• 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!

Federal judge overturns Montana's ban on same-sex marriage

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Judge overturns Montana's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com
[h=1]Federal judge overturns Montana's ban on same-sex marriage[/h]
A federal judge overturned Montana's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday, making it the 34th state in the nation to allow such unions.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris' order was effective immediately."Montana no longer can deprive Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves. This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome," he wrote in the ruling."This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority," the judge said. Morris added: "The time has come for Montana to follow all the other states within the Ninth Circuit and recognize laws that ban same-sex marriage violate the constitutional right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the laws."
Back up links:
Montana Marriage Ban Overturned; Licenses Granted - ABC News
Federal judge overturns Montana's gay marriage ban | Fox News
Montana same-sex marriage ban overturned, effective immediately - LA Times
U.S. judge strikes down Montana's gay marriage ban | Reuters
Judge Strikes Down Montana's Gay Marriage Ban - NBC News
Federal judge strikes down Montana's gay marriage ban - Chicago Tribune

The wins just keep rolling in, equality is stomping out bigotry and rights violations throughout the land. My guess is it will be no longer than the end of 2016 but with the circuit break it may be as soon as next year!!!!! :2usflag:
 



That leaves 16 states which still ban SSM.

Which one do you think will be the last hold-out?
 
That leaves 16 states which still ban SSM.

Which one do you think will be the last hold-out?

well im not sure now because things have changed.

When it looked like it was going state to state I voted for mississippi and created this poll and most agreed
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176752-last-state-have-same-sex-marriage-w-33-a.html

but then it was pushed to circuit courts and that changed things.
Mississippi has an illegal state constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage.
Mississippi also does not recognize Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership
There are currently two lawsuits in the works there

on a higher level, Mississippi is under the 11th circuit court and it is considering a case right now so by default the 11th will take down MS, GA and FL.

So now I think with the circuit break its going to go to SCOTUS and there wont really be a "last state" accept maybe by paper work.
But if i had to guess last group id guess on the 8th circuit because there are currently no cases actually submitted there yet that i know of. SOme of the states already have equal rights though. The 8th covers:

Arkansas
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
 

J-Mac, I'm so surprised you'd have nothing of relevance to say on this topic. Does it not bother you that there is yet another threat to the sanctity of marriage? The gays are getting their way. Christians must squash their agenda before they manage to turn every good man and woman into a raging sinner.
 
That leaves 16 states which still ban SSM.

Which one do you think will be the last hold-out?

This was the 34th? I must have missed one in the last week or so. Which was the 33rd?
 
well im not sure now because things have changed.

When it looked like it was going state to state I voted for mississippi and created this poll and most agreed
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/176752-last-state-have-same-sex-marriage-w-33-a.html

but then it was pushed to circuit courts and that changed things.
Mississippi has an illegal state constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage.
Mississippi also does not recognize Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership
There are currently two lawsuits in the works there

on a higher level, Mississippi is under the 11th circuit court and it is considering a case right now so by default the 11th will take down MS, GA and FL.

So now I think with the circuit break its going to go to SCOTUS and there wont really be a "last state" accept maybe by paper work.
But if i had to guess last group id guess on the 8th circuit because there are currently no cases actually submitted there yet that i know of. SOme of the states already have equal rights though. The 8th covers:

Arkansas
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

South Carolina started issuing SSM licenses this week. The first was issued to a female couple that one is a county councilwoman, and it was done in Charleston, SC. The first SSM ceremony was also held on the same day.

Charleston County issues first marriage license for same-sex cou - Live5News.com | Charleston, SC | News, Weather, Sports
 
I support the victory, but what good does it do to embolden opponents by rubbing it in their faces?

It's nice when victors show a little bit of poise, IMO.
 
This was the 34th? I must have missed one in the last week or so. Which was the 33rd?

Kansas, montana and SC were the last 3.

SC happened on the 12th but a short stayed was issued until the 20 but they started issuing sooner. Technically it could be blocked by noon on the 20th.
COLUMBIA, SC: Judges rule SC same-sex marriage ban to end Thursday | Local News | The State

Judges rule SC same-sex marriage ban to end Thursday

COLUMBIA, SC — Same-sex marriage will be legal in South Carolina on Thursday afternoon unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in to stop it.On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously turned down S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson’s request to extend the Thursday noon deadline imposed by U.S. Judge Richard Gergel of Charleston. Gergel last week ruled that gay couples could get married in South Carolina under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but he imposed the Thursday deadline to give Wilson a chance to appeal. Wilson did. He lost. But he said he immediately will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved.

2AI1G.AuSt.74.jpg

In a separate decision Tuesday, U.S. Judge Michelle Childs of Columbia upheld a Lexington County lesbian couple’s bid to get legal recognition from the state of South Carolina for their out-of-state marriage.The couple, Katherine Bradacs and Tracie Goodwin, were legally married in the District of Columbia in 2012. They have three children, and their lawsuit alleged their children were adversely affected by South Carolina not acknowledging they are legally married.
 
I support the victory, but what good does it do to embolden opponents by rubbing it in their faces?

It's nice when victors show a little bit of poise, IMO.
"rubbing it in their faces"
whos doing this? thats very specific, celebrating equal rights is not rubbing it in their faces
not to mention typically opponents are equal in terms of the contest, game etc and there is already respect

technically a rapist is an opponent to the woman trying not to be raped but i wouldn't view it as real opponents
 
J-Mac, I'm so surprised you'd have nothing of relevance to say on this topic. Does it not bother you that there is yet another threat to the sanctity of marriage? The gays are getting their way. Christians must squash their agenda before they manage to turn every good man and woman into a raging sinner.
Nah, it doesn't bother me much. I think I've been pretty consistent for some time now on saying that I don't really care what someone else does behind their own closed doors. Nor do I see it as a threat to my own marriage if they want to enter into that contract.

My objections are more along the lines of forcing those who do have other objections to do things they object to. Like the baker baking them a cake. There are plenty of bakery's in any town, and of all types. If one business doesn't want the money, I am sure another will, that's the free market.

Also, the recent flap out west forcing the two wedding chapel owners to marry a gay couple against their religious beliefs. They could have found another place to do it that would have had no problems with it, instead they had to cause a problem.

It is this type of 'in your face' force that turns people off about this sort of thing. But thank you so much for once again proving that zealots of any stripe tend to just paint everyone with the same broad brush, even when they themselves don't like it when done to themselves.
 
My objections are more along the lines of forcing those who do have other objections to do things they object to. Like the baker baking them a cake. There are plenty of bakery's in any town, and of all types. If one business doesn't want the money, I am sure another will, that's the free market.

Also, the recent flap out west forcing the two wedding chapel owners to marry a gay couple against their religious beliefs. They could have found another place to do it that would have had no problems with it, instead they had to cause a problem.

It is this type of 'in your face' force that turns people off about this sort of thing.

simply solution to all those examples, if those business owners would have chosen not to break the laws and rules that apply to us all and be criminals then there would be no issue. It wasnt to smart to think they could break laws and rules as they see fit and infringe on the rights of others. nobody to blame but thier own poor decision making.

So in reality theres no in your face issue there just poor judgment to break the law and rules.
 
simply solution to all those examples, if those business owners would have chosen not to break the laws and rules that apply to us all and be criminals then there would be no issue. It wasnt to smart to think they could break laws and rules as they see fit and infringe on the rights of others. nobody to blame but thier own poor decision making.

So in reality theres no in your face issue there just poor judgment to break the law and rules.
Your rhetoric in demonizing these people is over the top.
 
Your rhetoric in demonizing these people is over the top.

no rhetoric nor did i demonize them its all accurate.
did they choose to break the laws and rules that apply to us all? yes
does that make them criminals? yes
is it smart a smart choice/decision to break the law and violate the rights of others? no

these are simply realities and facts, theres no demonization at all unless you are creating it in your own head.

If you disagree simply point it out and support your claim of demonization.
 
simply solution to all those examples, if those business owners would have chosen not to break the laws and rules that apply to us all and be criminals then there would be no issue. It wasnt to smart to think they could break laws and rules as they see fit and infringe on the rights of others. nobody to blame but thier own poor decision making.

So in reality theres no in your face issue there just poor judgment to break the law and rules.

No, it's the one-way street. I'm all for same sex marriage and allowing everyone their equal rights; but that means recognizing the equal rights of everyone. You do not have the right to another person's property or labor, so you cannot justly and morally force someone to sell you a cake if they do not want to sell you their cake. It's not yours, you have no right for it, none of your rights are violated if you do not obtain the cake.

Appeal to authority makes bad arguments, so for this thread it's probably best to leave those arguments behind and just focus on the overturning of another same sex marriage ban.
 
1.)No, it's the one-way street. I'm all for same sex marriage and allowing everyone their equal rights; but that means recognizing the equal rights of everyone. You do not have the right to another person's property or labor, so you cannot justly and morally force someone to sell you a cake if they do not want to sell you their cake. It's not yours, you have no right for it, none of your rights are violated if you do not obtain the cake.

Appeal to authority makes bad arguments, so for this thread it's probably best to leave those arguments behind and just focus on the overturning of another same sex marriage ban.

i agree it is a two way street and the reality and fact is rights, laws and rules were only violated in one direction.
I know you have the opinion based on your philosophy that disagrees but im not interested in it nor does it matter, nor can it be backed up by anything but your philosophy and opinions.

your claims are not claims anybody has made (right to cake and appeals to authority LMAO)

feel free to beat your unsupportable drum though ill be doing whats best and sticking with facts, laws rights and court cases.
 
i agree it is a two way street and the reality and fact is rights, laws and rules were only violated in one direction.
I know you have the opinion based on your philosophy that disagrees but im not interested in it nor does it matter, nor can it be backed up by anything but your philosophy and opinions.

your claims are not claims anybody has made (right to cake and appeals to authority LMAO)

feel free to beat your unsupportable drum though ill be doing whats best and sticking with facts, laws rights and court cases.

"hose business owners would have chosen not to break the laws and rules that apply to us all and be criminals then there would be no issue." is appeal to authority. It's saying that the force used against them was legitimate because government says that it's legitimate. Duh

When you use the guns of government to get a product, such as a cake, from someone else you are indeed laying claim, at least in part, to their property and labor. These are just facts.

As I said, stay on topic here. Just celebrate the reversal of another same sex marriage ban; you don't want to bog down into this other line of propaganda and illegitimate use of government force.
 
no rhetoric nor did i demonize them its all accurate.
did they choose to break the laws and rules that apply to us all? yes
does that make them criminals? yes
is it smart a smart choice/decision to break the law and violate the rights of others? no

these are simply realities and facts, theres no demonization at all unless you are creating it in your own head.

If you disagree simply point it out and support your claim of demonization.
Did they break laws? I don't know, I see it as a businesses right to refuse service, whether it dumb for them to do so or not.

Were they arrested? Or is this a civil matter?

I don't think they are "criminals", not good business people, or fervant believers in their religion, but neither of those is criminal, anymore than the zealots of radical homosexual totalitarianism are "criminal"... Misguided in their fervor maybe, but that isn't a crime brother.
 
1.)"hose business owners would have chosen not to break the laws and rules that apply to us all and be criminals then there would be no issue." is appeal to authority.
2.) It's saying that the force used against them was legitimate because government says that it's legitimate. Duh
3.)When you use the guns of government to get a product, such as a cake, from someone else you are indeed laying claim, at least in part, to their property and labor. These are just facts.
4.)As I said, stay on topic here. Just celebrate the reversal of another same sex marriage ban;
5.) you don't want to bog down into this other line of propaganda and illegitimate use of government force.

1.) no its what factually happened
2.) this is made up unless of course you can quote me saying that. making straw man up wont help your unsupportable claims it only further exposes them
3.) good thing thats not what happened
4.) im celebrating equal rights which is still the topic of that also
5.) more unsupportable opinion and philosophies that don't matter to rights, laws and facts.
 
You do not have the right to another person's property or labor, so you cannot justly and morally force someone to sell you a cake if they do not want to sell you their cake. It's not yours, you have no right for it, none of your rights are violated if you do not obtain the cake.

Appeal to authority makes bad arguments, so for this thread it's probably best to leave those arguments behind and just focus on the overturning of another same sex marriage ban.

While you are consistent in your argument, most on the right support the fact that a business cannot turn away someone because they are black. So it is consistent that they cannot turn away someone that is gay as well. Now, you view that as wrong as forcing a business not to turn away a person because they are black, I happen to disagree.

Bottom line is that as long as there are laws that say you cannot turn away someone because they are black, don't be surprised that there are laws that say you cannot turn away someone that is gay. I suggest you get with those on the right and try to sway them to your argument then if that is a sore spot with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom