• 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

csbrown28 said:
Coupla things......

You do realize that the definition of marriage wasn't always what it is now

...
Click to expand...

The irony is that Navy Pride's own marriage would not have been allowed if the definition of marriage had not been changed to allow inter-racial marriages.
 
apdst said:
Except for the fact that SCOTUS refused to rule on gay marriage, which makes it anybody's ball game.
Click to expand...

LOL.....only if you are either incredibly naive or EXTREMELY optimistic. The writing is ALL over the wall on this one. Game over.
 
disneydude said:
Just the opposite. Government should not be in the business of deciding who consenting adults can marry.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right, along with a bunch of other things. However, you want to give the government more and more power over our private lives. You don't get to take that power away, when it suits you...the politicos won't let you.
 
apdst said:
You're exactly right, along with a bunch of other things. However, you want to give the government more and more power over our private lives. You don't get to take that power away, when it suits you...the politicos won't let you.
Click to expand...

Not really. What people do in their own private lives should be their business, not the government's.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....only if you are either incredibly naive or EXTREMELY optimistic. The writing is ALL over the wall on this one. Game over.
Click to expand...

Says who? SCOTUS? Oh, wait, they refused to decide on the issue. In lieu of a SCOTUS decision, it's left up to who?...the states, that's right.
 
disneydude said:
Not really. What people do in their own private lives should be their business, not the government's.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, just owning a gun, smoking, not wearing a helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, which health insurance one buys, or doesn't buy, what kind of car one drives, the list goes on.

But, you demand a big goddamn intrusive government machine, you have to take the good with the bad.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well the state SC ordered licensing to stop and that is a step in t he right direction IMHO.
Click to expand...

If you don't like same sex marriage...then don't marry someone of the same sex.
 
apdst said:
Says who? SCOTUS? Oh, wait, they refused to decide on the issue. In lieu of a SCOTUS decision, it's left up to who?...the states, that's right.
Click to expand...

Did you read Justice Kennedy's opinion in the DOMA case or Scalia's dissent? The fact of the matter is, Kennedy said while states are free to fashion their own laws they must do so in a way that does not discriminate or violate the USSC. This is what prompted Scalia's vitriolic "the writing is on the wall" dissent.

The reason the Supreme Court didn't take it up is because almost every single circuit court has ruled that llimitations to marriage violate the Constitution. More continue to fall every day. Which goes back to what I was saying....you either have to be incredibly naive or extremely optimistic to believe that things are going to change course. This ship has sailed. Sorry Charlie.
 
disneydude said:
Did you read Justice Kennedy's opinion in the DOMA case or Scalia's dissent? The fact of the matter is, Kennedy said while states are free to fashion their own laws they must do so in a way that does not discriminate or violate the USSC. This is what prompted Scalia's vitriolic "the writing is on the wall" dissent.

The reason the Supreme Court didn't take it up is because almost every single circuit court has ruled that llimitations to marriage violate the Constitution. More continue to fall every day. Which goes back to what I was saying....you either have to be incredibly naive or extremely optimistic to believe that things are going to change course. This ship has sailed. Sorry Charlie.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS didn't rule? I didn't think so. Hey, you wanted hate crime legislation and would love to make racism a crime, well this come along with that much government power.

You calles down the thought police, now live with the consequences.
 
apdst said:
I couldn't agree more, just owning a gun, smoking, not wearing a helmet, not wearing a seatbelt, which health insurance one buys, or doesn't buy, what kind of car one drives, the list goes on.

But, you demand a big goddamn intrusive government machine, you have to take the good with the bad.
Click to expand...


Sorry....but I have no problem with people owning a gun. If they want to smoke, let them. Not wearing a helmet or a seatbelt....stupidity...but I don't think we need laws mandating it. I would mandate laws requiring parents to seatbelt their children though, because I DO believe that government should have a role in protecting children from their parents ignorance and stupidity.

Health insurance? I don't like the Heritage Foundation/Republican plan of the insurance mandate that ended up in the ACA. I support a single payer system because I believe a for-profit healthcare system teeters on lunacy. Just the idea is illogical if you step back and actually think about it.
 
apdst said:
The SCOTUS didn't rule? I didn't think so. Hey, you wanted hate crime legislation and would love to make racism a crime, well this come along with that much government power.

You calles down the thought police, now live with the consequences.
Click to expand...

Wow....you think you know so much about me. I have never said that "racism should be a crime". I do, however, support hate crime legislation when it is drafted properly....most people, other than prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, really understand what hate crime legislation really is. I suspect that you don't really understand it yourself.
 
apdst said:
Says who? SCOTUS? Oh, wait, they refused to decide on the issue. In lieu of a SCOTUS decision, it's left up to who?...the states, that's right.
Click to expand...

Thats wrong. Its left up to the Circuit Courts and says them so far.
 
Napoleon said:
God doesn't have a social security number so he's not entitled to an opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...

There are no atheists in foxholes or on their deathbed my left wing friend.
 
Navy Pride said:
Well the state SC ordered licensing to stop and that is a step in t he right direction IMHO.
Click to expand...

The judge is breaking the law by doing this. Why do you support that?
 
Navy Pride said:
There are no atheists in foxholes or on their deathbed my left wing friend.
Click to expand...

To me, that's just further evidence that people are just predisposed towards this kind of thinking. Faith that only arrives through fear and desperation isn't evidence of God. At least, not the one in your book.
 
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.
 
Napoleon said:
Thats wrong. Its left up to the Circuit Courts and says them so far.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is and I believe that's why SCOTUS refused to decide, because they might possibly be forced to overturn the circuit court rulings and hand the issue, in totality, to the states.
 
apdst said:
I don't think it is and I believe that's why SCOTUS refused to decide, because they might possibly be forced to overturn the circuit court rulings and hand the issue, in totality, to the states.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. If SCOTUS found anything particularly egregious about the so-far unanimous Circuit Court decisions then they would have taken at least one of the appeals. The fact that the stay for Idaho has been rescinded upon review of the arguments most likely means that SCOTUS agrees with those decisions and will not wade into the issue unless there is a deviation from this trend.
 
Napoleon said:
That doesn't make any sense. If SCOTUS found anything particularly egregious about the so-far unanimous Circuit Court decisions then they would have taken at least one of the appeals. The fact that the stay for Idaho has been rescinded upon review of the arguments most likely means that SCOTUS agrees with those decisions and will not wade into the issue unless there is a deviation from this trend.
Click to expand...

There's no unanimous circuit court decision. A refusal, by the SCOTUS means that it's no longer the Feds's jurisdiction, which means the states are allowed to enforce their own constitutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom