• 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

Cardinal said:
Unless your point is to just repeat "you don't get it" over and over again, then you need to explain what he doesn't get because his interpretation of your post is my interpretation as well.
Click to expand...

Well, some people just don't care what the law is or how society works, so it becomes a waste of time to sit there and spoon feed it to them. They don't get it, because they refuse to get it. The argument I'm making has almost nothing to do with SSM. I'm not for SSM, so I am not blinded by that carrot in front of me, and the law of the land be damned. At least that seems to be the mindset. The Supreme Court should have said that the federal courts do not have the power to override the State's decision on SSM.

But, they are okay with the court intervening against the state, because, this time, they get what they want. But, you know what else you get when you let the court ignore the Constitution? Slavery, segregation, Americans thrown in internment camps based on their race, etc... I wonder what future atrocities we can look forward to from our courts because we look the other way when they take power.
 
chromium said:
So if, for sake of argument, marriage law read that people can only marry the same gender, you'd be totally cool with that, no discrimination? After all, same law for everyone.

How about if you can only marry the same race? Starting to see a pattern here...
Click to expand...
No, you are trying to make a pattern here where there is none. Shame.

lol, it's the supreme court's job to *uphold* the constitution, which was violated via these state laws.
Click to expand...
There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government power over the States in this matter

If by "the left," you mean democrats in office, i totally agree. They are politicians and the vast majority didn't jump on board the pro gay rights train until polls supported it. In fact, two federal laws since overturn (DADT and "DOMA") were put in place by a dem president.

If by "the left" you mean liberals, i hardly think you speak for any of them. Why don't you take it up with self identified conservatives, since most of them now support SSM as well
Click to expand...
If anyone has any doubt what the left cares about, just look at Obama switching from being against SSM to being for it, just before the election. If anyone does not understand at that point, they probably have the IQ of a brick.

I don't really care who supports SSM or not.
 
Anthony60 said:
And who would that be?
Click to expand...
Not you. Navy Pride.

If you're going to run for the title, you're going to have to get a bit more disrespectful and hateful. Maybe use slurs like Bob Blaylock.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, some people just don't care what the law is or how society works, so it becomes a waste of time to sit there and spoon feed it to them. They don't get it, because they refuse to get it.
Click to expand...

Of course they care how the law works, that's why they worked to change it.
The argument I'm making has almost nothing to do with SSM. I'm not for SSM, so I am not blinded by that carrot in front of me, and the law of the land be damned. At least that seems to be the mindset.
Click to expand...

It's not that you're not blinded by the carrot, it's just not an issue that has any relevance for you, which is fine. You're not expected to personally relate to every piece of legislation or court ruling there is.

The Supreme Court should have said that the federal courts do not have the power to override the State's decision on SSM.
Click to expand...

Unless the state decisions are unconstitutional, in which case it would make perfect sense for the federal courts to override them.

But, they are okay with the court intervening against the state, because, this time, they get what they want.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they got what they want because the state decisions were unconstitutional.

Anthony60 said:
But, you know what else you get when you let the court ignore the Constitution? Slavery, segregation, Americans thrown in internment camps based on their race, etc... I wonder what future atrocities we can look forward to from our courts because we look the other way when they take power.
Click to expand...

The court didn't ignore the Constitution with slavery or segregation which is why new amendments and laws were needed to overturn them. Korematsu vs. United States was one of those egregious decisions that make most rational people's jaws drop and go "WTF, how could that even be possible??" along with rulings like Citizens United, Kelo vs. New London and Kaley vs. United States. Travesties happen and I wish they could be overturned or revisited asap. However, since rulings that support ssm don't remove personal freedoms, they can't be included in your list of historical tragedies.

None of your post addressed why you said that gays can legally be married, but whatever. I see you have no intention of doing so and I can't force you to.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, some people just don't care what the law is or how society works, so it becomes a waste of time to sit there and spoon feed it to them. They don't get it, because they refuse to get it. The argument I'm making has almost nothing to do with SSM. I'm not for SSM, so I am not blinded by that carrot in front of me, and the law of the land be damned. At least that seems to be the mindset. The Supreme Court should have said that the federal courts do not have the power to override the State's decision on SSM.

But, they are okay with the court intervening against the state, because, this time, they get what they want. But, you know what else you get when you let the court ignore the Constitution? Slavery, segregation, Americans thrown in internment camps based on their race, etc... I wonder what future atrocities we can look forward to from our courts because we look the other way when they take power.
Click to expand...

No, they shouldn't have said that, and the various decisions at every circuit case to date explain why. The idea that they shouldn't is just your opinion.

Segregation was instituted by states and overturned by courts.
 
Anthony60 said:
Well, some people just don't care what the law is or how society works, so it becomes a waste of time to sit there and spoon feed it to them. They don't get it, because they refuse to get it. The argument I'm making has almost nothing to do with SSM. I'm not for SSM, so I am not blinded by that carrot in front of me, and the law of the land be damned. At least that seems to be the mindset. The Supreme Court should have said that the federal courts do not have the power to override the State's decision on SSM.

But, they are okay with the court intervening against the state, because, this time, they get what they want. But, you know what else you get when you let the court ignore the Constitution? Slavery, segregation, Americans thrown in internment camps based on their race, etc... I wonder what future atrocities we can look forward to from our courts because we look the other way when they take power.
Click to expand...

Wow that is extraordinary and twisted spin you are engaging in on this one. The issue is almost 180 degrees from what you are trying to pretend it is. This isn't about the court "ignoring" the Constitution. Its completely about the court requiring states to abide by the Constitution....which is exactly what prevents states from segregating people by race. I suggest that you read up on your conlaw, particularly loving v. Virginia before you engage in such calesthentics to bend over, twist and cajole the way you just performed for us in your post.
 
Crovax said:
The conflict is when the SCOTUS refused to consider Baker v Nelson, essentially ruling that marriage a state issue not a federal one. The SCOTUS cant say that there is no constitutional issue with a same sex marriage ban and also say that it violates the constitution.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I hate to say that this really sounds like what happened. :(

They cant have it both ways.
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

How long should people have to wait for their rights? If it is the "right" thing to do then it should be done.

It took 100 yrs after the Civil War to really attack Jim Crow laws. That was wrong. It's sad that it took so long for that momentum to build. We should learn from our past.

The momentum has built for SSM....it's embarrassing really. I hate to be part of a generation known to have resisted it so forcefully. Future generations will look back on us and at best comment on our ignorance and at worst, view it as malice. (Much like we look back now on those who lived during slavery)

(This is a general statement based on what I've been reading in the thread, not directed at you personally.)
 
Last edited:
can you smell that? its fear!
I love the fear that equal rights generates among some, its awesome!
 
CanadaJohn said:
The Supreme Court really can't avoid this issue forever. It will come back to them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where SSM is not recognized and demands equal treatment under the law. Likewise, when a gay couple who live in a state where SSM is not recognized travels to a state that does recognize it and legally marries only to return to their home state and demand equal treatment under their home state's laws.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but since this is a state's rights issue they might be able to avoid it for a while.

Historically, states have honored the marriages from other states but it would be interesting to see how a non-gay marriage state would handle the legal union of a married gay couple that moved into their state. That would be the only route I could see for gay couples to force the SCOTUS to take up the gay marriage ban.
 
Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO, you just choose to ignore that the type of discrimination is exactly the same against sexual orientation as it is/was against race. Many people thought (& sadly still do) think that interracial 'mixing' and marriage are wrong, but most have advanced. But the arguments they made against marriage were worded exactly the same as many of those against SSM. They even "interpreted" religious passages to use their religious beliefs in the fight. The states made the same arguments against Interracial marriage. And the decision the court made in Loving vs VA uses much of the same language to overturn interracial marriage is much the same as we're seeing in SSM decisions.

The states/courts dont need to use sexual orientation in their decisions however, if they dont want to, in order to use the equal protection clause. It comes down to gender, which is protected. The states cannot discriminate based on gender when it comes to contracts. And the legal recognition of marriage is a contract.
 
Objective Voice said:
Maybe not, but since this is a state's rights issue they might be able to avoid it for a while.

Historically, states have honored the marriages from other states but it would be interesting to see how a non-gay marriage state would handle the legal union of a married gay couple that moved into their state. That would be the only route I could see for gay couples to force the SCOTUS to take up the gay marriage ban.
Click to expand...


The conditions you mention were already part of the cases that were rejected. In Virginia's Bostic v. Schaefer the couple was legally married in California and were part of the suit to have that marriage recognized.



>>>>
 
clownboy said:
Nope, it was about INTERRACIAL marriage. Ignoring that detail isn't helping your argument.
Click to expand...

LOL....that's like trying to argue that marriage and inter-racial marriage are two different things. If you read Loving, you would know that fundamentally, Loving is about marriage....period. The court recognized a fundamental right to marry and then addressed by bans on inter-racial marriage cannot be upheld. You either are not familiar with the case or completely didn't understand what the court was saying.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, and as a little P.S. to this entire argument. The left couldn't give a rat's butt about gays and whether or not they can marry, if they could get more votes by being on the other side of the issue, they'd leave you all at the alter in a heartbeat. Don't kid yourselves.
Click to expand...

This is completely unfounded. If not, please provide some kind of reasonable source for this opinion.

OTOH, it doesnt even make sense. Gays will vote Democratic if they choose whether or not they are allowed to marry if that is their leaning. However if you mean that the obstruction of SSM makes the Republican party look less favorable, that would be somewhat reasonable.

But married or not, they will still be gay and still live together and still view the parties in terms of how they *serve them* just like any other citizens in America.
 
Objective Voice said:
Maybe not, but since this is a state's rights issue they might be able to avoid it for a while.

Historically, states have honored the marriages from other states but it would be interesting to see how a non-gay marriage state would handle the legal union of a married gay couple that moved into their state. That would be the only route I could see for gay couples to force the SCOTUS to take up the gay marriage ban.
Click to expand...

The reason I originally brought up the comment was because not too long ago, here in Ontario Canada, we had gay couples from the US traveling here to get married and then going back home to their State. As it turned out, some gay couples wanted to divorce after a certain period of time and since their State didn't recognize SSM they couldn't get a divorce at home and so they traveled back to Ontario to get a divorce. Problem was, at the time, it was illegal for a Canadian court to grant a divorce for non-citizens and non-residents. So gay couples in this situation were in limbo. Canada ended up changing the law several years after but you can see that when you have multiple jurisdictions with multiple marriage laws you can really end up with a complicated mess.
 
WorldWatcher said:
The conditions you mention were already part of the cases that were rejected. In Virginia's Bostic v. Schaefer the couple was legally married in California and were part of the suit to have that marriage recognized.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware of that. That's for the update.

CanadaJohn said:
The reason I originally brought up the comment was because not too long ago, here in Ontario Canada, we had gay couples from the US traveling here to get married and then going back home to their State. As it turned out, some gay couples wanted to divorce after a certain period of time and since their State didn't recognize SSM they couldn't get a divorce at home and so they traveled back to Ontario to get a divorce. Problem was, at the time, it was illegal for a Canadian court to grant a divorce for non-citizens and non-residents. So gay couples in this situation were in limbo. Canada ended up changing the law several years after but you can see that when you have multiple jurisdictions with multiple marriage laws you can really end up with a complicated mess.
Click to expand...

So very true.
 
Paschendale said:
Circuit court judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, the same as supreme court justices. How exactly is the latter part of the federal government and not the former?


So if EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the same race then the law is being applied equally. That was nonsense in 1967 and it's nonsense now.
Click to expand...

With DOMA struck down, the SSM issue only gets to the feds via court cases. Neither the Congress nor the Executive any longer has a role.

In 1967 Virginia's anti-miscegenation law attempted to deny on the basis of race something was plainly legal. The debate about SSM has been about whether SSM per se is legal.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, they took themselves out of the segregation ruling for a long time, too. Eventually they realized they had to step up to the plate and meet their responsibilities. People - including SSM's - travel from state to state. They can't be married in one state and not married in another. Too many possible legal issues arise.
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution and federal law a marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in the others.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Today's Decision Not to Decide | National Review Online

I think this article is being to hyperbolic, comparing the ramifications of this decision to the infamous ruling of dread Scott seems a bit much.
Click to expand...

You think!

The irony is (or the possible irony is) that the conservative minority on this issue voted not to review because they didn't want this issue to be front page news coming into the election. It's a loser for the GOP at this point. Then Ginsburg or one of the other liberal justices went along because they like the way the lower courts are ruling -- why fix it if it isn't broke.

We can never tell why the SC decides to review or not to review particular cases, but this is a scenario SCOTUS watchers have suggested.
 
Lursa said:
This is completely unfounded. If not, please provide some kind of reasonable source for this opinion.

OTOH, it doesnt even make sense. Gays will vote Democratic if they choose whether or not they are allowed to marry if that is their leaning. However if you mean that the obstruction of SSM makes the Republican party look less favorable, that would be somewhat reasonable.

But married or not, they will still be gay and still live together and still view the parties in terms of how they *serve them* just like any other citizens in America.
Click to expand...

Don't you know? When the left serves its constituency's interests, it's cynical pandering for votes. When the right does it, it's doing the right thing, because America. Actually, it seems to stem from the right's cynical belief that their constituents are "real" Americans and the rest of us are "other".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom