• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]

WCH said:
We'd only have to look as far as California to say the same. Being the political climate is reversed from Texas....explain that.
Click to expand...

Drought is all they are facing. On balance, I would say the weather in California is 110% better than in Texas. Vermont is the most liberal state in the nation yet never faces a drought, tornado, or earth quake.

I was being tongue in cheek. Science explains your weather and natural disasters, not the sins of your citizenry. Texas could have the most God fearing and pious citizenry in the nation and you would still have extreme heat, drought, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Hawaii could turn into a modern day Sodom and would still have nice 80 degree weather every day year round. I just think its rather ironic that the most Christian states in the nation typically have the most natural disasters.
 
Is a discussion on whether acts considered to be immoral leading to ecological disaster really happening?
 
Political bigots in Texas leave very deep claw marks before they are forced to join the real world.
 
Deuce said:
Utah's case goes to the appeals court in April, making it essentially impossible to reach SCOTUS this session. Next session will start in October, through July of 2015. There's just too many cases now to ignore, I'm thinking that will be the session that ends this.
Click to expand...

I just posted an update in the equal rights thread and ill post one here too

there are only SEVEN states that don't have anything in the works for equal rights
and in two years we could have 42 states that has them :)

2/27/14 Version 6.0

22 States with Equal Rights (4 pending)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - Currently Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 2/14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 2/26/2014 (pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

20 States Working Towards Equal Rights

13 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
West Virginia
Wisconsin

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decision Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

4 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 42 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania

7 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 7

Indiana
Montana
Nebraska
Georgia
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming


#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
WCH said:
I suppose you and one other person makes a 'group'
:roll:
Click to expand...

translation:
no agent J i still dont have any facts to back up my post and claims

thanks we knew that let us know when it changes
 
CriticalThought said:
You mean the people who refuse to defend laws in their state constitutions that they believe violates the US Constitution? I think they know.
Click to expand...

Is there anything in your world that doesn't meet the equal protection clause in the Constitution? You can apply equal protection to just about anything you want for in your world there is no such thing as the will of the people or laws created by the people. What is rather frustrating is that no where in the Constitution is marriage or sexual orientation defined thus leaving it up to the states. The SC has not ruled against the states' rights to create their own laws as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. In no case has the SC defined marriage or ruled on the validity of the state definition of marriage thus leaving it to the states to decide.

The fact remains, with all the problems facing this country a very small vocal minority has made this issue their main priority and what they are going to do is force a definition of marriage into the Constitution and this being a nation founded upon Christian principles is going to force the people to react accordingly. I sincerely feel sorry for people who cannot accept civil unions or domestic partnerships but have to call attention to themselves and their sexual activity.

It is a sad state of affairs in a country with a 17.3 trillion dollar debt, over 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, record numbers dependent on the taxpayers for some kind of assistance from the taxpayers, stagnant GDP growth that this topic always gets maximum responses in this forum by people who apparently have nothing else to do or worry about.

When you destroy the rule of law, you destroy the foundation upon which this country was built. When you destroy the definition of marriage you destroy the states' rights to administer a state issue, and when you evoke the Equal Protection clause on an issue that doesn't even apply and let activist justices rule in your favor you take this country down a very slippery slope. What is next marriage of family members?

What this continues to show is liberalism to be the disease it is and one that is the biggest threat ever to this country today. When you liberals realize what you have done it will be too late to save it. Guess that goes to show exactly what the education system has created and why we have the govt. today that we have, one where you enforce the laws you want to enforce, get some activist judge to give you want you want, and destroy the moral and ethical fabric that made this country the greatest on the face of the earth. You activist liberals must be very proud of yourselves. I really fear for my grandkids if this is the major issue facing this country.
 
WCH said:
We'd only have to look as far as California to say the same. Being the political climate is reversed from Texas....explain that.
Click to expand...

My explanation is that God does not actually selectively apply weather based on the political leanings or "sins" of the local population.
 
Conservative said:
Is there anything in your world that doesn't meet the equal protection clause in the Constitution? You can apply equal protection to just about anything you want for in your world there is no such thing as the will of the people or laws created by the people. What is rather frustrating is that no where in the Constitution is marriage or sexual orientation defined thus leaving it up to the states. The SC has not ruled against the states' rights to create their own laws as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. In no case has the SC defined marriage or ruled on the validity of the state definition of marriage thus leaving it to the states to decide.
Click to expand...

Equal protection is not a blanket authority to do anything. And nobody is arguing that it is.

Gender is a protected classification. Equal protection applies. Don't like it? Try Saudi Arabia.

What is same sex marriage going to do to your poor grandchildren?
 
Deuce said:
Equal protection is not a blanket authority to do anything. And nobody is arguing that it is.

Gender is a protected classification. Equal protection applies. Don't like it? Try Saudi Arabia.

What is same sex marriage going to do to your poor grandchildren?
Click to expand...

Gender means man and woman, States have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have the same rights as I have, you don't like it, take it up with states and have the states change the law, many have. Stop going to the courts. If the people of TX support SSM then so be it. Texans don't like Courts ruling on something that doesn't exist in the Constitution
 
Conservative said:
Gender means man and woman, States have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. You have the same rights as I have, you don't like it, take it up with states and have the states change the law, many have. Stop going to the courts. If the people of TX support SSM then so be it. Texans don't like Courts ruling on something that doesn't exist in the Constitution
Click to expand...

Who decides the constitutionality?
 
Conservative said:
The SC and they haven't ruled on the definition of Marriage and have always sided with the states in allowing them to administer their own laws
Click to expand...

Before it gets to SCOTUS, where does it originate?

Bonus question: Are you familiar with the Windsor decision?
 
Paperview said:
Before it gets to SCOTUS, where does it originate?

Bonus question: Are you familiar with the Windsor decision?
Click to expand...

The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage allowing the states to do that. They have had numerous opportunities to do so and have declined. They have always been partial to the state decisions on their own laws and have remain loyal to that opinion allowing the number of states to pass SSM decisions. That is where this issue belongs and always has belonged, not in the courts. You tell me why it is so important to overturn centuries of common law and the basics of the Bible and Christianity starting with Genesis where Adam and Eve were created and a wife mentioned. What possible benefit could a SS Couple get out of the term marriage that they couldn't get out of a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership? Why do a small vocal minority deserve this much attention on an issue that isn't in the Constitution?

Don't give a damn about the Windsor Decision because it was a federal issue and involved federal benefits
 
Conservative said:
The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage allowing the states to do that. They have had numerous opportunities to do so and have declined. They have always been partial to the state decisions on their own laws and have remain loyal to that opinion allowing the number of states to pass SSM decisions. That is where this issue belongs and always has belonged, not in the courts. You tell me why it is so important to overturn centuries of common law and the basics of the Bible and Christianity starting with Genesis where Adam and Eve were created and a wife mentioned. What possible benefit could a SS Couple get out of the term marriage that they couldn't get out of a Civil Union or Domestic Partnership? Why do a small vocal minority deserve this much attention on an issue that isn't in the Constitution?
...
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question: Before it gets to SCOTUS, where does it originate?
 
Don't give a damn about the Windsor Decision because it was a federal issue and involved federal benefits
Click to expand...


You should. It's the decision that Scalia said in his dissent:

“The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

And whaddyaknow...it's exactly what's happening in a spate of Federal court decisions that have used Windsor as it's basis for declaring same-sex marriage bans to be Unconstitutional. Including the one yesterday, from Texas.
 
Paperview said:
You didn't answer my question: Before it gets to SCOTUS, where does it originate?
Click to expand...

You know exactly where it originates, with some malcontents who want attention and take the issue to court to get that attention
 
Conservative said:
You know exactly where it originates, with some malcontents who want attention and take the issue to court to get that attention
Click to expand...

Why are they wrong, and the malcontents who want attention and pass a bad law right?
 
Paperview said:
You should. It's the decision that Scalia said in his dissent:

“The majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

And whaddyaknow...it's exactly what's happening in a spate of Federal court decisions that have used Windsor as it's basis for declaring same-sex marriage bans to be Unconstitutional. Including the one yesterday, from Texas.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell me then why the SC has side stepped the definition of marriage in every case heard?
 
This article was written last month. Since then there have been even more Court decisions that have struck down state same-sex marriage bans:

"But Scalia was undeniably correct that Windsor would echo loudly in lower courts.

In the 6-1/2 months since the ruling came down, judges in Ohio, New Mexico, Utah and Oklahoma have struck down laws barring same-sex marriage or restricting the rights of gay and lesbian married couples, citing Windsor’s equal rights reasoning (among other precedent) in every opinion.

Though the Utah and Oklahoma rulings have been stayed for appeal and the Ohio injunction is also before a federal appellate court, these are hugely significant decisions.

<snip>

“We now have a holding in clear terms that any law that treats gay people differently is subject to heightened scrutiny,” said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who won the Windsor case at the Supreme Court. “That’s Game Over…. If Windsor was the Battle of Normandy, this decision is the liberation of Paris.”

Judges build on Supreme Court

It's a good read there, and somewhat technical, but my reading of it is Windsor went further than many people thought it did, and probably why the current justices feel they are on good ground with this.

The article ends with: "This is just what Justice Scalia was afraid of."
 
rocket88 said:
Why are they wrong, and the malcontents who want attention and pass a bad law right?
Click to expand...

It is the malcontents who aren't getting their way that call laws bad. Sounds like a bunch of spoiled kids not getting their way. There is absolutely no reason that a civil union or domestic partnership wouldn't suffice vs. overturning centuries of tradition and common law
 
You social cons have lost the battle.

Same sex marriage is happening, and it will be just a matter of time (and much shorter than even it's advocates could have imagined) before it is legal in all 50 states.

You're going to have to come to terms with that.
 
Conservative said:
The SC and they haven't ruled on the definition of Marriage and have always sided with the states in allowing them to administer their own laws
Click to expand...

Always? Loving V Virginia.
 
Paperview said:
You social cons have lost the battle.

Same sex marriage is happening, and it will be just a matter of time (and much shorter than even it's advocates could have imagined) before it is legal in all 50 states.

You're going to have to come to terms with that.
Click to expand...

No, actually is it the malcontents like you and other supporters of SSM that have lost, no presently but in the future as you destroy the very foundation of tradition, history, precedence, states' rights, and the rule of law. This law and people like you make laws meaningless and that is a foundation for chaos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom