• 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

This country is going to hell in a hand basket but it will never sink as low as you want it to. There are still a lot of God Fearing people out there who believe that the sexual act Gays indulge is and abomination.

My advice to those GAWD fearing folk is don't engage in homosexual activities if they feel they are abominations....

Who says I want anything other than everyone gets treated as equally as possible on Earth and believe GAWD will call Her own??? :confused:

There are a lot of people in this country who believe all manner of things- don't make them right and doesn't mean it will remain that way forever.

You and I are old enough to remember when the majority of Whites, which means the majority of this nation, believed marriage between the races was an abomination in GAWD'S eye.

Now look.... I do wish you a long life.... :peace
 
If you're lucky, you'll end an old man, too. With much more wisdom than you have now. It is difficult for some older Americans to accept the changes they've seen in their lifetime. This somehow surprises you???? You will find the same someday. Hopefully, you will be respected and taken seriously when you object to the social change YOU are bound to see in YOUR lifetime.

And, hopefully, someone will not attempt to denigrate your thoughts by calling YOU "Old Man."

Harumpf.

if im lucky enough to make it to be an old man and my views are bigoted, racist and or misogynistic i dont deserve respect.
 
if im lucky enough to make it to be an old man and my views are bigoted, racist and or misogynistic i dont deserve respect.

I have no argument with you. You didn't call him "Old Man." Move along.
 
I still can't understand why people really care whether gays get married or not. :dunno: But then I also can't understand why straight people would want to get married. :dunno:

Can we ban ALL marriage?
 
They get the last say in what's legally right.

If you shoot and kill a child molester, you're still probably going to jail.

LOL what a ridiculous comparison. What's legally right can sometimes be morally wrong.
 
LOL what a ridiculous comparison. What's legally right can sometimes be morally wrong.

Morality is subjective. Law is absolute. Be you conservative, centrist, or fringe-liberal like yourself, murder is murder.

When this guy issued licenses to same sex couples, he broke the law. Period. End story.

You can spin it, shed a tear, cry in outrage, or stand on a soapbox. It's still illegal.
 
If you're lucky, you'll end an old man, too. With much more wisdom than you have now. It is difficult for some older Americans to accept the changes they've seen in their lifetime. This somehow surprises you???? You will find the same someday. Hopefully, you will be respected and taken seriously when you object to the social change YOU are bound to see in YOUR lifetime. And, hopefully, someone will not attempt to denigrate your thoughts by calling YOU "Old Man." Harumpf.

Maggie at this point in my life I am just damn HAPPY to be called an old man... it was touch and go a few times... ;)

As my wife says when I bitch about getting old- "It sure beats the alternative!"

I like using the 'angry old man' tag for some in here... if the shoe fits and all that.

Bless his leedle heart Navy sure is set in his ways and as often as not incorrect in the facts he clings to. His pre-election predictions of doom and gloom for President Obama- the one where he said blacks will abandon him due to Obama's acceptance of SSM should be a quote posted at the start of the partisan politics part of the forum.

The great part about progress is it waits for no man and Communism isn't the only thing to be left in the dustbin of history. :peace
 
Morality is subjective. Law is absolute. Be you conservative, centrist, or fringe-liberal like yourself, murder is murder.

When this guy issued licenses to same sex couples, he broke the law. Period. End story.

You can spin it, shed a tear, cry in outrage, or stand on a soapbox. It's still illegal.

A fringe Liberal? x] I was never contending that what he did was legal or right. If you read the post I was responding to you would have recognized the context and understood me. The post I replied to said something along the lines of "what's wrong with this guy?". I was simply saying why I thought he did it.
 
A fringe Liberal? x] I was never contending that what he did was legal or right. If you read the post I was responding to you would have recognized the context and understood me. The post I replied to said something along the lines of "what's wrong with this guy?". I was simply saying why I thought he did it.

I've seen you enough to know an appropriate lean, but that's neither here nor there. Basically you endorsed highly illegal and seditious activity by an "officer of the court". No amount of morality will make me side with that.
 
If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath.

If IO were you, I'd give up on predictions. You've been wrong quite a bit. I thought we were supposed to see President Santorum, or was it President Romney. It changed so much during the election for you.

Oh, and I thought we wouldn't see an overturn of DADT?

Yeah, in the gay marriage department and presidential department, you're not batting well at all on your predictions.
 
There are still a lot of God Fearing people out there who believe that the sexual act Gays indulge is and abomination.

Unless they are two women, then conservatives are out spanking it off in their living room while in public they go "Homosexuality is bad" like the hypocrites they are.
 
I've seen you enough to know an appropriate lean, but that's neither here nor there. Basically you endorsed highly illegal and seditious activity by an "officer of the court". No amount of morality will make me side with that.

I like to think I don't fit in with any party, but your opinion is somewhat accurate in that I agree with some Liberal ideas. I didn't endorse it, I provided my reasoning for why it happened.
 
I like to think I don't fit in with any party, but your opinion is somewhat accurate in that I agree with some Liberal ideas. I didn't endorse it, I provided my reasoning for why it happened.

Oh I think we all know why it happened. We're probably more in disagreement with the why to the why. For instance, my take is that the guy has more balls than brains.
 
Here is a flash for you my left wing friend....Gay marriage is not legal in Pa.

Which is why the same sex couple who is being denied the right to marry has grounds to appeal the law. Why are you confused?

No, it's not. And the issuer should be reprimanded. WTF is wrong with people? Some paper shuffler can't decide on his own that same-sex marriage is legal. Ridiculous.

No, the court will do so. Hence the appeal.

Not in your life time my left wing friend. The SCOTUS will not touch states the have a constitutional banning SSM.
The SCOTUS would not touch a state constitutional amendment with a 10 foot poll.

Except, you know, in California, where they already did.
 
C'mon...this isn't judicial activism. This is enforcing laws already on the book.

It'd be judicial activism if it was the other way around.

Oh, and the clerk should be fired.

The courts are supposed to void laws that are unconstitutional, so no it's not the same the other way around. I'm referring as much though to cases where judges have declared SSM legal and there was no law against it (as far as i know), such as MA or Iowa, then uproar followed about "activist judges."
 
The clerk did the wrong thing. Unlike NM where there is no definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman where the clerks who are handing out marriage licenses to gay couples are doing the right thing, in PA the clerk does have a job to do and should be following through as per the law. We do not get to decide which laws we get to follow and which laws we do not, which is why after gay marriage is passed any state employee who has it within their job description and responsibilities to perform the marriage ceremony should be forced to do marry gays as part of their job as a state employee. The sword will cut both ways eventually, and we will wait to see the hypocrisy of many in this thread when they endorse a judge refusing to marry a gay couple as part of their job responsibilities and state law. Even though i like what the clerk did he stepped way outside of his job and I should say deserves to be terminated for not upholding the laws he was tasked to. I will also endorse pulling any employee from their position for denying to marry gays when they are legally allowed to be.

If you knowingly fail to do your job properly you need to go find one you can do. As for those who think gay marriage is not coming, you are doomed. perhaps a quick and swift death to your hateful morals would decrease your prolonged suffering and get gays on with the rest of their lives which would be best all around, but if you want to fight it for a slow suffering agonizing loss I have some popcorn and plenty of time top watch people like NP whine and have meltdowns time and time again as their hate gets stomped 50 times. Actually 52 if you consider DOMA and DADT.
 
Yes it can be unconstitutional and in a STATE constitution because no constitutional amendment has to stand Judicial scrutiny BEFORE it is ratified. Our judicial system rests on an injured party bringing a case before the Court.

The SSM marriage ban/definition as one man/one woman could be seen under judical review as violating the equal treatment under the law provision. How could the SSM ban still remain?

A Constitutional amendment, once ratified, cannot - repeat cannot - be held unconstitutional. I repeat the question - How can something in the Constitution be unconstitutional? Answer? It can't. We're not talking about unratified proposed constitutional amendments. We're talking about actual constitutional amendments.

Could a state constitutional amendment be held in violation of the U.S. Constitution? Of course, but that's not what we're talking about.
 
What's your point? That it's okay to be rude to those who don't fall in line with DISNEYdude?

No Maggie....the point is that being "old" is not an excuse for intolerance and bigotry. There are a lot of old people who are enlightened and tolerant. The difference is the aren't angry stubborn and uneducated.
 
No Maggie....the point is that being "old" is not an excuse for intolerance and bigotry. There are a lot of old people who are enlightened and tolerant. The difference is the aren't angry stubborn and uneducated.

When we can't respect our grandparents (or whoever) because they can't move fast enough to center, it's you and I that are intolerant. Not them.
 
When we can't respect our grandparents (or whoever) because they can't move fast enough to center, it's you and I that are intolerant. Not them.

Sorry Maggie...but I'm not going to accept that excuse. I've known too many people, my own father included who came from the same generation as people like Navy Pride....who held the same bigoted views, but through education came around. Allowing people to remain bigots based on excuses is just not acceptable.
 
A Constitutional amendment, once ratified, cannot - repeat cannot - be held unconstitutional. I repeat the question - How can something in the Constitution be unconstitutional? Answer? It can't. We're not talking about unratified proposed constitutional amendments. We're talking about actual constitutional amendments. Could a state constitutional amendment be held in violation of the U.S. Constitution? Of course, but that's not what we're talking about.

Oh, I thought we were talking about State Constitutions. The topic was Pa, and then NP brought up the state constitutional amendments.

The US Constitution would be extremely difficult to amend- is why the 'defend marriage' crowd didn't go there- too many widely differing opinions once you cross state lines. However I still think if a later Court determines a part of the Constitution is in violation of the rest that part will be declared null and void. (if you want to be picky and not use the word unconstitutional that's fine- it is what it is however)

I think many Court Decisions can be revisited later as the effects of some of them are felt.
 
Back
Top Bottom