• 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!

South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

JoeTrumps said:
again, at the fear of getting further warnings, I must point out how any other issue which produces multiple(and constant) threads like these ALWAYS get there own subject forum. Every day there is some minor news on this subject, the threads begin anew every day, and they end up always devolving into this "we're the GOOD guys, the south is bigoted" garbage. Just MOVE it all to it's own forum and that way when someone is interested in debated this thing into the GROUND on a 24 hour basis, they can. It's just getting tiresome to see it always be 3 of the top 7 threads every day of the week. VERY tiresome.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read the OP, it was started by someone who believed that those who discriminate are the "good guys".
 
JoeTrumps said:
the site has the words "debate" and "politics" in it's name. Neither go on in this thread or any like it. It's all just static now.
Click to expand...

Here's a suggestion. Don't post in these threads if you don't like them. In fact, don't even read them.
 
year2late said:
How do gays create gays?
Click to expand...
It involved a little bit of this.
359582.jpg

And a bit of this.
il_340x270.558523745_q7er.jpg
 
Navy Pride said:
The bottom line is individual states have voted over and over again to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and left wing activist judges in most cases have over ruled the will of the people and that is just wrong no matter what liberals say.
Click to expand...

No, it is correct when the majority tries to discriminate against the minority. That's one thing that our Constitution is based upon.
 
csbrown28 said:
Coupla things......

You do realize that the definition of marriage wasn't always what it is now, thus, I suspect, your're not the defender of words that you claim to be.

Furthermore, the definition isn't changing, it's already too late!!



Ahhhhhh!!!!!

Lastly, what does it matter to you? If the definition were to include marriage to animals, would that affect your relationship or the relationship of others to their spouses?

Defending a definition is nothing more than an excuse to discriminate...
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to SSM but yes, I do believe that allowing legal marriages to animals would severely damage the entire concept. Good thing I don't see SSM as being in any way similar, but by suggesting that allowing people to marry animals is just as legit you damage the whole valid pro SSM position and actually make that often cited fear of the slippery slope seem a little less far fetched.
 
beefheart said:
You sure sound threatened. You can't hide it, it exudes from your every post.

I am Irish, dual citizen, and an independent voter, usually republican, but I vote for the best candidate, an ultra right wingnut can't understand that, evidently.

Does your wife know about how much you obsess about gay sex?

It is a concern..
Click to expand...

Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Click to expand...



Luckily that won't be long from now so you won't have to fight long. Christians did not invent marriage. You do not have a patent on it and you don't get to define it for everyone else. It was only 40 years ago where people like you, or hey maybe even you, used the same exact arguments to prohibit interracial marriage.

It's just not right if they're not white, amiright?
 
beefheart said:
No one has ever been able to answer the question: How does two people getting married, gay or straight affect you negatively?
Click to expand...

I don't know why any state would need to answer that. It should be enough that most people living there believe that allowing partners of the same sex to marry each other would be a socially destructive policy, just as they believe allowing incestuous or polygamous marriages would be.

The Supreme Court has never suggested that any heightened standard of review applies to laws that discriminate against homosexuals, in marriage or anything else. Not in Romer v. Evans; not in Lawrence v. Texas; and at least as far as anyone can understand Justice Kennedy's muddled language in Windsor last year, not there either.

There is no reason at all to think that, in equal protection or substantive due process challenges to state marriage laws that exclude same-sex partners, anything but the Supreme Court's rational basis review standard should apply. And under that standard, which reflects the deference courts show legislatures out of respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, the law being challenged is presumed to be constitutional. The burden is on the party challenging it to show it is not rationally related to any legitimate purpose of government.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
[/B]

Luckily that won't be long from now so you won't have to fight long. Christians did not invent marriage. You do not have a patent on it and you don't get to define it for everyone else. It was only 40 years ago where people like you, or hey maybe even you, used the same exact arguments to prohibit interracial marriage.

It's just not right if they're not white, amiright?
Click to expand...

SOS different day.
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Click to expand...

How about this.

I personally do not care what church allows or does not allow in terms of marriage. Never have never will. If they discriminate against gays, so be it. That being said, there are laws against discrimination, so they need to clearly stay within the law.

I think ALL marriages (if they want to "enjoy" federal benefit ) need to be civil unions.
 
Navy Pride said:
SOS different day.
Click to expand...

Yep, same **** different day. You know, for a "straight" guy you sure do seem to have an obsession with gay sex and gay marriage. You wouldn't have to talk or think about it at all, but you do day in and day out. You've probably started more gay threads than almost any poster on this forum. Food for thought.
 
Navy Pride said:
I won't be moving even though I live in enemy territory I love it here.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have a firm grasp of the term 'enemy'. I was a grunt and I'd never live in enemy territory- hunt there but not grow old there. I live in Oklahoma, not a real liberal state to say the least and I don't consider my neighbors 'the enemy'. They are just under a shallow spell cast by shammers poising as religious leaders...
 
disneydude said:
LOL......pretty soon it will only be a handful few Southern States who still seek to impose governmental bigotry....but even those are soon to fall.
Click to expand...

You mean like when a government puts an issue on the ballot then, no matter the outcome, sides with the minority kind of bigotry?

Yeah, that sucks!
 
WCH said:
You mean like when a government puts an issue on the ballot then, no matter the outcome, sides with the minority kind of bigotry?

Yeah, that sucks!
Click to expand...

Some issues don't belong on the ballot, like human rights. So I guess it does suck when a state gives the majority the right to subjugate a group of people and higher government takes that right away from them. I sure that ruffles your feathers.
 
Goshin said:
SC State Supremes ruled correctly; the definition of marriage is part of our State Constitution, and should not be overturned by some indirect implied assumption about a ruling an APPELLATE court made about a law in another state.


It was right and proper for SCOSC to put a hold on this while the legal issues were examined and clarified, and possibly until after the State seeks further legal redress.
Click to expand...

It's quite incredible that people still don't understand the consequences of the SCOTUS not taking up the matter, and try to construct it as a victory for the anti-SSM crowd, when it is the exact opposite.

Let me try to spell out for you this very simple issue:

1. Appellate regional (circuit) federal courts have ruled that state bans of SSM is unconstitutional.
2. Appeals were filed with the SCOTUS.
3. The SCOTUS refused to take up the matter.
4. This means that the regional federal court decisions STAND.
5. Therefore ALL states under the jurisdiction of those circuit courts CAN NOT enforce bans, as soon as local federal courts there are consulted about it (those courts won't be able to rule any other way, legally).
6. This decision becomes biding as soon as in each state, someone petitions the local federal court challenging the ban, and the federal judge rules that there is merit in the petition and the state must obey the regional (circuit) court ruling.
7. This has happened yesterday in North Carolina at about 5:30 PM, a state that has a constitution banning SSM. By 5:45 PM, the first same-sex marriage happened in North Carolina (the Deputy Sheriff of Wake County and his partner) followed by many others. Clerks offices extended working hours to 9PM to attend all the gay couples interested in getting a marriage license.
8. As soon as a federal judge rules the same way in South Carolina (and again, there will be no leeway for ruling any other way since the circuit courts are higher than local federal courts), whatever the South Carolina Supreme Court says in the matter becomes irrelevant. That's all that the South Carolina Supreme Court did: "until a federal judge rules in the matter" which has happened already in North Carolina but hasn't yet in South Carolina (it will probably happen as soon as Monday), then they'll have to obey it just like North Carolina did.

How in the hell do you guys construct that as a victory for the anti-SSM camp? It is OBVIOUSLY a defeat, as evidenced by gays now getting married in North Carolina which up to yesterday at 5:29 PM could not happen due to the state constitution. The SCOTUS refusing to take it up made it possible, and this will happen in all 30 states under the jurisdiction of the circuit courts that have ruled that the ban in any of their states is unconstitutional.
 
Zinthaniel said:
Some issues don't belong on the ballot, like human rights. So I guess it does suck when a state gives the majority the right to subjugate a group of people and higher government takes that right away from them. I sure that ruffles your feathers.
Click to expand...

You're right, that issue shouldn't have been brought up, it'ss not a right for Gays to have.
 
X Factor said:
I'm not opposed to SSM but yes, I do believe that allowing legal marriages to animals would severely damage the entire concept. Good thing I don't see SSM as being in any way similar, but by suggesting that allowing people to marry animals is just as legit you damage the whole valid pro SSM position and actually make that often cited fear of the slippery slope seem a little less far fetched.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious and not really suggesting the people be allowed to marry animals, just that if they did, it wouldn't change my marriage in any way.
 
GreatNews2night said:
It's quite incredible that people still don't understand the consequences of the SCOTUS not taking up the matter, and try to construct it as a victory for the anti-SSM crowd, when it is the exact opposite.

Let me try to spell out for you this very simple issue:

1. Appellate regional (circuit) federal courts have ruled that state bans of SSM is unconstitutional.
2. Appeals were filed with the SCOTUS.
3. The SCOTUS refused to take up the matter.
4. This means that the regional federal court decisions STAND.
5. Therefore ALL states under the jurisdiction of those circuit courts CAN NOT enforce bans, as soon as local federal courts there are consulted about it (those courts won't be able to rule any other way, legally).
6. This decision becomes biding as soon as in each state, someone petitions the local federal court challenging the ban, and the federal judge rules that there is merit in the petition and the state must obey the regional (circuit) court ruling.
7. This has happened yesterday in North Carolina at about 5:30 PM, a state that has a constitution banning SSM. By 5:45 PM, the first same-sex marriage happened in North Carolina (the Deputy Sheriff of Wake County and his partner) followed by many others. Clerks offices extended working hours to 9PM to attend all the gay couples interested in getting a marriage license.
8. As soon as a federal judge rules the same way in South Carolina (and again, there will be no leeway for ruling any other way since the circuit courts are higher than local federal courts), whatever the South Carolina Supreme Court says in the matter becomes irrelevant. That's all that the South Carolina Supreme Court did: "until a federal judge rules in the matter" which has happened already in North Carolina but hasn't yet in South Carolina (it will probably happen as soon as Monday), then they'll have to obey it just like North Carolina did.

How in the hell do you guys construct that as a victory for the anti-SSM camp? It is OBVIOUSLY a defeat, as evidenced by gays now getting married in North Carolina which up to yesterday at 5:29 PM could not happen due to the state constitution. The SCOTUS refusing to take it up made it possible, and this will happen in all 30 states under the jurisdiction of the circuit courts that have ruled that the ban in any of their states is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...



You misconstrue. I am largely indifferent to SSM; I know it is probably inevitable; I have no interest in "stalling for spite".



The problem I have is letting an appellate court set aside a provision in my home State's Constitution, in such an indirect fashion, without clear word from SCOTUS. If a Fed appellate court can set aside any provision of any State's Constitution at will, then the States may as well close their governments down and quit pretending there is any government other than the Fed.


South Carolina needs to say "**** you, until we hear from SCOTUS our state Constitution stands as we wrote it". Feds don't like it, well the SCOTUS can nut up and render a decision. They owe us that much before setting aside something enumerated in our state Constitution.
 
Navy Pride said:
One for the good guys.............


South Carolina Supreme Court Halts Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


Posted: 10/09/2014 12:29 pm EDT Updated: 10/09/2014 12:59 pm EDT





COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Supreme Court is ordering state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

The Supreme Court's order disappointed dozens of gay couples in a whirlwind week of legal maneuvers.
Click to expand...

well if its good only because you don't like same sex marriage I guess this has some good in it

if your into treating people decently kind of evil
 
The Immortal said:
You're simply incorrect. As I said, this is the ONLY time Loving v Virginia is referenced.

From the decision: State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

In other words, if California wants to define marriage as being between a man and man they can. But that also means if SC wants to define marriage as being between a man and a woman they can. And the federal government should have no say in either.

He ruled in favor of State's rights over Federal rights. You want Kennedy to rule in favor of Federal Rights over State's rights. One of Kennedy's BIGGEST positions is State rights over Federal rights. If you think he's going to vote for Federal Rights over State's rights... you're simply wrong. He's NEVER done so before. Ever. You think this is going to be the first time?

Without Kennedy you have a better chance of getting ice water in hell than one of the other conservatives to vote in favor of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong. Your analysis is nowhere near the realm of reality. The problem is....it is pointless trying to discuss it with you because you are so convinced by your right-wing propaganda that you actually thing you are correct. It isn't worth the time or energy to try to point out the flaws to you.
 
WCH said:
You mean like when a government puts an issue on the ballot then, no matter the outcome, sides with the minority kind of bigotry?

Yeah, that sucks!
Click to expand...

A lot of ballot issues are unconstitutional. That is one of the biggest problems with the initiative system that allows any idiot out there to write a ballot measure and if they get enough signatures, gets it on the ballot. Writing laws/legislation should be left to those who have the expertise to do so.
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.
Click to expand...

Bigot of the 50's-60's: Like I said many times I could care less what inter-racial couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath

Bigot of today: Like I said many times I could care less what gays do in the privacy of their bedrooms and if they want to hook up I am for giving them the same benefits as straights and I think gov. recognition of their hookups in Civil Unions would do the job.. I just don't want the sacrament of Holy Matrimony desecrated and to that end I will fight to my last breath.

Bigots are always bigots...they just change a word here and there.
 
disneydude said:
A lot of ballot issues are unconstitutional. That is one of the biggest problems with the initiative system that allows any idiot out there to write a ballot measure and if they get enough signatures, gets it on the ballot. Writing laws/legislation should be left to those who have the expertise to do so.
Click to expand...

IT's unlawful to be a thief. Gays steal everything they want.

BTW those signatures are Humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom