• 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]

We can be in love, live together, start a family, all without one

Yes, just like gay people had to do before they had their right to contract recognized. Nothing new here. Stop talking about it and just do it. No one is going to care.
 
I don't give a **** if I am prosecuted, I'm not acquiescing to some robed buffoon.

Yea, you care. You are just too pissed off to see it now. You will come around eventually.
 
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.
Dood...nothing personal...but thats just goofy. What you are claiming is that YOU are allowing others to redefine marriage for YOU. If you believe as you believe...then BELIEVE. When you are ready to marry (and based on that posting...I dont know that you are) then choose based on YOUR belief...not someone elses.

Your second sentence can be made a lot more rationally. I agree...most homosexuals problems were never caused by others, by their families, or even the lack of marital rights...but by their lack of acceptance of themselves. The reality is that no one will be forced to accept or even proclaim that homosexuality is good, right, or 'normal.' Everyone will be much happier when they start with acceptance of SELF. A ruling on gay marriage isnt going to change that.

Do you understand that there is a difference between supporting homosexuals and supporting homosexuality? You dont have to understand or even agree with someone to be their friend and to offer love and support. I personally dont agree with the ruling, but that doesnt impact my belief on homosexuality, nor does it impact my relationships with friends, family, and coworkers that happen to be gay.

Maybe you should take a step back and breathe. Seriously...you cant POSSIBLY have NOT seen this coming. Breathe, baby...its going to be OK. The sun will still come up tomorrow. Life will still go on.
 
Last edited:
What's ridiculous is that meaningless piece of paper known as a marriage certificate.

We can be in love, live together, start a family, all without one

Well then. There you have it. You got all upset over nothing.
 
Because public accommodation laws apply to for-profit businesses that hold out to the public.

Churches are not that.

Cite the federal statute you think applies.



I'm already familiar with that study. Every single right-winger latches onto it. It was bogus. It took children who had literally never been in a household with same-sex parents and called them "gay households."

A “reality check” for the Regnerus study on gay parenting [UPDATED] - The Washington Post

Federal statute? Why do you think there has to be a federal statute that applies for someone to be sued?

The Washington Post is a lib rag. As believable as the NY Times, Boston Globe, CNN and MSNBC.
 
It's not paranoia. It's reality. Look at the facts and look at what's going on in the country. It's real.

I am looking at the facts, the fact that not a single person has sued a church over refusing to marry them, and even if some idiot did, they would be quickly slapped down by the lower courts as well as public opposition to such a case.
 
It's plain English, it doesn't need interpretation....
There is no such thing as "plain English," especially with legal documents. Everything requires an act of interpretation. The proper question is, what methods do we use to interpret it?

For example, consider the protections from cruel and unusual punishment. What does this mean? George Washington flogged deserters from the Revolutionary Army, but we do not regard that as an acceptable punishment today. Which standards do we apply? Should we go back to floggings, stocks, and breaking on the wheel because they were acceptable in the late 18th century?


This is the worst. Thing. A. Supreme Court. Can. Do. It is tyranny.
lol

How is granting people the freedom to choose their own spouses a form of tyranny?


Constitutional rights are explicit or not at all.
Incorrect. In fact, the Framers did not include the Bill of Rights in the first draft, specifically because they did not want people to assume that enumerated rights were the only protected rights.

Nor is the court creating anything. Our nation has long held that people have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; and the right to be treated equally under the law. This ruling upholds both these principles. It is no different than using federal standards to determine citizenship, or the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure.


This ruling along with the prior Obamacare rulings serves as proof that we the people have been bad stewards and we have not kept our republic. It is too far gone.
Uh huh. You lose a few political battles, and you give up on the entire nation? lol

I hate to break it to you, but it isn't a functioning democracy if you, and only you, get your way every single time. Sometimes the state will make decisions you agree with, sometimes it won't. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it's good. Welcome to America, my friend. :D
 
Yeah I single handed let have the power to cause Texas to secede.

It's an opinion, genius

Oh...so you mean it's empty, angry ranting because you didn't get your way, but you're not going to do anything about it. Got it.

Well have fun in your impotent rage.
 
Yeah I single handed let have the power to cause Texas to secede.

It's an opinion, genius

You could just remove yourself from the United States?
 
No. No it doesn't. And, sorry, but I'm willing to take the word of the USSC over some random DP poster with no legal credibility any day.

"Take the word of?"

Right. Like we're not dealing with a plain English document here. :roll: It's not some holy text that only the priests can bestow upon you. Educate yourself.
 
What's ridiculous is that meaningless piece of paper known as a marriage certificate.

We can be in love, live together, start a family, all without one
If a marriage certificate is so meaningless, then you shouldn't be so upset that same-sex couples can have it.
 
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.

No.

This is you trying to rationalize that your position on this subject and abortion, the two things you are most vocal about is based on anything but pure, unadulterated hatred and anger.

this isn't about some legal precedent... This is about hatred for you and you're doing a poor job of covering it up.
 
Instead of a rightwing fluff piece, I would go by an actual scientific study that shows not only that children with same sex parents do as well. They do BETTER.

But your logic is faulty. If studies show that children do better with same sex parents, does that mean that different-gender parents should not have children? Of course not.

If studies show that children do better with parents that have brown eyes do better than parents with blue eyes, does that mean that parents with blue eyes should not have children? Of course not.

But in this case, there is a dearth of studies on the subject, but a major recent one showed that children of same sex parents do better, across the board, than those of different-gender parents. Since you place a lot of stock in studies.

Which studies? From leftwing Universities or other LW organizations? Please...
 
Do they not teach reading and comprehending plain English documents where you went to school?

Rhetorical question.


You are telling us a law is unconstitutional, but you have never actually studied the law. If you did, you would understand what the Constitution is, what is intended to be, how the law works and works in conjuction with the Constitution and how prior court decisions actually shape the law and future interpretations of the law. You seem rather unqualified to make such an absolute has you have. It seems you are running with impression and not knowledge and understanding.

You do realize those the practice law hold the equivalent of a doctorate in the subject. Those appointed to the SOCTUS, not only hold a law degree, they usually hold a degree from one of the top schools in the US, and have years of experience distingushing themselves as judges and judges of Constitutional matters. It seems rather arrogant of you to simply state they are wrong.

Do you boast equal knowledge of brain surgery?
 
Federal statute? Why do you think there has to be a federal statute that applies for someone to be sued?
You said "churches will be in violation of federal law." So clearly you think such a law exists.

Point it out.


The Washington Post is a lib rag. As believable as the NY Times, Boston Globe, CNN and MSNBC.
:roll:

Look at the sources provided in the article.
Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns: Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents
Unless you're afraid of having your ideas challenged. I don't really care either way. The study is bunk, this has been widely shown from any number of sources.
 
"Take the word of?"

Right. Like we're not dealing with a plain English document here. :roll: It's not some holy text that only the priests can bestow upon you. Educate yourself.
Oh, I am quite educated, thank you. If the Constitution were as painfully clear on issues as you seem to think, there'd be no need for a USSC. But, hey, if you want to think you know better than centuries of legal precedence and those who sit on the USSC...well, you're welcome to think so. What you think doesn't matter anyway, since it's all over and done with. Your side lost.
 
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.

Now you've gone and hurt their feelings. I hope you are proud of yourself. :lamo
 
I read the opinion of the bare majority, and 1 of 4 of the dissents (I'll get to the other 3 here in a minute.) All of the arguments are extremely compelling on the issue of the 14th Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection) vs. the rules of elected governance at the Federal Level vs. the State Level (with respect to Constitutional authorities.)

The majority opinion seems to make the most Constitutional sense of equal protections, but the dissent from Justice Roberts seems to make the most sense from a standpoint of "restrained conception of the judicial role" (p.3 of his dissent, and something I argued yesterday with the ACA decision) and "what constitutes marriage, or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes marriage?" (p.4)

It is a tough one, but I tend to side with the majority decision on this one. There is no Constitutional foundation for the idea of religious based discrimination. Once you define marriage in terms religion suggests, then the government applies any benefit to that you have discrimination against same sex couples looking for the same thing. The States made a major mistake allowing the appeals of religious institution to define marriage, and then see it applied on unequal terms.

------------

"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry." (p.15 of the majority decision)

"Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

"There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle." (both on p.16-17)

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character"

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (both on p.28.)
 
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.





Dude, seriously... that's embarrassing.


Get a grip.
 
Back
Top Bottom