Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Loving v. Virginia

PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:49:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As some of you may be aware in Loving v. Virgina the SCOTUS ruled that Virgina's law baring the marriage between a mixed race couple violated the equal protection clause of the United States constitution and in the court's decision it is written that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Do you think that this legal precedent give leverage to those in favor of a judicial ruling abolishing the prohibition of gay marriage?
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 1:57:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:50:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
What clause of the constitution is in question?

Whether or not the prohibition of gay marriage violates the equal protection clause as the legal precedent set by Loving v. Virgina dictates that marriage is a civil right in the U.S.
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:00:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:57:17 PM, PalinFan wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:50:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
What clause of the constitution is in question?

Whether or not the prohibition of gay marriage violates the equal protection clause as the legal precedent set by Loving v. Virgina dictates that marriage is a civil right in the U.S.

I meant the clause that makes said action unconstitutional.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 2:00:58 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:57:17 PM, PalinFan wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:50:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
What clause of the constitution is in question?

Whether or not the prohibition of gay marriage violates the equal protection clause as the legal precedent set by Loving v. Virgina dictates that marriage is a civil right in the U.S.

I meant the clause that makes said action unconstitutional.

The Equal Protection clause.
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:07:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:49:22 PM, PalinFan wrote:
As some of you may be aware in Loving v. Virgina the SCOTUS ruled that Virgina's law baring the marriage between a mixed race couple violated the equal protection clause of the United States constitution and in the court's decision it is written that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Do you think that this legal precedent give leverage to those in favor of a judicial ruling abolishing the prohibition of gay marriage?

Seems to me like the federal government should legalize any type of marriage between two consensual adults.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:12:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Genuinely not sure if the equal protection clause can be applied to same sex couples. It should still be legal, regardless of whether or not banning it can be considered constitutional.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:17:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
XIV Amendment: Equal Protection Clause - "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."

Marriage is an inalienable right as defined by the constitution? I don't think so, the judge was a fool. The clause is dependant on law, and the law dependant of the clause, foolish circular logic. The axioms deem each other to both be self-evident.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 2:19:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A de facto symbolic (religious) marriage/civil partnership is a right, a marriage with legal entailments is not a right.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2010 4:32:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I thought this topic was about something else...
o.O;
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
BellumQuodPacis
Posts: 1,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2010 5:54:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 4:32:39 PM, tvellalott wrote:
I thought this topic was about something else...
o.O;

The original thread on the DDO forum said "Loving V Virgina" With no second I. So immediately thought, "Fap material." But I was wrong.
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 3:21:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, that should hold for same-sex marriage too. More generally, I find it laughable that people on the right scream about government intrusion into private affairs but are fine with restricting this most intimate of institutions on the basis of "tradition" or equally poor grounds. It is none of my business who you do it with where consenting adults are involved, and if you call it "married", partnered, etc. I don't think we should legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, do what the capitalist right loves-privatize the institution. It's already the most private thing as I said. Of course to do that we'd have to change society as a whole, so...Let's get on that while we're at it.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 3:22:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, that should hold for same-sex marriage too. More generally, I find it laughable that people on the right scream about government intrusion into private affairs but are fine with restricting this most intimate of institutions on the basis of "tradition" or equally poor grounds. It is none of my business who you do it with where consenting adults are involved, and if you call it "married", partnered, etc. I don't think we should legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, do what the capitalist right loves-privatize the institution. It's already the most private thing as I said. Of course to do that we'd have to change society as a whole, so...Let's get on that while we're at it.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 6:26:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/8/2010 1:49:22 PM, PalinFan wrote:
As some of you may be aware in Loving v. Virgina the SCOTUS ruled that Virgina's law baring the marriage between a mixed race couple violated the equal protection clause of the United States constitution and in the court's decision it is written that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Do you think that this legal precedent give leverage to those in favor of a judicial ruling abolishing the prohibition of gay marriage?

Yes.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2010 6:32:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/17/2010 6:26:22 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 9/8/2010 1:49:22 PM, PalinFan wrote:
As some of you may be aware in Loving v. Virgina the SCOTUS ruled that Virgina's law baring the marriage between a mixed race couple violated the equal protection clause of the United States constitution and in the court's decision it is written that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Do you think that this legal precedent give leverage to those in favor of a judicial ruling abolishing the prohibition of gay marriage?

Yes.

It will be set precedent for the ruling in restricting States from making it illegal.