• 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]

You KNOW what Satan LIKES? Holy ****.

Who's the bad guy again?

godvsatan.jpg
 
no they can't not now. a pastor has the ability to sign off on a marriage they technically act in the authority of the state to do so. they can be sued and the church can now be sued for not allowing gay marriage.

a Christian college that only allows men and women who are married to live together can now be sued for not allowing a gay couple.
same goes for a whole host of other religious organizations.

the SCOTUS today just tossed out the 1st amendment on it's ear.
they sdhould be ashamed of themselves.

By what statute are churches required to married before the SCOTUS ruling today? It certainly isn't covered by the CRA of 1964.
 
Correct, but the regulation of that right was left to the states, and the states alone.

Tim-

But not the denial of it was not left to the states. They were forbidden that.

Also, noticed your post on your question of polygamy. I'm pretty sure that this ruling didn't affect that. But I honestly think that it should. After all, it is still a marriage between two consenting adults.
 
Not trying to scare only notify.

So you are notifying me of what some alleged non-corporeal entity from a supposed different universe likes? A being that has never been proven to exist in this reality. Sounds like you two are buddy-buddy. And I am supposed to care about what some fictional being likes why? Am I supposed to care what Cthuhlu and the Tooth Fairy likes also?
 
BULL DOOKY y'all keep asking for things you don't deserve the the activist SCOTUS keep giving them to you.

Freedom from slavery, freedom to vote, freedom to not be forced against one's will to be living in an institution, freedom to have an education, freedom to be allowed to own property, freedom to marry.

Things we don't deserve.
 
Correct, but the regulation of that right was left to the states, and the states alone.

Tim-

Wrong. The power of states to forbid marriage to certain people has been limited by the constitution for many many years. It was never "left to the states, and the states alone"
 
It's becoming more and more obvious that some Conservatives aren't really against gay marriage because they believe it should be up to the states... they're against it because of their religion. They're using the legal arguments as a front. Even some people who pretended for so long to be against it based on some legal premise have given up all pretense and just admitted that they're against it because they're fundies through their own actions in this forum. Oh... the sweet deliciousness of politics. :lol:

I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.
 
Freedom from slavery, freedom to vote, freedom to not be forced against one's will to be living in an institution, freedom to have an education, freedom to be allowed to own property, freedom to marry.

Things we don't deserve.

Right to kill the unborn ring a bell?
 
Right to kill the unborn ring a bell?

Or you could own up to your hatred of your fellow man and your embrace of evil.
 
Democracy is the masses oppressing the minority. If we put civil liberties up to democratic vote, minorities like myself, minorities like Hatuey, and minorities here on the forum that are in the LGBTQ community would never have the basic freedoms and ability to join the commonwealth.

I'm starting to think that the majority of people who are opposed to everyone else having the same things they do are young Midwestern/Southern protestant men between the ages of 25-65 and with an income above the $45K mark but bellow $100K. There are exceptions of course. The black community, for all of its support of Democrats on different issues, has quite a sizeable population of congregations that have shown some opposition to gay marriage. However, they're nowhere near as vocal as the other group I've mentioned. To believe that our rights and benefits should be left up to these people is absolute insanity and has never been practiced in the history of the US. Ever. Even in the dark ages of the 1800s, people were bringing court cases against established traditions like the disenfranchisement of poor whites and blacks.
 
So you are notifying me of what some alleged non-corporeal entity from a supposed different universe likes? A being that has never been proven to exist in this reality. Sounds like you two are buddy-buddy. And I am supposed to care about what some fictional being likes why? Am I supposed to care what Cthuhlu and the Tooth Fairy likes also?

Do you not believe in good and evil?
 
Also, noticed your post on your question of polygamy. I'm pretty sure that this ruling didn't affect that. But I honestly think that it should. After all, it is still a marriage between two consenting adults.

Well...more than two adults, hence the term polygamy. Heh.

But the primary issue that someone challenging a law preventing polygamy is that they have to overcome the State's legitimate interest of preventing fraud and folks being able to claim the tax benefits without any of the associated societal benefits.
 
no they can't not now. a pastor has the ability to sign off on a marriage they technically act in the authority of the state to do so. they can be sued and the church can now be sued for not allowing gay marriage.

a Christian college that only allows men and women who are married to live together can now be sued for not allowing a gay couple.
same goes for a whole host of other religious organizations.

the SCOTUS today just tossed out the 1st amendment on it's ear.
they should be ashamed of themselves.

You are correct as far as the college goes. But that isn't a church so :shrug:. As for pastors being sued for not performing SSM. Guess what? Pastors in churches have always been able to deny performing a marriage. Or to be more specific, pastors dedicated to specific religious marriages have been able to deny performing a marriage. I know this because my mother in law's pastor refused to perform my wife and I's marriage on the grounds that we 1: were not Christian and 2: We did not attend their church. This ability will not change.

But if it somehow does end up being as you imagine then I will fight just as strongly for religious freedom as I did for SSM.
 
I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.

Lmao, yeah, welcome to America, 21st century America, religion doesn't trump our laws. Get use to it. :)
 
Masha Gessen:

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.
 
I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.

That would actually make sense if we lived in a THEOCRACY. But we don't. So your religious beliefs have no bearing.
 
Or you could own up to your hatred of your fellow man and your embrace of evil.

If that were true I damn sure would. Not much for mincing words.

Now back to the abortion question....
 
"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."

we don't have a court that upholds the constitution. we have a court that does whatever the hell it wants based on the political view of the justices.

2 times in 1 week they have failed up hold the constitution and instead come up with unconstitutional acts.

the entire bench needs to be removed and arrested for violation of their duty this week. they have proven that they are not capable of office or capable of
constitutional judgement just whatever whim they want to pass when they want to pass it.

next we will see them stopping all over religious rights next.

We are in an age where any decision can be justified broadly. I'm not gay and none of my family (that I know of) is gay or wants to have a gay marriage so this affects me personally not at all. I'm however glad that people can gain benefits, visiting rights in hospitals, etc....
 
That would actually make sense if we lived in a THEOCRACY. But we don't. So your religious beliefs have no bearing.

You happy ass secular feelings and emotions do nothing for me.
 
But not the denial of it was not left to the states. They were forbidden that.

Also, noticed your post on your question of polygamy. I'm pretty sure that this ruling didn't affect that. But I honestly think that it should. After all, it is still a marriage between two consenting adults.


To your first point, read what you wrote, Kal. The denial of it to anything other than one man and one woman is regulating it, until now of course.

To your second point, If you read the decision, there is no way this majority could refuse a polygamy challenge based entirely on the language the majority used to justify this decision. It's a foregone conclusion actually.


Tim-
 
Freedom from slavery, freedom to vote, freedom to not be forced against one's will to be living in an institution, freedom to have an education, freedom to be allowed to own property, freedom to marry.

Things we don't deserve.

the problem with that argument is that the slave's KNEW they were slaves and people who couldn't vote KNEW they couldn't vote. a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it. this....this....thing....issue of being denied "rights" he didn't even know he was being denied until the lefte decided to MAKE IT a right they were being denied.

i know, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me either. why try to understand it. I'm just going to smile and nod like I know what's going on. enjoy your victory.
 
Do you not believe in good and evil?

I believe YOU or your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS don't get dictate to me what good and evil is. Sorry to disappoint you
 
Wrong. The power of states to forbid marriage to certain people has been limited by the constitution for many many years. It was never "left to the states, and the states alone"

What people that would otherwise have any distinguishing feature that are not man and woman? Can you be specific?


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom