• 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!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

Cardinal said:
How did my post not address yours?
Click to expand...

Since when do we use POLLS to change the Constitution? We have an amendment process, the Constitution doesn't evolve until it's amended. That's why we have 27 amendments.
 
American said:
Since when do we use POLLS to change the Constitution? We have an amendment process, the Constitution doesn't evolve until it's amended. That's why we have 27 amendments.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS doesn't need a new amendment for every ruling. And as the SCOTUS is made up of members of our era, it's only natural that they'll make interpretations of the Constitution based on the mores of that era. They are the products of the times they grew up in.

I think you may be looking at the rulings as somehow being led by the polls, when in reality the polls are nothing more than a reflection of the changing times.
 
Cardinal said:
You undressed yourself when you claimed that laws such as DOMA and immigration were "especially" important, thereby admitting that the President should prioritize certain laws over others. Don't blame others for your poor attempts to disguise what you yourself already know, which is that the Justice Department can't enforce all laws equally.
Click to expand...

Oh, no! Not the Pee Wee Herman response! "I know you are, but what am I?
I said "especially", so that wipes out the Constitution, and you don't have to back up what you said. Impeccable logic!

I don't know why the lefties put themselves through all this. Why don't they just admit that they want what they want, they know it's not Constitutional, but they just want it anyway? You wouldn't be such easy targets then.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, no! Not the Pee Wee Herman response! "I know you are, but what am I?
I said "especially", so that wipes out the Constitution, and you don't have to back up what you said. Impeccable logic!

I don't know why the lefties put themselves through all this. Why don't they just admit that they want what they want, they know it's not Constitutional, but they just want it anyway? You wouldn't be such easy targets then.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of hysterical drivel. When you've calmed down you can come back and try to make an argument.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
The SCOTUS doesn't need a new amendment for every ruling. And as the SCOTUS is made up of members of our era, it's only natural that they'll make interpretations of the Constitution based on the mores of that era. They are the products of the times they grew up in.

I think you may be looking at the rulings as somehow being led by the polls, when in reality the polls are nothing more than a reflection of the changing times.
Click to expand...

No I was responding to another poster, and you stepped in to debate on something I said to him. This it was taken out of context.
 
American said:
No I was responding to another poster, and you stepped in to debate on something I said to him. This it was taken out of context.
Click to expand...

Ah. I took Deuce's comment to be tongue-in-cheek.
 
Cardinal said:
Ah. I took Deuce's comment to be tongue-in-cheek.
Click to expand...

I didn't, so I asked the question. Since you're both liberal you would read his comment differently than me probably.
 
American said:
I didn't, so I asked the question. Since you're both liberal you would read his comment differently than me probably.
Click to expand...

I'm passingly familiar with his sense of sarcasm, and feel comfortable assuming he doesn't mean that the Supreme Court literally takes its cues from polls.

Edit: whoops, actually you and I both read his post wrong. He wasn't saying that the SCOTUS take its cues from the polls, but that Obama does, which is of course true.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
And out come the ad homs when you've lost.
Click to expand...

I guess you are never going to back up your claim, as expected. I just wanted to see if you were going to come up with something, or just run away from it completely. Looks like it was the latter. And far, far away you ran. Nice exposition.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

I agree 100%! :applaud:applaud [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

that's impossible......there is no right to marry, .......there is a right to be with those you wish to be with......there is no such thing as a right which gives you a license, and compels anyone to preform any kind of service/ or words for the joining of two people.

marriage is a privilege, since a license is involved.....a privilege is provide by government, and government must honor its own privileges, not Citizens or business.

all Citiznes are to receive the same privileges, unless the state can show its in their interest not to give you a privilege.

NOTHING CAN BE A RIGHT , THAT LAYS A COST OR BURDEN ON ANOTHER PERSON.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's impossible......there is no right to marry, .......there is a right to be with those you wish to be with......there is no such thing as a right which gives you a license, and compels anyone to preform any kind of service/ or words for the joining of two people.

marriage is a privilege, since a license is involved.....a privilege is provide by government, and government must honor its own privileges, not Citizens or business.

all Citiznes are to receive the same privileges, unless the state can show its in their interest not to give you a privilege.

NOTHING CAN BE A RIGHT , THAT LAYS A COST OR BURDEN ON ANOTHER PERSON.
Click to expand...

Every Federal judge who's ruled on the matter disagrees.
 
Cardinal said:
Every Federal judge who's ruled on the matter disagrees.
Click to expand...

well they are wrong..period.....rights do not have licenses connected with them, privileges do...

you obtain a license do things things which are made equal by law, in government eyes.

do you have a right to be a hairdresser.........no.... you must obtain a incense to become one in legal standing.
 
Cardinal said:
That's the beautiful thing about America: you're allowed to have your opinion.
Click to expand...

answer simple questions, if you dare

if marriage is a right.....why does it need a license?

if a license is need to fulfill a right of marriage, then a government bureaucrat must approve the right through a authorization of a marriage license.

are you saying rights need government approval to be exercised?



you are confusing marriage verses right to be together.
 
ernst barkmann said:
answer simple questions, if you dare

if marriage is a right.....why does it need a license?

if a license is need to fulfill a right of marriage, then a government bureaucrat must approve the right through a authorization of a marriage license.

are you saying rights need government approval to be exercised?
Click to expand...

If you genuinely want an answer I suggest you reference the roughly eight hundred other threads that cover this exact question on, oh, just about every single page of every one of those threads. It's not my duty to repeat the arguments for you here. Barring that, read the decisions by each of the Federal judges who ruled that ssm was protected by the constitution. No doubt they would explains themselves more clearly than I could, and your understanding would be better for it.
 
Cardinal said:
If you genuinely want an answer I suggest you reference the roughly eight hundred other threads that cover this exact question on, oh, just about every single page of every one of those threads. It's not my duty to repeat the arguments for you here. Barring that, read the decisions by each of the Federal judges who ruled that ssm was protected by the constitution. No doubt they would explains themselves more clearly than I could, and your understanding would be better for it.
Click to expand...

so what your saying is you cannot answer.


Blacks law 2nd, states a marriage is a civil status

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/M/m0762.jpg

if it is civil, its a privilege.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so what your saying is you cannot answer.


Blacks law 2nd, states a marriage is a civil status

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/M/m0762.jpg

if it is civil, its a privilege.
Click to expand...

If you're more interested in what some guy on the interwebz thinks of Constitutional matters than going directly to the people draw a paycheck from making decisions based on the Constitution, that tells me you're not really interested in the answer.
 
cardinal said:
if you're more interested in what some guy on the interwebz thinks of constitutional matters than going directly to the people draw a paycheck from making decisions based on the constitution, that tells me you're not really interested in the answer.
Click to expand...

thats no answer... you agree with obama, but you cannot answer a simple question of "how it can be a right", so therefore you accept what is being told to you without thinking in your own right.
 
ernst barkmann said:
thats no answer... you agree with obama, but you cannot answer a simple question of "how it can be a right", so therefore you accept what is being told to you without thinking in your own right.
Click to expand...

No, I just don't see what's to be gained from going to every thread that discusses ssm and asking the same exact question multiple times, despite being answered every single one of those times.
 
a right..... for it to be exercised requires that government/ a person must not hinder you in any way of exercising that right,........ in other words they must stand back while you exercise it.

if an exercisable a right requires no one to hinder you, HOW can you exercise a right if it requires .......someone preform an action for you, meaning to preform a service.


privileges from government...require an action.
 
Cardinal said:
No, I just don't see what's to be gained from going to every thread that discusses ssm and asking the same exact question multiple times, despite being answered every single one of those times.
Click to expand...

i would think you would be able to answer something simple, ..like how a right has a license........when privileges have license connected to them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i would think you would be able to answer something simple, ..like how a right has a license........when privileges have license connected to them.
Click to expand...
Here you go, Ernst. Just for you.
coupon.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom