• 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

Jack Hays said:
Greetings, CJ. How's Canada today?
Click to expand...

Canada, at least my part of it, is pretty rainy at the moment - typical autumn day, a little breezy, some sun, brisk fresh air and periods of rain. Canada is also going to have a vote in Parliament tonight on authorizing a more active involvement in the allied fight against ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they choose to call themselves from day to day. Should be a foregone conclusion because the Conservatives have a majority in the House so even though all opposition parties are opposed, the motion will pass.
 
While I would have loved to have had the moment where the USSC ruled definitively that bans on marriage equality violate the Constitution, I have realized over the last couple of days that this refusal to accept the case pretty much does the same thing. This is essentially the final nail in the coffin of the bigots who seek to deny marriage equality. With 30 states soon to have marriage equality and more ready to follow suit, it will only be a year or two where less than a handful of Southern states are still clinging to their bigotry. This is probably the easier way to spoonfeed freedom and equality to the fence sitters.

Another bad day to be a bigot 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...

No, it's a human rights issue and that scenario of married couples becoming 'unmarried' when travelling or moving has been a huge problem since like 2006 or whenever MA became the first state.
 
disneydude said:
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...
Click to expand...

Oh, damn. You almost BS'd your way through that until you fell into that "Loving v. Virginia" trap. Nice try, but no cigar.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, you shouldn't have...

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.

Read more: Ten Important Supreme Court Decisions in African American History | Infoplease.com Ten Important Supreme Court Decisions in African American History | Infoplease.com
Click to expand...

You missed the point, which is that it was the states that made those laws in the first place.
 
Lursa said:
This is completely unfounded. If not, please provide some kind of reasonable source for this opinion.
Click to expand...

LOL, you have got to be kidding. I sure hope you are, because otherwise, you have no credibility. Hey, how about when your boy, Obama, needed contributions and votes, and all of a sudden, the man who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, turns on a dime and supports SSM! LOL! Nah, had nothing to do with needing votes! LOL!!! Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Republicans would do it too, at least I have the integrity to admit it. But, oh no, not those democrats, not Obama, they are sooooo pure. What a joke.
 
Cardinal said:
You missed the point, which is that it was the states that made those laws in the first place.
Click to expand...

And you missed the point that the Supreme Court jumped right in and said, "Yep, you guys are right!", in their ruling, which is what they do, make rulings. Which was conveniently left out earlier, because then the point looked dumb.
 
Anthony60 said:
And you missed the point that the Supreme Court jumped right in and said, "Yep, you guys are right!", in their ruling, which is what they do, make rulings. Which was conveniently left out early, because then the point looked dumb.
Click to expand...

So what are you doing, blaming the Supreme Court? Earlier you were lauding state rights, then you lumped segregation in with slavery and internment camps (I'll assume you categorize these as negative things), now...what?
 
Cardinal said:
So what are you doing, blaming the Supreme Court? Earlier you were lauding state rights, then you lumped segregation in with slavery and internment camps (I'll assume you categorize these as negative things), now...what?
Click to expand...
Whatever makes him feel good for the span of about fifteen seconds given the coherency of his posts
 
Paschendale said:
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".
Click to expand...
Conservatives rend to test much more strongly for tribal tendencies (in group and authority on the chart below) so this behavior is not unexpected but really reflects no truth beyond instinctive emotional tendencies.

mfq.jpg
 
Cardinal said:
So what are you doing, blaming the Supreme Court? Earlier you were lauding state rights, then you lumped segregation in with slavery and internment camps (I'll assume you categorize these as negative things), now...what?
Click to expand...

Quite a highlight reel for them, huh? But, yet, in this case, they can't possibly be wrong for letting the federal court Stomp all over the State's rights? Please.
 
A politicized GOP court makes a ruling just before an election that will rile up the GOP base and cause even more of them to vote.
While this devious court knows that people who agree with this decision will be less likely to vote as Dems are prone to do as in 2010 .
 
tacomancer said:
Whatever makes him feel good for the span of about fifteen seconds given the coherency of his posts
Click to expand...

That seems to be the gist of it.
 
Anthony60 said:
LOL, you have got to be kidding. I sure hope you are, because otherwise, you have no credibility. Hey, how about when your boy, Obama, needed contributions and votes, and all of a sudden, the man who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, turns on a dime and supports SSM! LOL! Nah, had nothing to do with needing votes! LOL!!! Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Republicans would do it too, at least I have the integrity to admit it. But, oh no, not those democrats, not Obama, they are sooooo pure. What a joke.
Click to expand...

And you can provide proof that all this was just for votes I assume? I mean...in order to preserve your credibility?

And someone can personally believe one thing and support another for the greater good.

I wouldnt have an abortion but I support a woman's choice.

I think a pharmacist that doesnt stock the morning after pill is an asshole but I support his right to religious freedom in his business.
 
roguenuke said:
Some sort of legal documentation is necessary in order for the government to recognize legal kinship. For most, this documentation is birth certificates that can be linked to people in families. It also can be either legal adoption records or court rulings. All legal kinship claims though do require some documentation, at least in this day and age. Why would or should that change when it comes to spousal recognition?
Click to expand...
Exactly, you just proved my point. Legal kinship does not require any type of marriage license. As to your question, I never said there should be no legal documentation for spousal recognition.
 
Deuce said:
They still need to document that change in kinship status, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
In order for kinship to be recognized, of course it has to be documented somewhere. But the document does not have to be a marriage license, no does it have to even be created by the government.
 
Lakryte said:
Exactly, you just proved my point. Legal kinship does not require any type of marriage license. As to your question, I never said there should be no legal documentation for spousal recognition.
Click to expand...

It does if you are not related by blood. In that case, only things like marriage and adoption are acceptable and those require legal paperwork. Which, costs $$ unless you get it automatically thru marriage. It is the extra cost that is discriminatory.
 
Anthony60 said:
No, you are trying to make a pattern here where there is none. Shame.
Click to expand...

You said it's not a matter of equality cause everyone can marry the opposite gender. Well that's the same reasoning used by racists in 1970, that everyone can marry their own race already so it's not about equality. How is that not a pattern? If you can't see that, just admit you don't like the homos and move on

It's so easy to apply your 'logic' to demonstrate how much it'd suck for you if the shoe was on the other foot and you could only marry the *same* gender. So easy that you can't even try to explain why it's equality in one case but not the other.

Anthony60 said:
There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government power over the States in this matter
Click to expand...

i'll say it till red in the face, 14th amendment

Anthony60 said:
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.
Click to expand...

i just said that, but you once again fail to understand the diff between "the left" politicians and "the left" as in true liberals, social libertarians, progressives etc who are NOT politicians

It's like if i lumped "the right" together as gay bashing neanderthals cause of ted cruz or fred phelps. Most of those older than 30 are, but it's just as transparent some of the repub *politicians* who were always gay bashers are suddenly trying to low key this SCOTUS ruling, fearing it would cost them in november. I fully expect that will continue.

One of the repub incumbents in my state gave a newspaper interview, totally dodging the proposed anti employment discrimination law. She's against discrimination (except when it comes to marriage) but for "religious rights of employers," so she needs more time to "study the issue."

Cowardly non answers is what happens when you've ****ted on an entire minority group for years and now the polls indicate it may cost you your base to cave in to the inevitable, but also cost you the independents and some of your base to continue discriminating. It's certainly far from leadership
 
Anthony60 said:
Quite a highlight reel for them, huh? But, yet, in this case, they can't possibly be wrong for letting the federal court Stomp all over the State's rights? Please.
Click to expand...

States don't have any rights when it comes to oppressing their citizens. Sooner or later, whether by force (see: civil war) or the federal courts or legislature, attempts by states to do so will fail and be maligned in the history books.
 
disneydude said:
Anyone else find it strange that DP's #1 homophobe and gay topic starter has remained completely silent on this topic?
Click to expand...

probably too busy crying in his pillow

alternatively, he could busy crafting that amendment (could be ted cruz in disguise)
 
Lakryte said:
Exactly, you just proved my point. Legal kinship does not require any type of marriage license. As to your question, I never said there should be no legal documentation for spousal recognition.
Click to expand...

It requires some form of documentation from the government, which is what the marriage license is.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, damn. You almost BS'd your way through that until you fell into that "Loving v. Virginia" trap. Nice try, but no cigar.
Click to expand...

Nice try.....why don't you try reading the case and getting a clue where the Supreme Court stands on the issue of marriage.
 
Not to sure why any Republican would be upset over this. It works out in their favor if Gay Marriage is legalized across the country. The Dems right now hold a monopoly on that issue, but with it decided it automatically goes away and the Dems can't use it anymore.
 
TheNextEra said:
Not to sure why any Republican would be upset over this. It works out in their favor if Gay Marriage is legalized across the country. The Dems right now hold a monopoly on that issue, but with it decided it automatically goes away and the Dems can't use it anymore.
Click to expand...

That is true, if this all goes away, what will they point fingers at next? Not the big issues, they could do that right now, but they obviously won't, since Obama has failed on just about everything he's touched, so they need back burner issues like SSM that are unimportant compared to everything else, but they want them to be headline issues. They want people voting solely on SSM, or condoms/BC, the temperature... stuff like that. No, no, no, let's not talk about jobs, ISIS, the debt... nope, don't want to go there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom