• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Here's part of the ruling: I'd say the guy is knee deep in the marriage controversy and should have recused himself. IMHO

I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was' these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today' s political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1986 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a "millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers, 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "dad ... that is so gay."

It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.

It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.

My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.

Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other ... and rise.

Ive read the ruling and i have posted parts of it thanks. Have you read the other many rullings. They echo this in many ways and they werent gay.
there nothing in it that supports you

the bolded red is all you needed to say.
You have no support for your reasoning its just your opinion cause he is gay and nothing else.
I agree its just your OPINION and one that cant be supported. Thanks for admitting that.
 
are you telling me 3200+ judges have recently ruled that marriage is not a right and the 14th doesnt apply in america?
please list those cases we'll wait

your post fails again

Nice reimagining of my posts, inaccurate and a massive fail, but creative. :lamo
 
what is amazing to me is how these judges take a narrow supreme court ruling misinterprit it into something they never said and then shoot down every other law based on their misinterpritation.
 
Ive read the ruling and i have posted parts of it thanks. Have you read the other many rullings. They echo this in many ways and they werent gay.
there nothing in it that supports you

the bolded red is all you needed to say.
You have no support for your reasoning its just your opinion cause he is gay and nothing else.
I agree its just your OPINION and one that cant be supported. Thanks for admitting that.

I shouldn't have gone to the trouble of finding that. It's a complete waste of time dealing with your insolence.

Take your "please" and shove it.
 
Ive read the ruling and i have posted parts of it thanks. Have you read the other many rullings. They echo this in many ways and they werent gay.
there nothing in it that supports you

the bolded red is all you needed to say.
You have no support for your reasoning its just your opinion cause he is gay and nothing else.
I agree its just your OPINION and one that cant be supported. Thanks for admitting that.

Do you think the judge was completely impartial (which is one of the reasons for recusal)?

Before you go ballistic on me, remember that I am pro-gay marriage (and pro-polygamist and pro-sibling marriage as well).
 
1.)Yeah yeah.. But you cannot be pro-choice and still be for human rights..
2.) Plus near as I can tell you do not support polygamy marriage -or- incestuous marriage.
3.) Doesn't seem consistent to me if this is the case, unless of course you do support those other types of consensual marriage? 4.)
As to pro human rights, well that whole pro-choice thingy kinda slaps in the face of that mantra..
4.)And THAT is factually correct. ;)


Tim-

1.) yes i know you have this opinion, its meanignless to me since nothing factually agrees with it.
2.) false i support polygamy 100% as long as its consensual adults entering into a contract. They are free to fight for that new right and id support them. so you are wrong again and its not an equal rights issue it would be a new rights issue.
Incestuous marriage? also would be fine with if the science says its ok. NOT YOU. science or even if science didnt support them and they were simply not allowed to have children if it was a high risk situation. The Amish in PA have a huge problem with this right now. But again I support in ways that line up with EQUAL rights. ALso many states already allow it to degrees of science/medical saftey so again i would support this new right with reason.
3.) see here comes the dishonesty, its about EQUAL rights not just consent. another fail
4.) as already proven, wrong again and your made up fantasies completely fail
4.) actually, as usually, you just provide yourself wrong and destroyed your own post, I LOVE IT. thanks again!

now do you have anything on topic or are just interested in showing how your humorous false opinions about me completely fail

again please stay on topic. Im not the topic nor is your false and failed opinions about me. thank you :)
 
Do you believe that the actions of many of the left leaning politicians, including requiring people to buy healthcare insurance and trying to make it difficult to buy cigarettes, sweets & soda, etc. are demonstrating a desire to stay out of your life?

I believe that anyone can call himself anything but anyone who advocates for more laws is no liberal, my opinion. Left, maybe, but a lot of what I believe is called 'right', and I'm not conflicted at all about calling myself liberal.
That said, I don't think stores should be allowed to sell smokes to kids.
 
Nice reimagining of my posts, inaccurate and a massive fail, but creative. :lamo

translation: you got no defense for your failed comment
30+ federal judges disagree with your false assessment

let me know when you can support it, thanks lol
 
That's just the thing, if you believe what you say you do, you've not been liberal all your life. Wanting government to leave you alone is not a liberal position. Unless of course you're claiming to be one of selfish liberals that are fine with the government sticking their noses in everyone else's business, as long as YOU are left alone.

Wrong. Try again.
 
I believe that anyone can call himself anything but anyone who advocates for more laws is no liberal, my opinion. Left, maybe, but a lot of what I believe is called 'right', and I'm not conflicted at all about calling myself liberal.
That said, I don't think stores should be allowed to sell smokes to kids.

I don't think kids should be allowed to buy cigs either. I was talking about adults.

I think adults should be allowed to buy weed in stores, personally.
 
Sounds more like a confused Libertarian. ;)

No confusion here. You sure you've got your definitions right?
 
I shouldn't have gone to the trouble of finding that. It's a complete waste of time dealing with your insolence.

Take your "please" and shove it.

again let us know when you can defend your unsupportable statement
not our fault your statement completely fails and the best support you could post was the ruling. A ruling that mirrors in many ways most of the other rulings made by straight judges but some how THIS one is magically different. Educated and honest people simply dont buy it.
 
1.)Do you think the judge was completely impartial (which is one of the reasons for recusal)?

2.)Before you go ballistic on me, remember that I am pro-gay marriage (and pro-polygamist and pro-sibling marriage as well).

1.) have no clue what was going on in his head so i cant factually answer. But I will.
nor do i the other 60+ judges that have ruled similarly, 30+ federal.

But since his ruling matches all those other ones and EVERYONE since the fail of DOMA id say logically he ruled impartially. I see no logic to think otherwise unless im going to wonder about ALL judges. theres nothign that makes this one stand out.

2.) i never go ballistic in here its a message board lol
also regardless of what a poster is doesnt matter to me. I respect honesty and logic.
theres nothing wrong with your question its a fair one.

the point is your question can be asked about every single judge for every case :shrug:
so to bring this up for this case is silly when its not brought up for every other.
 
Actually, no on that last. It took less than four years. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the constitution and federal law was silent on the issue of interracial marriage. The Loving decision came in 1967.

Wrong. There was a California case involving racial marriage called Perez v. Sharp which was decided in 1947.
 
1.) gay marriage as been around for this long also lol
2.) religion is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage
3.) see #2
4.) nobody is redefining it the MAJORITY want equal rights.
5.) sorry tons of conservatives also want equal rights too
6 &7.) your meaningless opinion that has nothing to do with equal rights and legal marriage
8.) see #2
9.) also meaningless to the topic
10.) factually false since gay marriage existed before our great great great grandparents were even around
11.) i agree wow is right, wow that you think any of that matters to equal rights and legal marriage in this country.

Wait, your saying Gay marriage has been around for millilenia ? And has been accepted on a large scale as a normal and ethical alternative to Conventional definitions of marriage ?

Lol.....Please, provide some data to support your claims.

And my post wasn't about "eaual rights".

Its about societal evolution and how regardless of Religion, Race, Culture ot Nationality, the definition of marriage has always been consistent.

A man and a women.

Its also about how different millenia old societies, seperated by Ocean and Land evolved their own set of ethics and morals.

And even though they had no contact, they all reached a Consensus on what was most beneficial for their group.

And it was a distinct definition of Marriage between a man and a women.

Now, a minority, a small activist minority is forcing their definition of Marriage on the Majority.

Forcing them to consider and accept a bastardized definition of marriage not supported by thousands of years of societal evolution.
 
Wait, your saying Gay marriage has been around for millilenia ? And has been accepted on a large scale as a normal and ethical alternative to Conventional definitions of marriage ?

Lol.....Please, provide some data to support your claims.

And my post wasn't about "eaual rights".

Its about societal evolution and how regardless of Religion, Race, Culture ot Nationality, the definition of marriage has always been consistent.

A man and a women.

Its also about how different millenia old societies, seperated by Ocean and Land evolved their own set of ethics and morals.

And even though they had no contact, they all reached a Consensus on what was most beneficial for their group.

And it was a distinct definition of Marriage between a man and a women.

Now, a minority, a small activist minority is forcing their definition of Marriage on the Majority.

Forcing them to consider and accept a bastardized definition of marriage not supported by thousands of years of societal evolution.


History has shown us countless times that great societies never die by the sword of a foe, but rather, they fall on their own sword.


Tim-
 
Wrong. There was a California case involving racial marriage called Perez v. Sharp which was decided in 1947.

Thanks for confirming my point. If you've been following the thread you'd see what I mean.
 
1.)Wait, your saying Gay marriage has been around for millilenia ?
2.) And has been accepted on a large scale as a normal and ethical alternative to Conventional definitions of marriage ?
3.)Lol.....Please, provide some data to support your claims.
4.)And my post wasn't about "eaual rights".
5.)Its about societal evolution and how regardless of Religion, Race, Culture ot Nationality, the definition of marriage has always been consistent.
A man and a women.

6.)Its also about how different millenia old societies, seperated by Ocean and Land evolved their own set of ethics and morals.
7.) And even though they had no contact, they all reached a Consensus on what was most beneficial for their group.
And it was a distinct definition of Marriage between a man and a women.

8.) Now, a minority, a small activist minority is forcing their definition of Marriage on the Majority.
9.) Forcing them to consider and accept a bastardized definition of marriage not supported by thousands of years of societal evolution.

1.) no "im" not saying anything, facts and history say so
2.) also never said its been around large scale, since thier a minority it never will be nor does it matter lol
please try to keep up
3.) my claims are easy, the failed straw men you made up thats YOUR job not mine. Starwman wont work and will only continue in your posts failing.
4.) whether you like it not not it factually is.
5.) your opinion on this is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage. This could have been said about womens, minority or religious rights at times too, its all meaningless
6.) your opinion on this is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage.
7.) your opinion on this is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage.
8.) 100% factually false the majority of americans support equal rights, secondly nothing is FORCED on anybody and lastly majority/minority . . . wait for it . . . . is meanignless to equal rights and legal marriage
9.) sorry there is no force to accept or consider what your opinion of equal rights is.

let me know when you have somethign factual and relevant to equal rights and legal marriage, please and thank you
 
I'm confused, Agent. You're saying gay marriage has been around for years, going back generations? Where?
 
I'm confused, Agent. You're saying gay marriage has been around for years, going back generations? Where?

again, I dont say it, history and facts do.

theres records of gay marriage existing throughout deep history. Posters have posted links to this info many times, usually when somebody tries to sell the lie its brand new. The best part is it doesnt matter that they are factually wrong or even if they were right, neither of them mean anythign to equal rights and legal marriage

history
tradition
religion
morals
ethics
feelings
sin
etc etc are all meanings to equal rights and legal marriage, they have no impact. All the strawmen fail over and over again
 
Kal, Kal, you KNOW that's not true right? You MUST know that even clones would have genetic drift and random mutations. Surely you KNOW this. Further, there is some research that suggests that in the future, and when we finally get to a point where Eugenics will be a reality (Which it will) we will be able to design our offspring however we choose. Incest, although repulsive (Kind of ironic since most people up until this latest push by gays to shame anyone that is verbally repulsed by gay sex, were indeed repulsed by gay sex as well) and taboo, isn't taboo for science sake. In fact I'd say that science or any harmful effects of familial breeding are nonsense and demonstrably not true. In other words, much like gay rights advocates use the "what harm does it cause", mantra, the same exact argument can be said of consensual incestuous relationships. Mother, son, brother sister, sister father.. What a brave new world eh?

Tim-

The Habsburg royal family of Europe. Wanna see what generations of incest lead to?

Charles II of Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extinction of a whole line of a family as well as the rule over a powerful country by a (literally) sterile retard.
 
again let us know when you can defend your unsupportable statement
not our fault your statement completely fails and the best support you could post was the ruling. A ruling that mirrors in many ways most of the other rulings made by straight judges but some how THIS one is magically different. Educated and honest people simply dont buy it.

Seriously? I have to put up with that sort of attack from someone who can't (or won't) use correct sentence structure and capitalization?

Did your education extend past kindergarten?
 
History has shown us countless times that great societies never die by the sword of a foe, but rather, they fall on their own sword.


Tim-

Yes.

The naivete and just generic stupidity of Liberals sometimes just astound me.

Their obsessions, ideas and twisted world viewd that are all based upon their short amount of time on this earth should take precedence over Millennia of Societal norms and morality.

And they're getting their Way by basically bullying everyone into accepting their positions.

Your a " bigot " or your'e a hater or your Homophobic.

A alternate or opposing opinion not only wont be tolerated but they will actively seek you out and try to damage your credibility or get you fired.

And they're the Minority ! A Small minority at that !

They think this strategy is going to work. Its going to backfire and then some.

In just a few years they're trying to change long held Societal definitions and long held moral and ethical standards.

They're calling the Billions of people that have existed before us, in Societies and Cultures all over the World throughout History Bigots ! Haters and homophobes.
 
Seriously? I have to put up with that sort of attack from someone who can't (or won't) use correct sentence structure and capitalization?

Did your education extend past kindergarten?

Weird I dont see anything in here that supports your failed claim. Deflections and failed attacks wont work, they just further expose the lack of support for your post.
Let us know when you have something to support your opinion. Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom