• 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

WCH said:
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.

BTW those signatures are Humans.
Click to expand...

what have they taken from any one?
 
WCH said:
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.

BTW those signatures are Humans.
Click to expand...

Oh puh-lease....a little drama for the morning? The fact that the signatures are "human" doesn't make the initiatives any less unconstitutional.
 
disneydude said:
Bigot of the 50's-60's: Like I said many times I could care less what inter-racial couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath

Bigot of today: Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.

Bigots are always bigots...they just change a word here and there.
Click to expand...

Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
 
WCH said:
Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
Click to expand...

in this case how is it not? I can see people ****ing over gay people what about homosexuality is treating you badly is treating any one badly?
 
WCH said:
Same lame arugment....same inane attempt to make bigot a bad word.
Click to expand...

of course bigots don't want to believe that bigotry is a bad word. That would not surprise anyone. .A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.....only a word or two changes.
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Click to expand...

Too bad we don't live in a theocracy that adheres to your exact religion. It is marriage, get over it, is your faith that freaking weak that you can't accept people in love getting married?
 
Navy Pride said:
The bottom line is individual states have voted over and over again to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and left wing activist judges in most cases have over ruled the will of the people and that is just wrong no matter what liberals say.
Click to expand...

If 51% of the population votes to define religion as excluding Christianity, and bans the construction of churches, is a judge overruling the will of the people wrong?
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Click to expand...

Are fighting to your last breath to prevent adulterers from remarrying? Fornicators from marrying? Are you fighting to end divorce in the US? All those things desecrate marriage. No? Why not?
 
WCH said:
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.

BTW those signatures are Humans.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Holy ****, that's a new level of desperation rhetoric. Gays steal? What, they stole your right to suppress their freedom? Oh you poor victim you. Let's all give WCH here a big hug, he's been so traumatized by what has been stolen from him.
 
matchlight said:
I don't know why any state would need to answer that. It should be enough that most people living there believe that allowing partners of the same sex to marry each other would be a socially destructive policy, just as they believe allowing incestuous or polygamous marriages would be.
Click to expand...


How is it enough for them to just 'believe' it? For the discrimination to have any legal base at all it should have evidence of that social destructiveness. None has been shown in decades of gays living together. None has been shown for their raising of children. None has been shown in the years (more than a decade now) that SSM has been legal?

So how is an unfounded belief enough to base any law or discrimination on?
 
notquiteright said:
I don't think you have a firm grasp of the term 'enemy'. I was a grunt and I'd never live in enemy territory- hunt there but not grow old there. I live in Oklahoma, not a real liberal state to say the least and I don't consider my neighbors 'the enemy'. They are just under a shallow spell cast by shammers poising as religious leaders...
Click to expand...

Leave him alone, I dont want him moving until after this vote in Nov. He's going to vote the way I want on the gun issues and we'll need every vote.
 
WCH said:
IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.

BTW those signatures are Humans.
Click to expand...

LOL

It appears the gays have not cornered the market on drama.
 
Lursa said:
How is it enough for them to just 'believe' it? For the discrimination to have any legal base at all it should have evidence of that social destructiveness. None has been shown in decades of gays living together. None has been shown for their raising of children. None has been shown in the years (more than a decade now) that SSM has been legal?

So how is an unfounded belief enough to base any law or discrimination on?
Click to expand...

You've got it backwards. In rational basis review, the law being challenged is presumed constitutional. The party challenging it has the burden of showing that is is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.

That is usually very hard to do, because under this standard courts defer strongly to the legislature that passed the law being challenged. They do that to respect the basic principle of the separation of powers that's built into the Constitution. That requires courts in equal protection cases to have a damn good reason to substitute their judgment for the legislature's--and indirectly, for the judgment of the people who elected that legislature.

Take public nudity as an example. If a state law prohibits it, or allows it only in a few specified places, is it denying nudists the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th Amendment? If some nudists' rights group sued, would the state, to justify its law, have to produce evidence that allowing public nudity is an unwise, socially destructive policy? Would it have to refute evidence presented by the nudists that its view was unfounded, because public nudity has never been shown to have harmed anyone where it was practiced?

Of course not. Ordinary rational basis review would apply, because there is no fundamental right to go nude in public, nor do laws that discriminate against nudists create a suspect classification. The nudist group wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

What bigotry! How terribly cruel and unfair! What about their rights to live as wonderful, loving people who mean no harm to anyone, free from oppression? Why doesn't the Supreme Court Do something!!??

Maybe next we'll see nudists recognized as a new victim group, trying like the others, no doubt, to trade on the imagery of the black civil rights movement. I can picture them marching--in the snow, maybe, to symbolize the suffering they've endured all these years. "We shall overcome some day-ay-ay-ay-ay . . ."
 
matchlight said:
You've got it backwards. In rational basis review, the law being challenged is presumed constitutional. The party challenging it has the burden of showing that is is not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose.
Click to expand...

Already done. it provides a more stable environment in which to raise children and provides more legal protections and benefits for those children. All these benefit society/the state.
 
matchlight said:
Take public nudity as an example. If a state law prohibits it, or allows it only in a few specified places, is it denying nudists the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 14th Amendment? If some nudists' rights group sued, would the state, to justify its law, have to produce evidence that allowing public nudity is an unwise, socially destructive policy? Would it have to refute evidence presented by the nudists that its view was unfounded, because public nudity has never been shown to have harmed anyone where it was practiced?

Of course not. Ordinary rational basis review would apply, because there is no fundamental right to go nude in public, nor do laws that discriminate against nudists create a suspect classification. The nudist group wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

What bigotry! How terribly cruel and unfair! What about their rights to live as wonderful, loving people who mean no harm to anyone, free from oppression? Why doesn't the Supreme Court Do something!!??

Maybe next we'll see nudists recognized as a new victim group, trying like the others, no doubt, to trade on the imagery of the black civil rights movement. I can picture them marching--in the snow, maybe, to symbolize the suffering they've endured all these years. "We shall overcome some day-ay-ay-ay-ay . . ."
Click to expand...

Ha ha awesome. Have that discussion going on right now with Hamster Budha in this thread:http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-inconceivable-now-appears-inevitable-37.html

Starts with post 367.

Sorry, that one doesnt work either.
 
Lursa said:
Already done. it provides a more stable environment in which to raise children and provides more legal protections and benefits for those children. All these benefit society/the state.
Click to expand...

Asserting that in a post here is one thing--proving it in court is another.
 
disneydude said:
of course bigots don't want to believe that bigotry is a bad word. That would not surprise anyone. .A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.....only a word or two changes.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad word...it'simply a difference of opinion.
 
Lursa said:
Are fighting to your last breath to prevent adulterers from remarrying? Fornicators from marrying? Are you fighting to end divorce in the US? All those things desecrate marriage. No? Why not?
Click to expand...

Gay adulterers and fornicators and SSM for sure. Thanks for describing the problems.
 
Goshin said:
You misconstrue. I am largely indifferent to SSM; I know it is probably inevitable; I have no interest in "stalling for spite".



The problem I have is letting an appellate court set aside a provision in my home State's Constitution, in such an indirect fashion, without clear word from SCOTUS. If a Fed appellate court can set aside any provision of any State's Constitution at will, then the States may as well close their governments down and quit pretending there is any government other than the Fed.


South Carolina needs to say "**** you, until we hear from SCOTUS our state Constitution stands as we wrote it". Feds don't like it, well the SCOTUS can nut up and render a decision. They owe us that much before setting aside something enumerated in our state Constitution.
Click to expand...

I didn't miscontrue. I'm merely stating the facts, and the facts that I'm stating are the correct ones (you can look them up if you want).
I understand what you are saying about South Carolina but it is wishful thinking. Whether you like it or not, state constitutions can not over-rule federal constitution. A federal judge's constitutional ruling can only be appealed within the federal system and when it goes to a circuit court but the SCOTUS doesn't accept an appeal, the circuit court's decision stands and it over-rules anything the state level can do.
You don't like it? Get enough votes and change the federal constitution and the legal provisions of the unions of the states under a federation, or move to another country that does it to your liking. But until it happens, sorry, but this is how the law operates. Our states are *not* autonomous. They don't *get* to say "f.... you" and to do as they please. It's illegal and unconstitutional to do so.

It's funny how conservatives pretend to defend the US Constitution but anytime some ruling goes against their views, they immediately call for ignoring/disobeying the rule. You call yourself independent so what I'm saying maybe doesn't apply to you, but it's common to see this attitude among conservatives.

Another example - you say the SCOTUS owes your state something, etc. Well, even when the SCOTUS rules, some people still won't accept it, so I'm sure it would have been the same if they had taken up SSM. in the case of the Affordable Care Act the SCOTUS did take the matter up but ruled against the conservatives' views and considered the law constitutional. Conservatives everywhere continue to cry out loud calling it unconstitutional. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is the guardian of the constitution and if it says something is constitutional, then it is, until maybe a future ruling changes it. There is nobody higher than the SCOTUS to appeal to, so, there is no way to still challenge a decision, once it is delivered.

Also, what needs to be understood is that what the SCOTUS did *is* a ruling of sorts. They signaled that they wouldn't take up an appeal, which is a way to say that they agree with the interpretation of the circuit courts (that is, that banning SSM is unconstitutional) therefore see no reason to take up the appeal.

I think they will only take it up if the 6th circuit rules against SSM. So far all circuit courts have rule homogeneously so the SCOTUS saw no reason to interfere. If there is discrepancy between the circuit courts then they might step in.

But opponents of SSM shouldn't get any relief from this. Obviously, given the SCOTUS majoritary decision to not take up the appeals, it is clear that the majority of the SCOTUS does believe that SSM bans are unconstitutional, so, if they ever take up the matter, that's how they will rule, and then it will affect all 50 states. So, conservatives should fear this. It would put an end to any attempts to stop SSM, *nationwide*, all 50 states.
 
notquiteright;1063853813[B said:
]I don't think you have a firm grasp of the term 'enemy'.[/B] I was a grunt and I'd never live in enemy territory- hunt there but not grow old there. I live in Oklahoma, not a real liberal state to say the least and I don't consider my neighbors 'the enemy'. They are just under a shallow spell cast by shammers poising as religious leaders...
Click to expand...

Its just and expression we use here my left wing friend..............Lighten up.
 
Lursa said:
Are fighting to your last breath to prevent adulterers from remarrying? Fornicators from marrying? Are you fighting to end divorce in the US? All those things desecrate marriage. No? Why not?
Click to expand...

Divorce should absolutely be illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom