• 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!

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

  • Total voters
    105
windowdressing said:
All of those Catholics on the bench make me nervous. I do think that you're right, the court will make the right call, but I'll be very surprised if it's 9-0. What do you think it will be?
Click to expand...

While I absolutely believe you are right, there is a big difference between declaring laws against same sex marriage constitutional and declaring same sex marriage unconstitutional.
 
Ray410 said:
It's important to understand that judges, including the Supremes, know what their ruling is going to be on the day they hear the case. They then research the law for precedent or statute to back up what they want.
Click to expand...

It is not logical to believe that any of the Justices would even try to declare same sex marriage unconstitutional, let alone at least 5 of them.

Now, they could certainly declare the same sex marriage bans constitutional, but that is not the same thing as declaring same sex marriage itself unconstitutional.
 
roguenuke said:
It is not logical to believe that any of the Justices would even try to declare same sex marriage unconstitutional, let alone at least 5 of them.

Now, they could certainly declare the same sex marriage bans constitutional, but that is not the same thing as declaring same sex marriage itself unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If they don't want it enacted, they will look for ways to so rule without resorting to any constitutional interpretation.
 
No idea...the sooner the better.
 
Ray410 said:
If they don't want it enacted, they will look for ways to so rule without resorting to any constitutional interpretation.
Click to expand...

They cannot legitimately make that argument. There would be a lot of people who would contend such a ruling and even Congress and the President would have to admit that it was not a legitimate ruling. It just would be too far reaching.
 
roguenuke said:
They cannot legitimately make that argument. There would be a lot of people who would contend such a ruling and even Congress and the President would have to admit that it was not a legitimate ruling. It just would be too far reaching.
Click to expand...

No appeal with the Supreme Court. You're done.
 
Ray410 said:
No appeal with the Supreme Court. You're done.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't true. While it hasn't happened, if the SCOTUS were to rule something unconstitutional that went way beyond their power to do so, it is not inconceivable for the other branches of the government to find them wrong and move to correct the situation. Otherwise, what would prevent the SCOTUS from declaring anything they want to unconstitutional, including anybody but them from making/approving of laws?
 
roguenuke said:
As a response to someone mentioning that legal marriages are legal regardless of who performs the ceremony. My marriage is legal, despite not being performed by a "traditional" officiant or one paid by the state. It is also called a "marriage".
Click to expand...


I guess my point would be if you aren't authorized by the state to perform marriages, and you perform 'marriages' that aren't legitimized by the state, there is no recognized marriage by the state. Like, for instance, if you were to gay marry a couple in the state of California...

Again, this has, IMO, nothing to do with 'proving' the validity or invalidity of SSM. Why is it in this thread?
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
No. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, not when it is the state recognition of marriage. Marriage is recognition as two people as each other's legal spouse, which is a legally recognized relationship, nothing more. Nothing religious in that.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to qualify SSM as civil marriage, or state sponsored marriage?
 
Last edited:
Well hopefully by Monday!! Praying for it.
 
cabse5 said:
Why do you need to qualify SSM as civil marriage, or state sponsored marriage?
Click to expand...

Marriage is a civil contract and a personal agreement. That is what it is. The civil contract comes with certain benefits/rights/responsibilities that are at least available to everyone involved in a licensed marriage. Personal marriage is whatever a person wants their marriage to be, and might not even include the civil contract. By recognizing that there are different parts of marriage, it is easier for some to also recognize that their religious belief of marriage is not what should be the civil definition of marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Marriage is a civil contract and a personal agreement. That is what it is. The civil contract comes with certain benefits/rights/responsibilities that are at least available to everyone involved in a licensed marriage. Personal marriage is whatever a person wants their marriage to be, and might not even include the civil contract. By recognizing that there are different parts of marriage, it is easier for some to also recognize that their religious belief of marriage is not what should be the civil definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

What was marriage before the state got hold of it?
 
Cardinal said:
Why does anybody want marriage?

edit: no, that's not a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

What you mean is: why does anybody want all the rights and responsibilties of marriage?

I guess If one also wants the word marriage, they want to be considered the same as everyone else.
If so, like I've posted previously, there's nothing in the Constitution about forcing everyone to be considered the same.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
What was marriage before the state got hold of it?
Click to expand...

A civil contract between families. The first marriage license was issued by the Catholic Church because they ran the government at the time. Before that, all a couple had to do was pretty much live together as and claim they were a married couple. In many places, royalty, particularly female royalty, was married off to make political alliances. The Chinese allowed for marriages where one or both of the spouses were dead in order to make a legal bond between two families. Marriages have been about many things throughout history, and no one religion has every actually owned marriage. Religion itself did not actually own marriage in every country. And almost every civilization has had marriage in some form.
 
cabse5 said:
What you mean is: why does anybody want all the rights and responsibilties of marriage?
Click to expand...

No. I meant why does anybody want marriage.
 
Why don't you answer that rhetorical? Note: I've amended the post you quoted.
 
cabse5 said:
Why don't you answer that rhetorical? Note: I've amended the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to dodge the question?

Edit: I saw your amendment, but the question was for wolfie.

Anyway, your comment about the constitution makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Why are you trying to dodge the question?

Edit: I saw your amendment, but the question was for wolfie.

Anyway, your comment about the constitution makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I answered the question. Look again at my amendment to my previous post. And why are you being, again, rhetorical? Got any facts to prove your point?
 
cabse5 said:
I answered the question. Look again at my amendment to my previous post. And why are you being, again, rhetorical? Got any facts to prove your point?
Click to expand...

As I said, my question wasn't rhetorical.
 
Cardinal said:
As I said, my question wasn't rhetorical.
Click to expand...

i'm gonna assume you want me to expound on my accusation of first amendment rights violations created from allowing SSM , or rather accusations by the government of discrimination if SSM isn't allowed..

Here's the religion portion of the first amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <in other words, the gov't shall not set up a religion that everyone must follow (and/or prosecute those who do not follow)>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You know, I read your post and I'm chagrined.
If you're unwilling to keep pace with current events because you're ideological, what can I possibly post that may open your mind? Nothing. This simile is appropriate: it's like me beating my head against a brick wall. This will be my last post in this thread.

What's the very current event in question I'm referring to? The alleged IRS scandal... That the IRS is granting and not granting tax exempt status depending on the politics of the organization in question.
What if the organization in question applying for tax exempt status is a, for example, religion?
And what if that religion, trying to exercise their right of 'free exercise' under the first admendment, doesn't condone SSM?
The answer is: they're prosecuted by the government. They don't get tax exempt status because, according to the government, they discriminate when they disallow SSM. This refusal of tax exempt status by the government because the organization doesn't condone SSM is a clear violation of both parts of the religion portion of the first amendment: gov't IS establishing a gov't religion, that if not followed, will prosecute, and religions will NOT be able to freely exercise their religion.

I used to work closely with a gentleman who belongs to the Lutheran Church. This is where I was first alerted to first amendment rights violations because governments declare discrimination (and prosecute), when an organization doesn't condone SSM.

The gentleman mentioned that the synod his church belongs to doesn't condone SSM, but the synod (the Missouri Synod) is getting pressure from the Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America to condone SSM. My coworker said The Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America is already condoning gay ministers in the Lutheran Church as long as the minister doesn't outwardly conduct 'gay' activity.

The coworker went on: Lutheran Churches not in the US condone SSM. As a matter of fact, a minister of a Lutheran congregation in Canada was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a newspaper article about his beliefs on SSM that was deemed 'disparging'. Lutheran Churches outside the US have determined that being gay is genetically predisposed (where's the proof? - ah, ideology), and distinguish between gay tendencies - not a sin, and gay behavior - depending on the circustances, maybe a sin, maybe not.

I've postulated this in other SSM threads: That members of religions that don't believe in SSM aren't allowed to follow their religion. That gov't interferes in the US as well as elsewhere.

These posters on other SSM threads post that nothing is stopping the, for example, Lutheran from practicing their religion in their own fashion. That no gov't organization (in the US) is preventing any religion their practices. Really?

What shall the non-believing-in-SSM-Lutheran do if all of the Lutheran Church, for one reason or another, condones SSM?
Go to another religion that, for the time being, doesn't believe in SSM? Yeah, posters on other SSM threads have also suggested this.

What if the Lutheran takes pride in being Lutheran? Doesn't the gov't also discriminate against the Lutheran if they are forced to go to another religion? (I'm making an analogy between the Lutheran who can't be Lutheran and the SSM couple who can't be married).

Yeah, I know some of you will say (and this is your ONLY argument for SSM) that a plurality of ideological judges once declared marriage for everyone. I want to point out that's not remotely democratic. That's not even a representative republic. It's an oligarchy. And hey, those judges, those oligarchists, were ideologues.

BTW, back in the middle 1850's The Supreme Court of the United States rendered, with its Dred Scott decision, in their opinion, a fair decision respective of property. The Dred Scott decision gave slave owners the right to reclaim former slaves no matter how long they'd been freemen in free states. One can't always say judges who render constitutional decisions use the Constitution for the basis of their decisions, neither can one say all judges are particulary bright.

You say nothing like the IRS scandal has happened in the US before?
Wrong. It's already happened.

In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.

Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.

Here's an example from Boston, Massachusetts in 2006. Boston Catholic Services ran an adoption agency placing children with families. The Catholic Church announced, rather than submitting to Massachusetts' law requiring the agency place children with SSM couples, that Boston Catholic Services would be closed down because a current 2003 Vatican document described SSM adoptions as gravely 'immoral'.

Here's a secular example:

The Des Moines, Iowa Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accomodation laws because it refused to allow 'family membership' privileges to a SS FEMALE couple that received a civil union in Vermont. The city of Des Moines, Iowa forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as 'families' for membership purposes, or lose $100,000 in gov't support.

Soon afterward, the Des Moines, Iowa YMCA closed its doors.
Why are there no YMCA services in Des Moines, Iowa?
For sure, we know the organization refused to allow SS FEMALE couples 'family privileges' in the YMCA, and the local gov't punished the YMCA.




BTW, there's a YWCA in Des Moines, Iowa.


That's it. I'm done. By.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
i'm gonna assume you want me to expound on my accusation of first amendment rights violations created from allowing SSM , or rather accusations by the government of discrimination if SSM isn't allowed..

Here's the religion portion of the first amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion <in other words, the gov't shall not set up a religion that everyone must follow (and/or prosecute those who do not follow)>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You know, I read your post and I'm chagrined.
If you're unwilling to keep pace with current events because you're ideological, what can I possibly post that may open your mind? Nothing. This simile is appropriate: it's like me beating my head against a brick wall. This will be my last post in this thread.

What's the very current event in question I'm referring to? The alleged IRS scandal... That the IRS is granting and not granting tax exempt status depending on the politics of the organization in question.
What if the organization in question applying for tax exempt status is a, for example, religion?
And what if that religion, trying to exercise their right of 'free exercise' under the first admendment, doesn't condone SSM?
The answer is: they're prosecuted by the government. They don't get tax exempt status because, according to the government, they discriminate when they disallow SSM. This refusal of tax exempt status by the government because the organization doesn't condone SSM is a clear violation of both parts of the religion portion of the first amendment: gov't IS establishing a gov't religion, that if not followed, will prosecute, and religions will NOT be able to freely exercise their religion.

I used to work closely with a gentleman who belongs to the Lutheran Church. This is where I was first alerted to first amendment rights violations because governments declare discrimination (and prosecute), when an organization doesn't condone SSM.

The gentleman mentioned that the synod his church belongs to doesn't condone SSM, but the synod (the Missouri Synod) is getting pressure from the Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America to condone SSM. My coworker said The Evangelical Lutheran Church Of America is already condoning gay ministers in the Lutheran Church as long as the minister doesn't outwardly conduct 'gay' activity.

The coworker went on: Lutheran Churches not in the US condone SSM. As a matter of fact, a minister of a Lutheran congregation in Canada was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a newspaper article about his beliefs on SSM that was deemed 'disparging'. Lutheran Churches outside the US have determined that being gay is genetically predisposed (where's the proof? - ah, ideology), and distinguish between gay tendencies - not a sin, and gay behavior - depending on the circustances, maybe a sin, maybe not.

I've postulated this in other SSM threads: That members of religions that don't believe in SSM aren't allowed to follow their religion. That gov't interferes in the US as well as elsewhere.

These posters on other SSM threads post that nothing is stopping the, for example, Lutheran from practicing their religion in their own fashion. That no gov't organization (in the US) is preventing any religion their practices. Really?

What shall the non-believing-in-SSM-Lutheran do if all of the Lutheran Church, for one reason or another, condones SSM?
Go to another religion that, for the time being, doesn't believe in SSM? Yeah, posters on other SSM threads have also suggested this.

What if the Lutheran takes pride in being Lutheran? Doesn't the gov't also discriminate against the Lutheran if they are forced to go to another religion? (I'm making an analogy between the Lutheran who can't be Lutheran and the SSM couple who can't be married).

Yeah, I know some of you will say (and this is your ONLY argument for SSM) that a plurality of ideological judges once declared marriage for everyone. I want to point out that's not remotely democratic. That's not even a representative republic. It's an oligarchy. And hey, those judges, those oligarchists, were ideologues.

BTW, back in the middle 1850's The Supreme Court of the United States rendered, with its Dred Scott decision, in their opinion, a fair decision respective of property. The Dred Scott decision gave slave owners the right to reclaim former slaves no matter how long they'd been freemen in free states. One can't always say judges who render constitutional decisions use the Constitution for the basis of their decisions, neither can one say all judges are particulary bright.

You say nothing like the IRS scandal has happened in the US before?
Wrong. It's already happened.

In 2012, two women filed a law suit in New Jersey court because a Methodist Church prevented their SS civil union ceremony from being performed in a pavilion owned by said NJ Methodist Church. The pavilion had been rented out only for marriages because
it's a religious structure of that NJ Methodist Church, and SS civil unions are not recognized according to the United Methodist Church Book of Disipline.

Due to the NJ Methodist Church's refusal to rent the pavilion for SS union, New Jersey punished the NJ Methodist Church, and revoked its tax free status in NJ.

Here's an example from Boston, Massachusetts in 2006. Boston Catholic Services ran an adoption agency placing children with families. The Catholic Church announced, rather than submitting to Massachusetts' law requiring the agency place children with SSM couples, that Boston Catholic Services would be closed down because a current 2003 Vatican document described SSM adoptions as gravely 'immoral'.

Here's a secular example:

The Des Moines, Iowa Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accomodation laws because it refused to allow 'family membership' privileges to a SS FEMALE couple that received a civil union in Vermont. The city of Des Moines, Iowa forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as 'families' for membership purposes, or lose $100,000 in gov't support.

Soon afterward, the Des Moines, Iowa YMCA closed its doors.
Why are there no YMCA services in Des Moines, Iowa?
For sure, we know the organization refused to allow SS FEMALE couples 'family privileges' in the YMCA, and the local gov't punished the YMCA.




BTW, there's a YWCA in Des Moines, Iowa.


That's it. I'm done. By.
Click to expand...

Wolfie asked "Why do gays want marriage?" and I responded, "Why does anybody want marriage?"

Your meandering rant didn't answer that. It did go on and on about infringement of religion in one form or another, which fails because the constitution protects your right to practice your religion, it doesn't force others to adopt the same practices or beliefs as your religion.
 
Last edited:
The one thing I don't understand, and would love to have somebody explain to me is everybody is always saying that God makes everything for a reason, therefore there is obviously a purpose behind having created people with homosexual tendencies. Now I'm not sure, but I'm going to take a guess that it wasn't to become the punching bag of Worldwide politics. And please don't tell me that all homosexuals were born straight and they decided on their own to sin. You aren't fooling anybody with that argument.
 
AGENT J said:
I know i asked this about 18 months ago but in light of 11 states (CT, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT, and WA) legalizing it
Click to expand...

It sounds like it's already legal in the United States. I'm going with 0-5 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom