• 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]

What does two gay dudes getting married have to do with a brother and sister doing it?

What is common there? Marriage, of course.


Prior to this, one was not legal, and the other was. Now both are.
I am told that marriage has now been elevated to a civil right, enshrined in the Constitution (with invisible ink, since no one has been able to find it there). Can't deny a person their civil rights.
 
...and another with a type of couple the public simply did not approve of getting married.

LOL! Now, that's a good one. You mean when there is a Statewide election to allow a certain type of marriage and it gets defeated?
 
No, it wasn't. And it can't. The SCOTUS is limited to only being able to rule on laws presented to them, no matter how much others may want to apply their rulings to other laws. Just like how Lawrence didn't truly strike down adultery laws, but has the high potential to lead to them being struck down if challenged. That doesn't mean that adultery laws cannot be used against people legally still. They can. Until they are either officially struck down or simply taken off the books altogether, they can be used against people. The same is true for incest laws, they must be challenged first.

Prior to this decision, marriage was clearly defined as between a man and a woman. States had the power to keep it that way. Now this ruling takes that power away from the States and opens the door to more challenges. They now have the power of this ruling behind them to bolster their case. How can the court deny them their new civil right when they just said okay to gays?
 
LOL! Now, that's a good one. You mean when there is a Statewide election to allow a certain type of marriage and it gets defeated?

Actually I was referring to interracial marriage, but good job pointing it out that those were put in place by the will of the people as well.
 
Prior to this decision, marriage was clearly defined as between a man and a woman. States had the power to keep it that way. Now this ruling takes that power away from the States and opens the door to more challenges. They now have the power of this ruling behind them to bolster their case. How can the court deny them their new civil right when they just said okay to gays?

No, it wasn't. We had same sex marriage in this country for over a decade before this decision, and technically we had same sex marriages recognized by the federal government without them realizing it longer than that (we have had transgendered people legally changing their sex since before 2003, and some were legally married to a person of the opposite sex prechange, making their postchange marriage situation as male/male or female/female, and it was legal when it was entered into so they were still recognized as such).
 
I'm not angry with him for saying it at all. Again, it's one of those comfortable illusions we hold that the SCOTUS and our nation is bound to the US Constitution. Just as we hold the illusion that our money is backed by something concrete.

Like if the head of the Treasury came out tomorrow with a statement saying, hey, the value we give money is something we sort of make up as we go along. If we said it would be worth nothing tomorrow, it would be worth nothing. Now, most of us know that already in our heart of hearts, but the illusion keeps the system going and us with it, so we keep the illusion.

The values of anything anyone uses as currency is always made up by people. Things only have value because we, people value them.
 
I disagree with your belief that incest was made legal because of Loving.
 
Actually I was referring to interracial marriage, but good job pointing it out that those were put in place by the will of the people as well.

You forgot to point out that before Loving, marriage was between a man and a woman, and after Loving, it was between a man and a woman.

And, as you pointed out, the will of the people was to keep it that way. But the Court decided that it is not that way at all. They decided that all the States were violating the Constitution for almost 150 years.

They removed that little limitation, and opened the flood gates.
 
No, it wasn't. We had same sex marriage in this country for over a decade before this decision, and technically we had same sex marriages recognized by the federal government without them realizing it longer than that (we have had transgendered people legally changing their sex since before 2003, and some were legally married to a person of the opposite sex prechange, making their postchange marriage situation as male/male or female/female, and it was legal when it was entered into so they were still recognized as such).

Well, let's put it this way, for the sake of argument, for most of the history prior to Massachusetts, it was between a man and a woman. And it only started when the courts forced it on us.
 
I disagree with your belief that Loving made incest legal.
 
According to you rulings without limitations legalize all things left unmentioned.

But incest being illegal was already "mentioned."
 
But incest being illegal was already "mentioned."

True. but you insist, according to your logic, that is was made legal when the loving court case failed to rule it out when it decreed that any many or woman can marry who they want regardless of race.
 
Back
Top Bottom