• 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

What in Sam Hill does made for TV have to do with reality? Nothing.
Ginsberg agreed to officiate the marriage of her "gay" friend and his partner. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone but it should be a wakeup call to many that the political appointed judiciary has an agenda and are willing to overturn the votes of millions of Americans to see that agenda fulfilled.

ORRRRR the third leg on which the Republic sits resists political demagoguery and sees to it that the 'will of the People' doesn't violate the Constitution or the rights of the people. Many court upheld liberties/rights/freedoms/equalities have been unpopular with a large segment of the citizens from ending segregation to stopping poll tax/tests.

But times they are a-changin'
 
Ginsburg should do America a favor and move the South Africa where she would be happier with their constitution.

Just looking at her, she would be one of the few who wouldn't have to be worried being raped on the streets of Johannesburg.
Stay classy.
 
This woman continues to be a disgrace to this country.

You claim to be a libertarian but do not believe in the basic liberty of others. That I think is strange. Libertarianism holds liberty as the highest political end, personal liberty, political freedom and voluntary association. But you seem to have little or no respect for the freedom of choice and views from Justice Ginsberg.
 
From an opinion devoid of standards, morality, tradition and Godliness.

Not impressed.

given by a person who claims to hold liberty as the highest good but seems more authoritarian than a libertarian. You want to stamp on your standards, morals, tradition and religious views upon others. I am sorry, but you do not sound like a libertarian at all.
 
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
And what better way to accentuate a couple's love for each other than having a member of the SC give an old, boney, middle finger to her political rivals?
 
"Not getting your way every time you stomp your feet" isn't "being discriminated against". If those people oppose gay marriage, they're free to not get gay married. No issue.


Once again, good answer if that's all there was to it. But it's not. In state after state, when the voters have had the decision put before them, they don't want it. For a wide range of reasons. Tradition, religion, family values, morality, common sense,... whatever.
But the thought police do nothing but attack and "stomp their feet" and make accusations and have many non thinking people think this is the most important issue in the world. It's not. Gays can be gay without getting married.

But back to the discrimination part. Just the other day while listening to the radio a news story came on about a bakery, I think, where a gay couple wanted the owners to do their wedding. The owners declined their business based on whatever reason it was that they had against gay marriage. Now of course, a lawsuit has been filed so the bakery owners said screw it, and closed up their shop. So the thought police win this one. But it won't end there. The thought police will continue to feel more and more righteous and vindictive and will seek more legal control over peoples thoughts, words and actions and will discriminate against them by any method.
 
In state after state, when the voters have had the decision put before them, they don't want it. For a wide range of reasons. Tradition, religion, family values, morality, common sense,... whatever.

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.

But the thought police do nothing but attack and "stomp their feet" and make accusations and have many non thinking people think this is the most important issue in the world. It's not. Gays can be gay without getting married.

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.

But back to the discrimination part. Just the other day while listening to the radio a news story came on about a bakery, I think, where a gay couple wanted the owners to do their wedding. The owners declined their business based on whatever reason it was that they had against gay marriage. Now of course, a lawsuit has been filed so the bakery owners said screw it, and closed up their shop. So the thought police win this one. But it won't end there. The thought police will continue to feel more and more righteous and vindictive and will seek more legal control over peoples thoughts, words and actions and will discriminate against them by any method.

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.
 
given by a person who claims to hold liberty as the highest good but seems more authoritarian than a libertarian. You want to stamp on your standards, morals, tradition and religious views upon others. I am sorry, but you do not sound like a libertarian at all.

Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you can't have standards, morals or religious traditions.
 
And what better way to accentuate a couple's love for each other than having a member of the SC give an old, boney, middle finger to her political rivals?

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.
 
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

AWESOME!!!

just one more stone in the road for america to finally grant equal rights and end one more of our discrimination and infringements.
 
Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you can't have standards, morals or religious traditions.

that's true enough... but then there's a matter utilizing the state to coerce others into living by your standards, morals, and religious traditions that doesn't reconcile very well with libertarianism.

as a Libertarian, i'm perfectly fine with you being opposed to SSM... primarily because that's your personal deal and none of our business.
try to bar or ban others from supporting it or engaging in it... that's another matter entirely...you're leaving the world of libertarianism and entering the world of authoritarianism.

the progressives we have around here won't like that you are opposed to it at all...anything short of full support is unacceptable to them.
the conservatives are the same way, in the opposite direction.

anyways, do your thing with your morals and standards, but allow others to do as they will as well.... liberty is then maximized
 
AWESOME!!!

just one more stone in the road for america to finally grant equal rights and end one more of our discrimination and infringements.

umm..she's presiding over a same sex wedding, not writing laws, not deciding cases, she isn't doing anything of substance...... it's political theater, nothing more, nothing less.
 
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.

why do you show such disrespect for your political rivals?.... the answer won't be much different to either question,
 
umm..she's presiding over a same sex wedding, not writing laws, not deciding cases, she isn't doing anything of substance...... it's political theater, nothing more, nothing less.

thats why its just a stone and it does have substance IMO because she is the first

and as a bonus at the very least it pisses bigots off and thats great entertainment too
 
thats why its just a stone and it does have substance IMO because she is the first

and as a bonus at the very least it pisses bigots off and thats great entertainment too

nobody cares that she is the first ( besides the odd fringe supporter)... and nobody is pissed off.

i think it's rather silly to overshadow 2 peoples wedding with overt political theater... but that's just me being all weird.
 
1.)nobody cares that she is the first ( besides the odd fringe supporter)... and nobody is pissed off.
2.) i think it's rather silly to overshadow 2 peoples wedding with overt political theater... but that's just me being all weird.

1.) false, many LARGE groups are spreading this info
2.) false, there are people in this thread that seem pissed and there are definitely people in the word blasting this on blogs message boards etc. Saying she should not be a judge, shes is evil she shouldnt be allowed to sit on any cases involve equal rights now etc
3.) what if the people in the wedding are super thrilled about it and its what they want? doesnt their opinion matter or is that just being all weird also
 
1.) false, many LARGE groups are spreading this info
2.) false, there are people in this thread that seem pissed and there are definitely people in the word blasting this on blogs message boards etc. Saying she should not be a judge, shes is evil she shouldnt be allowed to sit on any cases involve equal rights now etc
3.) what if the people in the wedding are super thrilled about it and its what they want? doesnt their opinion matter or is that just being all weird also
1.yes, the media is spreading the "information"... generally the lefty media in order to do exactly what the OP likes about it ( the middle finger to political rivals)

2.. beware of assuming being opposed to something is equal to being pissed about it..i'm willing to bet very very few people care at all

3..it's telling you have to ask "what if...?"... ya see, the story was never about the folks getting married.. it was about the Justice presiding over it.. the wedding and the people in it come a distant 2nd, they are ancillary to the "real" story.... and that is what I find sad about it... but meh, political theater and giving middle fingers to political rivals is what a lot of people are all about today.
 
that's true enough... but then there's a matter utilizing the state to coerce others into living by your standards, morals, and religious traditions that doesn't reconcile very well with libertarianism.

If two people want to find someone to marry them so they can go play house…I don’t care. But there are multiple reasons for the state to only recognize opposite-sex marriages. Such as,

1. Marriage--as defined as being between men and women exclusively--is the basis for any culture. This has been true regardless of the culture itself including factors such as time, geography, religion, race, etc. And children are best served in a family consisting of their biological mother and father.

2. Fatherless homes are the number one predictor of antisocial behavior in teens.

3. Maternal deprivation is shown to increase a child’s incidence of alcoholism and impulsiveness (while I’ve posted a few links I think we all intuitively know that a child needs both a mother and a father for proper development).

4. A change in the definition of marriage only hurts the institution of marriage and thus society as a whole. Consider that marriage used to be a permanent institution and divorce was a rather rate occurrence until “no-fault divorce” became law and divorce became easier to obtain. Today nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and the impact on children in devastating.

5. As a result of high divorce rates many couples choose to live together without the benefit, responsibilities and obligations of marriage. This, too, has a dangerous affect on marriage as those who live together first and then marry are more likely to get divorced, once again, harming any children involved.

6. The state provides divorce courts, child services, women services, etc. all relating to the break-up of families. It is a multi-billion dollar expense that tax-payers must absorb. As such the state would be better off limiting divorces to the best of their ability (limiting marriage to it traditional sense: one man + one woman for life).

7. As marriage comes to mean less and less, people are relying less and less on the institution. One of the newer trends in relationships involves the “hook up”, where an individual finds a sexual outlet in another person for a time. There is only a minimal, in any, relationship outside a sexual relationship. Children born out of such arrangements will suffer.

the progressives we have around here won't like that you are opposed to it at all...anything short of full support is unacceptable to them.

What’s new? If you don’t march in lockstep like a Nazi they’ll accuse you of being a Nazi.
 
1.yes, the media is spreading the "information"... generally the lefty media in order to do exactly what the OP likes about it ( the middle finger to political rivals)

2.. beware of assuming being opposed to something is equal to being pissed about it..i'm willing to bet very very few people care at all

3..it's telling you have to ask "what if...?"... ya see, the story was never about the folks getting married.. it was about the Justice presiding over it.. the wedding and the people in it come a distant 2nd, they are ancillary to the "real" story.... and that is what I find sad about it... but meh, political theater and giving middle fingers to political rivals is what a lot of people are all about today.

1.) well thats what media does, media sucks, but the fact is many people care that are not just fringe
2.) this is also true some people might not be actually pissed but again the fact is there are pissed people out there
3.) its not telling, im reality based, its a honest question that you seemed to ASSUME wasnt the case

also in 2013 there wedding is in no way a NATIONAL story, im sure the people that it means something to dont see this as an over shawdow at all because it impacts thier feelings and caring zero

example: say i get married tomorrow and something happens at my wedding for the first time, to be honest the only person i care about is going to be who i marry so the national news can do what ever they want, hell so can the local news, the only thing that matters to me is my marriage . . . .me and my wife would only care about us, nothing us would matter and if it did thats also what we would want.

its a non issue

but this actually ties into very nicely with all the loons that try and say other peoples marriages or opinions effect their marriage, it doesnt unless they want it too
 
She should recuse herself from all future cases regarding SSM that may go to the SCOTUS.

LOL....I was WAITING for someone to say this. ...and of course you believe that anyone who performs straight only marriages should recuse themselves as well? Right?
 
This is a non event. Now if she were to officiate in a state where it was still prohibited, that would be a story.
 
LOL....I was WAITING for someone to say this. ...and of course you believe that anyone who performs straight only marriages should recuse themselves as well? Right?

If there was a law in place set to repeal straight marriage yes. When they perform gay "marriages" they have become personally invested in such a thing and the ruling may directly reverse what they previously did. I don't care if they speak out on views, but if they lead an organization or have vested interest (like a law that may impact "marriages" they performed) they need to recuse themselves.
 
If there was a law in place set to repeal straight marriage yes. When they perform gay "marriages" they have become personally invested in such a thing and the ruling may directly reverse what they previously did. I don't care if they speak out on views, but if they lead an organization or have vested interest (like a law that may impact "marriages" they performed) they need to recuse themselves.
How is performing a gay wedding "taking side" any more than someone performing a "straights only" wedding? There is absolutely no basis for recusal.
 
How is performing a gay wedding "taking side" any more than someone performing a "straights only" wedding? There is absolutely no basis for recusal.

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