• 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]

But only a very small minority of gay couples adopt children or have children and they are doing it today, even where SSM is not legal. I know several gay couples with children, not legally married in TN, so far....

So you're somehow assuming that gay couples with children getting married affects straight couples and reduces the likelihood of them getting or staying married or living in nice neighborhoods. I can't connect those dots. A gay couple lives a few doors down from me. If they marry, then...... nothing happens. I'm still married, so are all my married neighbors, etc.


Again, traditional marriage will be unaffected by SSM. And if gay couples marry, how does that harm any of these benefits?



I'm not sure of the numbers, but I'm confident that there are maybe 100 or perhaps 1,000 single straight mothers, straight divorces, broken straight families for every one gay couple with a child or children. So we are, as I see it, focusing on the least of the problems with raising children in 2015 in America. In other words, I'd suggest the goal should be to strengthen ALL families instead of focusing on preventing or limiting the rights of a very small share of families with children.



I appreciate the sentiment otherwise, but I don't see how more marriage or more people with the right to marry signals that marriage is meaningless. I'd argue the 180 degree opposite, that it signals that marriage is important to many families, including gay families.

What gives the signal that marriage is meaningless is a high rate of straight divorce.

You are assuming that I assume something that I have never assumed (or said).

What signals that marriage is becoming meaningless is the ever higher percentage of people who don't bother with it at all.
 
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”

Did the esteemed Chief Justice of the Supreme actually write that in his dissent a day after doing exactly what he's complaining about in the Obamacare case. Why yes he did. The man sure can talk out of both sides of his mouth.
 
The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.

So that means it was 4-4 along ideological lines, not about the constitution, per se.

Then Kennedy, always wanting to be the "Me, me!" of the SCOTUS, contrived an as far reaching argument as possible, not referencing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th many thought would be referenced, but instead the "due process" clause of the 14th and in a very nebulous reference, that no one really expected.

So watch out, boys and girls, as the next time a cat-owner wants to enter their cat in a dog show, "due process" will support 'em!

Seriously, does anybody even care about the definition of words anymore as the foundation to determine if something like "due process" applies???

Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

There is no rational "due process" reference that can change that reality.

And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.

"Due process" doesn't mean you have the liberty to do whatever you want simply because you or enough of you want to. That's ludicrous!

It's a huge stretch to say that what happens in one state must be allowed in another state, as this ruling sets precedent. Now one state can legislate anything and then every state has to allow it. There goes state's rights.

But to step out off that limb and say that "due process" can prevent a state from declaring "we will not allow the perform of the oxymoroninc "gay marriages" in our state" is the height of Kennedy's dictatorial ego.

Roberts is right: the constitution had nothing to do with this decision.

Why even the four liberals were sitting on the "equal protection" clause, a plausible yet still definitively inapplicable reference with respect to the subject matter: "marriage". "Due process"? Nope .. though, sure, they'll go along with Master Kennedy, to get what they ideologically want.

Kennedy stepped off solid constitutional ground and into irrelevant ether.

Thus the last word simply has not been spoken here, not by a long shot.

Religious liberty will now most certainly mount some challenges that could easily overturn this ridiculous and fragile ruling.
 
You are assuming that I assume something that I have never assumed (or said).

What signals that marriage is becoming meaningless is the ever higher percentage of people who don't bother with it at all.

Actually the more people think about it before doing it the MORE meaningful it becomes. It used to be like eating candy.
 
I thought this appropriate:

2hnuybm.jpg


Turn the other cheek?
 
The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.

So that means it was 4-4 along ideological lines, not about the constitution, per se.

Then Kennedy, always wanting to be the "Me, me!" of the SCOTUS, contrived an as far reaching argument as possible, not referencing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th many thought would be referenced, but instead the "due process" clause of the 14th and in a very nebulous reference, that no one really expected.

So watch out, boys and girls, as the next time a cat-owner wants to enter their cat in a dog show, "due process" will support 'em!

Seriously, does anybody even care about the definition of words anymore as the foundation to determine if something like "due process" applies???

Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

There is no rational "due process" reference that can change that reality.

And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.

"Due process" doesn't mean you have the liberty to do whatever you want simply because you or enough of you want to. That's ludicrous!

It's a huge stretch to say that what happens in one state must be allowed in another state, as this ruling sets precedent. Now one state can legislate anything and then every state has to allow it. There goes state's rights.

But to step out off that limb and say that "due process" can prevent a state from declaring "we will not allow the perform of the oxymoroninc "gay marriages" in our state" is the height of Kennedy's dictatorial ego.

Roberts is right: the constitution had nothing to do with this decision.

Why even the four liberals were sitting on the "equal protection" clause, a plausible yet still definitively inapplicable reference with respect to the subject matter: "marriage". "Due process"? Nope .. though, sure, they'll go along with Master Kennedy, to get what they ideologically want.

Kennedy stepped off solid constitutional ground and into irrelevant ether.

Thus the last word simply has not been spoken here, not by a long shot.

Religious liberty will now most certainly mount some challenges that could easily overturn this ridiculous and fragile ruling.

Wow. According to you medical marijuana is now legal in all 50 States. Now it is REALLY time to celebrate.
 
I'm not sure if your reading comprehension lacks or if you're just not good with puns...

Oh, so you think I'm applying incorrectly? Well, at least I explained why. So go ahead, let's hear your version. I mean, if you are going to accuse someone of lacking reading skills, I'm sure you'll be able to back it up.
 
Well they tried their asses off to avoid hearing it but two lwer courts produced conflicting rulings which forced their hand.

It would seem so, but they aren't bound by lower court decisions unless they want to be. It's almost like they were dragged kicking and screaming to the bank to pick up a $10,000 check. They would've preferred the bank mail it, i.e., the lower courts settle the thing and not leave it hanging. Everyone who's honest knew where this decision would fall. It's extremely poor jurisprudence though. But it's done, and now we can move on to more significant things.
 
Careful what you wish for.

I was referring to the pen being mightier than the sword but, I see you got brave all the sudden. 8)

Not really. I know how old you are and I was born and raised in Wyoming so there is a thing or two I know about defending myself and using the appropriate tools. You are welcome to make all the veiled threats you want. I will defend my rights.
 
Figured this was going to happen at some point. :shrug:



Well maybe now we can move on and address some issues that are actually important to us all...

Like the Confederate Flag. :lol:
 
As opposed to the anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-family and anti-life...Left.

There is nothing anti-Christian about same sex couples being given the right to legal marriage recognition as no churches are forced to marry any couple they disagree with marrying.

There is nothing anti-family about same sex couples being given the right to legal marriage recognition as it has nothing to do with any family except the ones getting legal marriage recognition.
 
The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.
Ontologuy! I was wondering when you would show up.

So that means it was 4-4 along ideological lines, not about the constitution, per se.

Then Kennedy, always wanting to be the "Me, me!" of the SCOTUS, contrived an as far reaching argument as possible, not referencing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th many thought would be referenced, but instead the "due process" clause of the 14th and in a very nebulous reference, that no one really expected.
Incorrect. Equal protection was also referenced.

So watch out, boys and girls, as the next time a cat-owner wants to enter their cat in a dog show, "due process" will support 'em!
Dog shows aren't government legislation, I'm not sure why you think the 14th amendment applies to dog shows.

Seriously, does anybody even care about the definition of words anymore as the foundation to determine if something like "due process" applies???

Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

There is no rational "due process" reference that can change that reality.
False based on the previous faulty assumption that equal protection was not referenced.
And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.
You admitted the 4 dissenters were all ideologues so I really don't care.

"Due process" doesn't mean you have the liberty to do whatever you want simply because you or enough of you want to. That's ludicrous!
No, that's absurd hyperbole and you know it.

It's a huge stretch to say that what happens in one state must be allowed in another state, as this ruling sets precedent. Now one state can legislate anything and then every state has to allow it. There goes state's rights.

But to step out off that limb and say that "due process" can prevent a state from declaring "we will not allow the perform of the oxymoroninc "gay marriages" in our state" is the height of Kennedy's dictatorial ego.

Roberts is right: the constitution had nothing to do with this decision.

Why even the four liberals were sitting on the "equal protection" clause, a plausible yet still definitively inapplicable reference with respect to the subject matter: "marriage". "Due process"? Nope .. though, sure, they'll go along with Master Kennedy, to get what they ideologically want.
Again from the false premise.

Kennedy stepped off solid constitutional ground and into irrelevant ether.

Thus the last word simply has not been spoken here, not by a long shot.

Religious liberty will now most certainly mount some challenges that could easily overturn this ridiculous and fragile ruling.

Keep telling yourself that.

This isn't about a "definition." I know semantics is your end-all and be-all, but this actually was an equal protection challenge. Yes, the opinion first referenced due process, but later they referenced equal protection. You should have kept reading.

And equal protection under the law requires that the states show some kind of reason behind preventing a male from entering into a private contract with a male, or a female with a female. No state has demonstrated a legitimate interest in doing so.

All your side ever had to do was provide a single, legitimate state interest in stopping that private choice. You failed. It's over. Short of a constitutional amendment, this is never going to go the other way. (and you're not going to get a constitutional amendment)
 
Oh, so you think I'm applying incorrectly?

Nope, I don't think think you understood what I said at all. It's pretty clear. Sour grapes? It being used for the religious argument wanting to give marriage over to "the states" because they themselves cannot have control of it. exPRESSED? Whine? Some of my best work. Seriously. There are like 4 puns in one sentence.
 
Firstly, you give many examples of why marriage is a good idea yet none that require government sanction and reward.

At it's core "marriage" is a state defined contract, with rights and responsibilities that the couple agrees to and that is common across all married couples and therefore known to creditors, hospitals, day care centers, schools, employers, etc. And that contract by being defined by the state does require government "sanction." And no, the government doesn't HAVE to reward marriage, but if a married couple results in societal benefits, then I see no problem rewarding marriage with tax or other benefits.

Secondly, I love how you claim that "I don't see perfectly "equal" treatment under the law necessarily a virtue" and yet the basis of this Supreme Court ruling is just that.

I also said, "It's often/usually a virtue, but there is no problem in my view for society to grant benefits to activities that produce social benefits. We provide preferential tax treatment to adopting kids, which is a good thing. Also for charitable donations, and tax benefits for taking care of dependents, even dependent adults. All good things in my view. "

If you'd like to address that snippet in context that would be helpful!

I'll add I'm not a fan of fake black and white choices. Life isn't black and white so if I'm for equality in marriage and support SSM, I don't feel any obligation at all to support marriage between an adult and a 8 year old, although we aren't treating those relationships "equal" under the law.
 
So I guess this is like the official end of the world for social conservatism then right? :)


Nothing fills me with more joy than knowing some hypothetical social conservative judges in states like Mississippi and Alabama will now have to issue gay marriage licenses. This is just great :p
 
Actually the more people think about it before doing it the MORE meaningful it becomes. It used to be like eating candy.

But the marriage rate now is about half the rate it was in the 1960's and the divorce rate has doubled. And people were far more likely to describe their marriages as good/happy then than they are now. So maybe when marriage was considered the cultural norm, that was a healthy thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before living together, that was a good thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before having kids, that was a very beneficial thing. And expecting to make a life together and grow old together and share experiences with kids and grandchildren together was something to anticipate instead of being unusual.

Too many people, if they bother to get married at all, go into marriage as a trial thing fully expecting to divorce if it didn't turned out according to expectations. There is no longer any stigma to having kids, accidentally or on purpose, outside of marriage. And too many look to government to be their sugar daddy instead of building and sharing economic security together.

Whatever the motives or reasons were for changing the definition of marriage, I cannot see it as a good thing for anybody in the long term as I do expect as a culture marriage will be even less desirable and important than before.
 
It's not hard to see his work and know what makes him filled with glee.

Satan does not ****ing exist. Stop trying to run other people's lives based on the whims of your imaginary sky fairy and his evil cousin.

You lost. Eat it.
 
Not really. I know how old you are and I was born and raised in Wyoming so there is a thing or two I know about defending myself and using the appropriate tools. You are welcome to make all the veiled threats you want. I will defend my rights.

What difference does my age make?
 
The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.

Reagan appointee too. :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy#Gay_rights_and_homosexuality

In the 2000 case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Kennedy voted, with four other justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.

....

Two years later, Kennedy authored the majority ruling in the landmark decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, which holds that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry nationwide.

What an amazing progress...
 
Back
Top Bottom