• 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]

Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.

It is called the 1st Amendment. I am a man in a same sex marriage, and I would personally fight any attempt to force a church that does not want to perform a same sex marriage to do so by the state. I even posted a thread on this forum not too long ago asking if a church should be required to perform same sex marriages even if they were made legal nationwide, and 98% of the posters in that thread agreed they should not. Nobody thinks this way but paranoid conservatives.
 
It is called the 1st Amendment. I am a man in a same sex marriage, and I would personally fight any attempt to force a church that does not want to perform a same sex marriage to do so by the state. I even posted a thread on this forum not too long ago asking if a church should be required to perform same sex marriages even if they were made legal nationwide, and 98% of the posters in that thread agreed they should not. Nobody thinks this way but paranoid conservatives.

Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.
 
Because those laws violated equal protection. The U.S is the 21st country to legalize SSM, it is not like we are blazing any new ground with this. You can always join ISIS and throw gays off buildings if that is your thing.

pretty sure ISIS wouldn't take him
 
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

-Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia

History does not seem to agree with you.

Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere? Because you forgot to include one. I guess you just saw what you wanted to see in my post, otherwise you would not have posted that statement, since it is the complete opposite of my position.
 
You are very clearly moving the goal posts. You went from "churches will be forced to marry same sex couples" to "churches will be forced to allow their facilities, which are generally open to the public, to be used by same sex couples." That is quite a different argument. I do not know if the latter case will occur, and I hope nobody is petty enough to make it an issue, but we shall see. Regardless, since you will not admit it, I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.

nope your distortion of the argument is noted.

nothing in there protects church or pastors from lawsuits.

as stated before pastors act in the power of the state to sign marriage licenses. it would be very easy for them to be sued for not marrying a gay couple.
churches offer their buildings to all sorts of outside events from garage sales to bake sales etc for different things. marriages and funerals.
again technically all churches are open to anyone that wants to enter. they can easily be sued under public accomidation laws.

nothing in the ruling protect freedom of religion. it will have to work it's way through the court system.
 
According to the Supreme Court, we are.

If you only care about gay marriage being forced on the States, and you don't give a crap that the federal just took power that it is not granted by the Constitution, it's just dandy. If you are not all that enamored with tyranny and going further down that road than ever before, not so much.

Isn't it weird that you can consider expanding the privileges and rights of other citizens to be tyranny?
 
Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.

you should get use to it seel alito's dissent that I posted.

Alito notes:


The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.


they already do this now.
 
Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.

What religious belief have churches been forced to adopt? They're the only place that can still get away with racial discrimination.
 
Nine old dudes though are totally qualified.

"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate" - some idiot senator from arkansas
 
What religious belief have churches been forced to adopt? They're the only place that can still get away with racial discrimination.

I don't remember saying that churches have been forced to adopt any religious beliefs. Where did I say that?
 
Uh, no. I'd consider myself conservative in a lot of ways. I didn't lose anything today.

You must confuse "conservative" with "religious". They aren't the same thing. And remember, 7 short years ago, Barack Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman. He probably still does, but he's no fool. He won't get away with making that statement anymore.

I meant social conservatism.
 
Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.

I am sorry, but the only people who seem to bring up the "churches will be required to marry same sex couples" argument are those who are trying to fear monger. I just do not see any evidence in reality to support that idea. Not to mimic Voltaire, but I would die to defend the right of a church to not perform same sex marriages. The 1st Amendment is that important to me. I think most Americans feel the same.
 
The court did not deny religious freedom. They banned states from discriminating against consenting adults who wish to marry.

please read the dissent.

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

funny how that is. ol yes there will be lawsuits and millions of dollars spent to reinforce the 1st amendment that already exists.
even the prosecutor for the government defending the case said that there would be issues.

church and other religious organizations can be sued for discrimination and public accommodation clauses.
on top of that under hate speech laws by saying marriage is between a man and a women they could easily lose their tax exempt status.

the fight is not over and the militant activist won't stop.
 
I am sorry, but the only people who seem to bring up the "churches will be required to marry same sex couples" argument are those who are trying to fear monger. I just do not see any evidence in reality to support that idea. Not to mimic Voltaire, but I would die to defend the right of a church to not perform same sex marriages. The 1st Amendment is that important to me. I think most Americans feel the same.

nope not fear mongering at all. it is just a matter of time.
 
you should get use to it seel alito's dissent that I posted.

Alito notes:


The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.


they already do this now.

Apparently you're paranoid if you believe such a thing, which is why these threads always turn to the crap this one has. You can't even make a vague comment based on nothing but an opinion on the complexity of the ways our courts work and our legal system without being attacked.

Alito expressed concern (he's a paranoid conservative) based on his knowledge of the Constitution (which the rest of us don't have) and the complexity of our legal system. I'm not naïve enough to think it won't get challenged, be it under the name of discrimination or anything. Unless you're cheering in the streets waiving rainbow flags you're labeled and attacked even if you don't give a flying **** who married who. Now churches are being called "retards". The emotions are in overdrive. I'm sick of seeing the word "hater" and "bigot" and I'm not even opposed to SSM (or any other marriage for that matter).

Did all of these people call Barack Obama a hater and a bigot as they were casting their votes for him in 2008? That's something I would bet my mortgage payment on didn't happen.
 
nope your distortion of the argument is noted.

nothing in there protects church or pastors from lawsuits.

as stated before pastors act in the power of the state to sign marriage licenses. it would be very easy for them to be sued for not marrying a gay couple.
churches offer their buildings to all sorts of outside events from garage sales to bake sales etc for different things. marriages and funerals.
again technically all churches are open to anyone that wants to enter. they can easily be sued under public accomidation laws.

nothing in the ruling protect freedom of religion. it will have to work it's way through the court system.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think you are wrong, but you are free to believe what you want. The majority made it clear where they stand. Even if something "winds it way through the court system" we all know how it will end up when it reaches SCOTUS. This is a court that has handed down the Hobby Lobby case for Christ's sakes!
 
Well, maybe. :D


"Movements" don't stop moving just because they achieved their primary goal; they never say "Ok, we won, we're good now. Go home and be happy." Heh, no. They get in the habit of pushing for things (and some people get in the habit of making a comfy living by being a vocal spokesperson of the movement, ahem) so they tend to find more things to pitch a bitch fit about and continue generating news and consuming bandwidth for at least another generation. :doh:


Eh, we'll see... :shrug:

well sure, but they tend to be ignored. No one likes the "feminazis" for instance.

The only rational concern churches can have is losing tax exempt status - as the 1981 ruling proclaimed, if the southern churches persisted in racial discrimination. They can choose to give up this status and still discriminate to their withered hearts' content.
 
I don't remember saying that churches have been forced to adopt any religious beliefs. Where did I say that?

Why would churches be required/forced to marry people they don't want to marry? That by definition would requires them to accept homosexuality as something other than a sin which they are told to not commit. First amendment protections would apply like they did in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.
 
Isn't it weird that you can consider expanding the privileges and rights of other citizens to be tyranny?

Oh, you are so close to catching on! But, let me brake it down for you, since you are confused, which is a key to how it all works.

Now, I don't actually don't consider expanding rights to be tyranny. In fact, I consider the government taking power that it is not allowed or granted to have by the Constitution to be a form of tyranny. The throwing of the bone to force gay marriage on the states seems like a freedom to the easily deceived. Helps when there are so many that are willing to swallow that bone.
 
Enjoy your witch hunt.


I'll be over at the Tiki bar drinking margaritas and Belgian ale.

ahaha right, wanting the *same* equal protection in employment and housing rights as race, gender, religion, pregnancy status, and a plethora of other *lifestyle choices* is equivalent to a witch hunt. Or is it that someone asked you a question
 
nope not fear mongering at all. it is just a matter of time.

So what? Your argument is basically that you disagree that SCOTUS affirmed religious liberty in this ruling which means, based on all their previous rulings to date, they will likely affirm it in a future ruling. And I am not even disagreeing with you on the principle that churches should not be compelled to marry same sex couples. In fact, can you point to one person on this forum who has suggested they should be? Your argument is nothing but semantics about whether the current litigation is enough to settle the religious liberty issue, or more will be needed. But I doubt anyone would suggest this Supreme Court would not support a church refusing to marry same sex couples. If the Westboro Baptist Church can protest at the funerals of fallen heros and keep their tax exempt status, then I think churches are pretty damn safe not marrying same sex couples.
 
Oh, you are so close to catching on! But, let me brake it down for you, since you are confused, which is a key to how it all works.

Now, I don't actually don't consider expanding rights to be tyranny. In fact, I consider the government taking power that it is not allowed or granted to have by the Constitution to be a form of tyranny. The throwing of the bone to force gay marriage on the states seems like a freedom to the easily deceived. Helps when there are so many that are willing to swallow that bone.

Yeah, we get it. You place state's rights ahead of individual rights. Good for you.
 
Oh, you are so close to catching on! But, let me brake it down for you, since you are confused, which is a key to how it all works.

Now, I don't actually don't consider expanding rights to be tyranny. In fact, I consider the government taking power that it is not allowed or granted to have by the Constitution to be a form of tyranny. The throwing of the bone to force gay marriage on the states seems like a freedom to the easily deceived. Helps when there are so many that are willing to swallow that bone.

So you think a government expanding the rights and privileges held by citizens... to be a form of tyranny?
 
What this decision did not do is declare LGBT's a protected class. So discrimination against LGBT's is allowed; except where local ordinances forbid it.
 
"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate" - some idiot senator from arkansas

If you went to Harvard or Yale and are somewhat accomplished at law you could become a supreme court justice. Of course, being a minority helps too in times when a minority pick is the right poltical move for the sitting president. Eitherway, many senators are highly educated as well and once again being a minority might help in certain situations. For example, some districts have elected a black representative for more than a half century regardless of how corrupt the candidate is. I don't put much weight on the opinion of senators, representatives, governors, presidents, mayors, justices or anyone else in power and I don't think any of them are qualified to tell me anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom