• 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]

It isn't already? When I got married it was in no church and there were no church officials (that I was aware of) in the room.

That's always been the case. What I'm saying is church officials should no longer be able to perform a "legal" marriage. They can sign a religious document to file in their church, just not a civil document recording the marriage in the local courthouse.
 
Luckily, he 79 years old.
he is nine years too old to serve on the jury


and this week has underscored the reality that the most impactful aspect of electing a president is the justices (s)he nominates to the supreme court
 
It's not up to me, beefheart. It's up to God and I doubt you're going to be a fan of what ultimately happens.

And, of course, you think you can speak as your god. Not a lot of that "love" flowing from you, ever.
 
It's not up to me, beefheart. It's up to God and I doubt you're going to be a fan of what ultimately happens.
Nothing has happened before when you've made your predictions, and nothing will happen now.
 
There is already a movement within Christianity to get Christian clergy to refuse to sign marriage licenses.

And they probably will, soon to be followed by pulling out of hospitals.
 
I think the left supports the decision because they're under the impression that all Conservatives oppose Gay marriage.

I don't really care one way or the other.

We have much more important issues to deal with.

I'm not surprised by the ruling at all. It seems to me Due Process would preclude States from withholding same sex marriage rights.

I recognize it's important to same sex couples, but it's an interesting fight in light of so many people today shunning marriage all together.
 
Judgment doesn't always come right away, but it will come. And then there's Judgment Day before the Almighty when it will certainly come.

So you can't provide anything other than a threat?

What a strange threat at that. "The God I worship will punish America one day, for something not actually not in the scriptures, with what and when I cannot say, even though our next door neighbor hasn't received anything resembling a reprimand. It'll totally happen, you'll all see."

Maybe God like poutines.
 
There's no requirement to have a religious ceremony, but any clergy are allowed to sign a license. Since the majority opinion rests in making things equal, you can't have two classes of enablers that can follow different rules.

We've had "two classes of enablers" since marriage began. That is specifically why we have JoPs who sign marriage licenses too, who that is part of their job (which should actually be the only ones forced to sign marriage licenses, because it is part of their job, what they get paid to do).
 
And they probably will, soon to be followed by pulling out of hospitals.

I doubt very many will because it simply isn't worth it and they will see a reduction in people who decide to turn to the church for their marriage, or even wedding ceremony.
 
That's always been the case. What I'm saying is church officials should no longer be able to perform a "legal" marriage. They can sign a religious document to file in their church, just not a civil document recording the marriage in the local courthouse.

But what's the point in not allowing a religious official to perform a legal marriage?
 
So you can't provide anything other than a threat?

What a strange threat at that. "The God I worship will punish America one day, for something not actually not in the scriptures, with what and when I cannot say, even though our next door neighbor hasn't received anything resembling a reprimand. It'll totally happen, you'll all see."

Maybe God like poutines.

Meanwhile, tornadoes will continue to occur in the bible belt...LOL
 
That's always been the case. What I'm saying is church officials should no longer be able to perform a "legal" marriage. They can sign a religious document to file in their church, just not a civil document recording the marriage in the local courthouse.

Why shouldn't they be able to sign that document? It doesn't hurt anyone at all for them to do it, even if they are allowed to refuse to sign it for some people. And them doing it saves the state money in having to provide more people to be available to sign those documents.
 
In a strange way, I think this will actually help the Reps chances (slightly) at the White House in 2016.

Now, they have to put this aside and stop talking about it so much.

Because they sounded like absolute DINOSAURS going on about their objections to same sex marriage.

There are few things on the average Republican POTUS hopeful platform that sounded more irrational then being against same-sex marriage.

Of course, they still don't get it that it sounds ridiculous. But at least now they have no choice and join the 21'st century on this.


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep - I think both parties are worse then useless.
 
Good. Now family values have been restored and the institution of marriage has been strengthened for a subsection of the American population. In an rather odd way, liberals have outdone conservatives in social conservatism.
 
But what's the point in not allowing a religious official to perform a legal marriage?

So they can be free to discriminate who they "marry" based upon religious reasons. If it's not a legal marriage the state has no horse in the race because it would only be a religious ceremony.
 
I doubt very many will because it simply isn't worth it and they will see a reduction in people who decide to turn to the church for their marriage, or even wedding ceremony.

They aren't performing them to make money; at most you should only be paying the pastor/rabbi/priest for his time.

They will still have ceremonies, but they won't sign the state's paper. They will send folks somewhere to get it signed.
 
In a strange way, I think this will actually help the Reps chances (slightly) at the White House in 2016.

Now, they have to put this aside and stop talking about it so much.

Because they sounded like absolute DINOSAURS going on about their objections to same sex marriage.

There are few things on the average Republican POTUS hopeful platform that sounded more irrational then being against same-sex marriage.

Of course, they still don't get it that it sounds ridiculous. But at least now they have no choice and join the 21'st century on this.


Once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep - I think both parties are worse then useless.

GOP quiet on this issue? Ain't gonna happen. Santorum, Huckabee, and Cruz will ride this pony all the way to the glue factory.
 
I had to stop over to my mom's house this morning. AS I walk in, she has the TV on and asked me if I had heard about this. To my surprise, she was almost in tears, saying she did not think she would see this in her lifetime. While she is, at 70 and single, unlikely to make use of the law herself, she is still incredibly moved that she could if she desired. And her being so happy made me pretty happy. I told her that the changing attitudes where precisely because she and people like her had lived openly and well, being good neighbors, good coworkers and good friends. It is easy to deny from those icky people in imagination. It is much harder to deny marriage from those we know and like and care about.
 
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.

here are the court cases :

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

and here's where it says that they can make that decision :

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Setting aside the fact that I obviously don't like slavery and do think freedom of contract is important such that I don't really care if seventeen folks want to get "married," regardless of who's having sex with whom...

On the level of what it does regarding the Constitution, this is no different from and no better than Dred Scott.

incorrect, as i already explained.
 
What a steaming crock of bull****.

The Constitution says nothing about this topic.

But other justices argued that the court should not be able to order states to change their marriage definition. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, called the ruling an "extraordinary step."

"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states | Fox News
 
So they can be free to discriminate who they "marry" based upon religious reasons. If it's not a legal marriage the state has no horse in the race because it would only be a religious ceremony.

But they are still free to discriminate who they can marry for religious reasons...in a religious marriage. There's no reason why they can't wear both hats. If the religious official doesn't feel he can perform the duties of a civil official, then he simply wouldn't take the job. Legally barring them from taking the job would actually be illegal.
 
Tim, it's *always* been legal. There's always been a fundamental right to polygamy. We're just waiting for the right five justices to come along and pull it of their asses, where it's been hiding all this time.

Well I read the entire decision and the dissents of all 4 Justices. In the dissents, they, as I have here, intimated that, not so far into the future, we will see religious expression (Which is protected an enumerated in the Constitution) challenged, and also, the broad definition of liberty abused in ways that should worry every American, and that it doesn't matter which side of the aisle, nor of what philosophical or political lean one might entertain. In the nutshell, 5 robes just granted a right to a cross section of American's where previously none had existed. They Amended the Constitution. That is SCARY!

Tim-
 
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.

Just to make the point, the 14th amendment is the rule of law. It made this decision inevitable.
 
Oh yea?

Brown v. Buhman, 11-cv-0652-CW (2013)[10] — the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation ruled unconstitutional, but Utah allowed to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses
Lol, that's not a Supreme Court case.

Fail.
 
Back
Top Bottom