• 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

10702145_10152315691101863_8013770256200685969_n.jpg

LOL I know. Felons convicted of murder, rape, and pedophilia can marry...while still in jail. But heaven forbid 'the geighs' marry!

We have to keep our standards up!
 
Meh. This is not abortion. You likely do not meet or encounter many people who are open about having an abortion. You will likely meet more families headed by same-sex couples in the future. You will know the real people. You will know their kids. You will witness their relationship and their choices. And when you get away from the abstract ideological crap and see the real people and the pragmatic effect I doubt you will feel the same way. I could be wrong but I sincerely feel with more experience you will one day feel very foolish for having opposed same-sex marriage.

I don't support it, that's what I said about it somewhere in this thread. That's about all I said about it. That's a different subject that I don't care to get into (for the 50th time). But you go ahead.
 
Yes, it is. All you've got is semantics, moral disapproval, tradition, and slippery slope fallacies. "You can't have same-sex marriage because marriage means a man and a woman" is arguing semantics.

I guess you missed something. Didn't I just say you're responding to the wrong topic???
 
lol....if you read and understood Loving you would know that it isn't "Completely different"....loving was about marriage....it was also about race. Being about one does not require the exclusion of the other (maybe you didn't realize that). The reality is, the Supreme Court in Loving stated in no unclear terms that the right to marry is one of the most fundamental rights that a human being has. You can try to spin and cajole all you want....it doesn't change the facts. If you want to converse intelligently on the topic, I suggest you take a course or do a little self study on conlaw. Education is not something to fear.

What's "conlaw?" Could it be what people whose knowledge of constitutional law consists of a few minutes of Wikipedia research are engaging in, when they try to con other people into thinking they know it in depth?

The Virginia antimiscegenation statutes in Loving struck right at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment. These racial purity laws officially sanctioned white supremacy over blacks--exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent states from doing. The Lovings had been convicted of crimes for going out of state to get married, and then returning to Virginia to live as man and wife. But as the Court noted, the statutes under which they were convicted made those acts crimes based entirely on the race of the actor. Ain't no way in hell to square that with the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court had made clear long before Loving that marriage is a fundamental right. But the decisions in which it affirmed that right all involved marriage between one man and one woman, and it's beyond question that the Court was not talking about any other kind. The notion that the Court ever meant to suggest there was also a fundamental right to same-sex marriage is as laughable as the notion that it meant to suggest there was a fundamental right to bigamous or incestuous marriage, or to polygamy.

It is because Justice Kennedy is well aware of this that he went out of his way in the majority decisions he authored in Romer in 1996 and in Lawrence in 2003--and appeared to do last year in his somewhat garbled decision in Windsor--not to suggest that laws discriminating against homosexuals called for strict scrutiny, or heightened scrutiny of any kind. As I'm sure you know, in substantive due process and equal protection challenges to laws that involve fundamental rights or make suspect classifications--i.e. single people out for disparate treatment by race or national origin--strict scrutiny applies and makes the challenge far more likely to succeed than it otherwise would be.
 
You are correct about Loving, although it's inconceivable that the court deciding that case would have had SSM in mind. And that's where the analogy breaks down, IMHO. The debate about SSM has been about whether there can be such a thing as SSM (which I favor, btw).

The Court in Loving was not addressing the issue of SSM, nevertheless, in their analysis of the rights involved, they clearly recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right. They weren't referring to same race marriage, inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage....they were addressing the right to marry period. The case involved an inter-racial couple and although the holding of the case is narrowly tailored to that issue, the analysis and recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is clear in the body of the ruling.
 
I don't support it, that's what I said about it somewhere in this thread. That's about all I said about it. That's a different subject that I don't care to get into (for the 50th time). But you go ahead.

Nah. I said my piece. I feel that way about every ideological argument made on this issue. Some day arguing "I believe marriage is by definition between a man and a woman" will sound as hollow as arguing "I believe a marriage is by definition between people of the same race."
 
You've got to stop lying to yourself. 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how many times you repeat it.

LOL.....you are the one being intellectually dishonest. The better analogy would be you claiming that only 2x6= 12, not realizing or admitting that 1x12, 6x2, 3x4, 4x3...as well as a variety of other formulas get you to 12 as well. Sorry....but you are plain and simply wrong, whether you admit it or not.
 
...

Up until a decade ago gays could be sent to prison in many states for having sex with their partner. A couple decades before that being gay was recognized as a mental illness that people tried to cure with electro convulsive therapy. A few decades before that the Nazis killed tens of thousands of gays in concentration camps. A few decades before that it was considered liberal to castrate gays rather than put them to death in this country.

What history did you study?

Me? I never bothered with books in school unless they had lots of pictures in them. You, though, must know history pretty well. So maybe you can answer a few questions I had.

What does the Nazis' killing of homosexuals in concentration camps in Europe have to do with how they were treated in this country? How many homosexuals in the U.S. were given electroconvulsive treatments to try to change their sexual preference? Who performed these treatments, under what authority--and where, and when? I don't see why anyone should care if some unnamed persons at some time thought it was a good idea to castrate homosexuals, or to execute them, unless they acted on that thought. If you're claiming people were castrated or executed in the United States solely because they were homosexuals, please cite some specifics to back that up.
 
they were addressing the right to marry period.

The Court in Loving meant the right to marry was fundamental, period? If so, the right to marry more than one partner at a time must be fundamental, too. And yet states all have laws against bigamy and polygamy! How can those laws violate the fundamental right to marriage that way, and yet never have been held unconstitutional?
 
Because people make mistakes? Why didn't our founding fathers get rid of slavery from the beginning or give women the right to vote from the very start of our country?

Well, maybe we'll just go with the short answer here. Because we would not have a country if they did that. No Constitution.
 
LOL.....you are the one being intellectually dishonest. The better analogy would be you claiming that only 2x6= 12, not realizing or admitting that 1x12, 6x2, 3x4, 4x3...as well as a variety of other formulas get you to 12 as well. Sorry....but you are plain and simply wrong, whether you admit it or not.

I guess I am debating Pee Wee Herman. I know you are, but what am I? That's about all you've been able to come up with.
 
The Court in Loving meant the right to marry was fundamental, period? If so, the right to marry more than one partner at a time must be fundamental, too. And yet states all have laws against bigamy and polygamy! How can those laws violate the fundamental right to marriage that way, and yet never have been held unconstitutional?

This is exactly why most people think that polygamy law will fail as well.
 
I guess I am debating Pee Wee Herman. I know you are, but what am I? That's about all you've been able to come up with.

LOL....wrong again. As I have pointed out to you, the law in on my side. If you are hearing the "I know you are but what am I.....you are obviously looking in a mirror.


Sorry Charlie.....ya gotta come up with something better than that. Why don't you start by picking up a book and educating yourself on the topic a little.
 
Me? I never bothered with books in school unless they had lots of pictures in them. You, though, must know history pretty well. So maybe you can answer a few questions I had.

What does the Nazis' killing of homosexuals in concentration camps in Europe have to do with how they were treated in this country? How many homosexuals in the U.S. were given electroconvulsive treatments to try to change their sexual preference? Who performed these treatments, under what authority--and where, and when? I don't see why anyone should care if some unnamed persons at some time thought it was a good idea to castrate homosexuals, or to execute them, unless they acted on that thought. If you're claiming people were castrated or executed in the United States solely because they were homosexuals, please cite some specifics to back that up.

For crying out loud, it was the law! It is not my job to cure you of your ignorance. But here are some simple facts which are all pretty easy to verify if you actually cared.

Thomas Jefferson advocated for castration of gays, which was considered kind in his day as the penalty for sodomy was death.

Lawrence versus Texas in 2003 struck down the sodomy laws in over a dozen states where gays often faced up to 5 years of imprisonment.

The American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental illness up until 1973 and it was treated with a variety of harmful methods.

But those are just a few facts. You clearly are ignorant of LGBT history and have no desire to educate yourself. I am not here to play "who is the most mistreated minority" as you appear to be but rest assured that gays have had there share.
 
This is exactly why most people think that polygamy law will fail as well.

Maybe. But let's get back to your claim. You weren't talking about what will happen when you claimed that what the Court said in Loving, forty-seven years ago, meant that marriage is a fundamental right, period. You argued that what the Court said way back then meant same-sex marriage was a fundamental right, too, just like traditional marriage.

But if the Court meant in Loving that marriage, period--between one man and one woman or otherwise--is a fundamental right, why didn't courts start holding laws against polygamous marriage unconstitutional as soon as that case was decided in 1967? And how about laws against bigamous and incestuous marriage--why weren't they all held unconstitutional way back then, too?
 
For crying out loud, it was the law! It is not my job to cure you of your ignorance. But here are some simple facts which are all pretty easy to verify if you actually cared.

Thomas Jefferson advocated for castration of gays, which was considered kind in his day as the penalty for sodomy was death.

I keep learning things from you. I never would have known, for example, that if Thomas Jefferson advocated something, that made it the law. But Jefferson was opposed to having a Supreme Court, and yet somehow the Constitution ended up creating one. I wonder how that can be!

At the time of this country's founding, there was a death penalty in England for all sorts of crimes, even pretty minor ones--but it was very seldom applied for these less serious crimes. And our laws strongly reflected English law. I have no idea which states made sodomy punishable by death, but what counts is how often people were actually executed for it. In Lawrence, which I can see you know about, Justice Scalia, citing an authority, writes that "There are also records of 20 sodomy prosecutions and 4 executions during the colonial period." Four, total, in America during the colonial period.

Lawrence versus Texas in 2003 struck down the sodomy laws in over a dozen states where gays often faced up to 5 years of imprisonment.

Yes. What of it? Fornication was a crime in many states even well into the 20th century, too--but that doesn't mean fornicators were commonly prosecuted, convicted, and punished. They were not.

It's noted in Lawrence that records show there were 203 prosecutions for homosexual sodomy between 1880 and 1995--an average of somewhat less than two per year throughout the U.S. No figure for convictions is given, but obviously not every person prosecuted for any crime is convicted. So the average was one or two convictions per year, and it's doubtful all of the people convicted served jail time.

The reality seems somewhat less lurid and sensational than the image of Nazi concentration camps you conjured up.

The American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental illness up until 1973

Again, what of it? Did the fact the APA took that view cause homosexuals to be castrated, imprisoned, killed in concentration camps, and whatever else was in your parade of horrors?

and it was treated with a variety of harmful methods.

Oh, I see. Can't ask for a much more detailed and well-supported argument than that.

But those are just a few facts.

Yes--a very few, I'd say. But you did flesh them out with a lot of peevish assertions.

You clearly are ignorant of LGBT history and have no desire to educate yourself.

On that, you are right. I couldn't care less about the history of homosexuality.

I am not here to play "who is the most mistreated minority" as you appear to be but rest assured that gays have had there share.

Hey, life's rough all over.
 
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!

It's only an insult if you think of gays as less deserving or you're completely ignorant of the gay rights movement. Every single thing you list is totally incorrect. Stonewall, Matthew Shephard, "mental illness"/APA, DADT, "DOMA", reparative "therapy", excommunication, expulsion, fired, eviction, harassment of all kinds, blackmail, ostracism.

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

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.
 
See what pisses me off is an unelected judge is subverting the will of the people!
 
That is a bit more complicated than "people make mistakes." In this case, and many by the Federal courts, I'd have to call it more than a mistake. Actually, they had quite a while to work on it, so it's more like a colossal, egregious blunder. And that's the point I was making, that our Supreme Court has a history full of this, and will do so in the future.

It is what it is. You seem to either a) be purposely stubborn to reality or b) have no clue about human nature.

And yes, the SCOTUS will make mistakes and change their minds, just as Congress has done and humans in general as large groups have done for a very long time, since basically the dawn of humanity. We make mistakes, and grow from there.
 

I've been thinking about the exchange between Leonard's mother and Sheldon ever since "social convention" was brought up in this thread. Amazing how simple lines from a sitcom can even prove someone wrong.
 
Yes, proposed in the last twenty years. That's a nanosecond in cultural development.

Same sex couples being able to marry was proposed much longer than just 20 years ago. Baker was over 40 years ago alone.

But considering in many parts of this country, prior to the early 70s, those in same sex relationships could be involuntarily committed or put in jail for sodomy, it was a bit more important to stop those legal practices of persecuting gays/homosexuality than worrying about getting married at the time.
 
Well, maybe we'll just go with the short answer here. Because we would not have a country if they did that. No Constitution.

So, then the SCOTUS can't do things that they feel may keep the country together rather than make a ruling that the majority disagrees with that could cause major issues? Pretty sure the SCOTUS is still filled with people, who still have biases of their own.
 
See what pisses me off is an unelected judge is subverting the will of the people!

The will of the people changes with time, and bureaucracy is slow at recognizing that change, which is reinforced by stupid laws that mandate such crap, such as having to wait certain amounts of time before something that was put into place can be removed from a state constitution.

One of the main points of our federal courts is to ensure that the rights guarantees of our Constitution, the US Constitution, are being upheld, even when it comes to the states.
 
See what pisses me off is an unelected judge is subverting the will of the people!

We do not live in a pure democracy. Your point is irrelevent. We also have protections of tyranny against a minority as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom