• 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!

Indiana won't recognize same-sex marriages

CRUE CAB said:
Oh, now its interracial marriage. The SSM issue cant stand on its own so you coat tail it on other issues. Proof its meritless.
Click to expand...

No it's comparison. But hey, those against interracial marriage are looked down upon, so eventually will those that are against SSM. You are in good group there LOL.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Weren't they issued because a judge stepped in and halted the law?

If this is an indication of anything it's probably an indication that legislating from the bench is a really, really bad idea.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I've since come to understand. That a Federal judge stepped in. However, the governor, if he was going to step in, in my opinion, should have done so before any licenses were issued. It's not like this litigation was a surprise. The governor knew it was going on and knew a decision was imminent.

It is very unfair, in my opinion, that people who were issued a license and got married now find out they aren't. IOW, the governor should have immediately acted to stop issuance of marriage licenses to these people.
 
Navy Pride said:
The worm turns.

By CHARLES D. WILSON 41 minutes ago












INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana won't recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages that were performed before a federal court halted a lower-court's decision to lift the state's gay marriage ban, the governor's office said Wednesday.



Indiana won't recognize same-sex marriages
Click to expand...

*shrug* It's only a matter of time. The fight for SSM is over and advocates of SSM have won decisively. These are just rearguard actions. What's more you know it too, this is just something that allows you a fleeting opportunity to gloat before it too is struck down.
 
TheNextEra said:
No it's comparison. But hey, those against interracial marriage are looked down upon, so eventually will those that are against SSM. You are in good group there LOL.
Click to expand...

So you cant make the point for your issue, yet you can do what you can to try to insult and minimize other posters that disagree with you. Nice fail on your part.
 
Jerry said:
I made my previous post while already knowing everything you just said.
Click to expand...

so you forgot that when you posted....because that is not how you addressed it.

You wrote this:
They reserve the right to do that with every other kind of license they issue.....business license, liquor license, to practice law, to appraise realestate, to drive......I don't see why the marriage license should be any different; it's not like you have to brake up if your license is voided.
Click to expand...

So here is the thing....the license was issued and used in a legal and appropriate manner. (The weddings were conducted and that is what the license is allowing). Once done you can't make the legally issued license null and void and retroactively then say the wedding wasn't legal. To go to your examples:

Business license--yes you can revoke it because the business is still active....what you can't do is revoke it and say that all business conducted under the legal license in the past is no longer valid.

Liquor license--same thing. A liquor license is active and let's say you sell for 5 years....then it is revoked. You stop selling....you can't get charged with bootlegging for those 5 years.

Practice Law--again...same thing. Prior to the license going invalid for ANY REASON the cases do not have to be retried.

Should I go on?

The license for weddings were used and the nature of them is that they are a one shot deal. Like a liquor license you might buy to sell wine at a fund raiser. Once used up it is no longer usable but anything that happened while it was valid is still legal. Pence is playing fast and loose with his authority and he will pay for it in the long run. I already see that happening within his own party.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So you cant make the point for your issue, yet you can do what you can to try to insult and minimize other posters that disagree with you. Nice fail on your part.
Click to expand...

It's a statement of fact. Eventually those who oppose SSM will be viewed in the same light as those who opposed interracial marriage. The social stigma for being an opponent of SSM grows day by day and it will eventually become completely unacceptable.
 
Sherman123 said:
It's a statement of fact. Eventually those who oppose SSM will be viewed in the same light as those who opposed interracial marriage. The social stigma for being an opponent of SSM grows day by day and it will eventually become completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Yea, I feel very stigmatized. Really, its unbearable.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, I feel very stigmatized. Really, its unbearable.
Click to expand...

*shrug* If you prefer to be sarcastic by all means continue. But you know it's true just as well as I do. It's a growing stigma borne about by a shifting culture. Soon people who hold those views will be more vigorously stigmatized until eventually it just isn't tolerated in mainstream culture or politics.
 
Jerry said:
If the 'CON' is capital then that's an acronym, each letter representing a different word. So if you meant "Social Conservative" you would have typed "SoCon", not "SoCON". Since you didn't type "SoCon" you therefore didn't mean "Social Conservative", and so we're left to guess what in the world you're talking about. You're illiteracy works against you.
Click to expand...

I was about to ask if he owned a globe. Since Indiana is not in the south.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Just keep trying to catch up to the civil rights train. Its done past years ago.
Click to expand...

Nope. Unfortunately, America is still trying to catch up. I know that people such as yourself hate to see the granting of civil rights, but just like the bigots before you couldn't stop the train....it continues to roll. Sorry.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So you cant make the point for your issue, yet you can do what you can to try to insult and minimize other posters that disagree with you. Nice fail on your part.
Click to expand...

The point has already been made many times over that your side ignores. There is no state interest in denying SSM.
 
disneydude said:
Nope. Unfortunately, America is still trying to catch up. I know that people such as yourself hate to see the granting of civil rights, but just like the bigots before you couldn't stop the train....it continues to roll. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Maybe ya'll can instead of being more states can be you own country.
 
Sherman123 said:
*shrug* If you prefer to be sarcastic by all means continue. But you know it's true just as well as I do. It's a growing stigma borne about by a shifting culture. Soon people who hold those views will be more vigorously stigmatized until eventually it just isn't tolerated in mainstream culture or politics.
Click to expand...


Yeah sort of like those who said that those who oppose abortion (RE: Roe v Wade) will one day become dinosaurs. How's that working out for ya'll? ;)

Consider that IF homosexuality is inborn or biological, the very mechanisms that manifest into homosexual behavior could also be the very same mechanisms that cause people to shun and oppose it. I know, a little deeper thought on the subject, but it is hump day.. :)


Tim-
 
Slyfox696 said:
Umm...here?
Click to expand...

Not quite - I simply provided my assessment, based on experience and observation, of how conservatives and liberals approach government policy. That in no way generalizes who liberals are, as individuals - it simply speaks to the form their groupspeak takes on any given issue.

You're free to dispute any of the points I made, if you can.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Maybe ya'll can instead of being more states can be you own country.
Click to expand...

Nope. The bigots are just going to have to learn to live with freedom and equality in America. If they don't like it, it is they who can choose to live somewhere where freedom and equality are not valued.
 
disneydude said:
Nope. The bigots are just going to have to learn to live with freedom and equality in America. If they don't like it, it is they who can choose to live somewhere where freedom and equality are not valued.
Click to expand...

SSM is not about "equality". Never has been never will be.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, that's what I've since come to understand. That a Federal judge stepped in. However, the governor, if he was going to step in, in my opinion, should have done so before any licenses were issued. It's not like this litigation was a surprise. The governor knew it was going on and knew a decision was imminent.

It is very unfair, in my opinion, that people who were issued a license and got married now find out they aren't. IOW, the governor should have immediately acted to stop issuance of marriage licenses to these people.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Governor could have prevented them from getting a marriage license. That's pretty much the whole point in the U.S. district court's ruling.

I don't think it's unfair either. I mean they only gained the "right" to marry because an activist judge stepped in and basically declared they had that right. Anyone with half a brain had to know that wasn't going to last. It took all of two days for a higher court to stay that decision. Again, legislating from the bench is a terrible idea. It's also a terrible idea for executive level politicians to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. We're going down a very slippery slope with all of this selectively enforced stuff.
 
disneydude said:
Nope. The bigots are just going to have to learn to live with freedom and equality in America. If they don't like it, it is they who can choose to live somewhere where freedom and equality are not valued.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, is it possible for someone to hold a different opinion than you without you calling them a bigot of some variety?

It's getting pretty old.

I know, I know. This post proves I'm a bigot. :roll:
 
shavingcollywob said:
In all seriousness, is it possible for someone to hold a different opinion than you without you calling them a bigot of some variety?

It's getting pretty old.

I know, I know. This post proves I'm a bigot. :roll:
Click to expand...

There are a lot of people that hold different opinions that are not bigots. However, in this context the person clearly is a bigot. Plain and simple....and no, I wouldn't say your post proves that you are bigoted, because you haven't said anything bigoted.
 
shavingcollywob said:
I don't think the Governor could have prevented them from getting a marriage license. That's pretty much the whole point in the U.S. district court's ruling.

I don't think it's unfair either. I mean they only gained the "right" to marry because an activist judge stepped in and basically declared they had that right. Anyone with half a brain had to know that wasn't going to last. It took all of two days for a higher court to stay that decision. Again, legislating from the bench is a terrible idea. It's also a terrible idea for executive level politicians to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. We're going down a very slippery slope with all of this selectively enforced stuff.
Click to expand...

Well, I must say several posts (yours included) have given me pause to reconsider. I agree with you re that slippery slope, by the way.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, I must say several posts (yours included) have given me pause to reconsider. I agree with you re that slippery slope, by the way.
Click to expand...

I'm not even against gay marriage but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. The end result is people who are married on one day but not married the next.

I live in New York City where borough DAs have begun announcing which laws they will and will not enforce. It's incredible that in Brooklyn smoking pot is de facto legal while in Queens it is not, despite the exact same law. Again, I'm not even against pot but this is the wrong way to go about it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not quite - I simply provided my assessment, based on experience and observation, of how conservatives and liberals approach government policy.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't. You made a blanket statement about "liberals", without ever qualifying which ones or how many.

I'm not a liberal, I honestly don't care what people think of them, but the fact is you generalized about all of them in your statement. It's just a fact.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, you didn't. You made a blanket statement about "liberals", without ever qualifying which ones or how many.

I'm not a liberal, I honestly don't care what people think of them, but the fact is you generalized about all of them in your statement. It's just a fact.
Click to expand...

If you don't care, then I hardly see any value in responding to your misinterpretation of my views. I generally don't comment on things I don't care about. You might want to take up the approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom