• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

beefheart said:
How sad that you have to call everyone that disagree with you "left wing"

Its over...you want to make a wager?

You are not affected in any way by two guys or two girls getting married. Except for your hate, that has already harmed you.
Click to expand...


If it degrades the definition of marriage, and it does I do. my left wing friend.
 
Navy Pride said:
As Yogi Berra once said my left wing friend, "Its not over until its over."
Click to expand...

and its over.....the Supreme Court refusing to take up the cases pretty much signaled that its over......the fat lady is singing NP....lol
 
chromium said:
No it was a powerless attempt to act in opposition to the federal courts, which has jurisdiction when it comes to the *federal* constitution, which again has authority. The federal appellate court has already ruled and guess who will quickly strike down this SCOSC ruling? Your only course of action is suck it up, leave personally, or secede.



And trust me, south carolina wouldn't be missed at all, precisely because of tantrums and spite of minorities like this
Click to expand...

You need to check your political leaning to left...You must have got mixed up my left wing friend or like to play games..........You fool no one...............
 
Navy Pride said:
If it degrades the definition of marriage, and it does I do. my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

The bigots of the 50's-60's said the same exact thing about inter-racial marriage. They didn't want the definition of marriage changed either. Oh...how the times may change, but bigots will always be bigots.
 
disneydude said:
and its over.....the Supreme Court refusing to take up the cases pretty much signaled that its over......the fat lady is singing NP....lol
Click to expand...

It's inevitable that it will be taken up by the Supreme Court. When they rule it's an issue for State's rights over Federal Rights, like they did with the DOMA decision, the crying is going to be epic.
 
chromium said:
My prediction has come true. DP's resident homophobe has made a reappearance just as soon as some bigot court comes forth with a totally impotent ruling *against* SSM
Click to expand...

Hey he went four whole days without a sexist or homophobic comment. I think that is a new record.
 
The Immortal said:
It's inevitable that it will be taken up by the Supreme Court. When they rule it's an issue for State's rights over Federal Rights, like they did with the DOMA decision, the crying is going to be epic.
Click to expand...
LOL.....only a fool would believe that. The reality is....every federal circuit court has ruled in favor of marriage equality for the most part, public opinion has shifted in favor of marriage equality, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that if they ruled today, they would rule for marriage equality. What part of that makes you optimistic that the bigots are going to prevail? LOL.....
 
I love how gay marriage supporters find this shocking despite the fact they never looked into the US and Sate Constitutions looking for their answer.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....only a fool would believe that. The reality is....every federal circuit court has ruled in favor of marriage equality for the most part, public opinion has shifted in favor of marriage equality, the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that if they ruled today, they would rule for marriage equality. What part of that makes you optimistic that the bigots are going to prevail? LOL.....
Click to expand...

Uhhh no actually they haven't. They've indicated exactly the opposite. They only referenced Loving v Virginia one time in the DOMA decision and that was to assert that while rights have to be given equally, the STATES have the right to decide what marriage consists of.

Furthermore, did you forget that the Supreme Court is conservative? 4 out of the 5 conservative members voted against gay marriage in the DOMA decision. The only one who voted in favor with the liberals was Kennedy who is ADAMANTLY in favor of State rights over Federal rights. You have to remember, Kennedy was ruling on a federal law in DOMA that was superseding State law. DOMA basically said even if a state like California voted in favor of gay marriage, they couldn't have gay marriage because DOMA didn't allow it. Kennedy was ruling in favor of STATE rights over Federal rights.

What YOU folks want the Supreme Court to do is rule that FEDERAL law should supersede State law and that if a State wants to define marriage as being between a male and a female, they should not have the right to do so and that a Federal law should supersede that State Law. And I hate to hurt your little feelings (actually I don't) but if you think Kennedy is going to rule in favor of Federal rights over State rights you're absolutely 100% delusional. And without Kennedy the Supreme Court will rule against gay marriage.
 
Goshin said:
Well, pardon us if we'd like something a little more than the opinion of a handful of mere appellate judges before we throw out our own State Constitution. The Supremes need to put on their big girl panties and render a ruling one way or the other.
Click to expand...

An arbitrary line you are drawing out of spite. The circuit court has jurisdiction. If you'd like to completely overhaul our nation's court system, I'd suggest you write your congressman. Because what you, random internet poster, personally like is not relevant here. This is how our court system works. The Supreme Court did rule here. Their ruling is that there's no reason for them to take this case. It's already decided, and correctly. It's done. Get over it. Your state implemented a constitutional amendment that violates equal protection. You don't get to keep it.
 
Navy Pride said:
If it degrades the definition of marriage, and it does I do. my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

Your marriage hasn't been redefined or degraded.
 
The Immortal said:
Uhhh no actually they haven't. They've indicated exactly the opposite. They only referenced Loving v Virginia one time in the DOMA decision and that was to assert that while rights have to be given equally, the STATES have the right to decide what marriage consists of.

Furthermore, did you forget that the Supreme Court is conservative? 4 out of the 5 conservative members voted against gay marriage in the DOMA decision. The only one who voted in favor with the liberals was Kennedy who is ADAMANTLY in favor of State rights over Federal rights. You have to remember, Kennedy was ruling on a federal law in DOMA that was superseding State law. DOMA basically said even if a state like California voted in favor of gay marriage, they couldn't have gay marriage because DOMA didn't allow it. Kennedy was ruling in favor of STATE rights over Federal rights.

What YOU folks want the Supreme Court to do is rule that FEDERAL law should supersede State law and that if a State wants to define marriage as being between a male and a female, they should not have the right to do so and that a Federal law should supersede that State Law. And I hate to hurt your little feelings (actually I don't) but if you think Kennedy is going to rule in favor of Federal rights over State rights you're absolutely 100% delusional. And without Kennedy the Supreme Court will rule against gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Wow.....you are so far out in a world of denial it is scary. You have no clue what you are talking about. Where did you get the information that you are spewing here? Obviously from some extreme right-wing source because it couldn't be further from the truth. Have you read the DOMA decision? You do know that Kennedy wrote the decision and clearly indicated how he would vote if gay marriage was put in front of him. Why do you think Scalia launched into his vitriolic dissent?
You have no clue my friend....
 
Mr.Nick said:
I love how gay marriage supporters find this shocking despite the fact they never looked into the US and Sate Constitutions looking for their answer.
Click to expand...
Actually not too many are finding this shocking and it actually FAVORS the SSM crowd.
 
apdst said:
Can God thank himself for murders and child molesters?


Nice fail!
Click to expand...

since god created them, according to religious nuts, yeah thank him.
 
disneydude said:
Wow.....you are so far out in a world of denial it is scary. You have no clue what you are talking about. Where did you get the information that you are spewing here? Obviously from some extreme right-wing source because it couldn't be further from the truth. Have you read the DOMA decision? You do know that Kennedy wrote the decision and clearly indicated how he would vote if gay marriage was put in front of him. Why do you think Scalia launched into his vitriolic dissent?
You have no clue my friend....
Click to expand...

You're simply incorrect. As I said, this is the ONLY time Loving v Virginia is referenced.

From the decision: State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

In other words, if California wants to define marriage as being between a man and man they can. But that also means if SC wants to define marriage as being between a man and a woman they can. And the federal government should have no say in either.

He ruled in favor of State's rights over Federal rights. You want Kennedy to rule in favor of Federal Rights over State's rights. One of Kennedy's BIGGEST positions is State rights over Federal rights. If you think he's going to vote for Federal Rights over State's rights... you're simply wrong. He's NEVER done so before. Ever. You think this is going to be the first time?

Without Kennedy you have a better chance of getting ice water in hell than one of the other conservatives to vote in favor of gay marriage.
 
Deuce said:
The judge is breaking the law by doing this. Why do you support that?
Click to expand...

And worse, he's part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel.

Now you make up another wildly ridiculous claim.

Actually you were correct, the judge did violate the law by issuing gay marriage licenses and he should be prosecuted.
 
TheNextEra said:
since god created them, according to religious nuts, yeah thank him.
Click to expand...

How you figure that? Gay Marriage (not SSM) someone will protest their way into changing the US constitution?

If you actually believe that then you must be a fanboy of anarchy.
 
Mr.Nick said:
How you figure that? Gay Marriage (not SSM) someone will protest their way into changing the US constitution?

If you actually believe that then you must be a fanboy of anarchy.
Click to expand...

god Created GAYS. Take your anti-SSM and go to Iran if you hate it so much you have more in common with them than Americans.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well the state SC ordered licensing to stop and that is a step in t he right direction IMHO.
Click to expand...

The state supreme court can not trump a federal court order. It is an invalid order.

It would be no different than a state's county judge ruling on a state's constitutional law. The county judge can not over-rule the state's supreme court ruling. The county judge is not over the state supreme court justice.

A state supreme court justice is not over the federal court judge.
 
The Immortal said:
It's inevitable that it will be taken up by the Supreme Court. When they rule it's an issue for State's rights over Federal Rights, like they did with the DOMA decision, the crying is going to be epic.
Click to expand...


Why those sneaky bastards.

The refused to hear cases on appeal from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts where in each of the 7 cases (7 cases, from 5 states, heard by the 3 Circuits) where in each case the of Appeals decision was that the State bans were unconstitutional so that the SCOTUS's own stay was lifted (and thereby the stays from the Circuits) which allows same-sex Civil Marriage to start in those 5 States and as many as 11 States once the Cicruit courts apply their ruling to the other 6 states.

Thousands, probably 10's of thousands of legal same-sex Civil Marriages will occur - marriages that won't be revoked because they were legal at the time. (It would take an ex post facto law to invalidate them, which is itself unconstitutional.)


Just so in the future they can take some other case and rule that from that point forward that States can enact laws that discriminate against homosexuals.


Diabolical I say...

............... Diabolical.



>>>>
 
Paleocon said:
And worse, he's part of a conspiracy to destroy Israel.

Now you make up another wildly ridiculous claim.

Actually you were correct, the judge did violate the law by issuing gay marriage licenses and he should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

The 4th circuit's decision is binding. There's no reason to grant an injunction because there's no expectation whatsoever that an appeal would be successful. It's done.
 
WorldWatcher said:
Why those sneaky bastards.

The refused to hear cases on appeal from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit courts where in each of the 7 cases (7 cases, from 5 states, heard by the 3 Circuits) where in each case the of Appeals decision was that the State bans were unconstitutional so that the SCOTUS's own stay was lifted (and thereby the stays from the Circuits) which allows same-sex Civil Marriage to start in those 5 States and as many as 11 States once the Cicruit courts apply their ruling to the other 6 states.

Thousands, probably 10's of thousands of legal same-sex Civil Marriages will occur - marriages that won't be revoked because they were legal at the time. (It would take an ex post facto law to invalidate them, which is itself unconstitutional.)


Just so in the future they can take some other case and rule that from that point forward that States can enact laws that discriminate against homosexuals.


Diabolical I say...

............... Diabolical.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Nothing diabolical about it. They just want the state's to weigh in so that once they make their decision they have as little dissension in the lower courts as possible.

And nobody says they can't be married. They simply would no longer qualify to receive marriage benefits.
 
Navy Pride said:
If it degrades the definition of marriage, and it does I do. my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

You must have a very weak marriage to feel so threatened, my ultra right wing poster.
 
The Immortal said:
Uhhh no actually they haven't. They've indicated exactly the opposite. They only referenced Loving v Virginia one time in the DOMA decision and that was to assert that while rights have to be given equally, the STATES have the right to decide what marriage consists of.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, you left out the part where the Court in Windsor specifically said State marriage laws could not deprive people of rights and must conform to the United States Constitution:

"In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and au-thority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 567 (2003)."​​


The Immortal said:
Furthermore, did you forget that the Supreme Court is conservative? 4 out of the 5 conservative members voted against gay marriage in the DOMA decision. The only one who voted in favor with the liberals was Kennedy who is ADAMANTLY in favor of State rights over Federal rights. You have to remember, Kennedy was ruling on a federal law in DOMA that was superseding State law. DOMA basically said even if a state like California voted in favor of gay marriage, they couldn't have gay marriage because DOMA didn't allow it. Kennedy was ruling in favor of STATE rights over Federal rights.
Click to expand...

#1 You forget that Kenndy was the author of BOTH of the major court decisions where State laws were overturned as unconsitutional because they discriminated against homosexuals - right? (Those being Romer v. Evans [1996] and Lawrence v. Texas [2003].)

#2 Nothing in the Federal DOMA said that States couldn't adopt same-sex Civil Marriage within their own State, it said only that they need not recognize SSCM from other States, that was in section 2. Section 3 said the Federal government would not recognize any SSCM from any State for Federal purposes - and that part has been found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.


The Immortal said:
What YOU folks want the Supreme Court to do is rule that FEDERAL law should supersede State law and that if a State wants to define marriage as being between a male and a female, they should not have the right to do so and that a Federal law should supersede that State Law. And I hate to hurt your little feelings (actually I don't) but if you think Kennedy is going to rule in favor of Federal rights over State rights you're absolutely 100% delusional. And without Kennedy the Supreme Court will rule against gay marriage.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't recommend counting your chickens. Kennedy (as previously mentioned) has authored both major cases where the SCOTUS ruled State laws discriminating against homosexuals as unconstitutional.


>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom