• 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
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.

Here is the text of the modern oath taken by supreme court justices:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
 
Here is the text of the modern oath taken by supreme court justices:

Willing to bet they don't have to include the "so help me God" if they don't wish to do so. But even if they do, that doesn't mean that they believe in the same God that you or others do.
 
The constitution is not a moral or religious document.

Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the effort to redefine marriage away from what it is, and has always been understood to be.
 
Willing to bet they don't have to include the "so help me God" if they don't wish to do so. But even if they do, that doesn't mean that they believe in the same God that you or others do.

Willing to bet you have to recite the entire oath and that every justice sitting today has. This presumes that God is a fact, regardless of your trying to wiggle out of the point with the different gods mention. Btw, all the members of the court are from the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, no, not a different God at all.
 
Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the effort to redefine marriage away from what it is, and has always been understood to be.

It IS relevant. It make you wrong again.
 
“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.

So your idea of marriage is still a white woman and a white man or a black woman and a black man. Interracial marriages were brought about by the courts as well. Less people approved of interracial marriage then people approve of same sex marriage.
 
My husband and I are both in our first marriage and have been married for decades. The recent SCOTUS ruling will not affect us personally in any way.

But what I do strongly believe is that the assault on the traditional family as an important and valuable American institution has been further eroded and made unimportant and irrelavent. By SCOTUS now, illegally and way outside its constitutional authority, forcing us to change the definition of marriage and thereby make marriage into something it never was and was never intended to be, more and more young people won't bother with it. We will have ever more children born out of wedlock and be much more likely to grow up without the advantage of the traditional family with a loving mother and father in the home.

Marriage has always been about the children that were assumed to be the logical result of the marriage, and all marriage laws in all 50 states were designed first and foremost to protect the children. You cannot change the definition of something, however, without making that something into something different than what it was.

IMO, while I have always supported the necessity and ability of gay people to have the necessary protections and rights enjoyed by others, and I have no animosity whatsoever to any gay person, the SCOTUS decision has done irreparable damage to the institution of marriage and we as a people, both straight and gay, will be the worse off for it.
 
So your idea of marriage is still a white woman and a white man or a black woman and a black man. Interracial marriages were brought about by the courts as well. Less people approved of interracial marriage then people approve of same sex marriage.

Straw_Man2.jpg

barack_obama_race_card_poster-rd60b55a016db4e019dde20a7ff902802_a8xy_400.jpgrace_card.jpg598702_10151148021252886_959007092_n.jpglunatic-progressives-losing-debate-use-race-card.jpg
 
I've been married for 25 years.

Not a damn thing has changed at all for us.

We don't let other people define our marriage. It's ours. We define it.

Also - it's a damn good marriage.

Same here...married almost 24 years. Had a great morning so far...same as every Sunday. :wink2: No changes so far. Looking forward to more weddings!! SSM ceremonies/receptions are a blast!!
 
The constitution is not a moral or religious document.

Whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

Nothing in the Constitution supports the effort to redefine marriage away from what it is, and has always been understood to be.

It IS relevant. It make you wrong again.

What is relevant is that the Constitution is the highest law of this nation, and all public servants are required to act in strict accordance with it; including the Justices on the Supreme Court, whose oath and duty is to uphold it and to issue rulings in accordance with it—a duty which five of the members of that court blatantly violated on this occasion.

Whether or not the Constitution can be described as “a moral or religious document” is completely irrelevant to its purpose and authority.
 

OMG you could not even find a real response. Interracial was court passed just as same sex marriage was passed by the courts. What in the world does this have to do with the race card? This is about two court decisions that allowed marriage. Hmmm You just can't account for the way some, like you Bob, think. Your response seems to say you are afraid someone is taking away from you. Sorry yours is a silly response to a valid comparison about court decisions.
 
What is relevant is that the Constitution is the highest law of this nation, and all public servants are required to act in strict accordance with it; including the Justices on the Supreme Court, whose oath and duty is to uphold it and to issue rulings in accordance with it—a duty which five of the members of that court blatantly violated on this occasion.

Whether or not the Constitution can be described as “a moral or religious document” is completely irrelevant to its purpose and authority.

Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.
 
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 so, then the government shouldn't address marriage one way or another, correct? They should act as if it doesn't even exist, right?
 
If so, then the government shouldn't address marriage one way or another, correct? They should act as if it doesn't even exist, right?

Unless someone is being forced into it I don't see why they should pay it any mind.
 
Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.

No it wasn't.
 
Laws are nothing but a bunch of collective personal opinions.

You know that's not what I'm talking about. "Personal opinions" have no place.
 
Laws are nothing but a bunch of collective personal opinions.

I might have used other words, but that sums it up pretty well. I would add that the same applies to the USSC decisions in a similar way for a smaller group.
 

Do you think anyone in office is driven by political, social and cultural views? Do you think perhaps the views of politicians and justices find their way into laws? This might trouble you but government and politics has more to do with opinion than it does facts.
 
OMG you could not even find a real response.
·
·
·​
Sorry yours is a silly response to a valid comparison about court decisions.

You had no point but to play the race card—a vacuous argument that calls for nothing better than the response that I gave.
 
Your personal opinion means nothing. The constitution was written to prevent personal opinions from becoming law.

And the court has admittedly broken that. And btw, where in the Constitution does it prevent congress from enacting personal opinion?
 
You had no point but to play the race card—a vacuous argument that calls for nothing better than the response that I gave.

I am comparing to court cases. There is nothing race about it. Both cases made marriage decisions some people did not agree with. You have no idea what the race card is as far as I can tell. Look at the court cases. They are both the same. I could have called you a homophobic person but did not. No race intended and this is the last i will try and discuss this with you.
 
Do you think anyone in office is driven by political, social and cultural views? Do you think perhaps the views of politicians and justices find their way into laws? This might trouble you but government and politics has more to do with opinion than it does facts.

You're dancing around now. Someone's opinion may be the inspiration for a law but it takes a great deal to get one passed which means a lot of people.

Our constitution is not a personally moral or religious piece of work: it's an ideal drawn from many different sources. So this "opinion" thing you're chasing has no merit.
 
Back
Top Bottom