• 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
ive never posted a lie, if you believe otherwise simply qoute the lie and use FACTS to prove it, you will fail LMAO

I've pointed out many lies you've posted in the other thread.

FACTS FOR THE WIN!
 
I've pointed out many lies you've posted in the other thread.

FACTS FOR THE WIN!
translation: you cant, thanks
facts win again
 
They really have to rule on it sooner or later, they've kept punting every time it's come up, but with 36 states allowing it, there isn't much more time they can keep kicking this particular can down the road, they are going to have to make a decision sooner or later, might as well get it out of the way now, before it's absurd and 49 out of 50 states allow it and they have no more chances to hide from reality.
 
Well...maybe if we are lucky this ruling will finally push Texas over the edge into actually seceding instead of just blabbering about it.

Wouldn't that be nice? Actually, if all Texans (and most of the deep south) would just start walking south into the Caribbean, I'd be entirely fine with that.
 
Well...maybe if we are lucky this ruling will finally push Texas over the edge into actually seceding instead of just blabbering about it.
OMG two people who love each other are allowed to enter committed relationships?? We've got to secede.
 
I'm concerned with how Navy Pride is going to take the ruling.
 

My educated guess is the SCOTUS is interested in bringing the country under national uniformity on the issue. I further guess they will rule in favor of it. Although I don't "hate" anybody, especially not gays, I do believe homosexual behavior is a sin [but not homosexual temptation.] Different people struggle with different sins and I have those with which I struggle. This does not mean being greedy, heterosexually lustful, easily tempted with alcoholism, being short tempered with violent tendencies or whatever is perfectly fine and dandy as many in the gay rights camp uniquely do with respect to that particular sin. Even Martin Luther King Jr. who was tolerant of a key leader on his staff who was gay said, quoting Jesus: "he who is without sin cast the first stone" in effect still defined homosexuality as a sin by using that verse to defend him.

I also happen to believe America is blessed because of God's divine favor. I do wonder what this means in terms of those blessing continuing once we officially declare God is wrong and sin is okay but our nation has done so in many other areas in the past. I guess those who believe have more reason to love as well as pray for those who haven't believed yet.
 
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
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.



This is why laypeople make for lousy arbiters of constitutional law.



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.



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.



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.

Fact is, the folks who are the current arbiters of the Constitution lack the vision and morality necessary to see the error of their ways.
 
for the record.

STATES = THE PEOPLE

The 14th Amendment is how we recognized that this is not true, that many times the states do not represent the people, especially not all of the people so it is important to protect the other people from the tyranny of the states over minorities within those states.
 
Fact is, the folks who are the current arbiters of the Constitution lack the vision and morality necessary to see the error of their ways.

The fact is that you have an outdated view of the Constitution and want it to be used to oppress people rather than its real purpose which was to protect people from the tyranny of government, including the smaller state governments and even local governments if necessary.
 
Except they're unaccountable and out of control in general.

I suspect TX and other states will nullify any ruling on this matter.

Like they did with Loving or Lawrence? You do realize many have said this before and yet so far very few SCOTUS rulings have ever been really challenged by states, particularly ones like this where people are so sure their state would ignore such a ruling.
 
Back
Top Bottom