• 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!

Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?

Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?

  • Total voters
    64
radcen said:
What do you mean "for a while"? The article doesn't mention any long ongoing (in)action. Sounds like she just started protesting since the verdict.

In other aspects, let's look at her statement: Mrs Davis has pledged she will not give in. “It’s a deep-rooted conviction; my conscience won’t allow me to do that,” she said. “It goes against everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life.”

Sounds to me like she should be resigning from her job if her job has become so unacceptably distasteful to her.
Click to expand...

she'll be sued and arrested very soon, all good
 
shrubnose said:
Some people will be arguing against and trying to block SSM until the end of time.

Wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...

Eh, i read an article from someone in spain, where it legalized 10 years ago, gives some perspective. Yes, there are some loudmouths in minor political parties and theocratic organizations. However, 88% of the public there supports it (compared to 60% here) and the effect of this is that no one listens to the crybabies, just dismissing them as sore losers, and gay rights groups have moved on from the issue there.

What's going on now with the republicans is merely the dust settling. We'll be like spain in 10 years. There's nothing they can do about it anyway. Better to alternately make fun of and ignore them, than get upset
 
DiAnna said:
Don't refer to complex situations that you are unfamiliar with. California voted to allow SSM first! Then the the anti-SSM groups led by money funneled in from various religious organizations around the country pushed for a ballot measure banning what had just been passed by declaring that under SSM laws, teachers would be required to lecture students as young as five about the gay and lesbian lifestyle, which was completely bogus and proven bogus. However, panicked parents who didn't care who married who did care that their very young kids would be exposed to sexual information inappropriate for their ages, fell for the lie, and voted to ban SSM just in case.

The ballot measure passed, barely. The courts promptly threw it out. SSM is and has been legal in California for years.
Click to expand...

the (largely mormon) false advertising also convinced a fair number of voters that churches would be sued if they refused to marry gay couples, the same hysterical comments we've seen this past week, despite no church has been sued in CA or MA or any other state.
 
radcen said:
Agreed, but while the OP didn't restrict the geography, I didn't take his question to include the rest of the world.

I could be mistaken, though. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're not. I definitely meant the U.S., since the Supreme Court doesn't decide anything for the rest of the world, at the same time I did mention that "we live in a world" where the issue has been settled (or whatever it was I said) so I can understand the confusion.
 
Is abortion a done and settled issue now?
 
X Factor said:
Is SSM a "dead" issue, now?
Click to expand...

Nope because republicans will use this an example judicial tyranny or judges overstepping their bounds and claim we must elect republicans in order to ensure that the right judges get picked.
 
Institutions include people that have built entire careers, entire self-images, and meaning, out of being warriors for The Cause. They're not going to give up just because they won. They are going to go look for new fights, new villains to highlight in mass emails asking for donations, new ways to continue to justify their existence.

SSM isn't dead. It's about to get ugly.
 
cpwill said:
Institutions include people that have built entire careers, entire self-images, and meaning, out of being warriors for The Cause. They're not going to give up just because they won. They are going to go look for new fights, new villains to highlight in mass emails asking for donations, new ways to continue to justify their existence.

SSM isn't dead. It's about to get ugly.
Click to expand...

Yup. The National Organization for Marriage now wants to gut SCOTUS and replace it with justices who would support traditional marriage. They are far from calling it quits.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yup. The National Organization for Marriage now wants to gut SCOTUS and replace it with justices who would support traditional marriage. They are far from calling it quits.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, it's not exactly like this wasn't a completely-predicted result of having the judiciary impose social issue decisions on everyone from the top down, as opposed to going through the legislatures.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, it's not exactly like this wasn't a completely-predicted result of having the judiciary impose social issue decisions on everyone from the top down, as opposed to going through the legislatures.
Click to expand...

If the legislatures had voted to allow ssm then you'd have the anti-ssm side suing to block those decisions. Everyone hates the courts until they can make use of them.


(And of course, vice versa, they love them until they rule incorrectly).
 
IMO, if the rancor continues...and it probably will in the case of businesses...it is only a reflection of a larger issue of the religious extremists/religious right (not necessarily the same thing) trying to continue to force behavioral and (in their view) moral beliefs on Americans in general. Birth control, abortion, gays, etc. They continue to try and establish political platforms and laws on irrelevant and useless crap. And as a Christian, I believe it makes us all look bad. I love my religion and am embarrassed by these close-minded views. And I see it harming my religion in general.

Something to remember: God gave us all a choice in accepting Him into our hearts and following His Word. It's very presumptuous to then turn around and try and force, thru law, our beliefs on others.

Not to mention that it's unConstitutional.
 
Phys251 said:
Nope. The enemies of love will not go away without a fight.
Click to expand...

Adulterers 'love' too, but that doesn't mean it's right.

"Love..does not rejoice in iniquity." - 1 Corinthians 13 NKJV
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: well, it's not exactly like this wasn't a completely-predicted result of having the judiciary impose social issue decisions on everyone from the top down, as opposed to going through the legislatures.
Click to expand...

Meh. NOM would do anything within their power to stop SSM, even if 99% of the country supported it.
 
DiAnna said:
Don't refer to complex situations that you are unfamiliar with. California voted to allow SSM first! Then the the anti-SSM groups led by money funneled in from various religious organizations around the country pushed for a ballot measure banning what had just been passed by declaring that under SSM laws, teachers would be required to lecture students as young as five about the gay and lesbian lifestyle, which was completely bogus and proven bogus. However, panicked parents who didn't care who married who did care that their very young kids would be exposed to sexual information inappropriate for their ages, fell for the lie, and voted to ban SSM just in case.

The ballot measure passed, barely. The courts promptly threw it out. SSM is and has been legal in California for years.
Click to expand...

We didn't vote on it first. It California Supreme Court case in 2008

And the Mormons were chief among the religious groups trying to stop SSM through Calif's Prop 8.
 
Logicman said:
Adulterers 'love' too, but that doesn't mean it's right.

"Love..does not rejoice in iniquity." - 1 Corinthians 13 NKJV
Click to expand...

Here's the part of that that you left out:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Click to expand...

And two men or two women loving each other is not iniquity. THAT is wholly your personal opinion.
 
Cardinal said:
If the legislatures had voted to allow ssm then you'd have the anti-ssm side suing to block those decisions. Everyone hates the courts until they can make use of them.
Click to expand...

:confused: Huh? Legislatures did vote to allow SSM. Hawaii, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, all saw legislatures pass gay marriage. In other states, it was passed through referendum (Maine and Maryland, for example). No where that I am aware of were any of these met with the traditional marriage side launching lawsuits designed to block the legislation. The SSM movement was getting what it wanted, but it was too impatient to do it the slow way that involved convincing their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause, and so they pushed an end-run through the judiciary that, predictably, will result in backlash.

CriticalThought said:
Meh. NOM would do anything within their power to stop SSM, even if 99% of the country supported it.
Click to expand...

:shrug: perhaps. But if they'd lost a series of legislative battles? Then they simply would have lost - and done so through the will of the people. Losing through the will of Justice Kennedy is a very different thing, and it shapes and fuels the reaction.


Someone (I think it was Adonis) pointed out the parallel with Abortion, and it's a good one. Top-down Judicial decisions on controversial social issues do not end debates. Nor will the fight over SSM be pushed solely by the traditional marriage side in the future. Institutions full of people that have built entire careers, entire self-images, and meaning, out of being warriors for The Cause are not going to give up just because they won. They are going to go look for new fights, new villains to highlight in mass emails asking for donations, new ways to continue to justify their existence.

It only gets uglier from here.
 
cpwill said:
:confused: Huh? Legislatures did vote to allow SSM. Hawaii, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, all saw legislatures pass gay marriage. In other states, it was passed through referendum (Maine and Maryland, for example). No where that I am aware of were any of these met with the traditional marriage side launching lawsuits designed to block the legislation. The SSM movement was getting what it wanted, but it was too impatient to do it the slow way that involved convincing their fellow citizens of the rightness of their cause, and so they pushed an end-run through the judiciary that, predictably, will result in backlash.



:shrug: perhaps. But if they'd lost a series of legislative battles? Then they simply would have lost - and done so through the will of the people. Losing through the will of Justice Kennedy is a very different thing, and it shapes and fuels the reaction.


Someone (I think it was Adonis) pointed out the parallel with Abortion, and it's a good one. Top-down Judicial decisions on controversial social issues do not end debates. Nor will the fight over SSM be pushed solely by the traditional marriage side in the future. Institutions full of people that have built entire careers, entire self-images, and meaning, out of being warriors for The Cause are not going to give up just because they won. They are going to go look for new fights, new villains to highlight in mass emails asking for donations, new ways to continue to justify their existence.

It only gets uglier from here.
Click to expand...

They did indeed block it here after it passed in a popular vote (WA). So then we had to wait until the lawsuit was settled....almost a year. The governor signed the bill (after the Nov vote) in Feb and then it was blocked and marriages couldnt take place until that December.
 
The religious organizations are going to agitate themselves right out of tax exempt status, just watch.
 
Lursa said:
They did indeed block it here after it passed in a popular vote (WA). So then we had to wait until the lawsuit was settled....almost a year. The governor signed the bill (after the Nov vote) in Feb and then it was blocked and marriages couldnt take place until that December.
Click to expand...

They got enough signatures on a petition to put the issue to a popular referendum, which they lost. IOW, no, they didn't sue, but rather recognized the legitimacy of the people to determine how they would be governed.
 
I selected "No' but not because I think there's still lots yet to discuss or debate but rather because I know some politicians, pundits and religious zealots won't let the issue go. Just like the abortion issue, they'll keep chipping away until they find that crack they can wedge some piece of cleverly constructed legislation through.

Sidenote: Yes, I'm pro-choice, but NOT because I embrace the idea of ending the development of life in its early stages or that I believe in all forms of birth control or because I don't believe that all life is a precious gift from God [however you define Him]. I just believe that the right to determine the path of your life (women) as a sentient being is important and as long as you have that Constitutionally protected right to "liberty (freedom to choose)" and the "pursuit of happiness" within the laws of good social order and discipline, you (women) deserve the right to make such a choice that benefits you. Just thought I'd expand on that because I'm sure somebody somewhere will ask or turn the thread towards the abortion issue now that the topic has been broached...again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cpwill said:
Institutions include people that have built entire careers, entire self-images, and meaning, out of being warriors for The Cause. They're not going to give up just because they won. They are going to go look for new fights, new villains to highlight in mass emails asking for donations, new ways to continue to justify their existence.

SSM isn't dead. It's about to get ugly.
Click to expand...

As someone who vehemently supports SSM I completely agree with this. We've created an industry out of righteous indignation and victimhood in this country and I cannot begin to imagine that those who have built their careers out of advocacy will simply drift into different lines of work. Its why while I know advocacy groups are necessary I generally dislike them.
 
Logicman said:
Adulterers 'love' too, but that doesn't mean it's right.

"Love..does not rejoice in iniquity." - 1 Corinthians 13 NKJV
Click to expand...

Hello Logicman! :2wave:

How does it feel to know that your beliefs are literally dying out? :)
 
cpwill said:
They got enough signatures on a petition to put the issue to a popular referendum, which they lost. IOW, no, they didn't sue, but rather recognized the legitimacy of the people to determine how they would be governed.
Click to expand...

We, the people of WA St, voted on it and it passed. So it was just useless and a waste to do what they did. Spiteful.

If the people voted on it, that is 'popular.'
 
Sherman123 said:
As someone who vehemently supports SSM I completely agree with this. We've created an industry out of righteous indignation and victimhood in this country and I cannot begin to imagine that those who have built their careers out of advocacy will simply drift into different lines of work. Its why while I know advocacy groups are necessary I generally dislike them.
Click to expand...

I would have a hard time imagining that as well.
 
Lursa said:
We, the people of WA St, voted on it and it passed. So it was just useless and a waste to do what they did. Spiteful.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well, I'm not much on mind-reading. Can you link to where they recognized it was useless and they were just doing it out of spite?

If the people voted on it, that is 'popular.'
Click to expand...

That's correct. And, contra his claims, traditional marriage advocates then did not sue to try to overturn the will of the populace because they didn't like the result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom