• 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
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.

actually its 100% true, the word appearing or not appearing doesnt matter to this topic as many other posters pointed out. So again NOBODY educated, honest and objective falls for such a mentally inane, retarded and fabricated lie and argument. It holds ZERO weight in legality and it is in fact 100% meaningless to the topic at hand.

But please, keep trying to sell that it does matter, it only further entertains the people that know its meanignless and exposes how obviously vapid, transparent, non-intellectual and desperate the argument against equal rights is.

things also not in the constitution "rape" does that mean that a state can vote and declare that rape is legal?

sorry your claim has been proven wrong, if you disagree as always, please simply post ONE fact in your next post that supports you. Thanks
 
Already did. I WIN WITH FACTS!

you keep repeating this failed lie but nobody believes it, its simply a dodge to my question and topic.

I will ask again:

Me an and fiance want to get legally married, what do we have to do?
 
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.

And our country should have laws based on the 'morality' of your religion? Why is that?

It's my religion too so it's not even the view of every Christian, not by a long shot.
 
Poor things....the'y just helpless.

Take your agenda elsewhere.

Says the guy demanding the Supreme Court operate on morality instead of constitutionality.
 
If SCOTUS rules in their favor, as imho it will the Republicans will reap a political benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But another group also saw a possible reason to celebrate if the court does indeed rule that way: Republicans.

If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

To have the question disposed of and dispensed with, many Republicans say, could make their opinions on the matter largely moot, providing a political escape hatch that gives them an excuse to essentially say: “It’s been settled. Let’s move on.”
 
If SCOTUS rules in their favor, as imho it will the Republicans will reap a political benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But another group also saw a possible reason to celebrate if the court does indeed rule that way: Republicans.

If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

To have the question disposed of and dispensed with, many Republicans say, could make their opinions on the matter largely moot, providing a political escape hatch that gives them an excuse to essentially say: “It’s been settled. Let’s move on.”


But I wonder if their hard-core supporters will demand a constitutional amendment? That would still require them to take a stand.
 
If SCOTUS rules in their favor, as imho it will the Republicans will reap a political benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...st-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But another group also saw a possible reason to celebrate if the court does indeed rule that way: Republicans.

If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

To have the question disposed of and dispensed with, many Republicans say, could make their opinions on the matter largely moot, providing a political escape hatch that gives them an excuse to essentially say: “It’s been settled. Let’s move on.”

It depends on if they try to use the issue to fire up the far right base. I remember politicians saying one thing to their base, then have the opposite stance a week later. Heck, abortion has been settled for how long, yet it keeps popping up to get the blood running.
 
But I wonder if their hard-core supporters will demand a constitutional amendment? That would still require them to take a stand.

Not sure, but this requires 2/3rds of the States?? IMHO- Not a chance of that happening.
Is there a hierarchy in the US Constitution for rights? As they can and do conflict at times?? This is an assumption on my part.
Hard core will have those running in their Districts putting out a ton of hype on what should be done. Same thing with hard left - They both, hard left/right corrupt the political system.
I understand the 27th Amendment took the longest to ratify.

Look at the history of this one.
Fight to ratify Equal Rights Amendment draws new interest
 
Not sure, but this requires 2/3rds of the States?? IMHO- Not a chance of that happening.
Is there a hierarchy in the US Constitution for rights? As they can and do conflict at times?? This is an assumption on my part.
Hard core will have those running in their Districts putting out a ton of hype on what should be done. Same thing with hard left - They both, hard left/right corrupt the political system.
I understand the 27th Amendment took the longest to ratify.

Look at the history of this one.
Fight to ratify Equal Rights Amendment draws new interest


Oh, I don't think the amendment would have a chance in hell of winning. Just wondering whether they'd have to support it to win.
 
But I wonder if their hard-core supporters will demand a constitutional amendment? That would still require them to take a stand.

The base will remain loyal with a little lip service. They always do.
 
That's means the states have to send it to the FedGov 'before' they can withhold it.

Are you saying they dont? Or wont? Texas doesnt just get back what it puts in. Fed tax dollars dont work that way. Not to mention that just taking it all away now would be crippling. Buh bye to those half finished bridge and highway projects for example.
 
Are you saying they dont? Or wont? Texas doesnt just get back what it puts in. Fed tax dollars dont work that way. Not to mention that just taking it all away now would be crippling. Buh bye to those half finished bridge and highway projects for example.

Private firms are building roads here with no fed dollars at all.

I've seen the numbers...Texas doesn't need the FedGov to survive.
 
Private firms are building roads here with no fed dollars at all.

I've seen the numbers...Texas doesn't need the FedGov to survive.

LOLOL

I guarantee you that private construction companies are using federal $$, at least some subsidies, to build state and federal roads. Where do you think the $$ is coming from? LMAO.

And the state will have to use more of it's own $$ when fed dollars are pulled. Of course schools and the poor and elderly will suffer first...big deal huh?

All to keep da geighs from marrying? And doing no harm to anyone (yet you propose a plan that does actual harm. Hmmm rational?)
 
Private firms are building roads here with no fed dollars at all.

I've seen the numbers...Texas doesn't need the FedGov to survive.

They're using government money, whether it's state or federal. And if federal money stops flowing to Texas, guaranteed you'll have fewer roads built as the state money goes elsewhere. Oh wait - this is texas. You might build more roads and give up on everything else.
 
LOLOL

I guarantee you that private construction companies are using federal $$, at least some subsidies, to build state and federal roads. Where do you think the $$ is coming from? LMAO.

And the state will have to use more of it's own $$ when fed dollars are pulled. Of course schools and the poor and elderly will suffer first...big deal huh?

All to keep da geighs from marrying? And doing no harm to anyone (yet you propose a plan that does actual harm. Hmmm rational?)

It is possible, although I don't have any data on the roads in Texas so I'm just making a guess, that private companies are building toll roads, hoping to recoup their costs that way. They tried it in California and for the most part, the plan failed, the companies went out of business and the government had to buy the toll roads, then keep them open charging tolls to get the money they paid back.
 
It is possible, although I don't have any data on the roads in Texas so I'm just making a guess, that private companies are building toll roads, hoping to recoup their costs that way. They tried it in California and for the most part, the plan failed, the companies went out of business and the government had to buy the toll roads, then keep them open charging tolls to get the money they paid back.

I was thinking mostly govt contracts but I did read about at least one toll road in TX where they constantly made small errors overcharging people and were not required by the state to pay that $ back to the individuals. Yet the people had to pay up ever cent for underpaying. Yeah...that's a great program.
 
I was thinking mostly govt contracts but I did read about at least one toll road in TX where they constantly made small errors overcharging people and were not required by the state to pay that $ back to the individuals. Yet the people had to pay up ever cent for underpaying. Yeah...that's a great program.

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it was one way that he might have been correct in his claim. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
 
Unless laws are passed or the intent of sections of the Constitution are reinterpreted, there is no right to marriage.
False. The court has upheld numerous times that there is a fundamental right to marriage protected by the Constitution. The Constitution has already been interpreted to include marriage as a fundamental right. This honestly should not be news to you.
 
If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional.
Have any examples? And if that were true, is that actually a bad thing?

If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand?
First, I am completely against any draft. Second, I would argue that if the draft exists, then women should be included. Third, my claim was a bout state laws, your example is a federal law, making your example irrelevant to my claim.

How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
Military fitness standards are not set by states, so this is totally irrelevant to my claim that states do not have the power to strip individuals of constitutionally guaranteed rights. And truly, my claim is simply the reality of the law. The question is not "can states strip individuals of constitutional rights" but "what is counted as a constitutional right?"
 
If SCOTUS rules in their favor, as imho it will the Republicans will reap a political benefit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But another group also saw a possible reason to celebrate if the court does indeed rule that way: Republicans.

If the high court resolves the issue as expected in June, it could deliver a decision that has the benefit of largely neutralizing a debate that a majority of Americans believe Republicans are on the wrong side of — and well ahead of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries.

To have the question disposed of and dispensed with, many Republicans say, could make their opinions on the matter largely moot, providing a political escape hatch that gives them an excuse to essentially say: “It’s been settled. Let’s move on.”

They may want this, but just as with their legacy of racism, i won't be forgetting what they've done anytime soon, nor forgiving - especially when they by and large don't ask for forgiveness. For decades now, it's the party of hate, and that won't be easily discarded.
 
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.

And yet for all their intelligence or literacy, they can't read the ninth amendment.

Freedom of religion does not mean that people cannot shape their beliefs based upon their religion. In fact, that is constitutionally protected. If the legal argument was that SSM should remain illegal because the bible is against it, that would fail, but they start with SSM is bad because the bible says so, and then find legal justification to keep it illegal.

And they have failed to accomplish this. All of the proposed justifications have been defeated. The only one left now is religious arguments, which are invalid to justify a law stripping people of their civil rights.
 
And they have failed to accomplish this. All of the proposed justifications have been defeated. The only one left now is religious arguments, which are invalid to justify a law stripping people of their civil rights.

We will not know if they have succeeded at any level until SCOTUS rules.
 
We will not know if they have succeeded at any level until SCOTUS rules.

They've failed in every other case save for the sixth circuit decision that fairly transparently acknowledged that it had no basis to rule the way it did but decided to anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom