• 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

Mr.Nick said:
Sorry do you just want to believe what you want to believe??

Was it a republican that spewed DOMA?

Was it republicans that mourned the loss of former KKK member and Dixicrat Strom Thurmond who only flipped republican because he thought his once racist party was pandering to minorities?

Sorry to tell you that republicans hated that guy and democrats loved him - that alone shows how ****ed up politics really are.

Oh and BTW, nothing I say is "false" you just want to believe what you think is true..
Click to expand...

You do realize that the only reason Bush got his second term was that push for that stupid anti-SSM amendment right?
 
Sherman123 said:
Now the 9th Circuit ruling has come down likely extending SSM across another swathe of states. The end of this debate, at least at a practical level, is close at hand.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevada - WSJ
Click to expand...

The interesting news in that article isn't the article, but the video itself. For those who didn't see, Ginsberg at a recent speech said that the Supreme Court is currently awaiting the Sixth Court of Appeals to hand down their ruling on a case brought before them. As the video states, that court has "two conservatives and one progressive". The video goes on: "If they should do that, then you would have what is called a split of the Circuits.... one which the Supreme Court would then feel obliged to take up." Seems like at this point all eyes are on the Sixth.
 
Sherman123 said:
Now the 9th Circuit ruling has come down likely extending SSM across another swathe of states. The end of this debate, at least at a practical level, is close at hand.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Bans in Idaho, Nevada - WSJ
Click to expand...

Erm, maybe not:

U.S. justice temporarily blocks Idaho gay marriage ruling

Kennedy issues a stay pending cert? What the hell, guy? You just ****ing ruled on a case like this. Are you really telling me there is a reasonable expectation that SCOTUS will hear the Idaho case when they just rejected all the others?

Go home, SCOTUS, you're drunk.

Hamster Buddha said:
The interesting news in that article isn't the article, but the video itself. For those who didn't see, Ginsberg at a recent speech said that the Supreme Court is currently awaiting the Sixth Court of Appeals to hand down their ruling on a case brought before them. As the video states, that court has "two conservatives and one progressive". The video goes on: "If they should do that, then you would have what is called a split of the Circuits.... one which the Supreme Court would then feel obliged to take up." Seems like at this point all eyes are on the Sixth.
Click to expand...

That could be it. If they expect the 6th will split the circuits, maybe they are just groaning and realizing they have to take this up anyway.
 
disneydude said:
Obviously not.....since you seem to lack the very basic of understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...

Then go ahead and say something smart pertaining to the Constitution and the way it's being trampled on by the activist judges. Bet you can't.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm sure there are some authoritarian republicans, however that doesn't change the fact that democrats and progressives are ALL authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Oh Bull****, again, conservatives supported Bush on the proposed amendment to ban SSM. That seems pretty authoritarian to me.

However, I don't think conservatives would really try to force their ideology on you unless the ideas were outlined in the constitution, besides it's not like nutty conservatives have ever been able to actually legislate their authoritarian ideas - most of which are religious related.... However democrats have been legislating their moonbat authoritarian rule at the sate and even federal level for the past 150 years..... Lets not forget who the lynchers were, lets not forget the dems that ignored the Bill of Rights and skipped due process just to lynch a man - lets not forget how religiously fanatical democrats were in the south and even created "dry" counties and forbid the sale of liquor on Sundays because they were Baptists - and now for some strange reason democrats and progressives have the audacity to blame their screwed up behavior on republicans and conservatives. Of course lets not least forget about segregation..
Click to expand...

Again, you equate Dem to liberal. The fact is those that were FOR slavery were CONSERVATIVES and those that were against it were liberal. Conservatives want things to remain the same and liberals were the ones fighting to change that. You think EVERYTHING liberal is bad, it isn't. Liberalism is what got women the right to vote, ended slavery, etc. Those were all the things people that were conservative wanted to keep the same.

I could write a book on how screwed up the democrat party was between 1870 and the present and how they love to blame their past on republicans - the real "social justice" warriors and how democrats did everything in their power to block every attempt they made at racial and gender equality..
Click to expand...

Sure you could, but that doesn't change the fact that liberal does not mean Dem all the time.

Sorry but progress can be good and bad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely which is why I think BOTH conservatism and liberalism is needed.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Am I the only one reminded of "Separate but Equal" when they think of civil unions?
Click to expand...

nope, you and every other logical, educated and honest person is reminded of this and how it would not be equal
fake ignorance is strong for those that like to deny facts and it will continue because they see the writing on the wall and their desperation goes.

Equal rights is coming and they cant stop it now
 
Mr.Nick said:
Was it a republican that spewed DOMA?
Click to expand...
Yes. It was introduced in the House by Bob Barr (R-GA), and in the Senate by Don Nickles (R-OK). The Republican Party endorsed it in 1996. Republicans controlled Congress when it was voted. IIRC no Republicans voted against it.


Was it republicans that mourned the loss of former KKK member and Dixicrat Strom Thurmond who only flipped republican because he thought his once racist party was pandering to minorities?
Click to expand...
It was the Republicans who welcomed him with open arms, and voted for him from 1964 onwards.


Sorry to tell you that republicans hated that guy and democrats loved him - that alone shows how ****ed up politics really are.
Click to expand...
What revisionist nonsense is this? What indication do you have that the Republicans hated him? Did they encourage anyone to challenge him in the primaries? He was President pro tempore in the Senate for 3 terms, was on the Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, was that also because they despised him?

At his 100th birthday party, Trent Lott proclaimed: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, [Mississippi] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Yes, clearly they hated him. There's nothing even remotely partisan in your reading of that situation, not at all. :roll:
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)Sorry do you just want to believe what you want to believe??
2.)Was it a republican that spewed DOMA?
3.)Was it republicans that mourned the loss of former KKK member and Dixicrat Strom Thurmond who only flipped republican because he thought his once racist party was pandering to minorities?
4.)Sorry to tell you that republicans hated that guy and democrats loved him - that alone shows how ****ed up politics really are.
5.)Oh and BTW, nothing I say is "false" you just want to believe what you think is true..
Click to expand...

1.) no need to apologize for your post being wrong, people make mistakes and my beliefs like yours are meaningless to facts, I haven't stated my beliefs to you in this thread lol
2.) meaningless to the fact its not a states issue, LMAO please stay on topic instead of trying to deflect
3.) see #2
4.) see #2
5.) facts, laws, rights and court cases prove them to be false, my beliefs play no role in this fact

your post fails and fact win again
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Am I the only one reminded of "Separate but Equal" when they think of civil unions?
Click to expand...

Wasn't that a great one by the SCOTUS? Good thing we have the Federal courts deciding for us here, because they are sure to make the right decision.
 
Visbek said:
Yes. It was introduced in the House by Bob Barr (R-GA), and in the Senate by Don Nickles (R-OK). The Republican Party endorsed it in 1996. Republicans controlled Congress when it was voted. IIRC no Republicans voted against it.



It was the Republicans who welcomed him with open arms, and voted for him from 1964 onwards.



What revisionist nonsense is this? What indication do you have that the Republicans hated him? Did they encourage anyone to challenge him in the primaries? He was President pro tempore in the Senate for 3 terms, was on the Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, was that also because they despised him?

At his 100th birthday party, Trent Lott proclaimed: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, [Mississippi] voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Yes, clearly they hated him. There's nothing even remotely partisan in your reading of that situation, not at all. :roll:
Click to expand...

You know what all this only proves? Politicians change their opinions to fit to social norms. Remember when the Clintons opposed SSM? We wouldn't of had "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if not for Bill Clinton.

Also, was Thurmond a republican? And If he was a democrat, did he just run unopposed with no republican challenger? The answer by the way is no on both counts, so stop trying to twist this one.
 
Anthony60 said:
Wasn't that a great one by the SCOTUS? Good thing we have the Federal courts deciding for us here, because they are sure to make the right decision.
Click to expand...

If the Sixth rules along party lines, we'll probably find out what the SCOTUS thinks anyways.
 
Anthony60 said:
Wasn't that a great one by the SCOTUS? Good thing we have the Federal courts deciding for us here, because they are sure to make the right decision.
Click to expand...

So you do or do not support separate but equal marriage status for gays?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You know what all this only proves? Politicians change their opinions to fit to social norms....
Click to expand...
Erm... I'm actually trying to correct Mr Nick's vastly incorrect claims.


Remember when the Clintons opposed SSM? We wouldn't of had "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if not for Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...
What I remember is that Bill Clinton wanted to allow gays to be open about their sexuality in the military. Conservatives and the top brass lost their collective minds, and the public wasn't receptive either, so he scaled it back to the crappy DADT.

Clinton also wasn't a strong backer of gay rights. It really wasn't until Obama said "OK, I'm for it now" that the conversation really seemed to change.


Also, was Thurmond a republican?
Click to expand...
Uh... yes. He switched parties in 1964. He was a Democrat from 1954 to 1964.


And If he was a democrat, did he just run unopposed with no republican challenger?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. South Carolina was very strongly controlled by the Democratic Party until the mid-1960s. It's rarely been a competitive state in that sense.

I was also talking about primaries. If the Republicans truly hated Thurmond, they would've tried to hit him hard in the primaries at some point in his 40+ year Senatorial career. So you tell me, when did they try to give him the boot?
 
Visbek said:
Erm... I'm actually trying to correct Mr Nick's vastly incorrect claims.

What I remember is that Bill Clinton wanted to allow gays to be open about their sexuality in the military. Conservatives and the top brass lost their collective minds, and the public wasn't receptive either, so he scaled it back to the crappy DADT.

Clinton also wasn't a strong backer of gay rights. It really wasn't until Obama said "OK, I'm for it now" that the conversation really seemed to change.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of Hillary Clinton, who had spoken out against SSM up until last year when she changed her mind. All I'm saying is that both parties have their flip floppers.

Visbek said:
Uh... yes. He switched parties in 1964. He was a Democrat from 1954 to 1964.

Pretty much. South Carolina was very strongly controlled by the Democratic Party until the mid-1960s. It's rarely been a competitive state in that sense.

I was also talking about primaries. If the Republicans truly hated Thurmond, they would've tried to hit him hard in the primaries at some point in his 40+ year Senatorial career. So you tell me, when did they try to give him the boot?
Click to expand...

You know what? I was thinking of the democrat KKK guy from WV. Can't remember his name though... anyways, my mistake. They're all a bunch of old white racist to me, and I do tend to get them mixed up...
 
Anthony60 said:
Then go ahead and say something smart pertaining to the Constitution and the way it's being trampled on by the activist judges. Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

LOL....that presumes that you are in a position to be able to make that judgement. If you haven't read or cannot comprehend the Court's position in Loving, then I think that such a presumption is flawed.
 
Anthony60 said:
Wasn't that a great one by the SCOTUS? Good thing we have the Federal courts deciding for us here, because they are sure to make the right decision.
Click to expand...

Except that was corrected by the federal courts, not the states, just as the decisions with interracial marriage were corrected mainly by the federal courts, not the states.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm not opposed to civil unions, however the context within the US Constitution used to justify such a concept is amateur at best and downright stupid at times....

Basically there are a bunch of fools in judicial districts which of whom could give a rats ass what they're reading because the statues and amendments are quite clear - yet these pro-gay want these 3rd grade words redefined as if they're partaking in a common core class.
Click to expand...

I love when this conservative hypocrisy pops up....

Yeah, let's create more bureaucracy, bigger govt, another thing to administer! Let's create 'civil unions' that *are exactly the same* except for the name!

Bigger govt is ok when it serves their (expensive but meaningless) purposes. *sigh*
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no need to apologize for your post being wrong, people make mistakes and my beliefs like yours are meaningless to facts, I haven't stated my beliefs to you in this thread lol
2.) meaningless to the fact its not a states issue, LMAO please stay on topic instead of trying to deflect
3.) see #2
4.) see #2
5.) facts, laws, rights and court cases prove them to be false, my beliefs play no role in this fact

your post fails and fact win again
Click to expand...

I'm blocking you again for rewriting my post.... I freed you Django - then you went right back to ****ing with my posts..

:2wave:
 
disneydude said:
LOL....that presumes that you are in a position to be able to make that judgement. If you haven't read or cannot comprehend the Court's position in Loving, then I think that such a presumption is flawed.
Click to expand...

In other words, you got nuthin'. And you are just another that's fallen into the "Loving" trap and don't have what it takes to admit that you are wrong about it. Obviously, you need to ignore that "Loving" is completely different, because you want so very badly for it to fit your argument. But it's a case about race, not marriage, which I'm sure you know, not even that deep down, but... you... just... can't... face the truth. Carry on.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I'm blocking you again for rewriting my post.... I freed you Django - then you went right back to ****ing with my posts..

:2wave:
Click to expand...
translation: once again your posts have been proven wrong and you choose to run away
par for the course
this wont stop me and many other posters from pointing out the failures in them LOL
 
roguenuke said:
Except that was corrected by the federal courts, not the states, just as the decisions with interracial marriage were corrected mainly by the federal courts, not the states.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like what? 58 years later. Gee, I hope that wasn't too inconvenient for anyone. No big deal.
 
It appears that J has been blocked for having the ****ing audacity to edit my posts..... Golf clap to you J for rewriting my original post to adhere to your ignorant politics...


Funny how someone doesn't get a warning around here for editing an individuals post...
 
Mr.Nick said:
It appears that J has been blocked for having the ****ing audacity to edit my posts..... Golf clap to you J for rewriting my original post to adhere to your ignorant politics...


Funny how someone doesn't get a warning around here for editing an individuals post...
Click to expand...

Translation: you still have nothing to defend your claims that marriage isnt a right and that its solely a state issue
let us know when you do lol
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, like what? 58 years later. Gee, I hope that wasn't too inconvenient for anyone. No big deal.
Click to expand...

Which is still better than having left it up to the states themselves, where it would have been longer, evidenced by the fact that segregation is still on the books in at least one state and interracial marriage bans were just removed from SC and Alabama constitution/laws around 15 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom