• 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]

Scalia says in the dissent that the ruling paves the way for polygamy to become legal. he's correct. when the liberal justices are done the word "marriage" will be so different as to be unrecognizable to it's original definition. and once polygamy is added, what's next? can't wait to find out.

I don't see what basis will remain for applying the consanguinity requirements of state marriage laws to homosexual partners. The traditional concern about an increased risk of genetic defects in offspring no longer is in play. Why should the right to marry each other granted to two homosexual second cousins, for example, and yet denied to them just because they are first cousins? What sense will there be in continuing to prevent two sisters, or a father and son, from marrying each other, forcing them to conduct their homosexual liaisons in secret? Why should they have to hide their love from the world, just because it is different?

Soon it will be time for an Ozzie and Harriet show for today, featuring the wholesome, all-American homosexual, incestuous, polygamous family. Just imagine the possibilities, especially when they interacted with their equally progressive neighbors and friends! "Rick, I hope you have a good time on your date with Cindy and her mom and brother!" "Oh, thanks, Pop--I will. We're going to the malt shop, and then we'll probably play a little strip poker." Even the family dog would take on a new and unusual significance, whenever it appeared in an episode.
 
Last edited:
The whole "litmus-test" really got started with GHB....since then it has been much more prominent from both sides of the aisle. Prior to GHB....you had a number of justices appointed by both sides that didn't cow-tow the party line. O'Connor being another appointed by Reagan.

Name a Democrat nominated Supreme Court Justice who fits your fantasy.
 
He's definitely conservative on many issues.....I completely recognize that...but compared with Scalia, Scalito and the nimble-brained Thomas....Kennedy has shown a more moderate side on several issues.

Don't discount Alito. He has plenty of time left to show just how insane he is... and he will.
 
Don't discount Alito. He has plenty of time left to show just how insane he is... and he will.

Alito, like Thomas doesn't have an original thought in his head. He won't until Scalia retires.
 
You would have to go back pre-Reagan....

So none nominated by Clinton or Obama - that's convenient.

It's your theory - surely you've got examples of these moderate, Democrat nominated Supreme Court Justices who've often taken the conservative argument in cases before the court.
 
Why do you care how many wives a man has?

I don't, any more than I care how many husbands a woman has. I do care about the law though and our laws are set up for a two-person marriage. Before we start throwing in polygamous relationships, we need to address the clear political ramifications, come up with some decisions before we clog up the courts with child custody, inheritance and property rights and divorce proceedings that nobody has any clue how to handle.
 
so when do we get to see riots and secession like mike hukabee and all the repub candidates promised? Come on, back up your threats you cowards
 
So none nominated by Clinton or Obama - that's convenient.

It's your theory - surely you've got examples of these moderate, Democrat nominated Supreme Court Justices who've often taken the conservative argument in cases before the court.

I would say that all of the Justices appointed by Clinton Obama, Bush1 and Bush 2 have all been litmus test judges. I think President's after Reagan learned how to use the litmus test without actually saying it.
 
Nah....its all rhetoric..just like....(ROTFLMFAO) "Repeal Obamacare".....LOL........
 
I'm pretty sure the Founding fathers didn't see the need to add the definition of marriage into the constitution. they could have never realized in a million years people would actually be ALTERING the definition of marriage and make it law. They didn't understand the First World problems we now get to deal with. I'm sure they are sorry they missed it.
Uh, the civil union, the "marriage" recognized by the state, has been a matter of law for a long time. The whole question of extending partnership rights (recognizing the civil contract) to SS couples has been the point of the deliberations. Maybe you missed the memo.
 
I would say that all of the Justices appointed by Clinton Obama, Bush1 and Bush 2 have all been litmus test judges. I think President's after Reagan learned how to use the litmus test without actually saying it.

Let's just look at the court as it exists and let's not try to kid the troops here.

Those appointed by Clinton - Ginsberg and Breyer are both unflinching progressive liberals who've never found themselves on the opposite side of the other or their liberal progressive clones.

Those appointed by Obama - Sotomayor and Kagan are both unflinching progressive liberals who've never found themselves on the opposite side of the other or their liberal progressive clones.

Those appointed by GW Bush - Alito and Roberts - Alito has been an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling - Roberts, by all accounts, has been a disaster for conservatives and for the court in general. He wants to be the most popular girl at the party and has forgotten how to be a judge.

Those appointed by GHW Bush - Thomas - an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling

Those appointed by Reagan - Scalia and Kennedy - Scalia has been an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling and Kennedy has been a disappointment in his inconsistent behaviour and need/ego that drives him to want to be the deciding vote on many controversial issues and in the majority sides with the liberal view on such issues.

As can be seen, Democrats have been a perfect 4 for 4 in choosing unflinching liberal ideologues. Republicans have been 3 for 5 in choosing unflinching conservative ideologues. Now a lot of that could and does have to do with the majority of those 5 Republican choices coming with majority Democrat Senate rule while all the Democrat ones came with majority Democrat Senate rule - that certainly helps in ensuring that the Democrat choices don't get "Borked".
 
Let's just look at the court as it exists and let's not try to kid the troops here.

Those appointed by Clinton - Ginsberg and Breyer are both unflinching progressive liberals who've never found themselves on the opposite side of the other or their liberal progressive clones.

Those appointed by Obama - Sotomayor and Kagan are both unflinching progressive liberals who've never found themselves on the opposite side of the other or their liberal progressive clones.

Those appointed by GW Bush - Alito and Roberts - Alito has been an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling - Roberts, by all accounts, has been a disaster for conservatives and for the court in general. He wants to be the most popular girl at the party and has forgotten how to be a judge.

Those appointed by GHW Bush - Thomas - an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling

Those appointed by Reagan - Scalia and Kennedy - Scalia has been an unflinching conservative who's never found himself on the side of a liberal majority ruling and Kennedy has been a disappointment in his inconsistent behaviour and need/ego that drives him to want to be the deciding vote on many controversial issues and in the majority sides with the liberal view on such issues.

As can be seen, Democrats have been a perfect 4 for 4 in choosing unflinching liberal ideologues. Republicans have been 3 for 5 in choosing unflinching conservative ideologues. Now a lot of that could and does have to do with the majority of those 5 Republican choices coming with majority Democrat Senate rule while all the Democrat ones came with majority Democrat Senate rule - that certainly helps in ensuring that the Democrat choices don't get "Borked".


Since the time of Reagan you can only come up with one - Roberts who you are being overly generous about because aside from a couple of decisions, he has pretty much sided with the other conservatives. Thank you for proving my point that both sides use the litmus test pretty well since the days of Reagan.
 
raise your hand if you think this is the end of listening to/reading/watching gay groups complaining?

suckers. this is only the beginning. we will go to our graves being told what horrible people we are because the gay's are being denied (FILL IN THE BLANK). That is when we are not be taken to school for what we have done to the black community. fun way to spend our short time on earth. cheers!
 
You know, the air somehow seems sweeter today knowing that same sex marriages are happening in my state right now. :)
 
Well if you didn't mean it why did you say the reason government is in the marriage business is to promote "stable, self-sufficient, productive households"? If you don't believe that a government piece of paper does exactly that, why do you support government discrimination against those who don't hold the government piece of paper? You can't state something and then ignore the consequences of your own nonsense.

I support same sex marriage because I don't believe the government should discriminate against any individual because of their personal, lifestyle choices in government policy. You, apparently, have no such problem and feel comfortable in some fanciful idea that the magic paper makes people good spouses and productive contributors to society.

Did you somehow translate "promote" as "guarantee?" Is that what the word means in Canadian? Whose nonsense was this, again?
 
In other breaking news, it's seven o'clock here. It's seven o'clock for everybody around here. That's equal rights for ya, right there. Everybody gets to have seven o'clock.

Okay, not everybody. It was 7:01 by the time I posted that. Who knows what time it is now. I have to look up nearly every word.
 
Perhaps you hadn't heard about attempts by the Obama administration to force Catholic institutions to fund health insurance packages that included free access to contraceptives. Perhaps you haven't heard about Human Rights Commissions ruling against religious people who wish not to have their businesses used in connections with same sex marriages. Perhaps you haven't heard some opine that if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages then the government should refuse to recognize all of that church's marriages.

America, at this point in time, is fully engaged in chipping away at the extent to which religious freedoms are enjoyed in the public square. It is not the least bit a "conspiracy theory" to believe that such chipping will continue to occur and courts may, if they continue to legislate social policy, find a time when they'll cross the line into individual rights superceding religious rights.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, so my view should be taken solely as a reflection on jurisprudence these days.

Religious based business and whether they fund certain parts of medical procedures or not for their employees is different than churches/clergy performing religious rites/ceremonies or not. One is covered, at least to a point, by certain laws, including public accommodation laws, the other isn't. One is a business that is being run by a religious entity, even if a not-for-profit business, the other is a church, not a business at all.
 
I don't see what basis will remain for applying the consanguinity requirements of state marriage laws to homosexual partners. The traditional concern about an increased risk of genetic defects in offspring no longer is in play. Why should the right to marry each other granted to two homosexual second cousins, for example, and yet denied to them just because they are first cousins? What sense will there be in continuing to prevent two sisters, or a father and son, from marrying each other, forcing them to conduct their homosexual liaisons in secret? Why should they have to hide their love from the world, just because it is different?

Soon it will be time for an Ozzie and Harriet show for today, featuring the wholesome, all-American homosexual, incestuous, polygamous family. Just imagine the possibilities, especially when they interacted with their equally progressive neighbors and friends! "Rick, I hope you have a good time on your date with Cindy and her mom and brother!" "Oh, thanks, Pop--I will. We're going to the malt shop, and then we'll probably play a little strip poker." Even the family dog would take on a new and unusual significance, whenever it appeared in an episode.

First cousins should be allowed to marry, and I see that as being the next marriage cases to go up, (at least with a likelihood of winning to remove such restrictions).
 
Perhaps you hadn't heard about attempts by the Obama administration to force Catholic institutions to fund health insurance packages that included free access to contraceptives.
You mean businesses?

Perhaps you haven't heard about Human Rights Commissions ruling against religious people who wish not to have their businesses used in connections with same sex marriages.
Public accommodation laws are a thing. Religious beliefs aren't blanket authority to ignore any employment law you disagree with. Sorry.

Perhaps you haven't heard some opine that if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages then the government should refuse to recognize all of that church's marriages.
"Some" have "opined" that gay people ought to be forced onto an island exile. Don't give a **** about random idiots ideas.

America, at this point in time, is fully engaged in chipping away at the extent to which religious freedoms are enjoyed in the public square. It is not the least bit a "conspiracy theory" to believe that such chipping will continue to occur and courts may, if they continue to legislate social policy, find a time when they'll cross the line into individual rights superceding religious rights.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, so my view should be taken solely as a reflection on jurisprudence these days.

No, America is chipping away at the extent to which religious people are able to force their beliefs onto others.
 
You mean businesses?


Public accommodation laws are a thing. Religious beliefs aren't blanket authority to ignore any employment law you disagree with. Sorry.


"Some" have "opined" that gay people ought to be forced onto an island exile. Don't give a **** about random idiots ideas.



No, America is chipping away at the extent to which religious people are able to force their beliefs onto others.
That's what legal gay marriage is, public accommodation.
 
That's what legal gay marriage is, public accommodation.

No, it isn't. Public accommodation refers specifically to established businesses, not recognized kinships, legal relationships.
 
You know, the air somehow seems sweeter today knowing that same sex marriages are happening in my state right now. :)

They were legal in AZ a few months ago, and the sky didn't fall, and God didn't do anything other than give us 115 degree days, like we always get.
 
Wow, 130 pages! It's nice that we've finally been given the time to resolve our differences on this issue!
 
Back
Top Bottom