• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
If it is a state, by state issue as has been ruled, then how does 1 unelected judge overturn a ballot issue that has been decided.
Click to expand...


1. Where was it ruled that it was a State-by-State issue? What was the name of the case? (And it don't says Windsor because that is not what Windsor said.)


2. Sorry it wasn't "1 unelected judge", there were the different district court judges, then there were the panels of Circuit Courts of appeals judges, then there were the the Justices of the United States Supreme court.



>>>>
 
TheNextEra said:
Again, we still have protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. States do not have the right to have established bans that are unconstitutional. Just because a state makes a constitutional amendment to allow raping women, that doesn't make it consitutional or legal.
Click to expand...

But that is not what we are talking about!
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
See this is why I think you will see a trend toward succession, give us the northeast Michigan included, the southwest except California we ill take the southeast and you can have the middle of the country, aw screw it we will give you California and New Mexico that is it percentage wise it should work out.
Click to expand...

Sucession over SSM? Gimme a break. You wish.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
But that is not what we are talking about!
Click to expand...


That fact that States can't remove the privileges and immunities from a group of citizens nor deny them due process and equal protection under the laws? Ya, that is what is being talked about.



>>>>
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
I asked you a question!
Click to expand...

I don't feel like answering a question that's been asked and answered forty times in every ssm thread going back ten years. And besides, ssm will be the law of the land, I support it and clearly I'm going to get it. I can afford to be horribly lazy. You on the other hand are upset by ssm, so it's up to you to read the thread and figure it out yourself.
 
WorldWatcher said:
1. Where was it ruled that it was a State-by-State issue? What was the name of the case? (And it don't says Windsor because that is not what Windsor said.)


2. Sorry it wasn't "1 unelected judge", there were the different district court judges, then there were the panels of Circuit Courts of appeals judges, then there were the the Justices of the United States Supreme court.



>>>>
Click to expand...

The justices didn't take up the case on appeal, leaving it up to the states, they didn't rule in favor. And yes the very liberal 9th circus court of assholes did rule against the states which should be illegal as states had ballot referendums. The people voted against, so the only recourse was to go to queer liberal judges. So a panel of what 5 6 judges vot3d in favor of the queers and tried to help democrats
 
CriticalThought said:
US Constitution is the will of the people.
Click to expand...

It really is not. It is our founding and organizing document that can be changed by the will of the People, but the link to the People was broken when we allowed the SCOTUS to reinterpret it to suit. Now, it is the will of the nine robed.

State constitutions could be considered the will of the People.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
The justices didn't take up the case on appeal, leaving it up to the states, they didn't rule in favor.
Click to expand...

What??????????

The Justices let stand the rulings of the 10th, 7th, and 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals which OVERTURN State bans.

That is not a "ruling" in favor of States being able to ban Civil Marriage based on gender.


SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
And yes the very liberal 9th circus court of assholes did rule against the states which should be illegal as states had ballot referendums. The people voted against, so the only recourse was to go to queer liberal judges. So a panel of what 5 6 judges vot3d in favor of the queers and tried to help democrats
Click to expand...

The cases were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts. None of the cases rejected Monday was from the 9th Circuit.

None of the dozen or so Judges (District or Appeals) was queer.

The judges represented a mixture of "liberal" and "conservative" judges appointed by both Democrat and Republican Presidents. Judges such as Posner, long considered to be a conservative judge in the 7th Circuit court and appointed by Ronald Reagan.




>>>>
 
Anthony60 said:
Well then, that's were we differ, I see no Constitutional authority for the Feds to get involved.
Click to expand...

are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
The justices didn't take up the case on appeal, leaving it up to the states, they didn't rule in favor. And yes the very liberal 9th circus court of assholes did rule against the states which should be illegal as states had ballot referendums. The people voted against, so the only recourse was to go to queer liberal judges. So a panel of what 5 6 judges vot3d in favor of the queers and tried to help democrats
Click to expand...

Um, no, you are wrong. This dismissal means that every circuit court to date has overturned state bans. The states had their ban overturned, that's not leaving it to the states.
 
Deuce said:
are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
Click to expand...

Under the 13th, yes they did.
 
chromium said:
Stonewall, Matthew Shephard, "mental illness"/APA, DADT, "DOMA", reparative "therapy", excommunication, expulsion, fired, eviction, harassment of all kinds, blackmail, ostracism.
Click to expand...

A single incomplete sentence blurting out a bunch of buzzwords is not a rational argument. But it is just the kind of "debate" I've come to expect on this subject.

Yes, even today in most states, it's totally legal to fire or deny housing based on sexuality.
Click to expand...

If so, I'm glad to hear it. Because I believe any private person has a right to refuse to hire or do business with anyone, for any reason, I am against public accommodations laws. I don't question the authority of a state to make a law like that, within the limits of the Constitution, but I don't believe anything in the Constitution authorizes Congress to prohibit discrimination, of any kind, by private persons.

If it's up to you, there would be no progress ever because for that, you need to start by acknowledging there's a problem, which you refuse.
Click to expand...

No one is preventing homosexuals from using the democratic process to try to change laws and policies to suit their preferences. But a lot of us strongly object to federal courts issuing diktats and concocting constitutional "rights." No result is so noble and wonderful that it justifies arbitrary, unlawful actions by government.

The marriage struggle itself is no different from interracial marriage bans, except actually it's even worse, since to my knowledge people can be attracted to their own race.
Click to expand...

The argument based on Loving v. Virginia seems to have caught the imagination of the promoters of the homosexual agenda. I've seen it quite a few times, here and elsewhere, and I think it's very lame. The criminal statutes the Lovings had been convicted of violating were flagrantly unconstitutional, as the Court found. As Justice Stewart noted, "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the U.S. had just had several hundred thousand men killed in the Civil War--equivalent, as a proportion of the population, to roughly three million today. Like the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Fourteenth was meant to make very sure that they hadn't died for nothing. Like them, it was aimed directly at discrimination against blacks by the former Confederate states. It was not meant to make homosexuals a specially protected class, any more than it was meant to make one of the left-handed.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
are you saying the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to overturn interracial marriage bans in loving?
Click to expand...

Where do you see that? Not sure how you can even get that idea, means to me that your understanding is way off.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Contrary to what some might believe Civil Marriage is "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude".



>>>>
Click to expand...

Heh. you might be right. Should have said 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Otherwise known as the reconstruction amendments.
 
Equal rights is coming and some people dont like it, oh well to bad lol Theres no valid reason to be against it, they have all been debunked.
We saw these same people with woman issues, minority issues and interracial marriage.

There failed arguments were piss poor, illogical, mentally retarded and based on nothing more than bigotry then ad the same applies today.

If you dont like gay marriage thats fine by me, but actively fighting against equal rights is a disgrace IMO and makes you a bigoted hypocrite.


141-Imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years.jpg

#EqualRightsIsWinning
 

Attachments

  • just-imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years..jpg
    just-imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years..jpg
    22.4 KB · Views: 47
Anthony60 said:
I think I found it. You are going by the Soviet Union Constitution, circa 1930. Sorry, that one doesn't apply here. Yet. We are trying to fend you guys off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it alright, whatever makes you sleep better at night. BTW, SSM bans are still getting overturned DESPITE you saying they can't.
 
chromium said:
Stonewall, Matthew Shephard, "mental illness"/APA, DADT, "DOMA", reparative "therapy", excommunication, expulsion, fired, eviction, harassment of all kinds, blackmail, ostracism.
Click to expand...

matchlight said:
A single incomplete sentence blurting out a bunch of buzzwords is not a rational argument. But it is just the kind of "debate" I've come to expect on this subject.
Click to expand...

Well I spelled it out pretty clearly for you and you ignored it:

matchlight said:
Your comparison of blacks' struggle for civil rights with homosexuals' efforts to get laws changed so they can marry each other is an insult to black Americans. Every grievance group that comes down the pike wants to hitch its wagon to the black civil rights movement. As if homosexuals were being lynched, or turned away from schools, restaurants, and hotels, or kept from voting, or denied jobs, or having fire hoses and dogs turned on them. For shame!
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
Are you saying that gays are not deserving of civil rights the way blacks and women are? Gays have been persecuted, killed, fired, turned away (hey...did you miss where the bakery didnt want to bake them a cake?)

They have certainly been denied jobs. "Dont ask, dont tell" anyone? Not tot mention in the private sector. Or how about the Boy Scouts? And they've had their share of hoses and dogs and beatings and being dragged behind vehicles. How about being denied custody of their own, biological kids?

Got anymore fantasies in your pocket?
Click to expand...
 
AGENT J said:
Equal rights is coming and some people dont like it, oh well to bad lol Theres no valid reason to be against it, they have all been debunked.
We saw these same people with woman issues, minority issues and interracial marriage.

There failed arguments were piss poor, illogical, mentally retarded and based on nothing more than bigotry then ad the same applies today.

If you dont like gay marriage thats fine by me, but actively fighting against equal rights is a disgrace IMO and makes you a bigoted hypocrite.


View attachment 67174136

#EqualRightsIsWinning
Click to expand...

I know, I've written before that I dont want to be included when people look back in history and see the ignorance displayed by some people on this issue. It's just embarrassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom