• 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

Cardinal said:
I know this is specifically a debate forum, but I think everyone from here on out who demands to know where in the constitution it declares that marriage is a right should be told to get bent. But you know, in a nice, non giggable way.
Click to expand...


When someone asks where a right is printed in the Constitution that is usually a good indication they've never actually sat down and read it. (I've been carrying the same copy in my backpack since 1989 and pull it out once in a while to read.)


What I do is politley ask them if they "are of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the constitution to be held by the people?". If they say "Yes" then point them to the 9th Amendment. If they say "No", then point out and show the weakness of their previous statement that generated the question in view of the 9th.



>>>>
 
poweRob said:
Yup....

From what I understand is that the scotus' intent is to not rule on it until a lower court goes the other way causing a conflict to iron out in conflicting lower court rulings.
Click to expand...


This is where, IMHO, that the SCOTUS screwed the pooch. After the conference of the 29th they had 3 options:

1. Accept a writ,

2. Reject a writ,

3. Carry over the writ to a later conference.​


Accepting the writs would have left the "Status quo" in place until a ruling is issued, rejecting the writ(s) means that the Stay they issued was lifted, carrying over the writ would have also maintained the "status quo" until they accepted or rejected a writ.

The problem is that by choosing to reject the writs, the stay is lifted and Civil Marriages are allowed to proceed within those jurisdictions. So there were 19 states prior to Monday. Over the next couple of months that number increases to 30 (because of the stay being lifted) and that is likely to rise to 36 (if no permanent stay is issued based on the 9th Circuit Courts ruling).

That means means there will be a surge in SSCM's in those new states during the period while it is legal to marry. Now if the 6th Circuit issues a ruling that uphold the ban - that generates a "split" in the Circuit Court rules which the SCOTUS will have to address. But since Civil Marriages will have been active in 36 States it would be a huge propblem if the court then later rules in a manner that would overturn the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts and upholds the 6th.

The 6th had already heard oral arguments and was due for a ruling at any time. It would have been much better for the SCOTUS to have used the "Carry Over" option to a later conference to make a decision.


***********************

Interesting to note, at least one of the "conservative" Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) had to have voted with the liberal wing and Kennedy to deny review. The conservative Justices alone have the numbers to have forced a carry over if they choose, so at least one voted to reject and allow SSCM's to start now.



>>>>
 
Cardinal said:
I know this is specifically a debate forum, but I think everyone from here on out who demands to know where in the constitution it declares that marriage is a right should be told to get bent. But you know, in a nice, non giggable way.
Click to expand...

I have some thoughts about what people who don't respect democratic government should be told, but I will keep them to myself. Suppose you tell us, specifically, what part of the Constitution guarantees homosexuals a right to marry each other. You won't, because you can't.

Just as in Roe forty years ago, authoritarians who ironically call themselves "liberal" are showing their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. They know they don't have the votes needed to amend the Constitution to authorize the social engineering they want. So they just find federal judges who will amend it through the back door by making it say whatever they want it to.
 
matchlight said:
I have some thoughts about what people who don't respect democratic government should be told, but I will keep them to myself. Suppose you tell us, specifically, what part of the Constitution guarantees homosexuals a right to marry each other. You won't, because you can't.
Click to expand...

You're right, I can't, you win. Roughly every time it's been asked and answered per page in every single gay marriage thread from the last ten years doesn't exist. Hurrah, gay marriage has been defeated, and West Hollywood and San Francisco is in ruins.
 
Last edited:
JoeTrumps said:
once all this goes through I'm going to start a thread asking for predictions on the next "crisis" the gay community will create, and how people who don't agree with the next "crisis" will be called evil homophobes before you can bat an eye.

If I thought for a second "OK, once the gay people and their supporters get this, they will be happy and content" I would look forward to them just giving what they want already. However I'd bet everything I own it will only be the beginning, not the end, of their unending complaining and name calling of anyone not on their "side".

wait and see.
Click to expand...

It might not be the gay community, the illegal aliens are looking ripe for the liberals right now. There is also free contraceptions for all the women that can't stop themselves from getting pregnant, though it might be getting old now. But don't worry, they have to find some less important issue to scream about instead of focusing on important issues.
 
matchlight said:
I have some thoughts about what people who don't respect democratic government should be told, but I will keep them to myself. Suppose you tell us, specifically, what part of the Constitution guarantees homosexuals a right to marry each other. You won't, because you can't.

Just as in Roe forty years ago, authoritarians who ironically call themselves "liberal" are showing their contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. They know they don't have the votes needed to amend the Constitution to authorize the social engineering they want. So they just find federal judges who will amend it through the back door by making it say whatever they want it to.
Click to expand...
the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection regarding distinctions of gender, barring sufficiently powerful state interest.
 
Anthony60 said:
It might not be the gay community, the illegal aliens are looking ripe for the liberals right now. There is also free contraceptions for all the women that can't stop themselves from getting pregnant, though it might be getting old now. But don't worry, they have to find some less important issue to scream about instead of focusing on important issues.
Click to expand...


Says the guy posting over and over in threads about an issue that doesn't affect him in any way.
 
disneydude said:
The Court in Loving was not addressing the issue of SSM, nevertheless, in their analysis of the rights involved, they clearly recognized the right to marry as a fundamental right. They weren't referring to same race marriage, inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage....they were addressing the right to marry period. The case involved an inter-racial couple and although the holding of the case is narrowly tailored to that issue, the analysis and recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is clear in the body of the ruling.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, but SSM was so far outside the imagination of the court at the time that I don't think Loving applies. I suspect that's why the SCOTUS is letting SSM be established without having to take up that question.
 
roguenuke said:
It is just "marriage", that same sex couples enter into. And yes, that does happen.
Click to expand...

There is now. The context was the relationship between older court cases and the current stream. The abbreviation SSM is useful in that context to keep the discussion clear.
 
roguenuke said:
Same sex couples being able to marry was proposed much longer than just 20 years ago. Baker was over 40 years ago alone.

But considering in many parts of this country, prior to the early 70s, those in same sex relationships could be involuntarily committed or put in jail for sodomy, it was a bit more important to stop those legal practices of persecuting gays/homosexuality than worrying about getting married at the time.
Click to expand...

Proposed is not established.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is now. The context was the relationship between older court cases and the current stream. The abbreviation SSM is useful in that context to keep the discussion clear.
Click to expand...

Before the first legal marriage contract, heterosexual marriage had never been a legal institution either. So?
 
Deuce said:
Before the first legal marriage contract, heterosexual marriage had never been a legal institution either. So?
Click to expand...

The institution of heterosexual marriage is thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years old. That's the difference.
 
Cardinal said:
You're right, I can't, you win. Roughly every time it's been asked and answered per page in every single gay marriage thread from the last ten years doesn't exist. Hurrah, gay marriage has been defeated, and West Hollywood and San Francisco is in ruins.
Click to expand...

If the basis for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage has really been explained as often and clearly as you assert, and for so long, it's interesting that you can't even begin to articulate it. Should be easy enough for someone who is so sure this constitutional right exists to tell us slower types where to look for its source. Maybe there is a "Just Because We Say So Clause" that my copies of the Constitution somehow are missing.
 
matchlight said:
If the basis for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage has really been explained as often and clearly as you assert, and for so long, it's interesting that you can't even begin to articulate it. Should be easy enough for someone who is so sure this constitutional right exists to tell us slower types where to look for its source. Maybe there is a "Just Because We Say So Clause" that my copies of the Constitution somehow are missing.
Click to expand...

What about "I can't, you beat me" are you not getting? Write your nearest Federal Court and point out that a right to marriage isn't in the constitution. You personally can bring same sex marriage to its knees right now! What are you waiting for? Go!
 
Anthony60 said:
What is that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

It's the authoritarian liberal in him coming out. IOW, your opinion doesn't count because you're not gay, pregnant or illegal. Or a member of any other grievance group that counts to the left. Sorry. I'm not either, so I can't comment beyond this brief note. Otherwise, I'll be savaged by tolerant liberals.
 
Deuce said:
the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection regarding distinctions of gender, barring sufficiently powerful state interest.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've tried to peddle that baloney before, and it's just as laughable no matter how many times you regurgitate it. The Supreme Court, not wanting to make itself a laughingstock, has never even hinted that state laws which exclude same-sex partners involve gender discrimination, or that the "intermediate" level of review it has used in gender discrimination cases applies to them. Those laws exclude marriages between partners who are both male just the same as they exclude marriages between partners who are both female.
 
Jack Hays said:
The institution of heterosexual marriage is thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years old. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

It's not an important difference.
 
matchlight said:
Yes, you've tried to peddle that baloney before, and it's just as laughable no matter how many times you regurgitate it. The Supreme Court, not wanting to make itself a laughingstock, has never even hinted that state laws which exclude same-sex partners involve gender discrimination, or that the "intermediate" level of review it has used in gender discrimination cases applies to them. Those laws exclude marriages between partners who are both male just the same as they exclude marriages between partners who are both female.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has proven themselves to be ducking the issue.

Circuit courts have applied varying levels of scrutiny, and same sex marriage bans don't pass any of them.

Previously, marriages excluded partners who weren't both white just the same as they excluded partners who weren't both black. This is not a compelling argument.
 
Deuce said:
It's not an important difference.
Click to expand...


That is an incomprehensible assertion. The evolution of attitudes on same sex marriage, from dismissal to acceptance in a generation, is the most far reaching and rapid shift in history.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah, that's it alright, whatever makes you sleep better at night. BTW, SSM bans are still getting overturned DESPITE you saying they can't.
Click to expand...

Obviously (not to you), I never said they can't. They certainly can, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Currently, it's the unconstitutional wrong way.
 
Jack Hays said:
That is an incomprehensible assertion. The evolution of attitudes on same sex marriage, from dismissal to acceptance in a generation, is the most far reaching and rapid shift in history.
Click to expand...

I think same sex marriage is a natural extension of the revolutionary concept of human rights in totum. As for the most far reaching rapid shift in history, I might have gone with fire, the wheel or the printing press.
 
Anthony60 said:
Obviously (not to you), I never said they can't. They certainly can, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Currently, it's the unconstitutional wrong way.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. Too bad, what you think doesn't matter AT ALL in REALITY.
 
Cardinal said:
I think same sex marriage is a natural extension of the revolutionary concept of human rights in totum. As for the most far reaching rapid shift in history, I might have gone with fire, the wheel or the printing press.
Click to expand...

I should have specified "most far reaching and rapid shift in social attitudes in history."
 
Jack Hays said:
I should have specified "most far reaching and rapid shift in social attitudes in history."
Click to expand...

Then I would go with two shifts: the construction of the hierarchical system beginning with town/state civilization some six thousand-ish years ago, and the gradual deconstruction of that system starting with the concept of human rights (or "natural" rights) in the 16th century. All increases in human rights and liberties have been an extension that began in that period. Apparently we will release our hold on caste systems, but only very, very grudgingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom