• 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]

ludin said:
please read the dissent.

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

funny how that is. ol yes there will be lawsuits and millions of dollars spent to reinforce the 1st amendment that already exists.
even the prosecutor for the government defending the case said that there would be issues.

church and other religious organizations can be sued for discrimination and public accommodation clauses.
on top of that under hate speech laws by saying marriage is between a man and a women they could easily lose their tax exempt status.

the fight is not over and the militant activist won't stop.
Click to expand...
So? Preaching hate from the pulpit needs to be addressed and their tax status reviewed. Maybe churches should quit preaching bad about other people. They can learn how to hate the sin but love the sinner.
 
Cardinal said:
Well with all due respect, you don't read people too good
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



Some people (Not talking about any one person in particular). have their heads shoved so far up their butts that they can't see the sun rise.

But they want to tell the whole world what they see and they want us to adopt their view of the world.

Not going to happen.

:lamo
 
Last edited:
Well, ACA subsidies were upheld and gay marriage legalized. So I expected the worse this morning, but the sun still came up, the world hasn't ended, and later I have to clean out the freakin garage(wife's orders). In-spite of all the doom and gloom from the mouths of the GOP, conservatives and Scalia not a damn thing has changed. lol.
 
ludin said:
no it isn't you can't officially be married without someone signing the license whether it is a justice of the peace or a clergy member.
Click to expand...

It is still separate from the ceremony. (I meant "separate from the actual wedding".) The clergy can still give you an entire wedding without ever signing any marriage license for/with you.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And again, how very accepting of you. Why do you or the law get to decide what works for someone else in their personal life? Rights that are equal and protected aren't determined by your opinion of their validity at any given moment in time. This is why government should be narrow, limited and unobtrusive when it comes to the individual lives of its citizenry.
Click to expand...

Because this is recognition of marriage from the law. There is no fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates when you simply open it up to same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples have it. There are fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates, for the people involved especially, but also in how the government, society deals with spouses, when there are more than two people legally married together or a person has more than one spouse. That is something that needs to be addressed prior to taking away the limitation of how many spouses a person can have at the same time.
 
God's light no longer shines upon America. So went the Roman empire, so goes America.
 
tres borrachos said:
Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
Click to expand...

It is that simple for several reasons. First, the First Amendment protects churches/clergy from performing any ceremony that goes against their religion. It would be a blatant violation of that Amendment to do otherwise. Public Accommodation laws do not apply to clergy members. The most the state could do would be to remove the ability of clergy to sign marriage licenses. That is the biggest threat the state could do, which would not be anything like forcing them to perform marriages (in fact, it is almost the opposite).
 
bicycleman said:
God's light no longer shines upon America. So went the Roman empire, so goes America.
Click to expand...

So, despite the divorce rate, child molesters, murders, riots, social injustices, declining rate of religion, especially Christianity, terrorism, lying, and so many other things that people do here and around the world, same sex marriage being legal everywhere instead of just most states in the US is what is going to remove God's light from our country? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. It's plain crap. It not only presumes to know God's mind and know what "God's light" looks like, it also places homosexuality as a much higher sin or more important sin in God's perspective than all those other things.
 
Gay marriage is now legal in Kansas, I want a couple to marry right on the sidewalk, in front of the Westboro Baptist Church. Hopefully they'll even do the ceremony and take their vows through a megaphone. Nice and loud.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Gay marriage is now legal in Kansas, I want a couple to marry right on the sidewalk, in front of the Westboro Baptist Church. Hopefully they'll even do the ceremony and take their vows through a megaphone. Nice and loud.
Click to expand...

I would pay to see this!
 
roguenuke said:
Because this is recognition of marriage from the law. There is no fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates when you simply open it up to same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples have it. There are fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates, for the people involved especially, but also in how the government, society deals with spouses, when there are more than two people legally married together or a person has more than one spouse. That is something that needs to be addressed prior to taking away the limitation of how many spouses a person can have at the same time.
Click to expand...

If one is accept polling data, it would appear the majority of people don't have a problem with same sex couples being treated the same way as heterosexual couples. It seems to me, the greater concern people have is how these issues that affect so few people are being used as a carrier for a much greater societal agenda.

Lets face the facts, same sex marriage will only be an issue for a few percent of the population. However, the cause behind the effort has much more to do with a demand for massive social/cultural change than it does for allowing a couple percent of the population the option of getting married.

I think it is this fact that has caused so many to push back against something they likely already support in principle.
 
ocean515 said:
If one is accept polling data, it would appear the majority of people don't have a problem with same sex couples being treated the same way as heterosexual couples. It seems to me, the greater concern people have is how these issues that affect so few people are being used as a carrier for a much greater societal agenda.

Lets face the facts, same sex marriage will only be an issue for a few percent of the population. However, the cause behind the effort has much more to do with a demand for massive social/cultural change than it does for allowing a couple percent of the population the option of getting married.

I think it is this fact that has caused so many to push back against something they likely already support in principle.
Click to expand...

There aren't that many "pushing back" against same sex marriage though, not in reality. It is the "squeaky wheel" that we are seeing. There is still a very loud, vocal group against same sex marriage fundamentally, not because of what you are claiming. There are very few against same sex marriage for what you are claiming, and they were fence sitters, not actual supporters, most looking for an excuse better than "their icky" or "my religion says so" to justify being against it.

Societal changes are here. That is part of life, whether people like it or not. They need to understand this. They don't get to stop society from changing just because they don't like the changes that are happening. Doesn't matter how much of the population is leading the charge or the ones seeing the most change.
 
roguenuke said:
Because this is recognition of marriage from the law. There is no fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates when you simply open it up to same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples have it. There are fundamental, legal changes in how marriage operates, for the people involved especially, but also in how the government, society deals with spouses, when there are more than two people legally married together or a person has more than one spouse. That is something that needs to be addressed prior to taking away the limitation of how many spouses a person can have at the same time.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it has zero to do with the point I've been making all along. There's nothing magical about a government piece of paper - the only difference it provides is that the government then looks at individuals differently when bestowing privileges and benefits. If the government piece of paper didn't exist, individuals through contract laws would determine the extent and scope of their personal relationships and how such a relationship would progress or terminate. All the government piece of paper does is make work for lawyers when dealing with those who want to terminate marriage or for the majority of people who aren't holders of the government sanction.

Just as the government doesn't issue a standard will that is the only will acknowledged by courts and the government doesn't issue a standard living will that is the only living will acknowledged by hospitals and courts, and just as the government doesn't issue the only business contracts that are acknowledged by courts, there is zero need for a government contract for marriage.

You deem it necessary because the government has intruded into the process and you can't fathom a world where the government doesn't own your personal relationships. I, however, believe differently and I'm not interested in being beholden to government to manage my personal life and I shouldn't be penalized for that position.
 
roguenuke said:
There aren't that many "pushing back" against same sex marriage though, not in reality. It is the "squeaky wheel" that we are seeing. There is still a very loud, vocal group against same sex marriage fundamentally, not because of what you are claiming. There are very few against same sex marriage for what you are claiming, and they were fence sitters, not actual supporters, most looking for an excuse better than "their icky" or "my religion says so" to justify being against it.

Societal changes are here. That is part of life, whether people like it or not. They need to understand this. They don't get to stop society from changing just because they don't like the changes that are happening. Doesn't matter how much of the population is leading the charge or the ones seeing the most change.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, there are those who oppose same sex marriage for fundamental reasons based on their freedom to associate with faith of their choice. It's the height of hypocrisy to reject their beliefs simply because one doesn't like their conclusions, especially when the same principle is being used to bring about that change.

I think it does matter how many people are leading the charge. It's absurd to suggest it's acceptable that a few people get to set the course of a Nation. History has shown that is extremely dangerous ground.
 
ocean515 said:
If one is accept polling data, it would appear the majority of people don't have a problem with same sex couples being treated the same way as heterosexual couples. It seems to me, the greater concern people have is how these issues that affect so few people are being used as a carrier for a much greater societal agenda.

Lets face the facts, same sex marriage will only be an issue for a few percent of the population. However, the cause behind the effort has much more to do with a demand for massive social/cultural change than it does for allowing a couple percent of the population the option of getting married.

I think it is this fact that has caused so many to push back against something they likely already support in principle.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. You couldn't have it more backward if you tried. It isn't gays pushing for massive social/cultural change.....it is the right-wing bigots that are making the issue of it all. In fact, they are the ones to thank for gay marriage being here today. Gays, by and large, woiuld have been fine a couple of decades ago with domestic partnerships and would not have pushed the marriage factor as they did if it hadn't been for the right-wing social groups preventing domestic partnerships. It was only when gay marriage became inevitable that they started crying "Why aren't domestic partnerships enough?"

You are correct that the majority of people don't have an issue with it....and it wouldn't be an issue...except for the fact that the bigots will continue to fight it and push it to the forefront of their radical right-wing agenda. If it weren't for them....gay people would be happy to go about living their daily lives.
 
tres borrachos said:
Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should consider why it is exactly that you feel that churches would be forced to perform same sex marriages in the US, since that is not in any way a logical position to have, considering the huge amount of opposition to it and the protection against it written into our Constitution. While it is possible, the probability of it happening, especially in the lifetime of anyone living today, including those still in utero, is extremely small, so only paranoia would lead someone to think it is something likely to happen based on this decision, especially just because of this decision.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And just to be clear, if you think all marriages provide "stable, self-sufficient, productive households", particularly in the 21st century, you've got the wrong idea about who's the "whackjob".
Click to expand...

It's a good thing I said nothing of the sort, then. But you knew that already. Decided to post this anyway... for some reason.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, yes, there are those who oppose same sex marriage for fundamental reasons based on their freedom to associate with faith of their choice. It's the height of hypocrisy to reject their beliefs simply because one doesn't like their conclusions, especially when the same principle is being used to bring about that change.

I think it does matter how many people are leading the charge. It's absurd to suggest it's acceptable that a few people get to set the course of a Nation. History has shown that is extremely dangerous ground.
Click to expand...

They are free to oppose same sex marriage in their personal lives and even be upset that same sex couples can legally marry, but to attempt to prevent others from getting legal recognition for their relationships simply based on "I don't approve of such relationships" without being able to show any actual legitimate societal concern beyond "morality concerns" for them goes against the Constitution to maintain restrictions on those marriages in the law.

It is not absurd at all. And if it were just a few people in support of this, then it would not have been an issue at all because an Amendment would have been passed back in the early 2000s to stop it. Now, we have majority support for same sex marriage. I'm not gay but have supported same sex couples getting married since I was old enough to understand that they couldn't get married but opposite sex couples could and that this was because of laws in our country.
 
Deuce said:
It's a good thing I said nothing of the sort, then. But you knew that already. Decided to post this anyway... for some reason.
Click to expand...

Well if you didn't mean it why did you say the reason government is in the marriage business is to promote "stable, self-sufficient, productive households"? If you don't believe that a government piece of paper does exactly that, why do you support government discrimination against those who don't hold the government piece of paper? You can't state something and then ignore the consequences of your own nonsense.

I support same sex marriage because I don't believe the government should discriminate against any individual because of their personal, lifestyle choices in government policy. You, apparently, have no such problem and feel comfortable in some fanciful idea that the magic paper makes people good spouses and productive contributors to society.
 
Bethlehem Bill said:
i was referring to this bit from his opinion:
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"

i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. Their job includes both.

Determining congressional intent is a part of determining what the law is and has been since the founding of this nation. Actually, it's a legal principle that has been a part of common law which means it's actually older than the constitution
 
The only slight surprise that I had in the ruling is that Justice Roberts sided with the minority. Justice Roberts has shown an inclination to be extremely protective of his legacy. I'm surprised that he would go down as being on the wrong side of history.
 
disneydude said:
Hilarious. You couldn't have it more backward if you tried. It isn't gays pushing for massive social/cultural change.....it is the right-wing bigots that are making the issue of it all. In fact, they are the ones to thank for gay marriage being here today. Gays, by and large, woiuld have been fine a couple of decades ago with domestic partnerships and would not have pushed the marriage factor as they did if it hadn't been for the right-wing social groups preventing domestic partnerships. It was only when gay marriage became inevitable that they started crying "Why aren't domestic partnerships enough?"

You are correct that the majority of people don't have an issue with it....and it wouldn't be an issue...except for the fact that the bigots will continue to fight it and push it to the forefront of their radical right-wing agenda. If it weren't for them....gay people would be happy to go about living their daily lives.
Click to expand...

LOL

As usual, you missed the point. In fact, all you have done is prove it. Well done!
 
CanadaJohn said:
I have no idea what you're talking about, but it has zero to do with the point I've been making all along. There's nothing magical about a government piece of paper - the only difference it provides is that the government then looks at individuals differently when bestowing privileges and benefits. If the government piece of paper didn't exist, individuals through contract laws would determine the extent and scope of their personal relationships and how such a relationship would progress or terminate. All the government piece of paper does is make work for lawyers when dealing with those who want to terminate marriage or for the majority of people who aren't holders of the government sanction.

Just as the government doesn't issue a standard will that is the only will acknowledged by courts and the government doesn't issue a standard living will that is the only living will acknowledged by hospitals and courts, and just as the government doesn't issue the only business contracts that are acknowledged by courts, there is zero need for a government contract for marriage.

You deem it necessary because the government has intruded into the process and you can't fathom a world where the government doesn't own your personal relationships. I, however, believe differently and I'm not interested in being beholden to government to manage my personal life and I shouldn't be penalized for that position.
Click to expand...

Contract law does not cover the same things that marriage does because marriage deals with legal kinship, establishing a very specific legal kinship, the same as birth certificates and adoption paperwork does. That is not just a contract because that recognized legal kinship comes with certain legal rights and benefits, but also responsibilities that are so numerous that it would take massive paperwork for people to make individual contracts dealing with it. Instead, the government simplifies the process, having a general set of laws for the recognition of the kinship that applies to all people, and then people can choose to change certain parts through individual contracts if their situations require it (most don't).

It doesn't matter how you believe or what you think you are or are not "beholden" to the government to pertaining to marriage. It really has very little to do with you unless you are married.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

As usual, you missed the point. In fact, all you have done is prove it. Well done!
Click to expand...


Sorry.....didn't miss the point at all. Your claim that gays are trying to radically change the social/culture of America is ludicrous. Gay people would be happy to live their lives without incident. It is the vocal minority of the radical right wing that is pushing a social agenda that is causing all the ruckus.
 
ludin said:
nope your distortion of the argument is noted.

nothing in there protects church or pastors from lawsuits.

as stated before pastors act in the power of the state to sign marriage licenses. it would be very easy for them to be sued for not marrying a gay couple.
churches offer their buildings to all sorts of outside events from garage sales to bake sales etc for different things. marriages and funerals.
again technically all churches are open to anyone that wants to enter. they can easily be sued under public accomidation laws.

nothing in the ruling protect freedom of religion. it will have to work it's way through the court system.
Click to expand...

Public Accommodation laws themselves protect churches from successfully being sued over not performing a ceremony for anyone they don't want to. And no, all churches are not open to anyone who wants to enter. You really need to do some more research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom