• 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

First of all, these guys were charged with a state law. It's not illegal by federal law. So you're making stuff up.

Second, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what level the law was passed at (which was state), they were still breaking it. If they don't like the state anti-discrimination law, they can move to another state.

Isn't taht what the state's rights crowds keep saying when they try to pass religious law at the state level?

really? i'm making things up?... yeah, you caught me, i just totally made up the civil rights act of 1964...specifically title 2... my imagination is that ****ing awesome!

i'm not sure what you don't understand about it being illegal in every state.. but if you want to pretend your state is a special snowflake, go right ahead.


what religious laws are you yammering about?....
 
I'm wrong?... you mean i have actually heard about justices presiding over weddings?...interesting, you would have thought i would remember hearing about them, you'd think i would have never asked the ****ing question if i did hear about them....
are you stupid or something?

so they have presided over weddings... now I know they have.

from me, you get nothing.... you earned nothing, you deserve nothing...get back under your bridge.
for Peter King .. Kudos...well done bringing the facts man.

Thank you very much, I have a knack for lateral thinking when using Google. I did not want to interfere in a squabble or anything. Just wanted to get the facts as I could find them out there.
 
really? i'm making things up?... yeah, you caught me, i just totally made up the civil rights act of 1964...specifically title 2... my imagination is that ****ing awesome!

i'm not sure what you don't understand about it being illegal in every state.. but if you want to pretend your state is a special snowflake, go right ahead.


what religious laws are you yammering about?....
You should quit while you can....you are losing every debate you are sticking your head in tonight.
 
The idea for lifetime apointments is based upon the legal principle of Res Judicata; Latin for "a thing decided; a matter [already] judged." This common law doctrine is meant to prevent relitigation of cases between the same parties regarding the same issues and preserve the binding nature of the court's decision.

Many Americans seem to like trying to relitigate any issue they don't like the ruling on. This happans often in State courts where most judges are elected to terms in office, even at the State Supreme Court level. Thus, issues regarding property rights, civil rights, criminal law interpretations, etc. are constantly being rehashed in attempts to reverse decisions back and forth.

Having a Supreme Court Justice serve for a life term means that as long as that Justice sits...you know where they are going to side when it comes to cases attempting to challenge prior decisions already established by the Court. At the very least, they will be able to argue their rationale with newly appointed members in an effort to preserve the rulings; at the most, insure the decision remains binding.

I don't think setting term limits is a good idea for SCOTUS because when it comes to decisions about Constitutional interpretation we need long-term stability in judicial decision-making.

(Woo-hoo, my 2,000th post! I'm glad it was an important one and not one of my facetious ones. ;) )

Yeah, but any time a justice retires they can do the same. Look at Brown v Board that took down Plessy. Took 60 years but it got reversed, and rightly so too. I think ten or twenty year limits is a good idea.
 
LOL....I expected no less....you come into this thread....knee-jerk and spew all over the place and when proven wrong....you shuffle away. typical

for anyone who is watching, notice how this clown hasn't contributed one thing to this thread.. every single post of his is him humpin' my leg.

not a single post resembling anything close to an argument or on topic post....
he comes in here demanding a retraction while he has not taken part , at all, in the discussion,

now he ignores the words in my post where i give Peter kudos for bringing us facts.. facts I was not aware of.... facts that this clown couldn't be bothered to present himself
.. or maybe he didn't ignore my words and just decided to lie... which is not exactly unheard of from this particular troll


now, Disneydude... join the conversion, stfu.. or maybe run to the mods and report me for being an asshole... i don't care what you do, but get off my jock, ya troll
 
Thank you very much, I have a knack for lateral thinking when using Google. I did not want to interfere in a squabble or anything. Just wanted to get the facts as I could find them out there.

that's what's needed man... keep doing your thing.:)
 
for anyone who is watching, notice how this clown hasn't contributed one thing to this thread.. every single post of his is him humpin' my leg.

not a single post resembling anything close to an argument or on topic post....
he comes in here demanding a retraction while he has not taken part , at all, in the discussion,

now he ignores the words in my post where i give Peter kudos for bringing us facts.. facts I was not aware of.... facts that this clown couldn't be bothered to present himself
.. or maybe he didn't ignore my words and just decided to lie... which is not exactly unheard of from this particular troll


now, Disneydude... join the conversion, stfu.. or maybe run to the mods and report me for being an asshole... i don't care what you do, but get off my jock, ya troll

You obviously didn't look far, because I was posting in this thread when you responded to me with your knee-jerk spewing. Sorry...but anyone who cares to look can see for themselves. You are just upset because others and myself pointed out that you were wrong and you jus can't deal with it. Sorry...but sometimes you just have to man-up, find a spine and admit your mistakes and move on.
 
You obviously didn't look far, because I was posting in this thread when you responded to me with your knee-jerk spewing. Sorry...but anyone who cares to look can see for themselves. You are just upset because others and myself pointed out that you were wrong and you jus can't deal with it. Sorry...but sometimes you just have to man-up, find a spine and admit your mistakes and move on.

there are only "others" who brought facts... Peter King specifically.... not you, not anyone else.
don't take credit for his work in bringing facts, you don't deserve it... you didn't do anything,

do you understated the function of a question?... do you understand asking a question is not equal to " knee jerk spewing"?

the "knee jerk" spewing you are referring to is your responses , not my question... i'm actually quite content knowing they do, in fact, officiate weddings.... as i have repeatedly said, i was not aware they did.
when one is not aware of something, the wise path to take is to ask the question...just sayin'



it seem one lil boy is just itching to pick a fight tonight ....must be getting all pouty now that it's bedtime or something... good lord.:roll:
 
there are only "others" who brought facts... Peter King specifically.... not you, not anyone else.
don't take credit for his work in bringing facts, you don't deserve it... you didn't do anything,

do you understated the function of a question?... do you understand asking a question is not equal to " knee jerk spewing"?

the "knee jerk" spewing you are referring to is your responses , not my question... i'm actually quite content knowing they do, in fact, officiate weddings.... as i have repeatedly said, i was not aware they did.
when one is not aware of something, the wise path to take is to ask the question...just sayin'


it seem one lil boy is just itching to pick a fight tonight ....must be getting all pouty now that it's bedtime or something... good lord.:roll:

LOL....read carefully. I said that others and myself "pointed out that you were wrong". I'm not taking credit for Peter King's post at all. Oh...and BTW....you didn't simply "pose a question"....you made a completely knee-jerk assertion and then spewed more propaganda on top of it. See...the lesson to be learned here is that it is ALWAYS better to admit your mistakes, take responsibility and move on. When you try to shuffle and rationalize you just continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole.

Do you honestly think that anyone thought that you were taking the wise path and making a simple inquiry? Seriously?
 
LOL....read carefully. I said that others and myself "pointed out that you were wrong". I'm not taking credit for Peter King's post at all. Oh...and BTW....you didn't simply "pose a question"....you made a completely knee-jerk assertion and then spewed more propaganda on top of it. See...the lesson to be learned here is that it is ALWAYS better to admit your mistakes, take responsibility and move on. When you try to shuffle and rationalize you just continue to dig yourself deeper into a hole.

Do you honestly think that anyone thought that you were taking the wise path and making a simple inquiry? Seriously?


for those who don't want to travel back ot page one... here is what i asked..... here is my "knee jerk assertion" that i "spewed propaganda on top of"

is it common for supreme court justices to officiate at weddings?
... that's it, that's the whole post.

good lord almighty.. what was i thinking posting such a "knee jerk assertion"...it's got all the earmarks of a trap!.. a loaded question!.. propaganda in query form!.. the paranoid liberals will fall nicely into the well laid snare!


I don't have my super secret ultrapartisan idiot decoder ring on me right now, so explain how in the world can you see that as anything other than a simple ****ing question
 
really? i'm making things up?... yeah, you caught me, i just totally made up the civil rights act of 1964...specifically title 2... my imagination is that ****ing awesome!

i'm not sure what you don't understand about it being illegal in every state.. but if you want to pretend your state is a special snowflake, go right ahead.

Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint | OregonLive.com

Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries' civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations.

The Oregon Equality Act is national? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain you're not making stuff up?
 
for those who don't want to travel back ot page one... here is what i asked..... here is my "knee jerk assertion" that i "spewed propaganda on top of"

... that's it, that's the whole post.

At least be honest. THAT wasn't your post at all....here is your knee-jerk post:

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.
 
I hope they have a nice same sex union, because it's not a marriage. If it ever reaches the SC, I guess she'll have to recuse.
 
Lesbian couple refused wedding cake files state discrimination complaint | OregonLive.com



The Oregon Equality Act is national? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain you're not making stuff up?

Thanks for posting that seriously. Until now all I heard about this was on the radio.

Here's part of the article I like as it still offers hope for those of us who still have faith in the Constitution of the United States:

""It's definitely not discrimination at all. We don't have anything against lesbians or homosexuals," she said. "It has to do with our morals and beliefs. It's so frustrating because we went through all of this in January, when it all came out."

The complaint will be assigned to an investigator. If substantial evidence of discrimination is found, the inquiry could lead to a settlement or to prosecution before an administrative law judge. A proposed order would be made to the labor commissioner, who serves as the final arbiter and decides if violations are warranted.

"We are committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether there's substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination," said Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. He advocated for the 2007 law when he was a state senator.

In the other nine discrimination complaints based on sexual orientation, four were unsubstantiated, three resulted in a negotiated settlement before a finding, one was privately settled and withdrawn, and one is pending -- a Portland case involving a bar called the P Club.

The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and parochial schools, but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, age, veteran status, disability or religion.

"Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that folks have the right to discriminate," Avakian said, speaking generally."


First off, seems like the deck might be a little stacked against them being this cat Avakian lobbied for this type nonsense to begin with. But that's another issue.

But nobody gets found "guilty" of anything. That aren't charged with a crime. It's just more thought police in action. The article admitted as much. It said the aim was to "rehabilitate". So now, peoples religious constitutional protections are not only thrown to the curb with this type law, brainwashing is being sanctioned by the state of Oregon. In this particular case, the states aim would be to change the owners of this small business religious beliefs. This is a bigger disaster than I first thought. This is exactly the type stuff that goes on in communist or statist countries.

Yes siree bob, the thought police have it going on in Oregon. Glad I don't live there. I wonder what group of people they will target next? These thought police types can't survive without a villain so they will always come up with one.
 
She would not be allowed to officiate a marriage ceremony in Pennsylvania. Perhaps that is why there has only been 1 justice of the Supreme Court from here. :doh
 
I hope they have a nice same sex union, because it's not a marriage. If it ever reaches the SC, I guess she'll have to recuse.

Wrong. Its just as much a marriage as any straight marriage....sorry to burst your bubble...and its becoming legal in more and more states across this great country. When it reaches the Supreme Court, even the backwards Southern and fly-over states will have to drop their bigoted laws. And pretell.....what is the basis for recusal? LOL....
 
The idea for lifetime apointments is based upon the legal principle of Res Judicata; Latin for "a thing decided; a matter [already] judged." This common law doctrine is meant to prevent relitigation of cases between the same parties regarding the same issues and preserve the binding nature of the court's decision.

Many Americans seem to like trying to relitigate any issue they don't like the ruling on. This happans often in State courts where most judges are elected to terms in office, even at the State Supreme Court level. Thus, issues regarding property rights, civil rights, criminal law interpretations, etc. are constantly being rehashed in attempts to reverse decisions back and forth.

Having a Supreme Court Justice serve for a life term means that as long as that Justice sits...you know where they are going to side when it comes to cases attempting to challenge prior decisions already established by the Court. At the very least, they will be able to argue their rationale with newly appointed members in an effort to preserve the rulings; at the most, insure the decision remains binding.

I don't think setting term limits is a good idea for SCOTUS because when it comes to decisions about Constitutional interpretation we need long-term stability in judicial decision-making.

(Woo-hoo, my 2,000th post! I'm glad it was an important one and not one of my facetious ones. ;) )

Yes. I understand the reasoning behind it. It's just an awful lot of power. Congrats btw :)
 
Wrong. Its just as much a marriage as any straight marriage....sorry to burst your bubble...and its becoming legal in more and more states across this great country. When it reaches the Supreme Court, even the backwards Southern and fly-over states will have to drop their bigoted laws. And pretell.....what is the basis for recusal? LOL....

Oh, that's just my opinion, but marriage requires members of the opposite sex, same sex is different than opposite.
 
Oh, that's just my opinion, but marriage requires members of the opposite sex, same sex is different than opposite.

You can certainly have that opinion, but it is clearly wrong. Just as you can have an opinion that the sky is green....it doesn't make it so, it just means that your opinion is wrong.
 
You can certainly have that opinion, but it is clearly wrong. Just as you can have an opinion that the sky is green....it doesn't make it so, it just means that your opinion is wrong.

And likewise, yours is wrong.
 
Wrong. Its just as much a marriage as any straight marriage....sorry to burst your bubble...and its becoming legal in more and more states across this great country. When it reaches the Supreme Court, even the backwards Southern and fly-over states will have to drop their bigoted laws. And pretell.....what is the basis for recusal? LOL....

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

She stuck out her middle finger at the majority of voting America and stuck her foot in the dog crap. Now she has to recuse herself the next gay marriage case that comes before the court. Of course, she doesn't really have to, she's a SCOTUS lifetime appointment, she can't be fired and impeachment is near impossible.
 
28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

She stuck out her middle finger at the majority of voting America and stuck her foot in the dog crap. Now she has to recuse herself the next gay marriage case that comes before the court. Of course, she doesn't really have to, she's a SCOTUS lifetime appointment, she can't be fired and impeachment is near impossible.


So you feel the same way about Justices that perform "straight only " marriage as well, I assume. Correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom