View Poll Results: How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

Voters
247. You may not vote on this poll
  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    3 1.21%
  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    151 61.13%
  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    26 10.53%
  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    16 6.48%
  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    38 15.38%
  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    20 8.10%
  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    17 6.88%
  • other - please explain

    2 0.81%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 182

Thread: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

  1. #61
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    I'm concerned with how Navy Pride is going to take the ruling.
    probably say we shouldn't get comfortable, soon as ginsburg keels obama will be forced to appoint rick santorum to the court, which will then take up the issue again and ban gay marriage nationwide

    and this will all happen within a month, 2 tops

  2. #62
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    AS I mentioned in the BN thread on this, there are two questions that will go before the court on this, whether states can ban SSM, and whether states can refuse to recognize SSM performed in other states. This leaves open the possibility of a partial victory for both sides.
    I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. It would be completely against precedent and frankly insane to argue that the constitution doesn't protect SSM, but there's already precedence that states don't have to give full faith and credit to other states' marriages. However, if SSM is protected everywhere, the latter ruling will have no practical effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Praying they'll see it as a state's rights issue and vote no.

    The Constitution makes clear marriage is a question for the states so we'll see.
    This is why laypeople make for lousy arbiters of constitutional law.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    The Constitution doesn't mention marriage
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The constitution doesn't have to mention marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    for the record.

    STATES = THE PEOPLE
    If you think that's true, you are clearly a person who has always been in the comfortable majority and never been discriminated against by your state government, only to be protected by the federal constitution.

    Also, you know, why does the tenth amendment refer to both, then? Clearly, in the amendment you cited, the people and the states are different things. I think you just like state governments better because they will more readily enforce your prejudices and hurt people you don't like.

    Quote Originally Posted by chromium View Post
    That would be the people. Rights not mentioned in the constitution are assumed to be rights unless otherwise prohibited by law - 10th amendment i believe. The constitution cannot foresee nor address *every* single right we take for granted everyday. Guess what, it doesn't mention a right to toilets, electricity, housing - but there are various agencies that ensure we in fact cannot be arbitrarily denied access to these
    9th. See above and also currently my signature. The 9th is a pretty awesome amendment, and it means that "the constitution doesn't say you have a right to _____" is always wrong. No matter what.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #63
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,105

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    AS I mentioned in the BN thread on this, there are two questions that will go before the court on this, whether states can ban SSM, and whether states can refuse to recognize SSM performed in other states. This leaves open the possibility of a partial victory for both sides.
    I wonder what the immediate impact would then be on states such as California, who had their rights overturned by courts. Do they have to re-legislate?

  4. #64
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I wonder what the immediate impact would then be on states such as California, who had their rights overturned by courts. Do they have to re-legislate?
    Nope, no matter what the decision, the 36 states where it is currently legal would be completely unaffected. It could instantly legalize it in the remaining 14 states however.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #65
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I wonder what the immediate impact would then be on states such as California, who had their rights overturned by courts. Do they have to re-legislate?
    Ouch, thinking about it makes my brain hurt. Cali probably not, but most state cases go back to square one I think. Even Cali is possible. Really not sure how it would work, but then again it is late and I am full of cold medicine so not at my best (why I am not responding in other thread we are taking in, not up to the task tonight).
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #66
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,082

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    I don't know I guess if I had to bet id say they will make it legal nation wide and I hope they do

  7. #67
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    nobody buys the failed "The Constitution doesn't mention marriage" argument
    That's not true. There are intelligent and literate people who notice that the word marriage does not appear within the text of the Constitution and therefore it cannot be a Constitutional right.

    There are also the other kind of people.

  8. #68
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Okay. But that is saying something entirely different than States = The People, which is what you said before.

    Also not sure how that is relevant. Neither the federal government, the state governments, nor the people can strip others of constitutional rights.
    Unless laws are passed or the intent of sections of the Constitution are reinterpreted, there is no right to marriage.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  9. #69
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    heh, even if they could get away with it...the feds would immediately stop every cent for every program they contribute to in the state. Highways, bridges, school programs, etc.
    Where do you think that money comes from in the first place?
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  10. #70
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,151

    re: Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Well...maybe if we are lucky this ruling will finally push Texas over the edge into actually seceding instead of just blabbering about it.
    TX and other states. The voters of CA tried to bar SSM until a Fed judge/court intervened.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •