• 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!

Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

Going out of your way to perform a duty not typical of your office to make a statement is taking a side...

What are you talking about "Going out of your way" and "Not typical of your office". I hate to tell you digs....but probably 1/2 or more weddings in this country are performed by judges. It is VERY typical of the job of a judge...and what evidence do you have that she "went out of her way". I suspect that she was asked and she said, I would be honored. That' what the judge that performed my wedding said. See Digs...a lot of people can perform a job without engaging in "moral acrobatics". Suppose a "Christian" fast food worker decided that I was against her moral fiber and religious beliefs to serve gay people. If they fired her, would it be wrong?
 
why do you show such disrespect for your political rivals?.... the answer won't be much different to either question,

I don't think I do. If you are referring to this post, I'll give you that one. But in general, I don't believe I do.
 
Off topic. But why do so many Americans display such disrespect towards older people? She is an extraordinarily accomplished woman and her age has NOTHING to do with the conversation.
thats easy
its easier to use strawmen and appeals to emotion and fallacies to attack than reality

are there old people that dont know any better or are mentally off? of course but that doesnt mean they all are. So when they (old people) are showing a person up or have facts or logic a person doesnt like SOME people choose to just TRY and lump them in with the lesser group.

this doesnt work with honest objective people though and its as transparent as glass.
 
I don't think I do. If you are referring to this post, I'll give you that one. But in general, I don't believe I do.

I can't speak accurately to your beliefs or intent (I don't reside in your head).. only to how your words read.
you're often very disrespectful to your rivals(conservatives), while demanding they be nice to you.
 
Again, if they don't want gay marriage, they’re free to not get gay married. Unless they can prove harm, they have no right to stop someone else from doing it. It simply isn't their right to not be offended. If it's against their tradition to get gay married, I recommend that they not get gay married. If it's against their religion to get gay married, I recommend that they not get gay married. If it's against their families values to get gay married, I recommend that they not get gay married. If it's against their morality to get gay married, I recommend that they not get gay married. If they somehow think it's common sense not to get gay married, I recommend that they not get gay married.

That's their right, and it always has been, and always will be. It's not their right to deny equal protection of the law, though. They don't have that right, no matter how mad it makes them.



And bigots can be bigoted without interrupting someone else's life. They're free to sit around hating gays all they want. That's not illegal. Denying equal protection of the law is illegal, though, so they're not allowed to.



You just championed state law being whatever the state wants to do, didn't you? The law they're being investigated under is state law, not federal law. So this is the people of the state saying that what they really don't want is bigoted businesses discriminating against gay people.

And no one's trying to police your thoughts. You are, have always been, and will always be free to hate gays. You're just not free to deny them equal protection of the law. Taht's all. And if a bakery would rather go out of business than sell a cake to a gay lady, that's their own stupid fault. Someone else will surely pick up the business.


LOL.

Just about every time a person gets into a discussion about this issue with a member of the thought police, one of the first things that has to happen is to be told you hate, you are a bigot and so on. It's like an old stuck broken record or something. Just so you will know, that crap doesn't work on me. So keep it up if you want or try something else if you want. Maybe your thought police friends get off on it but I don't pay it much mind.

If the bakery couple didn't want to make the cake for the gay couple on their religious beliefs, well, there is that freedom of religion thing that the Constitution is supposed to look out for people for. Funny how that thought never crossed your mind or if it did, you didn't mention it because it wouldn't fit your legal theory example. Last time I checked, the US constitution checked any and all state law. But maybe you and the thought police don't care much for the Constitution?
 
What are you talking about "Going out of your way" and "Not typical of your office". I hate to tell you digs....but probably 1/2 or more weddings in this country are performed by judges. It is VERY typical of the job of a judge...and what evidence do you have that she "went out of her way". I suspect that she was asked and she said, I would be honored. That' what the judge that performed my wedding said. See Digs...a lot of people can perform a job without engaging in "moral acrobatics". Suppose a "Christian" fast food worker decided that I was against her moral fiber and religious beliefs to serve gay people. If they fired her, would it be wrong?

it's your argument that it is very typical of the job of a Supreme Court Justice to officiate weddings?...really?
 
it's your argument that it is very typical of the job of a Supreme Court Justice to officiate weddings?...really?

No....but it is not atypical of a judge to be asked to officiate at a wedding.
 
Does this mean she should recuse herself from gay marriage issues before the court in the future?
 
Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you can't have standards, morals or religious traditions.

Standards yes, morals yes, religious traditions yes but forcing them upon people who do not have your standards, your morals, your religious traditions does not seem in line with libertarian views IMHO. That sounds more like conservative moralistic and religious authoritarianism.
 
No....but it is not atypical of a judge to be asked to officiate at a wedding.

yeah..umm.. we're not talking about judges in general

....we're talking about supreme court justices.

I don't think I've ever heard of any sitting supreme court justice officiating any weddings ( which is why i asked earlier if anyone has heard of such a thing)

I think the OP nailed it.. it was a middle finger to political rivals.
 
Standards yes, morals yes, religious traditions yes but forcing them upon people who do not have your standards, your morals, your religious traditions does not seem in line with libertarian views IMHO. That sounds more like conservative moralistic and religious authoritarianism.
it also sounds like progressivism, socialism, communism, liberalism, fascism etc etc etc.

very few ideologies besides libertarianism don't force morals and standards down peoples throats using the force of the state.... it's libertarianisms greatest strength, and greatest weakness.
 
thats easy
its easier to use strawmen and appeals to emotion and fallacies to attack than reality

are there old people that dont know any better or are mentally off? of course but that doesnt mean they all are. So when they (old people) are showing a person up or have facts or logic a person doesnt like SOME people choose to just TRY and lump them in with the lesser group.

this doesnt work with honest objective people though and its as transparent as glass.

Exactly, you always have the co-hones to call them out on that BTW. Well done. I am much concerned with being diplomatic sometimes at the expense of my voice.
 
I can't speak accurately to your beliefs or intent (I don't reside in your head).. only to how your words read.
you're often very disrespectful to your rivals(conservatives), while demanding they be nice to you.

You are welcome to your opinion. I think, for the most part, I respond in kind when a conservative comes on too strong and gets personal or makes unfounded accusations. Whether I am successful at maintaining the civility I value remains subjective. I try. I appreciate your feedback and I'll think about it though.
 
Last edited:
I think this is Ginsburg giving all those close minded haters the finger. Awesome!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony, the Washington Post reports, marrying Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts on Saturday.

Justice Ginsburg Becomes First Supreme Court Justice To Officiate Same-Sex Wedding | ThinkProgress

I don't have a particular problem with this - seems like no big deal to me. The only comment I would make is that Ginsburg should be officiating over straight marriages too and not just for those whom she's good friends with. To do otherwise, is to use the office you hold to the benefit of your friends which is a form of corruption.
 
it also sounds like progressivism, socialism, communism, liberalism, fascism etc etc etc.

very few ideologies besides libertarianism don't force morals and standards down peoples throats using the force of the state.... it's libertarianisms greatest strength, and greatest weakness.

I am not denying most of what you have written but I still am of the opinion that the person that I directed this post at, was not talking like a libertarian but wants to force/impose his views/standards and traditions on the public at large and from what I have read about libertarianism, that is not what being a libertarian is about.
 
I don't have a particular problem with this - seems like no big deal to me. The only comment I would make is that Ginsburg should be officiating over straight marriages too and not just for those whom she's good friends with. To do otherwise, is to use the office you hold to the benefit of your friends which is a form of corruption.

I can accept that. But I would say it is a public endorsement of your person beliefs and benefits that belief more than your friends. Which is a valid point considering her position.
 
You are welcome to your opinion. I think I response in kind when a conservative comes on too strong and gets personal or makes unfounded accusations. Whether I am successful at maintaining the civility I value remains subjective. I try
I really wasn't making a value judgement either way, as I really don't care if you are civil or not.

I don't see you as being any more or less civil than the average schmoe around here... but i do take exception with you sort of blaming conservatives for your "bad" behavior and not crediting them with your "good " behavior.
 
I am not denying most of what you have written but I still am of the opinion that the person that I directed this post at, was not talking like a libertarian but wants to force/impose his views/standards and traditions on the public at large and from what I have read about libertarianism, that is not what being a libertarian is about.

we agree on that point, most assuredly...:)
 
Only to those who want to stay trapped in the quagmire of our disgraceful history of bigotry and exclusion.

Very rarely does she get it right... this is one of those EXTREMELY rare times. She is a absolute disgrace to this county almost every other time.
 
I really wasn't making a value judgement either way, as I really don't care if you are civil or not.

I don't see you as being any more or less civil than the average schmoe around here... but i do take exception with you sort of blaming conservatives for your "bad" behavior and not crediting them with your "good " behavior.

Okay. You know I tried right here to hear you, acknowledge that I heard you and even let you know that I would consider your perspective and this is your response. Thank you for promoting the impulse to dismiss conservatives.
 
Very rarely does she get it right... this is one of those EXTREMELY rare times. She is a absolute disgrace to this county almost every other time.

Why do you think she does not often get it right.
 
I don't have a particular problem with this - seems like no big deal to me. The only comment I would make is that Ginsburg should be officiating over straight marriages too and not just for those whom she's good friends with. To do otherwise, is to use the office you hold to the benefit of your friends which is a form of corruption.

i'm kinda "meh" on the corruption angle and focus a bit more on the political theater angle ... but we agree on this being no big deal.
the "event" is unimportant. ( far more important is the marriage of the 2 people who are overshadowed by the political theater)
 
Okay. You know I tried right here to hear you, acknowledge that I heard you and even let you know that I would consider your perspective and this is your response. Thank you for promoting the impulse to dismiss conservatives.
:roll:
I doubt your impulse needed promoting.
 
i'm kinda "meh" on the corruption angle and focus a bit more on the political theater angle ... but we agree on this being no big deal.
the "event" is unimportant. ( far more important is the marriage of the 2 people who are overshadowed by the political theater)

This is true, definitely politicizing the Supreme Court, especially when she was wearing her doily topped robes which should be reserved only for actual court sessions, in my view.
 
Why do you think she does not often get it right.

I find her Decisions and reasoning to be far too Liberal (just as some Conservatives are far too Conservative) and her work with the ACLU bugs me.
 
Back
Top Bottom