• 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

Well they're going to have to live with it then, or live without it. That's where this is headed. Why isn't it discrimination that an unmarried couple living together, or just any two folks living together don't have access to those same benefits?


They do have access to those same benefits. They walk down to the courthouse. Get a marriage license, get married and have access.


In (soon to be) 30 states the couple living together or two folks can be either male/male, female/female, or male/female. In 20 states there is a gender based limitation.

>>>>
 
I was referring to where you said this:



I took that to mean that the government should not sanction or promote marriage. I apologize if I misunderstood. But if I did get it right, the way the government sanctions and promotes marriage is with the benefits to marriage.

Maybe if I know which specific rights you're talking about...?

The government shouldn't be regulating marriage, and who can marry. It should be legal for any 2 (or more) of age adults to decide who they marry, period. The government should burden itself with more pressing issues. JMO of course.
 
Because they can take the steps to get those benefits. They are not barred from doing that.

Yeah, they are, by all the same arguments for homosexual marriage. Why shouldn't four roommates have the benefits. They share a living space and their lives (somewhat at least), if they all agree to have sex they're all the way there. Why do they need a license for benefits?
 
I wouldn't say that it's a victory in an odd-way. Leaving the lower court decisions in place means almost the same as if they had decided on it (in favor of SSM). In essence, by not hearing the cases they're essentially saying that the decisions were correct.

That is exactly what the Court is saying.
 
That is exactly what the Court is saying.

Basically the Supreme Court has sent message to the lower courts. Ginsberg stated recently that the 6th court of Appeals will indicate if the Court hears SSM. If the 6th upholds the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, The SCOTUS would likely take up an appeal in 2016.
 
Basically the Supreme Court has sent message to the lower courts. Ginsberg stated recently that the 6th court of Appeals will indicate if the Court hears SSM. If the 6th upholds the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, The SCOTUS would likely take up an appeal in 2016.

That sucks because there is nothing I heard that indicates that they (the 6th Circuit) will not uphold the bans. This would have been a way cooler victory had it just been a unanimous set of rulings from every appeals court in the country. But I can hold out hope I guess.
 
Seems you don't understand what happened here. It was the Federal appeals courts which shot down the states' laws on gay marriage. All SCOTUS did was to let those Federal appeals court decisions stand.

To be clear, I meant I was glad the SCOTUS stayed out of it, as the federal appeals court should have also.
 
Yeah, they are, by all the same arguments for homosexual marriage. Why shouldn't four roommates have the benefits. They share a living space and their lives (somewhat at least), if they all agree to have sex they're all the way there. Why do they need a license for benefits?

That's a good question, why do they need a license for benefits? Why does anybody?

Heck, how many married couples never have sex anymore?
 
So were you cool with the State of Alabama voting to amend it's constitution to ban interracial civil marriages? I mean the people in that State (and others) had decided how they wanted to handle things.>>>>

That's a different topic for another thread. It's like me asking if you are cool with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of slavery.
 
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
So were you cool with the State of Alabama voting to amend it's constitution to ban interracial civil marriages? I mean the people in that State (and others) had decided how they wanted to handle things.



>>>>
That's a different topic for another thread. It's like me asking if you are cool with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of slavery.


Actually it is on topic to the things you said. The discussion is about "federal intervention into States affairs" (your words). "Allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States" Your words. '



The people of Alabama voted to amend their constitution and restrict marriage based on race, the federal government intervened into that States affairs. A handful og judges overruled the voices of the people of an entire state did not get to decide how to handle things in their own state when that action was measured against the Supreme Law of the Land.



So given the same basics, non-federal intervention, States making their own law independent to "handle things" in their State - do you support or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in Loving?



>>>>
 
To be clear, I meant I was glad the SCOTUS stayed out of it, as the federal appeals court should have also.

Well then that brings us down to the federal District Courts...
 
Actually it is on topic to the things you said. The discussion is about "federal intervention into States affairs" (your words). "Allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States" Your words. '



The people of Alabama voted to amend their constitution and restrict marriage based on race, the federal government intervened into that States affairs. A handful og judges overruled the voices of the people of an entire state did not get to decide how to handle things in their own state when that action was measured against the Supreme Law of the Land.



So given the same basics, non-federal intervention, States making their own law independent to "handle things" in their State - do you support or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in Loving?
>>>>
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.
 
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.

Not really. You can't take a hard line, "the courts need to respect the will of the people in the states" stand and then refuse to state why every precedent where the 14th amendment has been used to do just that is exempt except for in the case of same sex marriage. All you are really doing is saying you have no argument against same sex marriage, but supporting state rights sounds good, so you will pretend that is your cause.
 
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.


I see little difference in discrimination in the two cases.


I can see though why you won't give a straight answer.



>>>>
 
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.

Genie is already out of the bottle though when it comes to tax laws, as well as a bunch of other marriage laws. Once the government got involved there, then it must follow the law of equal treatment shouldn't it?

If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.

Same was above, but will repeat for emphasis, If there weren't laws and statuettes on the books giving preferential treatment to heterosexual marriage (like tax and family law), then you would have a point. By making such laws, are they not already involved in the matter? And if they are, how equal treatment not come into play?
 
Last edited:
Actually it is on topic to the things you said. The discussion is about "federal intervention into States affairs" (your words). "Allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States" Your words. '

The 14th amendment makes it a US Constitutional matter. The same is not true of marriage.
 
The 14th amendment makes it a US Constitutional matter. The same is not true of marriage.

I'm going to start sounding like a Parrot here but, the whole purpose of the 14th was that everyone would be treated equally under the law, whether that be tax law or family law, where the title of marriage does confer preferential treatment in both of those cases. That's why "states rights" doesn't come into play here, no more than with the cases during the civil rights movement.
 
I'm going to start sounding like a Parrot here but, the whole purpose of the 14th was that everyone would be treated equally under the law, whether that be tax law or family law, where the title of marriage does confer preferential treatment in both of those cases. That's why "states rights" doesn't come into play here, no more than with the cases during the civil rights movement.

That was my mistake, I meant to type the 13th amendment. The 14th does not include sexual orientation. The SCOTUS and lower courts can try to shoehorn it in, but it's just another failure of oath when they do so.
 
it's their job to make sure that fundamental rights are not denied in ANY state. the SCOTUS should have heard the case and thrown out the state bans. because they abdicated, now we have a hodgepodge of states in which people are denied a fundamental right.
And there are lower courts to deal with the issue in those states. I'm sorry things are moving too slowly for you, but the Supreme Court docket is full of cases where people claim to be having their rights denied, and there is actual conflict in the lower courts requiring resolution.
 
I see little difference in discrimination in the two cases.

I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.
 
And there are lower courts to deal with the issue in those states. I'm sorry things are moving too slowly for you, but the Supreme Court docket is full of cases where people claim to be having their rights denied, and there is actual conflict in the lower courts requiring resolution.

I doubt it has anything to do with how busy the docket is. The SCOTUS has used the wait a generation or two tactic for a long time now. It's how they took their power in the first place. They simply have to wait until the majority of states have had their bans overturned and then claim it's the majority of state's will. Wait for the social engineering propaganda to sink in a little more. These folks are lifetime appointed, they can hide their crap in very long term planning.
 
Back
Top Bottom