• 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]

My relationship does, the idea of that marriage certificate does not

Really? A legal piece of paper means something else to you just because two dudes can also have the same piece of paper? Wow. So actually you want to deny same-sex couples the same legal benefits that you could get.
 
Please cite the exact passage in the Constitution where marriage is listed as a right. If you can't (and you can't) you're wrong.

I can point to fourteen Supreme Court decisions (fifteen once you count today's decision) that rules marriage is a right.
 
Only the bigots are disgusted. Rational people see this as a victory for all.

Abandoning the rule of law in favor of judicial fiat is not a victory for rationality. No bigotry against homosexuals required to see how this is an awful, awful thing for the Supreme Court to do.
 
My relationship does, the idea of that marriage certificate does not

The marriage certificate has always been rather meaningless. It was created by bigots to prevent interracial marriage, it was used by bigots still to prevent same sex marriage; and each time the bigotry ultimately failed. Never should have been a marriage license in the first place, but a bunch of nosy, holier-than-thou type couldn't keep to their own business, and this is what we have.
 
The Supreme Court may have forced this down our throats, but this just makes me hate gays where before, I didn't.

Well, you're in the right state to hate gays; you will fit right in.
 
You do NOT have my permission to use my post as a signature, and to do so would violate forum rules.

I will remove it if prompted. It is not a taunt or taken out of context. It is a direct quote. I do not believe I need your permission under forum rules to quote you in that regard, but if I do, why not give it to me if it is how you genuinely feel and what you stand by?
 
I can point to fourteen Supreme Court decisions (fifteen once you count today's decision) that rules marriage is a right.

And all of them are wrong.
 
Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.

This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.

NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.

NBC

Long past due.
 
I'm too angry to answer you right now, jumping jack. Enjoy your victory

It is not MY victory. As I said, I have no horse in this race. I don't even particularly care much, one way or the other. I merely reported the S.Ct.'s holding, and corrected your erroneous statement that Americans are against it. Polls have shown that most Americans are not against it....either they are for it, or they don't care one way or the other.

Not that it matters much whether most people want it or not. That's not how we decide freedoms in our country. If it were, we would still have slavery, segregation, and a host of other things, because people at the time were against things at the time. You are on the wrong side of history. In the future, we'll wonder who was against this, and why. Just like we wonder about who was against integration, civil rights, equal pay for women, etc.....and how silly and wrong they were.

Anything that expands freedom is generally a good thing. Not always, but generally. Better than the reverse.
 
Abandoning the rule of law in favor of judicial fiat is not a victory for rationality. No bigotry against homosexuals required to see how this is an awful, awful thing for the Supreme Court to do.

We didn't abandon the rule of law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and the constitution was upheld today.
 
You do NOT have my permission to use my post as a signature, and to do so would violate forum rules.

And calling someone a flaming faggot in your hate speech doesn't violate the forum rules?
 
First of all, public accommodation laws are a different topic. Second of all, private churches aren't subject to those laws. Churches do not have to perform any ceremony they don't want to.

Churches will be in violation of federal law if they refuse. I can GUARANTEE to you there will be discrimination lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gay couples. Hell, even private business have been sued for refusing to provide service to same-sex couples.



Plenty of actual research has been done and found no negative effects on the child. Marriage improves conditions for children.

I guess you didn't read => Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children
 
I will remove it if prompted. It is not a taunt or taken out of context. It is a direct quote. I do not believe I need your permission under forum rules to quote you in that regard, but if I do, why not give it to me if it is how you genuinely feel and what you stand by?

You do need permission to have a quote in your sig, and you don't have it. Do you really have to make the mods get involved in enforcement when it's already been spelled out to you?
 
Try reading the other eighty pages instead of just one sentence.
I dont need to. His intent was made clear. But...1-I'm not a lawyer. 2-It isn't relevant. The decision is what it is. 3-It is irrelevant whatever other fluff mixed with the occasional legal justification they have given. Their intent was made clear. This isnt about a decision based on law...its about emotion. And finally...4-I dont have a say in this, wont be casting a vote in this so reviewing 80 pages of blather makes no sense.

Im glad the decision is made. I wish it had been made by adults acting responsibly...even if the end result were the same.
 
OK.... and you got your law degree from what school? when? do you still practice?

Do they not teach reading and comprehending plain English documents where you went to school?

Rhetorical question.
 
Abandoning the rule of law in favor of judicial fiat is not a victory for rationality. No bigotry against homosexuals required to see how this is an awful, awful thing for the Supreme Court to do.

I could see no other alternative for the SCOTUS than to uphold same sex marriage across the nation, this is because the marriage license exists. So long as it exists, government could not rightfully discriminate along lines of sexuality and must issue the contract. Now to go further and state marriage as a right, that's a bit much IMO. It's contract that is the right, and the right of contract that was infringed upon by the bans against Same Sex Marriage.

But given that the Marriage License exists, I could not see SCOTUS rightfully coming down against Same Sex Marriage.
 
I will remove it if prompted. It is not a taunt or taken out of context. It is a direct quote. I do not believe I need your permission under forum rules to quote you in that regard, but if I do, why not give it to me if it is how you genuinely feel and what you stand by?

You should use part of his prior post, where he ends up by saying, "I hate you." (posting to a gay or gay-support poster)
 
It would have been better that if the states had simply done the right thing and just recognized that the world is much different place now. Failing that a decision based on the 14th amendment sounds right to me though I've yet to read the decision.

All that said from a pure human decency standpoint I'm thrilled that we no longer treat a large minority of our people like second class citizens.
 
Last edited:
You do need permission to have a quote in your sig, and you don't have it. Do you really have to make the mods get involved in enforcement when it's already been spelled out to you?

I read the rules. Please quote where it says I need permission.

And if he stands by what he says, why is he ashamed for people to see it?
 
The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.

Your loss. Wonder how long she will be willing to stay with you if you aren't willing to marry her because of this issue? Seems a bit ridiculous.
 
We didn't abandon the rule of law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and the constitution was upheld today.

Making up **** and tacking it on to the text as though it was always there is the exact opposite of upholding the text.

The Tenth Amendment is a thing, it has not been repealed.

Pretending it has been or just ignoring it wholesale is decidely NOT upholding the text.
 
All I can say is...

YYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

:happy::happy::happy::happy::happy:
 
I'm convinced we need to secede

he-mad-250x171.png
 
Back
Top Bottom