• 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

tres borrachos said:
Two faced means I wasn't being honest. I was.
Click to expand...
I am questioning your honesty.....since your statements contradict.

A marriage license is a piece of paper giving legality to a union.
Click to expand...
It is a civil contract, not a "prayer".


I never in my 50+ years on this Earth have known anyone who got married and when asked why they were getting married, gave "The Consitutional allowed me to get married" as their reason for marrying.
Click to expand...
Straw, no one said they did.


I married my husband because I fell in love with him and wanted to spend my life with him, not because we were Consitutionally allowed to marry or because we could enter into a civil contract.
Click to expand...
But...you did get your marriage recognized by the state.....to gain legal protection for your union.

Why do I fascinate you so much?
Click to expand...
I keep telling, your contradictions are hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
I am questioning your honesty.....since your statements contradict.

A marriage license is a piece of paper giving legality to a union. I never in my 50+ years on this Earth have known anyone who got married and when asked why they were getting married, gave "The Consitutional allowed me to get married" as their reason for marrying. I married my husband because I fell in love with him and wanted to spend my life with him, not because we were Consitutionally allowed to marry or because we could enter into a civil contract.

Why do I fascinate you so much?
Click to expand...

Hey, whatever floats your boat. I don't have enough time on my hands and my life is too busy to try to get people who agree with me to argue with me at the same time.

I hope you have a great Memorial Day weekend with your loved ones.
 
Amandi said:
That is your opinion.
Click to expand...
No, I am quoting and paraphrasing her comments....that is a fact...not opinion. Reducing civil contracts and the concepts behind them to "pieces of paper" is not a path to supporting SSM.
 
Amandi said:
That is your opinion. Mine is as long as she would vote for SSM she is supporting it. That is all legal mariage is to me too, a piece of paper that grants the couple to handle some legal matters as one person. Also, a person could support same sex marriage and still think it isnt a constitutional issue. People have different opinions and you wont change them by accusing them of doing things or calling them names.
Click to expand...

Apparently with some posters, you're only allowed to have an opinion that mirrors their opinion if the reasons for your opinion are exactly the same as the reason for their opinion.

I'll have to try that in my real life and see how it works. If my husband & I are selecting draperies and we both agree to buy the purple drapes, and my reason is because they look good with the wall color but his reason is because they are a mix of his favorite colors red & blue, I need to argue with him anyway.
 
tres borrachos said:
Correct, short of following people into their bedrooms. That didn't work so well, did it?
Click to expand...

DIdnt stop them from making the laws...something absolutely intrusive and no business of the govt or other people.

Yet an organization in the state could legally get enough sigs on a petition and get it on a ballot. (very possible).

Then people of the state could vote on it. My understanding of your position on this is that if the people decided to vote sodomy was illegal, then that would become the law (enforceable or not).

Or use sugar as another example. What if an organization got enough sigs on a petition to make it illegal to sell candy, period. (Not all that remote, look at sugary drink size in NYC). If the majority of voters voted to outlaw candy....is that right? Do they have the right to make that choice for everyone in the city or state?


I'm not asking you to agree...I'm asking you to explain it from your perspective of an American and free will and personal liberty.
 
Lursa said:
DIdnt stop them from making the laws...something absolutely intrusive and no business of the govt or other people.

Yet an organization in the state could legally get enough sigs on a petition and get it on a ballot. (very possible).

Then people of the state could vote on it. My understanding of your position on this is that if the people decided to vote sodomy was illegal, then that would become the law (enforceable or not).

Or use sugar as another example. What if an organization got enough sigs on a petition to make it illegal to sell candy, period. (Not all that remote, look at sugary drink size in NYC). If the majority of voters voted to outlaw candy....is that right? Do they have the right to make that choice for everyone in the city or state?
Click to expand...

We used to have laws on the books that allowed slavery, prohibited women from voting, and prohibited grown ups from drinking alcohol too. We had a lot of crazy laws on the books at one time. I take an optimistic look at life and assume we're past those kinds of laws, and when they do come up, and get voted on, if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.

These days it's a lot harder to get things on ballots unless they are deemed by some people to be Constitutional. Even Consitutional scholars disagree on what's Constitutional and what isn't.

The only way to prevent it is to remove people's rights to vote, and I won't ever support that idea.
 
tres borrachos said:
We used to have laws on the books that allowed slavery, prohibited women from voting, and prohibited grown ups from drinking alcohol too. We had a lot of crazy laws on the books at one time. I take an optimistic look at life and assume we're past those kinds of laws, and when they do come up, and get voted on, if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.

These days it's a lot harder to get things on ballots unless they are deemed by some people to be Constitutional. Even Consitutional scholars disagree on what's Constitutional and what isn't.

The only way to prevent it is to remove people's rights to vote, and I won't ever support that idea.
Click to expand...


No that is what some of us are trying to convey....at the state or city level, things do not have to meet the Constitutional bar. "Anything not in the Const. is left up to the states.'

At the state level, if voters wish to pass legislation that infringes on other people's rights, the STATE needs to show that the legislation is in the best interests of the state...and that *does not mean if the majority wants it.* If people want to vote to outlaw candy and the state doesnt see that it's in the best interests of the state (no good reason for it)....then it does not allow that to go to voters because it enables a majority to infringe unnecessarily on a personal liberty.
 
tres borrachos said:
All judges IMO are "activist" in a way because they're all human and all see things differently. They can't even agree on the interpretation of the Constitution. There will always be rulings we as individuals agree with, and then those we don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Granted, for example i think Scalia is a scumbag. However, odds of someone who made it thru law school being completely clueless and fully injecting personal prejudice into their decisions is much lower than relying on the uneducated masses with these ballots. At least i think so. Pretty much most voters seem aware of "free speech, religion, right to bear arms" and that's about it.
 
chromium said:
Granted, for example i think Scalia is a scumbag. However, odds of someone who made it thru law school being completely clueless and fully injecting personal prejudice into their decisions is much lower than relying on the uneducated masses with these ballots. At least i think so. Pretty much most voters seem aware of "free speech, religion, right to bear arms" and that's about it.
Click to expand...
I suggest you re-think that statement. This is the same Supreme Court which ruled that corporations are people. If there's one thing that the "uneducated masses" know, it's that corporations are not people.

And in the case of "fully injecting" personal prejudice, what do you think judges like Scalia and Thomas are on the Supreme Court for? That's exactly why they've been appointed.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, yes he did. I'm not sure what he was arguing. I know that every citizen has the right to vote. I don't believe there is a caveat to that right that says "if we think you're worthy of this privilege". I would never advocate the idea of limiing a citizen's right to vote because I don't like that person. Would you?
Click to expand...

No, minors and many convicts even after their sentence ends are not allowed to vote. So i suppose you support allowing 10 year olds and murderers to vote. Sorry that i view many adults as having the mentality and capability of many 10 year olds, but that's the reality.

It's hardly because i "don't like that person" either. Voting to abolish a person's constitutional rights in some kind of high school style 50/50 popularity contest is cause for suing/disenfranchising that voter imo. Not that they should be able to in the first place, if our government actually did its job of upholding the constitution.

And yes i know you will say that people disagree on interpreting the constitution, so be it, but Loving v Virginia made this clear enough decades ago. This never should've happened.
 
law said:
I suggest you re-think that statement. This is the same Supreme Court which ruled that corporations are people. If there's one thing that the "uneducated masses" know, it's that corporations are not people.

And in the case of "fully injecting" personal prejudice, what do you think judges like Scalia and Thomas are on the Supreme Court for? That's exactly why they've been appointed.
Click to expand...

Why do you think i mentioned scalia? I said "odds of" not that it *never* happens. 13 fed judges in a row striking down the bigotry of the masses, including the south? And even with scalia the SCOTUS will do the same soon.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, I am quoting and paraphrasing her comments....that is a fact...not opinion. Reducing civil contracts and the concepts behind them to "pieces of paper" is not a path to supporting SSM.
Click to expand...

This is the opinion I was speaking of. Supporting SSM and what you think about civil marriage does not go hand in hand. A lot of Libertarians support the right of people to love who they want and marry them but would prefer their be no civil marriage in the first place. The two ideas are NOT mutually exclusive.
 
chromium said:
No, minors and many convicts even after their sentence ends are not allowed to vote. So i suppose you support allowing 10 year olds and murderers to vote. Sorry that i view many adults as having the mentality and capability of many 10 year olds, but that's the reality.

It's hardly because i "don't like that person" either. Voting to abolish a person's constitutional rights in some kind of high school style 50/50 popularity contest is cause for suing/disenfranchising that voter imo. Not that they should be able to in the first place, if our government actually did its job of upholding the constitution.

And yes i know you will say that people disagree on interpreting the constitution, so be it, but Loving v Virginia made this clear enough decades ago. This never should've happened.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would you think I want 10 year olds and convicts to vote?
 
law said:
I suggest you re-think that statement. This is the same Supreme Court which ruled that corporations are people. If there's one thing that the "uneducated masses" know, it's that corporations are not people.

And in the case of "fully injecting" personal prejudice, what do you think judges like Scalia and Thomas are on the Supreme Court for? That's exactly why they've been appointed.
Click to expand...

You could make the argument that Obama nominated Sotomayor & Kagan for the same reasons.
 
Fenton said:
This redefining of a social construct that transcends millennium old cultural and religious standards will not end well.
Click to expand...

It deeply satisfies me to know that this kind of belief is literally dying out. :)
 
tres borrachos said:
Why on Earth would you think I want 10 year olds and convicts to vote?
Click to expand...

Because you said "I know that every citizen has the right to vote. I don't believe there is a caveat to that right that says "if we think you're worthy of this privilege". I would never advocate the idea of limiing a citizen's right to vote because I don't like that person"

What other possible reason do you have for banning ex cons from voting? I certainly don't see that as more valid or defensible than banning general morons/bigots/uneducated etc
 
That's odd.

I apparently need to check the news more often - I only heard about this yesterday (05/22/2014).
 
chromium said:
Because you said "I know that every citizen has the right to vote. I don't believe there is a caveat to that right that says "if we think you're worthy of this privilege". I would never advocate the idea of limiing a citizen's right to vote because I don't like that person"

What other possible reason do you have for banning ex cons from voting? I certainly don't see that as more valid or defensible than banning general morons/bigots/uneducated etc
Click to expand...

Do you think I don't know that 10 year olds don't have the right to vote?

Citizens who break the law and find themselves incarcerated have lost most of their liberties, the right to vote being one of them.

I really didn't think we needed to make these obvious distinctions.
 
tres borrachos said:
We used to have laws on the books that allowed slavery, prohibited women from voting, and prohibited grown ups from drinking alcohol too. We had a lot of crazy laws on the books at one time. I take an optimistic look at life and assume we're past those kinds of laws, and when they do come up, and get voted on, if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.

These days it's a lot harder to get things on ballots unless they are deemed by some people to be Constitutional. Even Consitutional scholars disagree on what's Constitutional and what isn't.

The only way to prevent it is to remove people's rights to vote, and I won't ever support that idea.
Click to expand...

Or you can just have a judge overturn their unconstitutional ballot measures. Which is what is being done but people keep whining about it!
 
Be interesting to see where this ends up.

If I recall correctly our governor is against it.
 
Deuce said:
Or you can just have a judge overturn their unconstitutional ballot measures. Which is what is being done but people keep whining about it!
Click to expand...

That's what I posted.

if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom