially segregated schools, miscegenation laws may still be in place, and women may not have control of their bodies.

Your appeal to States Rights is advocacy for racism and apartheid.

Much of the American political apparatus is designed to thwart the will of the majority. Restriction of the franchise, electoral college, undemocratic election of the Senate prior to the 1910s etc etc.

Pretending that the US is set up as a direct democracy is wrong.

Most of your type only blow the clarion call of states rights when you want blacks kept in place.

You need to take tips from Sydney Bloods how to post without tired allegations of racism.

Your appeal to state's rights is an advocacy of segregation and apartheid.

Was going to let the above two posts slide. Third one however is one too far..

 

[ManWithNoName]

I think "debate" is misleading. I see no need for a debate. There are no rational reasons against it.

 

[camsmith]

I think "debate" is misleading. I see no need for a debate. There are no rational reasons against it.

Even if this was true regarding same-sex marriage. Do you don't see a debate surrounding the power of the Supreme Court/State rights etc..?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Even if this was true regarding same-sex marriage. Do you don't see a debate surrounding the power of the Supreme Court/State rights etc..?

a) There is no "Even if it was true". It is true.
b) Yes. But I fail to see why that debate shouldn't have it's own thread.

 

[camsmith]

I'm prepared to be corrected but I think, more people approve the legislation of weed, than disapprove of the legislation of gay marriage in this country.

Probably.

And the death penalty.

 

[CM86]

Did that court not point out that the ACT's Marriage Act did not line up with the Federal Marriage Act and the (federal) Marriage Act needs to be amended for same-sex marriage to be legal? The court just cited the law which is exactly what they're there to do.

Obviously it's a bit different here in terms of states and especially territories and their jurisdiction.

I thought it might grab your interest a bit more, as it's here in Australia. The majority supported it in the state/territory , it was implemented democratically, and then it was removed by an unelected official.

So there are two situations.
One is from here in Australia, where the right for homosexual marriage was taken away. vs
One in America, where the right for homosexual marriage has been implemented.

I don't know why, we in Australia, are kicking up more of a stink about what has happened in America, compared to what happened to us in Australia.
Other than the fact that one is for homosexual marriage, the other is against.

 

[camsmith]

a) There is no "Even if it was true". It is true.
b) Yes. But I fail to see why that debate shouldn't have it's own thread.

That's pretty closed minded. There are many valid points made by those against same-sex marriage. Even if I support it, I can see the arguments against it.

Implementation of same-sex marriage is entirely relevant.

 

[ManWithNoName]

That's pretty closed minded. There are many valid points made by those against same-sex marriage. Even if I support it, I can see the arguments against it.

Implementation of same-sex marriage is entirely relevant.

Such as?

And yes, but it has no relevance to the matter of if marriage equality should be legalised or not. That's a debate surrounding courts and laws and procedures. Not whether equality is a good thing or not.

 

[camsmith]

I thought it might grab your interest a bit more, as it's here in Australia. The majority supported it in the state/territory , it was implemented democratically, and then it was removed by an unelected official.

So there are two situations.
One is from here in Australia, where the right for homosexual marriage was taken away. vs
One in America, where the right for homosexual marriage has been implemented.

I don't know why, we in Australia, are kicking up more of a stink about what has happened in America, compared to what happened to us in Australia.
Other than the fact that one is for homosexual marriage, the other is against.

It's tough comparing the two. Australian federalism is quite different to American federalism.

I would say the court upheld the law in Australia while it created one, or interpreted it quite differently, in the US. Here the High Court made it clear that only the Federal Government is able to make changes to the Marriage Act, so their hands were tied as that is 100% correct. The court wasn't stopping same-sex marriage as such, as much as it was saying the ACT doesn't have the authority to create their own marriage ACT. This is where we differ from the US and while it may not be perfect, the High Court still to the best of my knowledge regards this as a legislative issue.

 

[camsmith]

Such as?

And yes, but it has no relevance to the matter of if marriage equality should be legalised or not. That's a debate surrounding courts and laws and procedures. Not whether equality is a good thing or not.

Amongst 86 pages in this thread im sure there a quite a few valid points made.

You may not agree with them, but they are still valid. I could just say Richmond is the best team and there simply isn't any debate to be had. Doesn't make it so.