• 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]

It is indeed a fundamental right to marry under the laws of the state. You are entitled to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you and to make anything more than that out of the ruling is wishful thinking on an issue that isn't really worth the effort other than malcontents throwing a tantrum.

What you fail to understand is that the right of marrigae is upheld by the constituonal rights of equal protection under the law... As It was in Loving.

One man one woman or interracial persons were not the issue, it was eqaul protection for all. The very same constitutional principles that upheld Loving are the same that will uphold SSM. Equal protection under the law.

I though Loving would be sufficient because you argued that marriage was not in the constitution.

Here , here's Widsor...

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved

Windsor v US
 
What you fail to understand is that the right of marrigae is upheld by the constituonal rights of equal protection under the law... As It was in Loving.

One man one woman or interracial persons were not the issue, it was eqaul protection for all. The very same constitutional principles that upheld Loving are the same that will uphold SSM. Equal protection under the law.
I though Loving would be sufficient becasue you argued that mareriage was not in the constitution.

Here , here's Widsor...



Windsor v US

And what you fail to understand is that marriage is a state issue and you aren't being denied the right to marry but you do so under state law. Loving vs. Va was about race not gender.

Amazing what passion some have for a title. The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage, why don't you ask yourself why?
 
And what you fail to understand is that marriage is a state issue and you aren't being denied the right to marry but you do so under state law. Loving vs. Va was about race not gender.

Amazing what passion some have for a title. The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage, why don't you ask yourself why?


Loving was not about race. If it was, what is the constitution racial principle that was used by the supreme court to overturn Virginia's racial ban? What race amendment was used in the reasoning? The 13th?
 
Last edited:
Loving was not about race. If it was, what is the constitution racial principle that was used by the supreme court to overturn Virginia's racial ban? What race amendment was used in the reasoning? The 13th?

That is your opinion the fact is two people wanted to get married under Va. law, one was black and the other white but both met the Va. law in that they were of the opposite sex. They were denied based upon race and that was the reason for the ruling.
 
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.

Hey, we rarely freeze our asses off.

Anyplace or anyone can have natural disasters but, the Lord will help you overcome.
 
My explanation is that God does not actually selectively apply weather based on the political leanings or "sins" of the local population.

Not that we would necessarily be aware of anyhow.

According to the Bible God has done some extreme damage to sinners. Tower of Babel, Sodom, Egypt, to name a few.
 
Good argument!
How bout we make it instead that no one can marry the *opposite sex* for the next 200 years, then see you not at all blow a gasket over this equality.
 
Last I checked in Loving vs. Va one was a man and the other was a woman. Had nothing to do with gender but everything to do with race. Such passion you people have for this issue. Sure glad to see your priorities are straight. High unemployment, no problem, high debt, no problem, low economic growth, no problem, but focus on those social issues and all will be well. You people are really screwed up

It is indeed a fundamental right to marry under the laws of the state. You are entitled to marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have you and to make anything more than that out of the ruling is wishful thinking on an issue that isn't really worth the effort other than malcontents throwing a tantrum.

That is your opinion the fact is two people wanted to get married under Va. law, one was black and the other white but both met the Va. law in that they were of the opposite sex. They were denied based upon race and that was the reason for the ruling.

And what you are failing to understand is that gender is also a protected classification.

Also, you mention economic issues and completely ignore DEAD TROOPS OVERSEAS. What's with your priorities, worrying about economic statistics instead of dead soldiers!? Oh wait. Is it that you think both of those things are important? That someone can actually believe two things are important? Wait. Children are dying of starvation in Africa. Literally dying children. Do you think that's worthwhile too? How about the environment? Major chemical spills, can we worry about those too?

The deflection to economic issues is the most blatant cop out I've ever seen. Don't even try to bring that weak **** up in here, son. It's a thread about same-sex marriage that you found important enough to make MANY posts in, don't try and act like you don't think this is an important issue too. If that were true, you wouldn't be here.
 
I doubt seriously he would consider a wedding cake their last hope.

So he wouldn't bake them a cake? Funny how there isn't a single righty here that will answer my question.
 
Again, you totally ignore the point, marriage isn't in the Constitution nor is sexual orientation and thus it is a state issue. States have allowed SSM but that isn't good enough for you, you want the courts to finish the job for you and that is absolutely wrong and why the SC hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage.

Again you don't understand how the Rights work... the Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT not citizens, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says any Right not listed in the Constitution first belongs to the States and only what they don't want is given to the People... :doh

No, Sir, States are trying to ban SSM, 'defend' hetro marriage, and deny basic rights based on sexual orientation. If the States were allowing Same Sex MARRIAGE the courts would not be involved!!!!

What 'finish the job'???? The JOB is declaring bans Unconstitutional. The bans being taken to the Supreme Court are in violation of the 14th amendment, sec 1.

FYI, I don't want the courts to finish the job for ME, I married a woman,thankuverimuch.

You keep saying the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage but produce no proof they were ever offered the opportunity and refused to do so.

But bet your bottom dollar THIS is how our system works, a law is passed and until someone takes the matter to court, it is the law of the land. If someone objects the law comes under judicial review. The Courts don't act proactively review laws a plaintiff must bring it to the attention of the court.

Soon the High Court will do it's job, not finish the job.
 
So he wouldn't bake them a cake? Funny how there isn't a single righty here that will answer my question.

He wouldn't bake them a cake because he was a carpenter and not a pastry chef. He'd gladly have made them a nice set of chairs for the dinner table, though. Pretty swell guy, that Jesus.
 
Our church operates a soup kitchen where we share all our blessings and we never turn anyone away. We also have cake!
 
This will certainly be good for Republicans in the coming elections.

many republicans believe in equal rights along with the majority of the country but thats just a bonus

opinions dont matter nor does party affiliation when it comes to equal rights, thats the best parts of rights and freedom
 
Again, you totally ignore the point, marriage isn't in the Constitution nor is sexual orientation and thus it is a state issue. States have allowed SSM but that isn't good enough for you, you want the courts to finish the job for you and that is absolutely wrong and why the SC hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage.

LMAO are you still trying to sell this failed strawman, every time you do posters destroy it and laugh at it

rape isn in the constitution either, guess states can make it legal
 
Wrong, a civil union can be whatever you want it to be as can a domestic partnership. Marriage is not an equal protection issue it is a state issue no matter how many times you state it. Exactly what benefits do married people have that cannot be provided in a civil union or domestic partnership

factually false this has been proven many times already but repeating this lie shows how severely

civil unions and domestic partnerships are factually not equal to marriage this fact will never change

there are about 1200 federal rights and protections alone and then the state ones many that cant be duplicated by one contract or multiple contracts



facts win again
 
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Hopefully you do not think you are quoting the constitution.;)
 
He wouldn't bake them a cake because he was a carpenter and not a pastry chef. He'd gladly have made them a nice set of chairs for the dinner table, though. Pretty swell guy, that Jesus.

Wish I could say the same about many of his flock.
 
factually false this has been proven many times already but repeating this lie shows how severely

civil unions and domestic partnerships are factually not equal to marriage this fact will never change

there are about 1200 federal rights and protections alone and then the state ones many that cant be duplicated by one contract or multiple contracts



facts win again

He will just keep trying to spin his way past the facts.
 
He will just keep trying to spin his way past the facts.

thats the fun part, nobody buys it.
this is why many posts and many posters have destroyed that false claim
 
Deuce;1062978003]And what you are failing to understand is that gender is also a protected classification.

Protected to do what, whatever you want? No, gender isn't a license to violate state law and Marriage is common law controlled by the states having nothing to do with gender

Also, you mention economic issues and completely ignore DEAD TROOPS OVERSEAS. What's with your priorities, worrying about economic statistics instead of dead soldiers!? Oh wait. Is it that you think both of those things are important? That someone can actually believe two things are important? Wait. Children are dying of starvation in Africa. Literally dying children. Do you think that's worthwhile too? How about the environment? Major chemical spills, can we worry about those too?

I could have given you a list as long as this thread and nothing on that list would have anything to do with SSM. There are so much more worthy issues than SSM but in this forum SSM gets the most posts and that is a shame. People's priorities are screwed up. Why is having the title of married so important to you and others SSM proponents

The deflection to economic issues is the most blatant cop out I've ever seen. Don't even try to bring that weak **** up in here, son. It's a thread about same-sex marriage that you found important enough to make MANY posts in, don't try and act like you don't think this is an important issue too. If that were true, you wouldn't be here.

It is priorities, son, and your focus on social issues says it all while ignoring that handling the economic issues will handle most social issues. It is important to a very small minority and one that in the total scope of things really is irrelevant. You want to define marriage the way you want then sell your state and stop having the courts try to do it for you
 
Again you don't understand how the Rights work... the Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT not citizens, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says any Right not listed in the Constitution first belongs to the States and only what they don't want is given to the People... :doh

No, Sir, States are trying to ban SSM, 'defend' hetro marriage, and deny basic rights based on sexual orientation. If the States were allowing Same Sex MARRIAGE the courts would not be involved!!!!

What 'finish the job'???? The JOB is declaring bans Unconstitutional. The bans being taken to the Supreme Court are in violation of the 14th amendment, sec 1.

FYI, I don't want the courts to finish the job for ME, I married a woman,thankuverimuch.

You keep saying the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage but produce no proof they were ever offered the opportunity and refused to do so.

But bet your bottom dollar THIS is how our system works, a law is passed and until someone takes the matter to court, it is the law of the land. If someone objects the law comes under judicial review. The Courts don't act proactively review laws a plaintiff must bring it to the attention of the court.

Soon the High Court will do it's job, not finish the job.

No apparently they didn't teach you history in your school. If it isn't in the Constitution it becomes a state issue if the states enact the laws which they have. You talk about limited govt but now want the Federal Govt. to overturn state law all because it is important to you.

States defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. You want that changed then let the people of the state decide. You live in Oklahoma, that isn't going to happen so you trump up some bogus argument about equal protection for something that isn't in the Constitution.

If you married a woman then why is this such an issue for you? The high court had its chances over and over again so you better stick with the states
 
LMAO are you still trying to sell this failed strawman, every time you do posters destroy it and laugh at it

rape isn in the constitution either, guess states can make it legal


There are laws against rape and that is what states and local communities do, make laws. Only in the liberal world do you only enforce or support the laws you believe in. "Your" AG told State Attorney Generals not to enforce laws they didn't agree with. Is that the country you want to live in and the one that was created?
 
factually false this has been proven many times already but repeating this lie shows how severely

civil unions and domestic partnerships are factually not equal to marriage this fact will never change

there are about 1200 federal rights and protections alone and then the state ones many that cant be duplicated by one contract or multiple contracts



facts win again

Facts? you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. A Civil union can be defined as whatever you want, your problem is you want to ignore that reality and not go through the work of defining a civil union. Instead you want to overturn centuries of precedence and common law.
 
There are laws against rape and that is what states and local communities do, make laws. Only in the liberal world do you only enforce or support the laws you believe in. "Your" AG told State Attorney Generals not to enforce laws they didn't agree with. Is that the country you want to live in and the one that was created?

LOL so states can allow rape? thank you for this post because it just helps prove us all right, thank you so much

i cant wait to tell people that states can allow rape whenever they want
 
Back
Top Bottom