• 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]

??? Not sure what that has to do with this except for this, if this is what you were thinking: if you dont want to participate in gay marriage, dont marry someone of the same sex. If you dont want to participate in abortion, dont have one.

See? It's all about choice and neither one affects you *at all.*

Hospitals owned by church-related organizations, which account for about 13% of hospitals, are re-evaluating participation. I don't own a hospital, so I'm not sure why you are making this about me.
 
No, I know a couple of such churches and they welcome everyone, including gay couples. And marry them. Not just to keep from lawsuits or their tax status. So I'm sure there are plenty more. On another forum, there's a gay minister of a protestant parish...in Iowa.

There are many Christian churches in the US that accept gays.

You obviously didn't pay attention to the oral arguments before the justices.
 
Hospitals owned by church-related organizations, which account for about 13% of hospitals, are re-evaluating participation. I don't own a hospital, so I'm not sure why you are making this about me.

Truly "Christian" run facilities will not just pull up stakes. If they do, then they are hypocrites because such hospitals have been treating sinners of all shades forever. Why do you think they will now just selectively choose to target gays? That seems rather hypocritical to me and not actually based on religious belief.
 
Truly "Christian" run facilities will not just pull up stakes. If they do, then they are hypocrites because such hospitals have been treating sinners of all shades forever. Why do you think they will now just selectively choose to target gays? That seems rather hypocritical to me and not actually based on religious belief.
I can't bring myself to believe that God would punish someone over something they can't control; Saint Peter also said that if lust burns in your heart that it's better to marry and keep it within the union.

The prohibition in the bible is about decidance anyway, not normal people who happen to be gay.
 
Hospitals owned by church-related organizations, which account for about 13% of hospitals, are re-evaluating participation. I don't own a hospital, so I'm not sure why you are making this about me.

The issue arises from Supreme Court precedent. In 1983, Bob Jones University challenged its right to remain segregated while maintaining it's tax exempt status under First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Bob Jones could not maintain a tax exempt status unless it was willing to desegregate.

A wiki to the case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

There will certainly be some lawsuits which will use this reasoning to pursue whether institutions can maintain their tax exempt status while discriminating or refusing to participate in gay marriages (especially if they are willing to engage in heterosexual weddings). It will likely be a very close issue, but I think the tax exempt status will be tossed to the way side once these cases reach the Supreme Court (assuming the Court's makeup is not significantly different by that point). After all, if a college was unable to win based on its first amendment right to free speech, I doubt that a first amendment right to practice of religion will receive greater deference, especially considering all the ways we already limit the right to religious practice.
 
Yes, you won in the immediate on the issue but lost like the rest of us, long term, on the method. It matters as much how you get there as where you get to.

I also suspect that within the term of the next president at least two, maybe even three of the sitting liberal justices will die, and God help us if that happens and Hillary is president..


Tim-
 
Yes, you won in the immediate on the issue but lost like the rest of us, long term, on the method. It matters as much how you get there as where you get to.

nope cause the method was just fine. Whether people like it or not its a win for us all. WHen equal rights win we all win. And the method of the states being checked and overruled when they over stepped thier power, infringed on individual rights and created laws that and violated the constitution is exactly how the system was designed. We the people is the constitution and we the people won. Feelings and or bigotry dont matter to that reality or equal rights. Its happy days and im glad to witness that history!

:ind:
 
First off...there is very little chance that a Republican would win California (in the near foreseeable future). If they ever ARE going to win California it would have to be with a moderate. Someone the likes of Cruz or Walker would never stand a chance.

See, you have the same thinking as the republican establishment. Reagan won both NY and California. Moderate Republicans are losers. If you want that kind of person, then you might as well as vote for the Democrat. Of course, that is why the media always favors the moderate republicans. They loved McCain in the primaries. Of couse, he was then the devil in the general election.

Second...I don't know where you get the idea that Democrats are trying to flood Texas with illegals. First of all, illegals can't vote and vote ID doesn't change that at all. .
Oh, please. Texas is the Holy Grail for them. Nay, they are not for open boarders at all. And they certainly don't want illegals voting, no way!
 
The issue arises from Supreme Court precedent. In 1983, Bob Jones University challenged its right to remain segregated while maintaining it's tax exempt status under First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Bob Jones could not maintain a tax exempt status unless it was willing to desegregate.

A wiki to the case law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

There will certainly be some lawsuits which will use this reasoning to pursue whether institutions can maintain their tax exempt status while discriminating or refusing to participate in gay marriages (especially if they are willing to engage in heterosexual weddings). It will likely be a very close issue, but I think the tax exempt status will be tossed to the way side once these cases reach the Supreme Court (assuming the Court's makeup is not significantly different by that point). After all, if a college was unable to win based on its first amendment right to free speech, I doubt that a first amendment right to practice of religion will receive greater deference, especially considering all the ways we already limit the right to religious practice.

Actually, in the decision for that case, the court explicitly stated that it only applied to religious schools, and did not apply to churches or other, purely religious, institutions
 
I also suspect that within the term of the next president at least two, maybe even three of the sitting liberal justices will die, and God help us if that happens and Hillary is president..


Tim-

LOL keep dreaming that this decision will ever be reversed. How's that overturning roe v wade working for ya?
 
I also suspect that within the term of the next president at least two, maybe even three of the sitting liberal justices will die, and God help us if that happens and Hillary is president..


Tim-

I look forward to it. Seeing the Right flip their proverbial **** will be worth me holding my nose and voting for the ankleless one. If I was leading her campaign, I'd make "Benghazeee!" her official campaign slogan.
 
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when we need to worry that a democrat President will appoint judges that put their liberal agenda above the Constitution and it's protections against government tyranny.
 
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when we need to worry that a democrat President will appoint judges that put their liberal agenda above the Constitution and it's protections against government tyranny.

To the contrary..... its a sad state of affairs when we need to worry that a republican President will appoint judges that put their conservative/religious agenda above the Constitution and it's protections against government tyranny.

It goes both ways..... neither party has a claim on understanding the constitution more than the other.

If you consider "the people" as having MORE freedom (Same sex marriage) as "tyranny"........ well...... I question your understanding of the term "tyranny".
 
I would argue the point with you, but you obviously don't understand what happened.
 
It seems you don't know what happened either, because you did not elaborate on what supposedly happened.
Nothing to elaborate on, it's all right there. You have your four core liberals, who decide the case first, based on the liberal agenda, then come up with some buffoonish reasoning to justify what they just did. No need to check with the Constitution, it's not important to them.
 
To the contrary..... its a sad state of affairs when we need to worry that a republican President will appoint judges that put their conservative/religious agenda above the Constitution and it's protections against government tyranny.

It goes both ways..... neither party has a claim on understanding the constitution more than the other.

If you consider "the people" as having MORE freedom (Same sex marriage) as "tyranny"........ well...... I question your understanding of the term "tyranny".

I don't want any judges deciding because of their agenda, I want them to show fidelity to the Constitution and what it says, not what they think it ought to says. Clearly, Obama's appointees are there for the agenda, not the Constitution.
 
I don't want any judges deciding because of their agenda, I want them to show fidelity to the Constitution and what it says, not what they think it ought to says. Clearly, Obama's appointees are there for the agenda, not the Constitution.

Those days are over. Whoever gets to be Presidents gets to pick justices who then change significantly how this country works... more so than the President or the Congress. It's why the Presidency is so important.
 
I don't want any judges deciding because of their agenda, I want them to show fidelity to the Constitution and what it says, not what they think it ought to says. Clearly, Obama's appointees are there for the agenda, not the Constitution.
Obama's appointees? He hasn't appointed any Judges to the SCOTUS. you guys blame him for things he hasn't even done.
 
Obama's appointees? He hasn't appointed any Judges to the SCOTUS. you guys blame him for things he hasn't even done.

Oh I'm sorry I used the wrong word.... "nominated" is the correct word.
 
Obama's appointees? He hasn't appointed any Judges to the SCOTUS. you guys blame him for things he hasn't even done.

Oh, yes, he nominated them. It's funny that you want to split hairs on that, but anything goes when they get on the Court.
 
Nothing to elaborate on, it's all right there. You have your four core liberals, who decide the case first, based on the liberal agenda, then come up with some buffoonish reasoning to justify what they just did. No need to check with the Constitution, it's not important to them.

Once they previously decided that marriage was a civil right, it was all over. So here's a sample:

"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry." (p.15 of the majority decision)

"Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

"There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle." (both on p.16-17)

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character"
( on p.28.)
 
Back
Top Bottom