• 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

disneydude said:
LOL....wrong again. As I have pointed out to you, the law in on my side.
Click to expand...

It is not, because there isn't anything there. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal government the power to intervene, whether they say SSM is allowed or it is not. It's not a race issue, where there are amendments that cover that.

This is all that needs to be done. Convince the people of each State to vote for it. No problem there. Or, since there is such a wave of support, just amend the Constitution and make it very clear, no problem there either.
 
roguenuke said:
And yes, the SCOTUS will make mistakes and change their minds, just as Congress has done and humans in general as large groups have done for a very long time, since basically the dawn of humanity. We make mistakes, and grow from there.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree, because my point was that there is nothing special about the Supreme Court that makes them right all the time, they are often wrong, and terribly so.
 
roguenuke said:
So, then the SCOTUS can't do things that they feel may keep the country together rather than make a ruling that the majority disagrees with that could cause major issues? Pretty sure the SCOTUS is still filled with people, who still have biases of their own.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that applies to my answer. The SCOTUS did not write the Constitution, they are supposed to apply it. Not look at it and try and find a way to get to the decision that they want.
 
Anthony60 said:
I'm glad we agree, because my point was that there is nothing special about the Supreme Court that makes them right all the time, they are often wrong, and terribly so.
Click to expand...

They can be wrong. No one has said differently. But they do tend to eventually get it right to a point where very few are in disagreement with their new decision, unlike those decisions you mentioned earlier, which had more and more people not agreeing with those decisions as time passed, not less and less. There are certainly some decisions where it is questionable as to their decision, and time may show that they made a bad one (ACA comes to mind here), but they actually tend to have a good track record of eventually giving the people what they want when the legislature simply isn't working for the people's rights in any way that is reasonably fast enough.
 
Anthony60 said:
Not sure how that applies to my answer. The SCOTUS did not write the Constitution, they are supposed to apply it. Not look at it and try and find a way to get to the decision that they want.
Click to expand...

They do apply it. They have no obligation to apply it in the way you or certain people who wrote the Constitution believe it should absolutely only apply. They are supposed to be limiting the government, not the rights of the people.
 
TheNextEra said:
We do not live in a pure democracy. Your point is irrelevent. We also have protections of tyranny against a minority as well.
Click to expand...

He's not saying that. The Constitution spells out what the Feds can do, if it doesn't say they can do it, the power remains with the States and the people.
 
Anthony60 said:
He's not saying that. The Constitution spells out what the Feds can do, if it doesn't say they can do it, the power remains with the States and the people.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that is not reality. You may not like the justification and you can stomp your feet and thow a tamptrum, it doesn't change that you are wrong.
 
TheNextEra said:
Sorry but that is not reality. You may not like the justification and you can stomp your feet and thow a tamptrum, it doesn't change that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not reality? What Constitution are you reading from? It's pretty clearly stated in our Constitution. It never would have been ratified if it didn't say that.
 
Anthony60 said:
It's not reality? What Constitution are you reading from? It's pretty clearly stated in our Constitution. It never would have been ratified if it didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Again, keep stomping, it isn't reality.
 
jet57 said:
So I heard Mark Levin yelling and screaming about that as if it was a bad thing: he of course did not explain, but I undersatand as well that conservatives are somehow upset with this. Does anyone know why?
Click to expand...

I don't watch Fox News very often so I have no idea.
 
matchlight said:
The Court in Loving meant the right to marry was fundamental, period? If so, the right to marry more than one partner at a time must be fundamental, too. And yet states all have laws against bigamy and polygamy! How can those laws violate the fundamental right to marriage that way, and yet never have been held unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

If we allow interracial marriage, why don't we have to allow child marriage?
 
Anthony60 said:
It's not reality? What Constitution are you reading from? It's pretty clearly stated in our Constitution. It never would have been ratified if it didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Your mistake is thinking that this is something the "Feds" are doing. It's not.

The constitution is overturning same-sex marriage bans on equal protection grounds, and equal protection applies to states.
 
Deuce said:
Your mistake is thinking that this is something the "Feds" are doing. It's not.

The constitution is overturning same-sex marriage bans on equal protection grounds, and equal protection applies to states.
Click to expand...

Well then, that's were we differ, I see no Constitutional authority for the Feds to get involved.
 
jet57 said:
So I heard Mark Levin yelling and screaming about that as if it was a bad thing: he of course did not explain, but I undersatand as well that conservatives are somehow upset with this. Does anyone know why?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's funny. I heard the show too, and he explained things in great detail.
 
roguenuke said:
The will of the people changes with time, and bureaucracy is slow at recognizing that change, which is reinforced by stupid laws that mandate such crap, such as having to wait certain amounts of time before something that was put into place can be removed from a state constitution.

One of the main points of our federal courts is to ensure that the rights guarantees of our Constitution, the US Constitution, are being upheld, even when it comes to the states.
Click to expand...

Show me the right to marry for same sex couples, also show me the results of those elections where states voted to ban ssm and we will talk about 1 elected official subverting the will of the people
 
TheNextEra said:
We do not live in a pure democracy. Your point is irrelevent. We also have protections of tyranny against a minority as well.
Click to expand...

If it is a state, by state issue as has been ruled, then how does 1 unelected judge overturn a ballot issue that has been decided.
 
Ugh. The trend is toward SSM being the law of the land -- its momentum is irreversible. Those in favor of ssm, you're going to get it. Those opposed to it, deal with it.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
Show me where it says marriage for same sex is a guaranteed right.
Click to expand...

Read the thread. As a matter of fact, pick any ssm thread at random, and your question will be answered.
 
SENSIBLE PATRIO said:
If it is a state, by state issue as has been ruled, then how does 1 unelected judge overturn a ballot issue that has been decided.
Click to expand...

Again, we still have protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. States do not have the right to have established bans that are unconstitutional. Just because a state makes a constitutional amendment to allow raping women, that doesn't make it consitutional or legal.
 
See this is why I think you will see a trend toward succession, give us the northeast Michigan included, the southwest except California we ill take the southeast and you can have the middle of the country, aw screw it we will give you California and New Mexico that is it percentage wise it should work out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom