• 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!

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

How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?


  • Total voters
    45
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Look to Judge Kennedy who claims to be a supporter of state's rights.. [and possibly another that wants to “get on the right side of history"]
 
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.

yeah right, tell us where it says that plz
 
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.
If marriage is solely a question for the states, then states would be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage. States do not have the power to strip individuals of constitutionally guaranteed rights, equal protection included.
 
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.

So you're going with the loophole option. Which would not be surprising at all.
 
yeah right, tell us where it says that plz

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
 
If marriage is solely a question for the states, then states would be allowed to prohibit interracial marriage. States do not have the power to strip individuals of constitutionally guaranteed rights, equal protection included.

As I understand it, the SCOTUS will answer two questions. (1) does the 14th Amendment require all states to permit same-sex marriages, and (2) does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

We will see how it goes.
 
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 think, at the very least, that they will decide states are required to recognize gay marriages performed in another state.

I'd say there's a better than even chance that they say states cannot ban gay marriage, but that one could go either way.
 
As I understand it, the SCOTUS will answer two questions. (1) does the 14th Amendment require all states to permit same-sex marriages, and (2) does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
Right.

We will see how it goes.
We shall see. But what we do know for a fact from past rulings (like Loving) is that states do not have the exclusive authority over marriage.
 
So you're going with the loophole option. Which would not be surprising at all.

It is not a loophole, it is a specific aspect of the legal questions. It is part of the some of the cases they are hearing for this, part of the legal question.
 
Right.


We shall see. But what we do know for a fact from past rulings (like Loving) is that states do not have the exclusive authority over marriage.

In these days where the US Constitution is looked at with disdain and wholly ignored at times, nothing will surprise me.
 
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

nobody buys the failed "The Constitution doesn't mention marriage" argument

it doesnt have to say the word marriage, thats the most dishonest and illogical failed argument ever, besides bestiality/child rape argument
 
anyway with the release of the new articles about this my vote is yes they will rule and they will rule for equal rights

if you would have asked before the articles came out though i would have probably voted for a punt/loop hole/ delay until after the 5th and 11th rule
 
In these days where the US Constitution is looked at with disdain and wholly ignored at times, nothing will surprise me.
Like it or not, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution.
 
I have a question, dont know if anybody knows but whats the largest amount of court rullings/judges the SCOTUS has ever trumped?
i mean its like 20+ cases and 45+ judges at this point right? would that be unprecedented to trump that many and rule against equal rights?
 
The states derive their sovereignty from the people.

and that power can not violate the constitution and individual rights :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom