• 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!

Pa. judge orders end to same-sex marriage licenses

I dont think you answer to me. I asked a question on a board named DEBATE politics, sheesh.



No im not a mod. And there was nothing to moderate. The rules of the board were not infarcted upon.

A personal question, which is NOT the thread topic. Why not go start some chicken **** thread in the basement, gathering all your suck buddies around to tell you how right you...that's what the basement is for. Maybe you and Captain Courtesy could create a poll so all the Libbos can say how much they hate me. That would be a huge surprise outcome.
 
A personal question, which is NOT the thread topic. Why not go start some chicken **** thread in the basement, gathering all your suck buddies around to tell you how right you...that's what the basement is for. Maybe you and Captain Courtesy could create a poll so all the Libbos can say how much they hate me. That would be a huge surprise outcome.

Dude calm down.
 
Dude calm down.

Don't tell me to calm down. You swooped in to hide under Captain Courtesy's shirt-tail, to make this thread about me. Why don't YOU calm the **** down and back the **** off.
 
Don't tell me to calm down. You swooped in to hide under Captain Courtesy's shirt-tail, to make this thread about me. Why don't YOU calm the **** down and back the **** off.

Well you know us Illuminati stick together
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop. Now.
 
A clerk is not "the courts". A clerk has as much right to do that as you do in arresting a cop.

Yes, just like the clerks in NM, Iowa, MA and so on had no right to *deny* marriages that weren't banned by their respective states. Then the "activist judges" stepped in and ordered them to.
 
Your very premise is bigoted. People assume that those who disagree on SSM are somehow uneducated, "bigoted" as an insult, "intolerant" as an insult and ascribe so many negative character traits towards them that it makes those making such accusations the very thing they rile against. They themselves are the bigots who judge and apply untrue values and beliefs towards their opposition, they are intolerant of their views and would try to desecrate democracy to silence them from legally being able to enforce them, and they litter their "arguments" with self-righteous comparisons to their opposition being like racists against inter-racial marriage or some other strawman. Sure, bigotry, hate, and intolerance exist within individuals on both sides of the issue but it is an act and perpetuation of such actions to say that those who disagree are all bigots, uneducated, and any other negative trait that gets commonly thrown at people for not supporting SSM.

It's pure self-righteous hypocrisy and it's a shame that it's so common.

I only call them bigots, because that's the one constant, but there is definitely a correlation between education and support/opposition to gay rights.
 
Yes, just like the clerks in NM, Iowa, MA and so on had no right to *deny* marriages that weren't banned by their respective states. Then the "activist judges" stepped in and ordered them to.

As in the situation mentioned in the OP, the clerks were also not following the law.
 
As in the situation mentioned in the OP, the clerks were also not following the law.

Yes i know, that's my point entirely. I'm *mocking* the "activist judges" mentality and political ploy that set off the bans nationwide. This farce really took off following the MA decision: Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This has continued for a decade now, when some like the texas governor took shots at the SC for *doing their job*, striking down a blatantly unconstitutional law.
 
The Libbos say there aren't activist judges and that judges can't do any wrong.

Yeah right, "we" just prefer that "activist judges" make these decisions, rather than the thoroughly inadequate and unqualified masses. Every 'liberal' i know can point to at least a handful of awful SC decisions (dred scott etc), but they certainly have a better track record than your average joe at protecting civil rights.
 
Your very premise is bigoted. People assume that those who disagree on SSM are somehow uneducated, "bigoted" as an insult, "intolerant" as an insult and ascribe so many negative character traits towards them that it makes those making such accusations the very thing they rile against. They themselves are the bigots who judge and apply untrue values and beliefs towards their opposition, they are intolerant of their views and would try to desecrate democracy to silence them from legally being able to enforce them, and they litter their "arguments" with self-righteous comparisons to their opposition being like racists against inter-racial marriage or some other strawman. Sure, bigotry, hate, and intolerance exist within individuals on both sides of the issue but it is an act and perpetuation of such actions to say that those who disagree are all bigots, uneducated, and any other negative trait that gets commonly thrown at people for not supporting SSM.

It's pure self-righteous hypocrisy and it's a shame that it's so common.

Make it difficult for the masses to use democracy as a means of voting on a minority's civil rights? Sign me up every day. Sometimes you have to curb the vile excesses of democracy.
 
Make it difficult for the masses to use democracy as a means of voting on a minority's civil rights? Sign me up every day. Sometimes you have to curb the vile excesses of democracy.

yeah its convenient for one to just simply say i don't BELIEVE this is a equal rights issue or a civil rights issue so im against it or it should be left up to the states.

yep just like people said the same thing against minorities and women etc
just like interracial marriage also.

its a smoke screen that is as transparent as a newly cleaned car windshield. Everybody sees right through it
 
yeah its convenient for one to just simply say i don't BELIEVE this is a equal rights issue or a civil rights issue so im against it or it should be left up to the states.

yep just like people said the same thing against minorities and women etc
just like interracial marriage also.

its a smoke screen that is as transparent as a newly cleaned car windshield. Everybody sees right through it

Its no way the same, gays can change, minorities can't
 
Its no way the same, gays can change, minorities can't

1.) homosexuals can not change

2.) under that broken logic a person can change religions should we stop protecting that?


and once again your lack of intellect and education on this topic is severely exposed. You lose to facts again with another failed and logical void embarrassing post which got destroyed.

let me know when you want to repeat this process, you are getting good at it.
 
Its no way the same, gays can change, minorities can't

Gays can change what? If you're referring to their sexual orientation...that's simply not true. Where did you get that information?
 
That's gonna get appealed... very quickly...

As a law student, I'm surprised that you feel a county clerk has such authority, and can't help think that your view would mysteriously change if the clerk held views you disagreed with
 
As a law student, I'm surprised that you feel a county clerk has such authority, and can't help think that your view would mysteriously change if the clerk held views you disagreed with

Why do people keep pointing out over and over that the clerk can't appeal. Of course the clerk can't appeal. I wasn't saying that the clerk would be doing it. I said that this would be a good public catalyst for a court case about the law itself. The people who have standing are the ones whose licenses are now being denied. Crazy that I just assumed people wouldn't need this pointed out to them. At least five people have stuck their noses in and informed me of this. What is with all these moronic comments? It's worse than Grammar Nazis.

Nor am I a law student anymore. I graduated in May.
 
Why do people keep pointing out over and over that the clerk can't appeal.

Probably because in response to the OP, which is about a judge ordering a clerk to desist in handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples, you wrote "That's gonna get appealed"?
 
Probably because in response to the OP, which is about a judge ordering a clerk to desist in handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples, you wrote "That's gonna get appealed"?

Well, I'm sorry for assuming that the rest of you know anything about appellate procedure and that I didn't have to spell all the details out for you.
 
Anyway the appeal doesn't matter. IL and MI are both further along in the process, and SC will likely take them up.
 
Back
Top Bottom