I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Troianii, May 20, 2014.

  1. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a Constitutional right. This isn't a matter of whether it should be, or whether it should be read that way, but whether SCOTUS will determine that it is one. This debate will not be decided by outcome of SCOTUS decision ( that may take a good while), but based on how convincing the arguments laid by yourself and myself are. We should pick 3 or 5 forum members with objectiveness/impartiality to decide the outcome of our debate, based on how convincing the arguments alone are. This is an early request to the judges to judge the debate based on the debate, not on your personal views.

    In my argument, I will use the Constitution and previous court cases, particularly U.S. v. Windsor. I will argue that the court will not establish gay marriage as a Constitutional right (at least not if it hears the case in the near future - I can't argue based on Justices who aren't on the court).
     
  2. TastyWheat

    TastyWheat New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it's any of their business to even hear such a case, but if they do the Equal Protection clause will be their linchpin. I don't know the specifics of how the federal government treats same-sex marriages, but if they do allow joint filing of taxes and or inheritance of social security benefits then states without same-sex marriage are denying those couples "protection" from over-taxation and financial "protection" for surviving spouses. I don't think it's a hard argument for the more liberal/progressive judges to make, but as usual it will probably come down to the swing votes.
     
  3. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Which, if you look closely at US v. Windsor, the decision rested on states rights, as the federal policy in DOMA was held to violate - directly or indirectly - states rights. It held that the government has no real position in defining marriage. I don't know how you can take that to mean that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, unless you take the questionable died Scott approach. In that hated decision, the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a slave or free state, because a citizen from a slave state who brings his slave over the border doesn't lose his property rights when stepping over the border. In essence: slavery anywhere, slavery everywhere. That's the only way I can see scotus coming up with a legitimate decision supporting gay marriage national.

    EDIT: to add, there is this political junkie misunderstanding of supreme court decisions, that you can simply divide the decisions based on political lines and see which way the wind is going. It's very mistaken, because it ignores the logic the decisions rest upon. I wish political junkies would take a closer look.
     
  4. Imperius

    Imperius New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The 14th Amendment is all encompassing. It is very rudimentary to think that if government makes a law, it should apply equally. I am a Christian, and I do not condone gay marriage. But as someone who studies the law, the law should be applied equally and fairly. My rights are no more superior to a gay's as a gay's are to mine. States passed bans on gay marriage and judges are striking a similar tone, unconstitutional, because all law should be applied equally... which includes our tax code and whatnot. Replace a homosexual with a black man pre-1964, you'll see the same argument can be made.

    The Supreme will establish it is a right, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
     
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no need for the SCOTUS to deal with this issue and so they likely will not. It seems to be playing out on the state level already....and doing so in favor of individual rights. The fed has already made it clear they are in support, and the country is following suit.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  6. smevins

    smevins New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As someone who studies law, you should take a look at Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877) and then take a look at where that issue is today in relation to said ruling....
     
  7. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Strawman. There is no need for the SCOTUS to establish such a specific "right". The Supreme Court only need consent to the position that state marriage laws must not be discriminatory.

    It doesn't appear as if any of the states really want to bring this issue before the SCOTUS. Might as well not, because they'll only lose the case if they do. Better PR to simply quit, rather than to lose.
     
  8. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is the "debate" forum. I opened a challenge for a formal debate. Doing so is not a straw man. Please pay attention to where you're posting
     
  9. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Scotus has never operated on what you or it feel is "needed". It's operated on the letter of the law (few bs cases aside)
     
  10. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't think anyone has ever attempted to make that argument and I certainly won't

    What will occur, in my opinion, is the SCOTUS will be put in a situation where they have to decide whether or not you can bar a person from engaging in a state sanctioned contract based on gender alone and if precedence tells us anything they're going to strike down bans on that restriction, if it get that far.

    Seems extremely clear if we look at the text of the EPC of the 14th ammendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    If it weren't a state sanctioned arrangement then persons can be excluded, but since it is there's no way the highest court can side with gender based discrimination.
     
  11. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You are free to debate strawmen to your heart's content. I never said that making a top post was a strawman. It is your contention that the Supreme Court must establish a "constitutional right to gay marriage" that is a strawman argument.

    Oh well... At least it's easy to win a strawman argument, even if it proves nothing.
     
  12. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So why don't you accept the challenge if you're so confident?
     
  13. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ok, you don't know what a strawman is and I'm only glad to help. A strawman is when you deliberately mischarecterize another person's argument.

    I didn't mischarecterize anyone's argument, I issued an open challenge to debate that issue. I didn't just make it up, people believe it - as shown by at least one respondent here.

    Now you know what a straw man argument is. Oddly enough, your last post was one. ;)
     
  14. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You're mistaken. A strawman is a false premise.
     
  15. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, many people make that argument. At least one respondent in this thread has already held that SCOTUS will. And I assure you that your interpretation of the EPC is inaccurate (at least in that I personally don't hold it tenable and, more importantly, SCOTUS doesn't). If you wish to instead argue that the EPC guarantees the right of gay marriage (which is the argument I was referring to from the beginning), then you may do that. It makes no difference to me, since that was what I was originally talking about.
     
  16. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Okay. That's not how it's used on the forum, or defined by Merriam Webster, Wikipedia, Oxford Dictionaries, dictionary.com etc. etc., but that's okay. You use your own little definition, just don't expect anyone else to take it seriously when you have no grounding in it beyond "because I said so".

    And so, by your own personal definition, your last post was a strawman. :D
     
  17. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    A scarecrow is also a strawman.
    [​IMG]
    In debate, creating a strawman means to set up a poor argument that can be easily disproven.

    It is easy for you to win the argument that the SCOTUS will not "establish a right of gay marriage". The SCOTUS will not be asked to do that in order to uphold marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is a false premise, and it therefore amounts to creating a rhetorical strawman to knock down.

    Have fun knocking it down.
     
  18. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So where is the discrimination? ANY man can marry a woman. ANY woman can marry a man. Marriage equality has always been. Just because some people don't like what marriage is (a man marrying a woman), and therefore do not choose to participate, does not make it discriminatory.
     
  19. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I frankly don't intend to debate on what the Supreme Court will do, because I think it is a waste of time.

    But I do think that considering the weight of Federal Court decisions that the Supreme Court will now have to face the issue and make a decision.

    Even though I believe that the federal judges are right, I am not confident that the Supreme Court will agree. The key justices will be Roberts and Kennedy- everyone else's position is fairly predictable.

    We will see. First of all, we have to see some to the Appellate stage.

    - - - Updated - - -

    And before Loving v Virgina, Any man could marry a woman. And any woman could marry a man.

    Just so long as the man and the woman were not different races.
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,178
    Likes Received:
    62,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the majority of judges were put their by republicans, I do not think you will see this anytime soon, but you will see them refuse to address the issue

    - - - Updated - - -

    just like in the old days

    "So where is the discrimination? ANY White man can marry a White woman. ANY Black woman can marry a Black man. Marriage equality has always been. Just because some people don't like what marriage is (a same race man marrying a same race woman), and therefore do not choose to participate, does not make it discriminatory"
     
  21. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Who nominated the justices makes little difference. That's just shorthand for political junkies who haven't studied the court. A close reading of past cases is all that is necessary.

    What I find most surprising is when a bunch of ppeople try to use district court decisions to predict how SCOTUS will decide. Now that's just silly.
     
  22. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I agree that kennedy and roberts are the Q's, but oddly I'm actually more sure that Kennedy will go right in it. If you look closely at his decision in Windsor, he held that the federal gov. Violated states rights with DOMA, the state right being to define marriage parameters.
     
  23. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,826
    Likes Received:
    1,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Don't you guys ever get tired of trying to leach legitimacy from a movement that never wanted anything to do with you? It's sad and telling that you cannot stand on your own merits without hiding behind the blacks every single time. Tell you what, just as soon as gay becomes a race, then those court cases will become relevant. If they do become relevant, however, then so will the concept of "separate but equal is not equal". In this case, however, you would find yourselves on the side of the segregationists, trying to have a parallel, "equal" culture, while my side is trying to integrate you into the mainstream to achieve true equality.
     
  24. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not a question of superiority, only of ability. Nobody thinks the blind should be given the right to pilot airliners, but I guarantee a blind person will pilot a 777 before ever a man marries another man.

    And how in Hell a professing Christian doesn't get this I dunno, but it's surely a disgrace.

    All kinds of patently idiotic arguments can be made for anything. So what?
     
  25. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not going to predict the plays before the game. I think Roberts and Kennedy could go either way- and part of what likely will influence especially Roberts is which way the country is leaning.
     

Share This Page