• 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: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

Henrin said:
It probably wasn't the best idea ever to have a muslim landlord when you're a gay man.
Click to expand...

well it was a small landlord and they didn't tell me till after i had signed - "yeah we aren't open on satudays cause we go to mosque"

besides, you miss the point which i shouldn't HAVE to make those kind of sacrifices. Renting a room has jack **** all to do with religion, or sexuality for that matter, but the bigots make it that way
 
Hicup said:
What they should have done, and what many scholars (Otherwise known as equally qualified to sit on the bench) thought they would do, including me, was, send this back to the states or to the Federal legislative branch for consideration. Roberts himself mocked Ginsberg quoting her just three year earlier citing her point that domestic relations are uniquely the sole property of the States.. Well, yeah but that was three ago, She has so evolved since then. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Submit our rights to congress to do the right thing? LOL not a chance. They aren't remotely qualified. They can decide when brand of toilet paper gets used at public schools, that's about all i trust them with
 
chromium said:
Submit our rights to congress to do the right thing? LOL not a chance. They aren't remotely qualified. They can decide when brand of toilet paper gets used at public schools, that's about all i trust them with
Click to expand...

Nine old dudes though are totally qualified.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually Churches have no choice but to follow their parishioners or die. Is that what you are suggesting? That they go down with the ship? Biblical scriptures have been interpreted in different ways since the beginning and it won't stop now.
Click to expand...

Well the intriguing part is the parishioners used to follow the church no matter what (plinury indulgence, mandatory donations and church attendance, reading only 1 book)

I expect religion will thrive for quite a while, but i don't care what they believe, so long as the church has no control over our legal system. It's heading in that direction fortunately
 
GunFora said:
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure nothing in this ruling or any other ruling/law requires or even suggests it is required that churches marry same-sex couples.

Only that they must be granted a marriage licence.
 
Henrin said:
Nine old dudes though are totally qualified.
Click to expand...

Did you disagree with the Libertarian State's Rights views of Roberts and Kennedy on gutting voting rights and citizens divided 1.0 and 2.0?
And have you read the scathing dissents from Scalia, breaking personal decorum--that old dude ?
 
Fenton said:
True.

Both rulings will bite them in the ass.

ObamaCare is already so unpopular that it couldn't be mentioned in the 2014 Midterms elections....by the Democrats.

The Supreme Courts ruling on subsidies put ObamaCare right back in the laps of the Democrats and let the GOP Congress off the hook.

Let them celebrate. They won't be after the 2016 elections.
Click to expand...

Oh wise oracle. Who do you think of the republican candidates has a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the whitehouse?
 
GunFora said:
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.
Click to expand...

Why do you state this. Churches have never had to marry any couple that walked in the door. They have never been forced nor should they to marry anyone they do not want. I have known Catholic couple who refused the Sacrament of Matrimony because they refused to agree they would have children. The church refused the couple walked away. No grounds for a lawsuit sorry no lawsuits for the churches because they refuse to marry same sex couples.
 
GunFora said:
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.
Click to expand...

I know! Just like how all those interracial couples sued church after church when there were churches that refused to marry interracial couples after those bans were ruled unconstitutional! Exactly like that!
 
Kobie said:
Oh for crying out loud, this is America, not Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Umm..ok. I don't see anything wrong with a landlord making the terms of use for his property.
 
The Mark said:
I'm fairly sure nothing in this ruling or any other ruling/law requires or even suggests it is required that churches marry same-sex couples.

Only that they must be granted a marriage licence.
Click to expand...

sure it will be. pastors are considered authority of the state when performing a marriage ceremony. they could be sued for not marrying a homosexual couple.
many church allow various people in the public to use their buildings for certain things from weddings to bake sales.

this will all go by the way side since offering it to the public puts them at risk for lawsuits.
they can get a marriage license but a ceremony has to be performed by the justice of the peace or a pastor.

no religious freedom is very much in danger after this ruling, and since the court failed to up hold religious liberties this time they will not uphold it next time.
 
CriticalThought said:
I know! Just like how all those interracial couples sued church after church when there were churches that refused to marry interracial couples after those bans were ruled unconstitutional! Exactly like that!
Click to expand...

interracial couples were not as militant as these gay activists are. they are much more sue happy than the before.
they will not hesitate to file a lawsuit against a pastor or a church citing discrimination for not allowing them to marry but allowing other couples to.
 
NIMBY said:
Did you disagree with the Libertarian State's Rights views of Roberts and Kennedy on gutting voting rights and citizens divided 1.0 and 2.0?
And have you read the scathing dissents from Scalia, breaking personal decorum--that old dude ?
Click to expand...

Libertarians might allow states to have more power than the federal government, but state rights are more of something conservatives focus on. And no, I didn't bother reading any justices opinion as I don't care what they think.
 
this one was pretty cut and dry to me: the state has no compelling basis to deny a marriage certificate based on the gender of the applicants

a religious wedding ceremony? well the state can't compel the clergyman to perform such a ceremony if it is against their religion. but all we are talking about is the marriage contract - you know, the thing that you have to get from the state even if you are getting married in a church. two men/two women should still be entitled to all the tax breaks and whatnot that marriage entails. too often i see it conflated where some seem to think that the state granting a marriage license is the same as infringing on a religion. you and your religion can still disagree.



still can't understand roberts' ruling from the day before though; where if congress' intentions are noble then the law can change retroactively to support a good cause... but agree on this one
 
ludin said:
interracial couples were not as militant as these gay activists are. they are much more sue happy than the before.
they will not hesitate to file a lawsuit against a pastor or a church citing discrimination for not allowing them to marry but allowing other couples to.
Click to expand...

Heterosexual couples can't sue a church for not marrying them. Same sex couples will not be able to sue either. No lawsuits here sorry. Churches need not marry anyone for whatever reason.
 
Bethlehem Bill said:
still can't understand roberts' ruling from the day before though; where if congress' intentions are noble then the law can change retroactively to support a good cause... but agree on this one
Click to expand...

That isn't a remotely accurate portrayal of that decision.
 
ludin said:
interracial couples were not as militant as these gay activists are. they are much more sue happy than the before.
they will not hesitate to file a lawsuit against a pastor or a church citing discrimination for not allowing them to marry but allowing other couples to.
Click to expand...

Did you read the ruling at all?

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

That is the majority opinion, not the dissent. The very ruling that gave same sex couples the right to marry, is now also the precedent that makes as you put it "sue happy militant gay activists" waging any sort of court battle against a church for refusing to marry them a virtual impossibility. It is there in black and white. A religious organization cannot be sued for refusing to marry same sex couples because they are protected by the 1st amendment. That is the law, as was ruled today, as incontrovertible as a right to same sex couples to marry before the state.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Heterosexual couples can't sue a church for not marrying them. Same sex couples will not be able to sue either. No lawsuits here sorry. Churches need not marry anyone for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.
 
ludin said:
*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
Click to expand...
Cite the statute that says this.

most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Public accommodation laws do not apply to churches in any state.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.
Click to expand...
Absurd. There are tax-exempt religious schools out there telling kids the earth is 6000 years old.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.
Click to expand...
Soon as they can would be today. Let's make a bet.

In what timeframe do you think a successful lawsuit will occur? How large of a forum donation do you wish to wager?
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
as an adult yes, but religious condemnation has often led to suicide of closeted teenagers surrounded by that mentality.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be the disgusting part of religion--imposing on people guilt simply for being different.
 
ludin said:
*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.
Click to expand...

Fine you have the right not to believe me. The Catholic church for years has refused to marry couples who will not raise the children to be Catholic. They refuse couples who will not state they will have children. The list is long. If your relationship in someway does not hold up to their doctrine the church can refuse and no one can sue them. But please exercise your choice not to believe me. It is okay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom