• 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!

Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex[W:141]

Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Listen dick, I have not mentioned churches/straight couples, that's your domain...

another failed insult, emotions run high when people cant support their posts

this is just more proof you cant back up the lies you posted

also please define what a religious institution is? is a church not one?

Yes women should be able to be women and men, men. Now if you believe this, you would have to acknowledge that religious institutions do not need to provide services to anyone that go against their beliefs...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

another failed insult, emotions run high when people cant support their posts

this is just more proof you cant back up the lies you posted

also please define what a religious institution is? is a church not one?

My posts stand as is, as do yours. The difference is that mine are more entertaining...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Gawd, you're so dumb...

translation: you got nothing

again when you are ready to stay on topic and be civil all you have to do is support your claims with links and or facts.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

translation: you got nothing

again when you are ready to stay on topic and be civil all you have to do is support your claims with links and or facts.

Shoo fly...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

My posts stand as is, as do yours. The difference is that mine are more entertaining...

translation: your post failed and churches are in fact religious institutes :shrug:

i agree 100% your posts are VERY entertaining
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Shoo fly...

so states can or can not violate individual rights and should have to be subject to not violating them?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

State laws should not not be subject to federal judicial review...

They should when they violate the US Constitution.

Or is it ok for a state to ban guns completely?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

translation: your post failed and churches are in fact religious institutes :shrug:

i agree 100% your posts are VERY entertaining

Institutions, not institutes. Now, translate yourself into oblivion, and do not attempt to translate my posts...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Just like Roe v Wade . . . it'll never end.

I think the consensus on SSM is already much broader than for abortion, and it seems to be only increasing as time goes on.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Institutions, not institutes. Now, translate yourself into oblivion, and do not attempt to translate my posts...
its cute you think this defleciton would fool anybody
that changes nothing lol

Yes women should be able to be women and men, men. Now if you believe this, you would have to acknowledge that religious institutions do not need to provide services to anyone that go against their beliefs...

again i ask what is a religious institution? is a church not one?
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

They should when they violate the US Constitution.

Or is it ok for a state to ban guns completely?

Under original jurisdiction, the States were not subject to the Constitution. They were allowed to govern themselves...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

They should when they violate the US Constitution.

DING DING DING

100% correct
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Under original jurisdiction, the States were not subject to the Constitution. They were allowed to govern themselves...

Under original jurisdiction you could also own a person. DONT CARE.

Equal protection is equal protection. I've described to you the legal situation.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Under original jurisdiction you could also own a person. DONT CARE.

Equal protection is equal protection. I've described to you the legal situation.

No, you haven't explained your position at all. You have been too focused on mine...
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Under original jurisdiction you could also own a person. DONT CARE.

Equal protection is equal protection. I've described to you the legal situation.

Not only that its meanignless to the discussion at hand
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Moderator's Warning:
Baiting / posts about other posters rather than the OP are likely to earn you points or thread bans. Tread carefully.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

No, you haven't explained your position at all. You have been too focused on mine...

Gender based classification requires an important state interest be served by the law in a manner substantially related to that interest.

Proponents of SSM bans have failed to meet this test.

Therefore, SSM bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Gender based classification requires an important state interest be served by the law in a manner substantially related to that interest.

Proponents of SSM bans have failed to meet this test.

Therefore, SSM bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

and thats exactly what this trial and the texas one seems they are going for, seems they are going to fight solely on the 14 which should be interesting!

many cases have been decided on equal rights and equality but none directly mention the 14th.

Although like i said already ill be shocked if any court that is not SCOTUS directly refers to the 14th in their ruling.

Most others have generally referred to equal rights, equality, unfair or illegal discrimination and or referred to STATE constitutions side stepping a direct 14th ruling.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Four individual states. And numerous legislatures.
AFTER the federal courts overturned their original will. But nice try.
There was no federal court case in the states that saw states approve SSCM at the general election ballot box (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington).



>>>>
Yep, all FOUR of them, out of fifty. Math not your strong suit?


My math is fine.

YOU said that the ballot in those four states were won because of FEDERAL courts overturning the will of the people. The fact that there was NO federal case and NO federal court action in those states is what I was addressing. You made the claim and you were incorrect.


>>>>
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

Just like Roe v Wade . . . it'll never end.

SSM is closer to Interracial marriage. Yes, it's over, the anti-SSM just can't admit it yet.
 
Re: Judge says he'll try to rule by early January on challenge to Utah's same-sex mar

He's not the one obsessed who starts daily threads on the subject covering the same ground over and over again. Look for the source of the whine elsewhere.

The anti-SSM crowd are making the big deal. If it doesn't matter, just make it legal. Oh yeah, that's right, the anti-SSM DOES think its a big deal.
 
Back
Top Bottom