• 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

Same old BS from both sides pushing their own agendas like this County Clerk. More precisely, MY county clerk. He doesn't have the authority to issue licenses to same sex couples because the law says he can't. Instead of changing the law, he is taking the law into his own hands.

This is just as wrong as if SSM were legal in PA but a clerk deciding that he wouldn't issue a license because he doesn't agree with it.

This is why various mayors in PA. many of whom are in favor if SSM are not willing to perform the ceremony. In PA, mayors are one of a group of identified individuals who can officiate a marriage.

Enough of the abomination crap, and enough of the claims that the clerk doesn't have to follow the law.
 
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.

I can't think of a single example where a court has declared any part of the U.S. Constitution 'null and void'. Some parts of the Constitution were superceded by later amendments, but the original language remains in the Constitution.
 
I can't think of a single example where a court has declared any part of the U.S. Constitution 'null and void'. Some parts of the Constitution were superceded by later amendments, but the original language remains in the Constitution.

I'd say that because it never happened it won't happen- that is the basis for the SSM marriage argument- things change and because it never happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen at all. My idea is it would take a rather improbable series of events where a constitutional amendment is passed that directly contradicts part already upheld in the Courts. Agreed, not likely to happen but it isn't impossible.

I would mention, the accuracy of the opinion can be questioned that many Cons feel the 'activist judges' on the Supreme court have all but removed the now hollow words from several basic rights in the Constitution.

I'd say your superceding is another's null and void, but to each their own i guess.
 
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."

A clerk is not "the courts". A clerk has as much right to do that as you do in arresting a cop.
 
well, i'm glad to see that most folks disprove of a bureaucrat acting outside of the law... but , truth be told, everybody should disprove of such behavior.

regardless of ones stance on SSM, one should be able to see and understand why the judge made that call.. and why it was the correct call to make.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

can you show me an example of the bolded or clarify not saying those people dont exist im saying ive never seen any here or anybody claim one is a bigot for simply "disagreeing" on SSM. Disagreeing meaning: thinking, believing, teaching, saying, feeling it is wrong. If one labels somebody a bigot based on that alone they are wrong.

Now I have seen people be labeled a bigoted for actively trying to stop equal rights for gays and stop legal marriage for them and thats accurate.

also the interracial marriage analogy stands when talking about STOPPING it.
 
Last edited:
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.

Sorry Digs, but that is akin to saying that anti-interracial marriage people were not bigots because they were just following their beliefs. The same as those who believed in segregation were not bigots because THEY were just following their beliefs. That is just shuffling around it. You don't have to be tolerant of intolerance in order to be truly tolerant. That is just another of the right-wing talking points that they try to throw out there to deflect their bigotry.

Bigotry is still bigotry whether it is couched in religious rhetoric or otherwise. Were the Mormons just "following their beliefs" when they taught that blacks were a cursed people, before god of course changed his mind in 1978?
Hell no....their bigotry towards blacks was just couched in their religious teachings....it was still bigotry.....just as the bigots who preach against SSM.
 
From what I can see, this is pretty clearcut. In Pennsylvania, SSM is banned. The clerk's morals or intentions are irrelevant to the law. What he did was illegal and he has no standing in court. I also think that any case he brings will HURT SSM as it is based on a violation of law. There are other good ways to change the ban. This ain't one.
 
I can't wait to hear the cries of "activist judges" from the right...oh wait

The Libbos say there aren't activist judges and that judges can't do any wrong.
 
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.

:cry: they aren't tolerating my intolerance! :cry:
 
The Libbos say there aren't activist judges and that judges can't do any wrong.

Find even one post saying such. One. Anywhere. I dare you to try and find one.
 
This from someone who repeatedly does this:



Hypocrisy.

The guy that never confronts the folks who claim all Conservatives are racists and calls them Republitards...speaking of hypocrisy.
 
The guy that never confronts the folks who claim all Conservatives are racists and calls them Republitards...speaking of hypocrisy.

I see you would prefer to ignore what I said then admit you were being a hypocrite. Doesn't surprise me at all.
 
I see you would prefer to ignore what I said then admit you were being a hypocrite. Doesn't surprise me at all.

Think I give a **** what all those Libbos think? BTW, am I the topic...moderator?
 
Think I give a **** what all those Libbos think? BTW, am I the topic...moderator?

YOU made a comment about someone's post. I demonstrated how your comment was hypocritical. That's called "debate" apdst.
 
YOU made a comment about someone's post. I demonstrated how your comment was hypocritical. That's called "debate" apdst.

Um, no, that's not what you're doing. You're acting as if you're in the basement and making personal attacks upon another forum member, believing that you can do what you want since you're a moderator.
 
Um, no, that's not what you're doing. You're acting as if you're in the basement and making personal attacks upon another forum member, believing that you can do what you want since you're a moderator.

Do you want me to diagram what happened? You commented that someone made a "kindergarten" statement. I showed that you were being hypocritical because of a statement YOU made. You didn't like being called out on it so, YOU decided to make it personal in post #91. Now, I certainly could have responded by posting times I have gone after liberals who have made dumb overgeneralizations, but that would have been taking your bait and derailing the thread. So I pointed out how you didn't address what I said. Nothing personal. Just showing the hypocrisy of what you said.

So tell me apdst... are we done here?
 
Why do you think I answer to you?

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

Are you now a moderator, than go after another poster, too?

No im not a mod. And there was nothing to moderate. The rules of the board were not infarcted upon.
 
Do you want me to diagram what happened? You commented that someone made a "kindergarten" statement. I showed that you were being hypocritical because of a statement YOU made. You didn't like being called out on it so, YOU decided to make it personal in post #91. Now, I certainly could have responded by posting times I have gone after liberals who have made dumb overgeneralizations, but that would have been taking your bait and derailing the thread. So I pointed out how you didn't address what I said. Nothing personal. Just showing the hypocrisy of what you said.

So tell me apdst... are we done here?

You're the only one doing anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom