• 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

He seems pretty popular but I don't live in your state.
Seems like he's done an OK job.

One of the fairly prominent issues heard on the local radio news/talk station for the past 5 years or so in the area I live has been the state of Harrisburg's finances. That seems to be clearing up over the past year, though I'm unsure whether it's in any way due to something the Governor did...

It should be noted that the station in question is located in the city.
 
This is the opinion I was speaking of. Supporting SSM and what you think about civil marriage does not go hand in hand.
Um....if you support the concept and practice of civil marriage, you do not denigrate the civil law it represents by calling the license issued "a piece of paper". It makes no sense to supposedly support SSM while putting down the law and structure that makes it possible.

It is not "opinion", it is a matter of logic. What comes out of the horses mouth is contradictory....ie it is not believable.

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.
"Rights" are a matter of civil law, marriage is a civil contract, it is completely exclusive to argue there should not be civil marriage in the first place, and the con we are discussing has not expressed the idea that she rejects civil marriage....in the first place.
 
Last edited:
This is the result of people who are lazy and do not take the effort, time and energy to make their case to the public to earn their vote instead judge shop till they find a political appointed one of the same stripes to shove it through for them.

This assumes that everyone thinks rationally and reasonably when presented with information. They don't. Especially when it comes to information that contradicts beliefs they already hold.

Individuals are smart (or can be), people are stupid, especially in large numbers.
 
Seems like he's done an OK job.

One of the fairly prominent issues heard on the local radio news/talk station for the past 5 years or so in the area I live has been the state of Harrisburg's finances. That seems to be clearing up over the past year, though I'm unsure whether it's in any way due to something the Governor did...

It should be noted that the station in question is located in the city.

I hear pretty decent things about him. I suspect some people in the state will be pissed that he sacrificed what he says are his own personal views on SSM but I also suspect he's smart enough to realize that it can be appealed from now until doomsday but it won't get overturned anyway.

The bitter clingers in your state will continue to support him in the end.
 
In their minds, that's exactly what they were doing.

The ones in CA who voted for Prop 8 were mostly religious people, based on the exit polls. Apparently it was their religion that caused them to vote as they did. I would need to see some evidence that their votes were based on an intent to ignore individual liberties.

And in the minds of those who would vote to kill anyone proclaiming to be a witch or even homosexual, or to stone to death adulterers or rape victims who didn't scream loud enough when in a city, they could easily see these things as "voting to express their religious beliefs". Those are all religious beliefs I can find in just the Bible. And there are plenty of people out there who take all parts of the Bible seriously, as the absolute word of God, none of it to be ignored or even considered "obsolete". Get enough of these people together in one place, and you can have votes that do these things. That is why we are not governed mainly by direct democracy, but rather by a constitutional republic. The most important part being the constitution part, because that is what protects people from being subject to the whim/vote of the majority in way that can harm them or at least cause them hardship or to be treated unfairly within the law (which goes against the main principles of at least the US Constitution).
 
I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.

You can ban prayer the same way that you can ban things like sodomy, enforcement when discovered. Even if you only pray in your shower, you can get caught. It would be very difficult to enforce, particularly if that is the only thing you are going after a person for, but not impossible.

For instance, in Mapp v. Ohio, Mapp was arrested and convicted of possessing "obscene" material (basically pornography) that was found in her house during an illegal search. The case actually was a landmark decision that established that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against people. But, I am using it to show that plenty of things can be outlawed, even if they are in your home.

Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason we don't need the government's approval to pray in our showers, or anywhere else for that matter on an individual basis, is because of the US Constitution and enforcement of that Constitution by the SCOTUS.
 
Ah.

Missed that.

Maybe he's NOT against it then. Wonder if he'll get re-elected?

Nah, continues to claim it's "against his personal views" (with any politician, god knows where the truth lies) but doesn't want to waste more state funds defending unconstitutional law that has no chance of winning. That's his way out

If anything, asshole governors like snyder in michigan should be voted out after the massive (geographic wise) state is *last* in spending on roads - so bad some bridges have been declared by engineers to be irreparable - yet he throws away state $ appealing the court's ruling to throw out an illegal law that affects its supporters in no way whatsoever.
 
Correct, short of following people into their bedrooms. That didn't work so well, did it?

Actually, it worked against at least some people. Had Lawrence and Garner not appealed their case all the way up to the SCOTUS, they would have been considered criminals, just as Bowers was for violating state laws against sodomy. In fact, many people have a criminal record just from charges of sodomy prior to 2003.

Lawrence v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bowers v. Hardwick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bowers actually found such laws to be constitutional, showing that they were in fact enforceable and were even being enforced, at least against some people.

Heck, the only thing it took in the Lawrence case to make the discovery was a ticked off lover/boyfriend/whatever (even a neighbor could do it) to call and report a "suspicious" person or some crime they claim happened and that would be more than enough for the police to act on, even to enter the house and be able to use any evidence of other crimes being committed within that house against someone. It is known as the "good faith exception" within the law. If the police don't/didn't know that the person reporting a crime were lying, then they are within their right to act and to use evidence found in that act.
 
That's what I posted.

if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.
Proven?

A few pages ago you labeled Judge Walkers decision as "just an opinion", denigrating it.

Suddenly, now....such things are "proof"!

That is some consistency....not a contradiction....in terms....at all.
 
Proven?

A few pages ago you labeled Judge Walkers decision as "just an opinion", denigrating it.

Suddenly, now....such things are "proof"!

That is some consistency....not a contradiction....in terms....at all.

The good news is with any luck the SCOTUS will agree with you & me, and SSM will be made legal throughout this country, and then you will be cleared to marry your boyfriend in whatever state in the southwest you live in. I will be very happy for you when that happens, gimme, because I think every adult should be able to marry whomever he chooses.
 
The good news is with any luck the SCOTUS will agree with you & me, and SSM will be made legal throughout this country, and then you will be cleared to marry your boyfriend in whatever state in the southwest you live in. I will be very happy for you when that happens, gimme, because I think every adult should be able to marry whomever he chooses.
There you are, using homosexuality as an insult (and you are, since the vast majority of your posts to me are attempts to insult).

And this comes as a result of simply pointing out, once again, a contradiction of yours.
 
There you are, using homosexuality as an insult (and you are, since the vast majority of your posts to me are attempts to insult).

And this comes as a result of simply pointing out, once again, a contradiction of yours.

I know a few gay people and they aren't insulted when discussing their preference of same sex versus opposite sex. You're insulted when people assume you're gay? Interesting.

Have you got some friends to go out with tonight so you can get your mind off me for a little while? I worry about you. But my husband and I have plans tonight and I can't give you all my attention for much longer.
 
I know a few gay people and they aren't insulted when discussing their preference of same sex versus opposite sex. You're insulted when people assume you're gay? Interesting.
No, I said you attempted to insult by labeling someone as homosexual. The application of the label towards someone who has not expressed their orientation is usually done to insult....and again, your posts to me are 100% meant to insult, it is not in your nature to compliment me.....so yes, it is a clear attempt to smear. It is High School chit, and it is so weird seeing someone nearly the same age as me, who claims to have gay friends, who claims to be pro-SSM, act like this.

Have you got some friends to go out with tonight so you can get your mind off me for a little while? I worry about you. But my husband and I have plans tonight and I can't give you all my attention for much longer.
Again, everything is personal for you, you can't stay focused on the point, your ARGUMENT......instead, it is personal.....so you try to use homosexuality as an insult, you make this about "obsession".....you get all defensive....in the wrong way.....because you cannot defend your ARGUMENT.
 
No, I said you attempted to insult by labeling someone as homosexual. The application of the label towards someone who has not expressed their orientation is usually done to insult....and again, your posts to me are 100% meant to insult, it is not in your nature to compliment me.....so yes, it is a clear attempt to smear. It is High School chit, and it is so weird seeing someone nearly the same age as me, who claims to have gay friends, who claims to be pro-SSM, act like this.


Again, everything is personal for you, you can't stay focused on the point, your ARGUMENT......instead, it is personal.....so you try to use homosexuality as an insult, you make this about "obsession".....you get all defensive....in the wrong way.....because you cannot defend your ARGUMENT.

Wow. You just insulted a whole lot of gay people by telling them that acknowledging their lifestyle is now an insult.

Grab that beer quick. You need it.
 
Wow. You just insulted a whole lot of gay people by telling them that acknowledging their lifestyle is now an insult.

Grab that beer quick. You need it.
Calling someone a homosexual without knowing anything about their sexuality, and you know nothing about me in that regard, is always done to insult, and is not an acknowledging of anything....since again, you know nothing about me in this regard, nor have I expressed it.

It is just juvenile delinquent, sophomoric attempts to get a rise....and it fails.

Hint: Stop trying to make every argument personal....and just deal with your counter-argument.

Check yourself before you totally wreck yourself.
 
Ah.

Missed that.

Maybe he's NOT against it then. Wonder if he'll get re-elected?

Oh he is against still as far as i know, he's made no statement otherwise

I hardley doubt he gets reelected unless somethign horrible comes out about his opponents
 
Oh he is against still as far as i know, he's made no statement otherwise

I hardley doubt he gets reelected unless somethign horrible comes out about his opponents
He's against it but not contesting the ruling...trying to have it both ways? Not piss off the pro-SSM types by contesting, but can still say he opposes it to those who are against it?

Then again, I think most people in PA just don't give a damn about stopping it...what's the point? If you're opposed to SSM, you very probably aren't homosexual, so...how does it effect you?

It might just be that I don't know anyone overtly opposed...
Personally, I think most people who dislike the idea of SSM tend to think "meh, it's their business".

If he's trying to appeal to those persons, it might be a good move.



Edit: On another note, I just realized you live in Pittsburgh...shows how observant I am...coincidentally I have a RL friend who lives there.
 
That's what I posted.

if they are proven to be unconstitutional, they end up getting overturned.

I know. I agreed with your earlier statement, and was agreeing that the alternative was silly.
 
Too bad in the eyes of the law this is irrelevant because "separation of church and state" and all

Amazing you can't get this simple concept. Move to saudi arabia if you want to live in theocracy


You DO realize that there is no reference to keeping the Church and State seperate in our Constitution, right ?
 
You DO realize that there is no reference to keeping the Church and State seperate in our Constitution, right ?

Of course. But you guys always claim intention of the founding fathers is important, right?
 
Of course. But you guys always claim intention of the founding fathers is important, right?

What our founding fathers wanted is explicitly contained in our Constitution.

You guys need to stop confusing the establishment clause with this whole seperation of church and state rhetoric.
 
What our founding fathers wanted is explicitly contained in our Constitution.

You guys need to stop confusing the establishment clause with this whole separation of church and state rhetoric.
I always thought of the establishment clause as keeping state out of churches business.

It has been expanded over time to mean "there is state, there is church, and never the twain shall meet"...or something...



Personally I think complete separation is ideal. Because we humans cannot be trusted to govern well if we directly involve religion in doing so.
 
What our founding fathers wanted is explicitly contained in our Constitution.

You guys need to stop confusing the establishment clause with this whole seperation of church and state rhetoric.

What you mean by "you guys" is Thomas Jefferson, right? Because he's the guy who actually used the phrase.

T.J. said:
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
 
Last edited:
1.)He's against it but not contesting the ruling...trying to have it both ways? Not piss off the pro-SSM types by contesting, but can still say he opposes it to those who are against it?
2.)Then again, I think most people in PA just don't give a damn about stopping it...what's the point?
3.) If you're opposed to SSM, you very probably aren't homosexual, so...how does it effect you?
4.)It might just be that I don't know anyone overtly opposed...
5.)Personally, I think most people who dislike the idea of SSM tend to think "meh, it's their business".
6.)If he's trying to appeal to those persons, it might be a good move.
7.)Edit: On another note, I just realized you live in Pittsburgh...shows how observant I am...coincidentally I have a RL friend who lives there.

1.) i dont think that is having it both ways at all. I know lots of people that are against it but they would never be ignorant, hypocritical and selfish enough to deny others rights. In that regard he is doing the right thing.
Now I dont know him so this might be somethign disingenuous but its still the right move on the surface.
Theres lots im probably against but i wouldnt deny them to others.
2.) I know some but not many, they are certainly the minority and that includes the large amount of Church/religious people that talk of these issues. But as the old joke goes you have Pittsburgh(west pa) and Philly (East Pa) then you have west Virginia in the middle, so "stereo typically" I dont know.

Im just a little south of Pittsburgh and thats how it is as far as I can tell around here

3.) agreed that question has been asked many times by me and others and theres never been a sound answer given
4.) probably, many people are educated and honest enough to respect rights first rather then blind emotion or feelings
5.) thats what i have encountered and its the logical way to be on this issue
6.) Maybe but I think he is out eitherway

7.) Sure do been here the majority of my life go family spread out though. RL?
 
Back
Top Bottom