• 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]

The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.



It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.

They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war
 
If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.

And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.

With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.

Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .

i would expect before the SCOTUS gave up too much authority along the lines of NO confirmations at all, they would declare the 60 vote rule unconstitutional

the senate won't refuse to confirm *someone* because each party has a (roughly) 50/50 shot at president and they don't want the favor returned once they have the white house. In the end, the other two branches lose even more power
 
right like SSM is going to have any meaningful impact on birth rate...

maybe you should blame the 70% who are hetero christians and have stopped breeding, or god forbid, acknowledge that we're overpopulated and there is no way 300 million shar'ia muslims will be added to the voter rolls.

How are we overpopulated?
 
One attempt at conciliation from the majority ruling i have to take issue with:
"Marriage, in their view, is by its nature a gender-differentiated union of man and woman. This view long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. "

Really, i'm pretty sure SCOTUS released the decision today to avoid throngs of loonies from kansas having time to swarm into D.C., so he must not think too highly of them. In fact, like them i suspect, i wasn't paying attention at all, figuring the decision comes monday-tuesday

Also this is a perfect representation of the hysteria from "reasonable and sincere people" and the kind of voter ted cruz covets and scalia's #1 fan:







Comparisons to 9/11, jihad, and nazis - I bet the resident bigots are *real* proud to share their 'cause' with this guy
 
Democrats have every right to be like:

8Y8Rm5J.gif

Dems had *what* to do with this exactly? This is several federal court decisions followed by a majority ruling penned by a reagan appointee. They have no right to be proud, when they stood aside meekly while bush and romney did everything possible to ban gay rights. And hillary being in your pic is damn funny, when her husband voted in DADT and DOMA

Aside from a handful of state legislatures, the dems have been impotent while true activists led the public and court battle
 
I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.

You don't like this ruling from SCOTUS because it goes against your beliefs? Tough.
We don't like the ruling from DC v Heller because it goes against our beliefs, but conservatives are happy to support the SCOTUS when it makes decisions they agree with.

At least gay marriage won't enable countless deaths.
 
They seem to forget the 14th was added specifically to check the power of the states, after that minor inconvenience known as the civil war

The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.
 
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.

I feel sorry for you man. I don't know why you have so much hate in you, but I hope you someday find peace and happiness.

You share lot's of things with gay people (or people, as I prefer to call them): The nation, the flag, restaurants, free speech, the constitution. Marriage will just be another one.
Do you hate gays more than you love your girlfriend? If the answer is no, then marry her.
 
i would expect before the SCOTUS gave up too much authority along the lines of
NO confirmations at all, they would declare the 60 vote rule unconstitutional

This still doesn't address the current situation where the GOP Senate can vote down any USSC Obama nominee by a simple majority vote.
This would still leave us Constitutionally with eight Justices, which has occurred in the past.
Tie votes would revert back to previous court rulings, effectively ending debate.

the senate won't refuse to confirm *someone* because each party has a (roughly) 50/50 shot at president and
they don't want the favor returned once they have the white house.
In the end, the other two branches lose even more power

Either party could filibuster a USSC nominee in the next Presidency--depending on who owns the Senate and Presidency.
We have not seen the "Nuclear Option" used yet for USSC appointees--that looks like the only way we'll get a ninth Justice in the future.

68 of the first 96 nominees of our NATION were approved by a voice vote.
Beginning with Thurgood Marshall in 1967, the last 21 approved Justices were by roll-call vote.
Thomas got the least number of votes in Modern times--52; followed by Alito with 58.
As you can see, a filibuster by DEMs could have stopped them.

It will take years for the legalities of the filibuster to reach the USSC.
IMHO, Roberts/Kennedy rulings will lean right on changing the way Congress works, leaving the filibuster alone.

We may well have a reached a point in our miserable partisan history in the Senate both ways
that both the Senate and President must be of the same party just to get a new Justice .
 
The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

It may have also had something to do with what the country was going to do with all those freed slaves and how they would be treated in the states that had once enslaved them.
 
The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

Do you have a problem with "anchor" babies being covered by the 14th amendment, since you bring up this amendment ?
 
I feel sorry for you man. I don't know why you have so much hate in you, but I hope you someday find peace and happiness.

You share lot's of things with gay people (or people, as I prefer to call them): The nation, the flag, restaurants, free speech, the constitution. Marriage will just be another one.
Do you hate gays more than you love your girlfriend? If the answer is no, then marry her.

If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.
 
Do you have a problem with "anchor" babies being covered by the 14th amendment, since you bring up this amendment ?

Not really, but if you are going to have an immigration policy that's a pretty brainless one to pick. Why the government thinks that policy is logical and not harmful to basic enforcement is beyond me.
 
If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.

Do you suppose those in opposite gender marriages would be happy to give up those benefits?
 
The thirteen amendment covers slavery just fine. The fourteenth amendment was a power grab by the federal government.

Duh but the 14th was so broad in anticipation of other lowbrow tactics the southern states might use in the future - oppressive measures that were an offshoot of slavery ending, like jim crow

Or do you think the 14th being used in brown vs board was nothing more than a tyrannical power grab by the fed too? Believe it or not, gay rights is not the only thing that has prospered thanks to that amendment
 
Not really, but if you are going to have an immigration policy that's a pretty brainless one to pick.
Why the government thinks that policy is logical and not harmful to basic enforcement is beyond me.

Have you seen an immigration policy from the current House and Senate being debated on their floors?
It's certainly easier to have an issue to campaign on and not offer fixes--just like not having REPLACE for ACA--another bullet the GOP dodged.
Just like the gay marriage ruling today--now the GOP gets to just complain and not legislate .
 
Duh but the 14th was so broad in anticipation of other lowbrow tactics the southern states might use in the future - oppressive measures that were an offshoot of slavery ending, like jim crow

Or do you think the 14th being used in brown vs board was nothing more than a tyrannical power grab by the fed too? Believe it or not, gay rights is not the only thing that has prospered thanks to that amendment

Yes, I know. The courts regularly invoke the fourteenth amendment to grant the federal government power. It's why that amendment needs repealed. Well, that and the anchor baby stupidity. Though the anchor baby issue alone just calls for a repeal and replace measure to put in place a more reasonable policy.
 
This still doesn't address the current situation where the GOP Senate can vote down any USSC Obama nominee by a simple majority vote.
This would still leave us Constitutionally with eight Justices, which has occurred in the past.
Tie votes would revert back to previous court rulings, effectively ending debate.



Either party could filibuster a USSC nominee in the next Presidency--depending on who owns the Senate and Presidency.
We have not seen the "Nuclear Option" used yet for USSC appointees--that looks like the only way we'll get a ninth Justice in the future.

68 of the first 96 nominees of our NATION were approved by a voice vote.
Beginning with Thurgood Marshall in 1967, the last 21 approved Justices were by roll-call vote.
Thomas got the least number of votes in Modern times--52; followed by Alito with 58.
As you can see, a filibuster by DEMs could have stopped them.

It will take years for the legalities of the filibuster to reach the USSC.
IMHO, Roberts/Kennedy rulings will lean right on changing the way Congress works, leaving the filibuster alone.

We may well have a reached a point in our miserable partisan history in the Senate both ways
that both the Senate and President must be of the same party just to get a new Justice .

I see now, but disneydude is right. It would cause an uproar to drag a confirmation out in perpetuity, and not just supreme court judges but ALL confirmations for BOTH parties would be put at risk - federal judges, cabinet. Why would they risk losing long-term power over a temporary dick measuring contest?

It would be like the current senate removing the entire white house budget cause they in public hate obama. Well, the dems will return the favor and there goes the budget for the next repub pres for everything from security, to air force one, to the drapes. The parties in reality are in cahoots in their ineptitude, because they both profit from it regardless. They both get a 50/50 shot of the dynasty of a few families continuing, they both serve the banks, pharma, and oil, not the american people.
 
Do you suppose those in opposite gender marriages would be happy to give up those benefits?

No, but I don't see why that is nessarcy now. You just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone and when those people die or get divorced the government is done with marriage. Gays can't complain about unequal treatment nor can straight couples, so all should be good.
 
If SSM supporters have taught me anything over the years it's that marriage is about the benefits. It's kind of shallow if you ask me.

Yeah that's why one of the plaintiffs was fighting to place his partner's name as 'husband' on the death certificate and the michigan couple sued to protect their adopted kids by having them both listed as parents. That's why other cases involved hospital visitation rights.

If the SSM opponents have taught me anything, it's that they hate love
 
No, but I don't see why that is nessarcy now.

Why? They're not just in it for the benefits, are they?

You just stop issuing marriage licenses to everyone and when those people die or get divorced the government is done with marriage. Gays can't complain about unequal treatment nor can straight couples, so all should be good.

Nah.
 
I see now, but disneydude is right. It would cause an uproar to drag a confirmation out in perpetuity, and not just supreme court judges but ALL confirmations for BOTH parties would be put at risk - federal judges, cabinet.

McConnell has already promised to NOT confirm any more of Obama's Judicial appointments.
This was the same action that occurred with GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott during Clinton's last two years .
 
Why? They're not just in it for the benefits, are they?

From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits. Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?



Why? The fourteenth amendment can't be invoked and no one is losing their benefits. I don't see why my plan wouldn't work.
 
Yeah that's why one of the plaintiffs was fighting to place his partner's name as 'husband' on the death certificate and the michigan couple sued to protect their adopted kids by having them both listed as parents. That's why other cases involved hospital visitation rights.

If the SSM opponents have taught me anything, it's that they hate love

Love doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. All I ever hear about is how awesome the benefits are.
 
From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits. Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?

So people in opposite gender marriage would be fine with giving up the benefits then? A married couple in Australia just recently promised to dissolve their government marriage license should ssm come to their country, which seems principally consistent. Is that what you're suggesting?

Why? The fourteenth amendment can't be invoked and no one is losing their benefits. I don't see why my plan wouldn't work.

Because it does nothing for me. Thanks, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom