• 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!

Supreme Court to take up same sex marriage issues in April

JANFU said:
Thanks for the information on who appointed who.
We have some crazy rulings as well. Lifetime appts here as well.
They do not go thru the meat grinder that the Senate puts them thru in the US though.
Court is not as activist as it once was in some cases.
But SSM legalization is a slam dunk - If you believe in equal rights for all US citizens, then it is.
If you support desperation of Church and State, then it is again.
People on this should eave their religious beliefs at the door.
Me I am just a plain old Christian. Never did find where Jesus condemned Homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Well its job isn't to be 'activist' but to interpret the constitution. I'm not familiar with Canadian constitution, but maybe therein lies the diff. Another big reason for this here is Roe v Wade. That ruling created a fallout that 30 years later has not relented.

There's still multiple court cases and violence stemming from attempts by the states to sidestep the very clear ruling. However, this is also the justice's being cowards, because no ruling, including SSM, will lead to the same kind of fallout that the right wing loses their minds over as abortion does.

As for as the confirmation process, yes, the senate is a hindrance, but few nominations have been blocked and the result of lifetime appointment is 10 years later, it may not work out as intended either way. Those 4 judges i cited were definitely not appointed to make SSM legal, yet they will. The two obama appointees were confirmed despite it was known they would vote for SSM. Why? Because the president has to appoint *someone* the other party won't like
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The federal constitution says marriage is left to the state to regulate, per the 10th amendment. So no its not as easy as you think, not at sll, otherwise it would never have made it to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

i see, so you believe Loving v Virginia was a mistake and the south should reinstate interracial marriage bans
 
chromium said:
i see, so you believe Loving v Virginia was a mistake and the south should reinstate interracial marriage bans
Click to expand...
Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.
 
wolfsgirl said:
No one polls with those questions anymore, since the majority of states already have SSM. It is now a yes or no question.
Click to expand...
False.

And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

That's what matters.

The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
 
Jerry said:
Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

That is a complete misinterpretation of Loving. The Courts analysis in Loving rested on the Court finding that "marriage is a fundamental right"....while the case involved an inter-racial couple, the language is not limited to inter-racial couples. Are you claiming that marriage isn't a fundamental right for non-inter-racial couples? I doubt it.
 
disneydude said:
That is a complete misinterpretation of Loving. The Courts analysis in Loving rested on the Court finding that "marriage is a fundamental right"....while the case involved an inter-racial couple, the language is not limited to inter-racial couples. Are you claiming that marriage isn't a fundamental right for non-inter-racial couples? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Loving also said that marriage was essential for reproduction and SSM has taken reproduction off the table. Human kind has a long history of legal interracial marriage whereas legal SSM is a very recent thing. Marriage per-se is a fundamental right but SSM specifically has not been established as such. All Loving guarantees is that a gay white man can marry a gay black woman. Interracial marriage and SSM are different things. You don't get SSM just because Loving exists, it's not that simple, it never is.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Loving also said that marriage was essential for reproduction and SSM has taken reproduction off the table. Interracial marriage and SSM are different things. You don't get SSM just because Loving exists, it's not that simple, it never is.
Click to expand...

I never said that we did.....however, it starts with the premise that marriage is a fundamental right and the court has to balance that with whatever legitimate governmental interest there is in banning it. If it wasn't a fundamental right, the government would have to show a much lower interest in banning it but because it involves a fundamental right, the court will give it much higher scrutiny.
 
Ontologuy said:
False.

And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

That's what matters.

The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
Click to expand...

Sorry the constitution bothers you so much, but if you think that SCOTUS is going to rule against SSM, you are crazy.
 
Ontologuy said:
False.

And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

That's what matters.

The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you on it. 3 to 1 odds. My $30 forum donation versus your $10 forum donation says SCOTUS will rule that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.
 
Jerry said:
Before you even go there, I support every kind of marriage which isn't otherwise harmful. You would do well to cling to the facts of the law.

Loving is not a trump card to get any and all other kinds of marriage. Loving was based on fact-dependent merits which SSM doesn't share, and SSM is based on facts Loving did't include. Loving will not win you SSM just as Loving will not win you polygamy. If SSM can't be won on the merits of SSM then SSM shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

SSM isn't harmful so you i guess you must support it. In fact, it prevents sham marriages, leads to much needed adoptions, and doesn't make our self-proclaimed "land of the free" quite so much an orwellian embarrassment, and that's not even getting into the benefits to the gay couples

"fact dependent merits" being code for "i'm not racist but screw ze homos." In fact, whatever merits you list will be the same as those used by the "keep race mixing separate" crowd in 1970s

How was Loving/Virginia NOT the fed intervening to block state marriage laws? Just as they will do in june to the 14 remaining states that ban SSM. That was my point. The double standard and willful ignorance are so glaring i'll need the world's thickest sun glasses to not get blinded

The merits are simple: two loving adults, equality, family stability (the MI case is a lesbian couple with adopted kids who are not co-adopted due to the ban), 1000+ rights deprived to them. If it sounds identical to the arguments in Loving, that's because it is ****ing identical. Whole classes of people being denied the right to marry, go figure.

Race is an identity and so is sexuality. The only way to glean some kind of disparate issue is if you find one to be inferior to the other.
 
disneydude said:
I never said that we did.....however, it starts with the premise that marriage is a fundamental right and the court has to balance that with whatever legitimate governmental interest there is in banning it. If it wasn't a fundamental right, the government would have to show a much lower interest in banning it but because it involves a fundamental right, the court will give it much higher scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I know.
 
Jerry said:
Loving also said that marriage was essential for reproduction and SSM has taken reproduction off the table. Human kind has a long history of legal interracial marriage whereas legal SSM is a very recent thing. Marriage per-se is a fundamental right but SSM specifically has not been established as such. All Loving guarantees is that a gay white man can marry a gay black woman. Interracial marriage and SSM are different things. You don't get SSM just because Loving exists, it's not that simple, it never is.
Click to expand...

Reproduction isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, because banning same-sex marriage does not further any baby-related goals.

Plus, we don't ban infertile couples from marriage, and that takes reproduction off the table too. Reproduction is a red herring. The real question is equal protection.
 
Jerry said:
I know.
Click to expand...

And same-sex marriage bans most definitely do not pass intermediate or strict constitutional scrutiny. Hell, even the rational basis test is sketchy at best.
 
Ontologuy said:
False.

And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

That's what matters.

The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
Click to expand...

Yeah, judge after judge appointed by the right wing have ruled against these bans and only the iowa supreme court before popular support and yet they're all "liberal activists". Just like i'm sure you will declare SCOTUS after they let you down, despite 5 of them were bush/reagan/clinton appointees.
 
chromium said:
SSM isn't harmful so you i guess you must support it.
Click to expand...
I do support SSM. As a supporter, I attack SSM from all angles so as to define it's weaknesses and fix them.

One such weakness are people who think Loving is some kind of trump card. It's not. It really is not. Loving will help, but Loving won't save the day. Only the merits specific to SSM will win the day, and those merits are contained in the 'family' argument pro-SSM hate to make. The favored 'sexual choice' arguments never win in court. If SSM fails before SCOTUS it will be because pro-SSM pushed the 'sexual choice' arguments over the 'family' arguments.
 
Ontologuy said:
False.

And, the majority of states only have the oxymoronic SSM because activist liberal judges have so ruled.

Without the activist liberal judges, the great majority of states oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

The great majority of the American people oppose the oxymoronic SSM.

That's what matters.

The SCOTUS isn't going to utilize judicial activism and create "a right to SSM".

No, the SCOTUS will like defer to the states.
Click to expand...

What are you, nuts?

Same-Sex Marriage Support Reaches New High at 55%

The idea that the "great majority of Americans" oppose SSM is laughably false.

The chance of the SCOTUS ruling against SSM is approximately zero.
 
Jerry said:
I do support SSM. As a supporter, I attack SSM from all angles so as to define it's weaknesses and fix them.

One such weakness are people who think Loving is some kind of trump card. It's not. It really is not. Loving will help, but Loving won't save the day. Only the merits specific to SSM will win the day, and those merits are contained in the 'family' argument pro-SSM hate to make. The favored 'sexual choice' arguments never win in court. If SSM fails before SCOTUS it will be because pro-SSM pushed the 'sexual choice' arguments over the 'family' arguments.
Click to expand...

yeah like 'sexual choice' argument never won in lawrence v texas...

equal protection is equal protection. SSM bans just happen to have multiple angles to attack from on constitutional grounds, including yes family stability, sexual/romantic attraction, 2nd class status, legal rights. If it were for family only then only same sex couples with kids could marry, and hetero couples without kids could not
 
Jerry said:
I do support SSM. As a supporter, I attack SSM from all angles so as to define it's weaknesses and fix them.

One such weakness are people who think Loving is some kind of trump card. It's not. It really is not. Loving will help, but Loving won't save the day. Only the merits specific to SSM will win the day, and those merits are contained in the 'family' argument pro-SSM hate to make. The favored 'sexual choice' arguments never win in court. If SSM fails before SCOTUS it will be because pro-SSM pushed the 'sexual choice' arguments over the 'family' arguments.
Click to expand...

When did you come around to supporting SSM?
 
disneydude said:
When did you come around to supporting SSM?
Click to expand...

Seems to me he likes to argue in whatever way garners a reaction. He just red herrings both sides while pretending to agree with the underlying principle like it's some kind of mind ****. It's like NP saying he's not anti gay after starting a dozen threads celebrating an anti gay law, except doing it intentionally.

Only reason i respond at all is 90% of his post uses the argues exactly the same as most on the far right, so i'm debating all of them instead
 
chromium said:
Seems to me he likes to argue in whatever way garners a reaction. He just red herrings both sides while pretending to agree with the underlying principle like it's some kind of mind ****. It's like NP saying he's not anti gay after starting a dozen threads celebrating an anti gay law, except doing it intentionally.

Only reason i respond at all is 90% of his post uses the argues exactly the same as most on the far right, so i'm debating all of them instead
Click to expand...

That's pure bull**** and you know it. I enjoy debate. That's all there is to it. I take whichever side I feel like in a given thread. You forget that in formal debate classes you frequintly have to argue against your personaly held view so as to better understand your opponent and the issue itself.

When I play world of warcraft I may log in as aliance, I may log in as hord. Depends on what I feel like at the time.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
That's pure bull**** and you know it. I enjoy debate. That's all there is to it. I take whichever side I feel like in a given thread. You forget that in formal debate classes you frequintly have to argue against your personaly held view so as to better understand your opponent and the issue itself.

When I play world of warcraft I may log in as aliance, I may log in as hord. Depends on what I feel like at the time.
Click to expand...

Arguing against my own view is what i call pondering, or if i want to understand the issue better, in the form of questions. I don't take a position i have utter contempt for just to see how those i agree with respond.

What you describe is more like the job of a lawyer defending a client he knows is guilty, except the actual case you make arguing against SSM is so weak, combined with your "I support SSM," that it's easily seen as trolling. You see, "I'm better than you" encapsulates all anti SSM arguments. They're all weak and hateful. It's unavoidable.

And yeah, your video game metaphor...if the position you take in debates hinges on your mood swings, that too seems like not a genuine position. You take the side you feel like, which is generally to argue against both sides at different times, i've noticed
 
chromium said:
Arguing against my own view is what i call pondering, or if i want to understand the issue better, in the form of questions. I don't take a position i have utter contempt for just to see how those i agree with respond.
Click to expand...
That's you, not me.

chromium said:
What you describe is more like the job of a lawyer defending a client he knows is guilty, except the actual case you make arguing against SSM is so weak, combined with your "I support SSM," that it's easily seen as trolling. You see, "I'm better than you" encapsulates all anti SSM arguments. They're all weak and hateful. It's unavoidable.
Click to expand...
Be carfull, acusing people of trolling, is trolling.

chromium said:
And yeah, your video game metaphor...if the position you take in debates hinges on your mood swings, that too seems like not a genuine position. You take the side you feel like, which is generally to argue against both sides at different times, i've noticed
Click to expand...
Where in the forum rules are we required only to take genuine positions? The forum has even awarded me for taking opposing views. You need to check yourself.

My view on SSM is "they can't do worse than I did, let'em have a shot". Everything else is just me passing time.
 
Ontologuy said:
No, the SCOTUS did not decide that "decades ago".

There simply is no constitutional right to marry in violation of marriage's fundamental terms of between a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Click to expand...

For one, the Constitution does not set forth what its citizens shall be permitted to do, it sets forth what the government shall be able to regulate.

For another, what determines "marriage's fundamental terms? What establishes the supposed fundamentalism of marriage?
 
Jerry said:
I do support SSM. As a supporter, I attack SSM from all angles so as to define it's weaknesses and fix them.

One such weakness are people who think Loving is some kind of trump card. It's not. It really is not. Loving will help, but Loving won't save the day. Only the merits specific to SSM will win the day, and those merits are contained in the 'family' argument pro-SSM hate to make. The favored 'sexual choice' arguments never win in court. If SSM fails before SCOTUS it will be because pro-SSM pushed the 'sexual choice' arguments over the 'family' arguments.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment is the question before the court. Nobody is arguing about "sexual choice."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom