• 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

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

Supreme Court Justices that are hearing cases about whether marriage is a state or federal issue, yes. About gay marriage specifically, no. Now, if the SCOTUS justice was at an anti gay marriage rally flipping off the gays, yes.

And this isn't about "feeling", it's about law and what Ginzberg SHOULD do if she is to honor her oath and position. But she gave that up long ago and there is no reason to expect she would follow it now.
 
This country continues to progress and move forward toward more inclusion, fairness and tolerance -- despite the ugly revanchism of conservatives and tea party types. In the end conservatism always loses on every issue.

Do you EVER have a post that ISN'T full of of hyper-partisan tripe? Believe it or not some issues are about neither converatism or liberalism.
 
Only to those who want to stay trapped in the quagmire of our disgraceful history of bigotry and exclusion.
Is that why Hollywood and other arms of the media keep the rest of us away from their social events? Because their disgraceful history of bigotry and exclusion requires it?
 
Nope. The sky is blue and gay marriage is the same as straight marriage in many areas of the country, soon to be more.

You seem to think that if a law is passed, I must change my mind. Sorry, but they haven't been able to legislate that yet.

I don't think Obamacare is Constitutional, and I don't care what the SC said about it. Same with marriage, it's between a man and a woman, nothing else.
 
Off topic.
I don't think you were on topic, to begin with. Do you have any evidence that proves the marriage was about Justice Ginsburg's protruding finger of defiance?
 
I certainly hope you are not trying to indicate that the other side doesn't use fear as a weapon?

Well,I was ,admittedly, a little one sided on that post. I think that just about everyone with power uses fear. I do however, believe that I see it used more or at least more blatantly on the right.
 
I don't think you were on topic, to begin with. Do you have any evidence that proves the marriage was about Justice Ginsburg's protruding finger of defiance?

I certainly do not. Just an opinion. I don't have a problem with it personally. I think that while, if that was in the mix with her intent, and it may be inappropriate given her office...it makes me chuckle a little. We are all human.
 
Supreme Court Justices that are hearing cases about whether marriage is a state or federal issue, yes. About gay marriage specifically, no. Now, if the SCOTUS justice was at an anti gay marriage rally flipping off the gays, yes.

And this isn't about "feeling", it's about law and what Ginzberg SHOULD do if she is to honor her oath and position. But she gave that up long ago and there is no reason to expect she would follow it now.

Performing a wedding when asked to is hardly the same thing as a justice at an anti-gay marriage rally flipping off the gays. Sorry if you cannot see that. There is no basis for recusal here, despite your personal emotions.
 
You seem to think that if a law is passed, I must change my mind. Sorry, but they haven't been able to legislate that yet.

I don't think Obamacare is Constitutional, and I don't care what the SC said about it. Same with marriage, it's between a man and a woman, nothing else.

No...I'm not asking you to change your mind at all. You are free to your personal beliefs. However, your personal beliefs do not change the facts: Gay marriage is identical to straight marriage in many parts of the country and growing. Your personal views do not change that.
 
Performing a wedding when asked to is hardly the same thing as a justice at an anti-gay marriage rally flipping off the gays. Sorry if you cannot see that. There is no basis for recusal here, despite your personal emotions.

I think according to the law there is, despite YOUR personal emotions. But it really doesn't matter, law or not, right or not, she won't recuse herself. She long ago abandoned her oath and has long demonstrated that what the Constitution actually says means nothing to her.
 
I think according to the law there is, despite YOUR personal emotions. But it really doesn't matter, law or not, right or not, she won't recuse herself. She long ago abandoned her oath and has long demonstrated that what the Constitution actually says means nothing to her.

It is your misinterpretation of the law. There is nothing about a justice performing a gay wedding that would require recusal than there would be about a justice performing a straight wedding. It goes back to the same clowns that said that the circuit court judge hearing the prop 8 case should recuse himself because he is gay while not understanding that their same logic would apply to a straight judge. This is nothing more than rhetoric based on emotions from the far-right because they don't want to see that last vestiges of bigotry to fall across the country. Sorry...but ask any legal scholar, there is no basis for recusal here. There just isn't.
 
So THIS is where all the left leaners are on this website! I've been looking for you!
 
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.

My religion says you have to give me your wallet. If you don't give me your wallet, you're discriminating against my religion and violating my freedom of religion.

Or does my religion not dictate your actions? If that's the case, then your religion cannot dictate the actions of gay couples. If it's not the case, then you have to give me your wallet to avoid oppressing my religion.
 
My religion says you have to give me your wallet. If you don't give me your wallet, you're discriminating against my religion and violating my freedom of religion.

Or does my religion not dictate your actions? If that's the case, then your religion cannot dictate the actions of gay couples. If it's not the case, then you have to give me your wallet to avoid oppressing my religion.

None of the above. I turn around and leave you to practice your religion with my wallet in my pocket.
 
go back to page #1.. post #9... read it slowly... note the author of that post.

then admit you were wrong.....

Sorry...but that wasn't the post we were referencing and you were fully aware of that ( I wasn't even involved with you in that particular conversation). You tried to play it off like that is all you asked. I posted the full content of the thread that you and I were involved with which was a knee-jerk/propoganda spew. The facts are there for anyone who cares to see.
 
Sorry...but that wasn't the post we were referencing and you were fully aware of that ( I wasn't even involved with you in that particular conversation). You tried to play it off like that is all you asked. I posted the full content of the thread that you and I were involved with which was a knee-jerk/propoganda spew. The facts are there for anyone who cares to see.

I love it....the irony... the hypocrisy.... it entertains me.
 
I love it....the irony... the hypocrisy.... it entertains me.

The irony is that you tried to weasel out of it by referencing a post that clearly was not the post that we were discussing. But that is typical of those who try to shuffle their way out of things rather than just manning up and admitting their errors.
 
The irony is that you tried to weasel out of it by referencing a post that clearly was not the post that we were discussing. But that is typical of those who try to shuffle their way out of things rather than just manning up and admitting their errors.

yeah, you're certainly the guy to talk about weaseling out of admitting you're wrong :lol:
when you tell me " that's not your post" and i prove it's my post... face facts, you're wrong.... you don't have to admit it publicly, as i know how fragile your lil ego is, but at least admit to yourself as you sit , alone, under your bridge.

in any event, everyone ..but you.... can see that i have acknowledged and accepted the fact Peter brought ...but please, keep diggin' , i enjoy watching you blow the meager amount of credibility some other liberal troll might believe you posses.
 
yeah, you're certainly the guy to talk about weaseling out of admitting you're wrong :lol:
when you tell me " that's not your post" and i prove it's my post... face facts, you're wrong.... you don't have to admit it publicly, as i know how fragile your lil ego is, but at least admit to yourself as you sit , alone, under your bridge.

in any event, everyone ..but you.... can see that i have acknowledged and accepted the fact Peter brought ...but please, keep diggin' , i enjoy watching you blow the meager amount of credibility some other liberal troll might believe you posses.


LOL....You are the one who is still shuffling around. BTW...I never told you "That's not your post"...I have clearly said that the post you are referring to WAS your first post or one of your first posts...but I correctly pointed out that it was not THE POST that you and I were referencing. Go back and look at the history. You knee-jerked into a conversation that I was having with other people....when it was proven that you were wrong...you tried to make a lame ass excuse that you were "merely inquiring" as in post #9....completely distancing yourself from your spew that was the topic of our conversation. Sorry dude...I don't have any more time to deal with people who don't have the balls to just man up and admit they were wrong. I've already wasted enough time on you. Buh Bye
 
Going out of your way to perform a duty not typical of your office to make a statement is taking a side...

What evidence do you have of this? It isn't as if she petitioned to perform the ceremony for someone she didn't know. This was a long time friend who asked her if she would perform their ceremony. Why do you assume that she is doing this to "make a statement" rather than graciously accepting an invitation from a friend. I suspect that Ginsburg is not trying to make a statement here. What evidence do you have that she is?
 
LOL....You are the one who is still shuffling around. BTW...I never told you "That's not your post"...I have clearly said that the post you are referring to WAS your first post or one of your first posts...but I correctly pointed out that it was not THE POST that you and I were referencing. Go back and look at the history. You knee-jerked into a conversation that I was having with other people....when it was proven that you were wrong...you tried to make a lame ass excuse that you were "merely inquiring" as in post #9....completely distancing yourself from your spew that was the topic of our conversation. Sorry dude...I don't have any more time to deal with people who don't have the balls to just man up and admit they were wrong. I've already wasted enough time on you. Buh Bye


wow, it's like lying is all you can do.

who said this?
At least be honest. THAT wasn't your post at all....here is your knee-jerk post:
I would accept your apology for lying to me , and about me... but we all know one won't be coming anytime soon....

you would be wise not to pretend to speak for me .. do not tell me what i was referencing, do not tell me what i was thinking,do not tell me what i intended, do not tell me what i believe... as with most everything else that occurs on this planet, you are wholly ignorant to those things.

if i had made a claim that supreme court justices never officiate weddings, i would obviously have to retract that claim in light of the facts Peter brought forward.
unfortunately for the troll here... i didn't make that claim
is there anyone else here so very retarded that they cannot see that i accept the facts that Justices do, indeed , officiate weddings?... speak up now so we can put you on the idiot list with the lying troll here.
 
None of the above. I turn around and leave you to practice your religion with my wallet in my pocket.

Then homosexuals can turn around and leave you to practice your religion while they get married.
 
Back
Top Bottom