• 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!

Has your marriage changed since SCOTUS ruling?

My marriage


  • Total voters
    49
...Cheek

So, I'm like #74 as the chickens pass by the blade, tell me your opinion on this issue.

And hey, I have grand kids so you can't scare me.

I'm getting older not near 74 but older than I was. lesbian, polygamous. I think the decision was good. I don't think government has any business in my relationships. Won't get married but have relationships which are wondrous. And your opinion would be?
 
My husband and I have been happily married over 40 years. He is my " one and only" and the love of my life.
I hope we celebrate our 50th and beyond together.
 
Marriage is the same now as it has always been, as established and defined by a much higher power than any mortal court, legislator, or other part of secular government.

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit. They were as wrong then as they are this time.

Marriage remains what it always has been, a specific sacred union between a man and a woman. No mortal government has the authority to define it otherwise.

As usual, you forgot this important part of your post: "In my opinion based on my personal and subjective morality." There I have now corrected you.
 
It's stupid questions like this that trivialize the real problem with recent Supreme Court rulings. The problem is, many of them have little to do with law and everything to do with a Supreme Court that's lost its way. It no longer sees itself as an interpreter of the law under the confines of the constitution. It now sees itself as social engineers, charged with making the hard decisions that a divided America is too fractured to make politically. That's wrong.

And if Chief Justice Roberts wasn't so tragically conflicted and idiotic, he'd be comical. He's spent two years ignoring the constitution and the letter of the law to manufacture two majority decisions related to the ACA and he has the gall to criticize the majority in the same sex marriage ruling for making a decision that has nothing to do with the constitution and is just a feel good move. The man should resign or be impeached before he can do any more harm.
Fabricating things, expressing opinions as facts ..these I find to be disgusting ..
 
Enlighten us.

It is not a question of the first incidence impact on an individual marriage that would be relevant in anything but a very naive mind. Changing societal structures creates waves of differing lengths of complex consequences. Asking a question like above implies not understanding this trivial but essential fact about social, economic and legal systems.
 
It is not a question of the first incidence impact on an individual marriage that would be relevant in anything but a very naive mind. Changing societal structures creates waves of differing lengths of complex consequences. Asking a question like above implies not understanding this trivial but essential fact about social, economic and legal systems.

Your answer proves you have nothing.
 
I doubt we have seen the last of the argument about who is allowed to marry who. At this point I don't really care. The seal is broken and all types will pour in after lengthy battles. So be it.

I will be defining my marriage as traditional.

Still too obtuse for my liking, but I can't force you to provide any more detail than you wish to provide.

I was hoping for more.
 
Marriage is the same now as it has always been, as established and defined by a much higher power than any mortal court, legislator, or other part of secular government.

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit. They were as wrong then as they are this time.

Marriage remains what it always has been, a specific sacred union between a man and a woman. No mortal government has the authority to define it otherwise.
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." The whole point that people like you refuse to see is that the civil marriage, the legal status is NOT the same as any religious marriage. They hold completely and utterly different purposes. When you go before a priest/minister/what-have-you and get married without going through the paperwork, you have been married before God (or deity of choice if you are not of the big three), but not before "Caesar". Likewise, if you go before the Justice of the Peace, and do the proper paperwork, but never go before a member of the clergy, then you are married before "Caesar", but not before God. Similarly, being married before the Goddess is not married before God, unless you ascribe to the idea that all divine beings are actually one in the same.

Try as you might, no matter how divine the religious institution of marriage is, the civil institution is separate from it. This is especially important in a country where religious freedom is one of the highest priorities. After all, Jesus told us to live by example, not to force our Christian values upon others by law.
 
Of course my marriage has changed.

It is now a couple of days more in the rear view mirror than it was previously.
 
My life is worse, as is my marriage. The Rangers traded Talbot and are sticking with Lundqvist. I'll likely be a widow this time next year. Other than that, no change. Almost 30 years and going strong.
 
Marriage is the same now as it has always been, as established and defined by a much higher power than any mortal court, legislator, or other part of secular government.

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit. They were as wrong then as they are this time.

Marriage remains what it always has been, a specific sacred union between a man and a woman. No mortal government has the authority to define it otherwise.

Not according to the law of the land.
 
I'm getting older not near 74 but older than I was. lesbian, polygamous. I think the decision was good. I don't think government has any business in my relationships. Won't get married but have relationships which are wondrous. And your opinion would be?

I think that's wonderful for you and if you're happy, even better. The religious right has just been handed their hat and that's as it should be.

I've been married for over 20 years, we're still young (50s) and we've been showered with grandchildren.

It's been 46 years since the Stonewall riot and we're finally at a balance.
 
Not according to the law of the land.

“If the law supposes that…the law is a ass - a idiot”—Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

With the Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) ruling, the Supreme Court established, as “the law of the land”, that a tomato is not a fruit. Of course, this was a nonsensical ruling. By every accepted biological definition, a tomato is, indeed, a fruit, and the court ruling otherwise would not change this.

Implementing an unalterable falsehood into law does not make it true; it remains every bit as false as before. All that is thus accomplished is to make a mockery of the rule of law itself.

Trying to define, by law, the concept of marriage to include anything other than a specific type of union between a man and a woman is exactly the same sort of mockery of law as ruling that a tomato is not a fruit. A tomato remains what it is, and marriage remains what it is, regardless of any absurd attempt to define it otherwise by law.
 
“If the law supposes that,…the law is a ass - a idiot”—Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

With the Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) ruling, the Supreme Court established, as “the law of the land”, that a tomato is not a fruit. Of course, this was a nonsensical ruling. By every accepted biological definition, a tomato is, indeed, a fruit, and the court ruling otherwise would not change this.

Implementing an unalterable falsehood into law does not make it true; it remains every bit as false as before. All that is thus accomplished is to make a mockery of the rule of law itself.

Trying to define, by law, the concept of marriage to include anything other than a specific type of union between a man and a woman is exactly the same sort of mockery of law as ruling that a tomato is not a fruit. A tomato remains what it is, and marriage remains what it is, regardless of any absurd attempt to define it otherwise by law.

The law defines what marriage is in the law, not science. Marriage is a concept, invented by men, not a natural physical object, with definable characteristics.
 
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.

How long have you been married?

Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?

Silly question and never an issue. What the decision did was highlight that the SCOTUS does not rule according to Constitution as is their oath, but rather social engineering.
 
The law defines what marriage is in the law, not science. Marriage is a concept, invented by men, not a natural physical object, with definable characteristics.

Marriage was established and defined by God, not by man, and no mortal institution has the authority to override God on this matter. Those who presume to do so will one day stand before God to be judged, and they will be held fully accountable for this evil.
 
“If the law supposes that…the law is a ass - a idiot”—Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

With the Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893) ruling, the Supreme Court established, as “the law of the land”, that a tomato is not a fruit. Of course, this was a nonsensical ruling. By every accepted biological definition, a tomato is, indeed, a fruit, and the court ruling otherwise would not change this.

Implementing an unalterable falsehood into law does not make it true; it remains every bit as false as before. All that is thus accomplished is to make a mockery of the rule of law itself.

Trying to define, by law, the concept of marriage to include anything other than a specific type of union between a man and a woman is exactly the same sort of mockery of law as ruling that a tomato is not a fruit. A tomato remains what it is, and marriage remains what it is, regardless of any absurd attempt to define it otherwise by law.

Yeah, the constitution's kinda funny that way. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow gay marriage; go there.
 
Marriage was established and defined by God, not by man, and no mortal institution has the authority to override God on this matter. Those who presume to do so will one day stand before God to be judged, and they will be held fully accountable for this evil.

No. You can't even prove God exists, so God cannot be part of any ruling in a court of law. If I am wrong, then I will face His judgement, not yours. But that doesn't change the fact that you cannot prove your assertions, despite trying to complain about this ruling by pointing out a ruling where the SCOTUS defied scientific facts about a tomato. In order for this to be a valid comparison, then you need to show a similar comparison, not the complete opposite, turning to your belief system, rather than facts.
 
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.

How long have you been married?

Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?

I am unmarried, but since the ruling, the number of people I'm allowed to marry has practically doubled!!! My chances of dying alone and forgotten have roughly halved! Good going SCOTUS.

Nothing in the Constitution supports this immoral redefinition and undermining of marriage.

Pssst, the constitution never defined marriage in the first place.
 
I think that's wonderful for you and if you're happy, even better. The religious right has just been handed their hat and that's as it should be.

I've been married for over 20 years, we're still young (50s) and we've been showered with grandchildren.

It's been 46 years since the Stonewall riot and we're finally at a balance.

Congrats on the marriage and the Grandchildren. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom