• 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!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

the media is definitely seeing this as a win for the gay side. Every news site I go on has the required picture of the two guys holding hands with huge smiles like they just separated the atom or something.
 
That was my mistake, I meant to type the 13th amendment. The 14th does not include sexual orientation. The SCOTUS and lower courts can try to shoehorn it in, but it's just another failure of oath when they do so.

Nope, it was about INTERRACIAL marriage. Ignoring that detail isn't helping your argument.

There's a difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. You are right when you argue that these cases had to do with interracial marriage, and in the case of the constitutional amendment, I very much doubt that homosexuality even crossed their mind when they were thinking of "equality". The issue here is that there was underlying message that was conveyed through these rulings. And that was the idea that it wasn't fair to treat one group of people differently than another under the laws of the land. That's where proponents of SSM (such as myself) would argue just as it wasn't right to discriminate based on race, neither is it right to discriminate on the basis on sexual orientation. If we truly believe as a nation that all men (people) are created equal, should they not ALL be treated equally under the law?

The beauty of the Founding Fathers and the founding of this Nation, was the principles that is stood for were so grandiose, but at the time, I doubt even they could truly comprehend the meaning of those words they laid down. For instance, freedom of religion is one of the most important freedoms we have in this country. It's the very reason why many of the colonist came to the new world. However, for those men, when they thought of freedom of religion, they were thinking of freedom to worship as a Christian as they chose. I doubt very many fighting on the battles of the Revolutionary War even knew what a Muslim, a Hindu or a Buddhist even were! That hasn't stopped us today though from extending the same protections that the various Protestant sects of Christianity enjoy to those other faiths has it?

My guiding principle in all thing politics is the immortal line from the DoI: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness". But at the time it was written, that line couldn't have it's full meaning because of the world they lived in. It wasn't just the blacks either that weren't treated fairly, hell women had to wait another 50 or 60 years after they slaves were freed for their chance to vote! Thankfully though we don't live in those times, and we can now appreciate those words and do our best to carry out what I believe the founding father wanted all along... freedom and equal treatment for all.

I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.

The above if for you as well
 
the media is definitely seeing this as a win for the gay side. Every news site I go on has the required picture of the two guys holding hands with huge smiles like they just separated the atom or something.

Because so far, as far as I know, all the courts are siding with them. For SCOTUS not to review the case, is a passive endorsement of the lower courts rulings on the the matter. I do think that should a couple who is recognized in one state, move to one that doesn't, that's when it will have to be seen by SCOTUS.
 
And there are lower courts to deal with the issue in those states. I'm sorry things are moving too slowly for you, but the Supreme Court docket is full of cases where people claim to be having their rights denied, and there is actual conflict in the lower courts requiring resolution.

marriage is a fundamental right. it's pretty important for the highest court in the land to prioritize that when a fundamental right is being denied in some states. they completely screwed up in deciding not to hear the case.
 
There's a bunch I agree with there Hamster, however, gotta say, Muslims were well known to the founders. The luminaries among them were deists more than Christians of the day. They followed the forms, attending church and such, and believed in God, but were neither Christian or Catholic in their private writings.
 
marriage is a fundamental right. it's pretty important for the highest court in the land to prioritize that when a fundamental right is being denied in some states. they completely screwed up in deciding not to hear the case.

Another SCOTUS edict that has no constitutional foundation.
 
Here’s What Marriage Equality Looks Like After The Supreme Court’s Action Today

2ytp9pe.png

This map shows exactly what happened with the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to not hear the pending marriage equality cases.

Here’s What Marriage Equality Looks Like After The Supreme Court’s Action Today
 
The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.

Promoting and sanctioning marriage for one group and denying the same protections to another group is a violation of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. The government has no right to handpick who gets certain protections and who does not.
 
marriage is a fundamental right. it's pretty important for the highest court in the land to prioritize that when a fundamental right is being denied in some states. they completely screwed up in deciding not to hear the case.

I don't think marriage is so much a fundamental right (you don't have to be married you know), but I do think that if government is going to already be involved with marriage, it is fundamental that they ensure a fair and equal playing field.
 
Another SCOTUS edict that has no constitutional foundation.

marriage as a right predates the US Constitution...just as the right to self defense.

9th amendment... not all rights are enumerated in the constitution.
 
marriage as a right that predates the US Constitution...just as the right to self protection.

9th amendment... not all rights are enumerated in the constitution.

There's also something to be said about the rights of the minority here. After all, I doubt you'd really need protections for things like speech and the press, if you are only going to be speaking in glowing terms about whoever is in power at the moment.
 
I don't really follow the SSM scene much but, are there any states where the courts have upheld local laws banning SSM?

A state judge in Louisiana did but he does not have authority over federal courts so his ruling was more symbolic.

There are some lower federal courts that have stayed state bans, but their rulings are under appeal in higher US Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Most of the challenges to SSM are out of the lower courts and the States are appealing over-turning the bans in the US Circuit Courts of appeal.
 
marriage as a right predates the US Constitution...just as the right to self defense.

9th amendment... not all rights are enumerated in the constitution.

No, it doesn't, and to whom specifically do those unremunerated rights fall to? The STATES and the PEOPLE, not the federal.
 
There's also something to be said about the rights of the minority here. After all, I doubt you'd really need protections for things like speech and the press, if you are only going to be speaking in glowing terms about whoever is in power at the moment.

I don't quite understand how the rights of the minority are in conflict with marriage, speech, or press.
 
No, it doesn't, and to whom specifically do those unremunerated rights fall to? The STATES and the PEOPLE, not the federal.

What do you mean it doesn't?

Did people marry before the Constitution was signed...surely you are not suggesting that the US Constitution was needed for persons to marry.
 
I don't really follow the SSM scene much but, are there any states where the courts have upheld local laws banning SSM?

Not anymore...
"The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court's order effectively makes gay marriage legal now in 30 states." Court clears the way for gay marriage expansion
 
marriage is a fundamental right. it's pretty important for the highest court in the land to prioritize that when a fundamental right is being denied in some states. they completely screwed up in deciding not to hear the case.
Not a good enough reason. There are thousands of cases filed each year in federal court that involve fundamental rights.
 
marriage is a fundamental right. it's pretty important for the highest court in the land to prioritize that when a fundamental right is being denied in some states. they completely screwed up in deciding not to hear the case.

Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
 
What do you mean it doesn't?

Did people marry before the Constitution was signed...surely you are not suggesting that the US Constitution was needed for persons to marry.

Yes, they did, but it was subject to the existing state's licensing requirements. It was not a right. And I am suggesting no such thing. I am clearly stating that marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution but what is, is that any unremunerated rights pass directly, not to the fed to decide, but the states and the people.
 
Promoting and sanctioning marriage for one group and denying the same protections to another group is a violation of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. The government has no right to handpick who gets certain protections and who does not.
Yes, that's what the plaintiffs argue.
 
Back
Top Bottom