• 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

it's just me said:
I know, everything that doesn't go your way is "unconstitutional". How can you argue with "logic" like that?
Click to expand...

Everything you don't like should be outlawed i guess. Show me where in the constitution SSM is banned or there's even an implied right for the voters to ban it.
 
chromium said:
Everything you don't like should be outlawed i guess. Show me where in the constitution SSM is banned or there's even an implied right for the voters to ban it.
Click to expand...

I'll do that when you show me in the Constitution where the opinion of one man (who doesn't even live in that state) becomes law for an entire state.
 
it's just me said:
I know, everything that doesn't go your way is "unconstitutional". How can you argue with "logic" like that?
Click to expand...

I know, everything that doesn't go your way is "liberal judges enacting law". This is just conservatives speak for "I didn't win".

The solution is simple: pass a law. I am sure that any law that does not go your way will be "unconstitutional", though.
Click to expand...

The solution is simple. Let the Constitution work. Of course, I'm sure that if it doesn't go your way, you'll just complain about the judiciary.
 
it's just me said:
I'll do that when you show me in the Constitution where the opinion of one man (who doesn't even live in that state) becomes law for an entire state.
Click to expand...


Do you REALLY not know how unconstitutional laws are dealt with?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Do you REALLY not know how unconstitutional laws are dealt with?
Click to expand...

Do you REALLY not know what "unconstitutional" is?

You have yet to enlighten us as to what is "unconstitutional" about the SC law.
 
it's just me said:
Yeah, try any of that and you will be shouted down by the mob.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that you are NOT the majority, not in South Carolina, which is what this thread is about. The people's legislature enacted the law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, and it was signed by the governor. The state is well within it's rights according to the Constitution, and it is you who are in the minority, even if you do live in South Carolina, which I doubt. The power to interfere in the state's business has not been given to the federal government, Constitutionally speaking. But that's what left wingers do on this issue...mind other people's business.

There are a few FACTS for you.
Click to expand...

I would advise them, if they don't want to be humiliated and preserve their perfect record of having to be dragged into the present century re: civil rights, to stop being so bigoted and stop electing bigoted governors. That would avoid all of this
 
it's just me said:
I'll do that when you show me in the Constitution where the opinion of one man (who doesn't even live in that state) becomes law for an entire state.
Click to expand...

It's hardly just my opinion but the majority of the entire country. Not that i ascribe to argumentum ad populum, but you don't get to dismiss it as solely my opinion.
 
chromium said:
Everything you don't like should be outlawed i guess. Show me where in the constitution SSM is banned or there's even an implied right for the voters to ban it.
Click to expand...
You would have to first show where the Constitution even mentions the term marriage. Since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it should fall to the states and the people to decide.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Of course, but I asked you first. Do you REALLY not know how unconstitutional laws are dealt with?
Click to expand...

I know how they USED to be dealt with. They would bounce it back to the people.
 
it's just me said:
I'll do that when you show me in the Constitution where the opinion of one man (who doesn't even live in that state) becomes law for an entire state.
Click to expand...

Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In bold ... underline for more exact emphasis

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Click to expand...

In other words, the supreme court has full jurisdiction in every case in every state, for every citizen or visitor.

Now your interpretation about the courts making a law, what has happened is that the courts struck down laws, which is pretty much the opposite of your claim.

Lastly, as for the structure of the appellate courts, that's pretty much up to congress on how to structure, but as shown is completely constitutional.

The text of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment is as follows. emphasized part bolded

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

The last phrase is really the clincher. Its pretty self explanatory, but for those who need help, it pretty much says you have to treat all persons (which means all humans, not a class of humans, but everyone) the same. So if one group gets marriage, all groups get marriage. If one group gets to drink from a water fountain, all groups get to drink from that same water fountain. If one group is subject to a speeding ticket, all groups are subject to a speeding ticket. I am sure the point is made. Constitutionally, this means we either have legal marriage or we don't, but if we do, everyone gets the same treatment.

So this is where the courts are not making a law, but enforcing previously established laws.

So there you go, courts have jurisdiction and and necessary legal language to make this ruling. This case is really this simple. The only reason it can seem complicated is that people jump through some interesting mental hoops to try to make the law conform to their prejudice.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
You would have to first show where the Constitution even mentions the term marriage. Since it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it should fall to the states and the people to decide.
Click to expand...

9th amendment should cover it, which SCOTUS has ruled something like a dozen times
 
it's just me said:
Well, you just did.
Click to expand...

i certainly did not say that SSM should be legal because a majority accept it

I only brought up the majority to demonstrate how wrong you are about "one man's opinion." You want to rely on majority opinion in this or that state, while totally ignoring (because it supports your agenda) the majority opinion of the whole country. Not to mention dozens of court rulings
 
chromium said:
i certainly did not say that SSM should be legal because a majority accept it

I only brought up the majority to demonstrate how wrong you are about "one man's opinion." You want to rely on majority opinion in this or that state, while totally ignoring (because it supports your agenda) the majority opinion of the whole country. Not to mention dozens of court rulings
Click to expand...

We are discussing South Carolina, not the entire country, and the courts have gotten a LOT of decisions wrong, but I am sure you support all of them:

Ten Worst Supreme Court Decisions in History
 
roguenuke said:
I would prefer they pick "none", but they are still free to pick and will learn about many different beliefs (not very likely that they could honestly learn about all, since I personally believe there are millions out there.
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like they'll learn enough about any particular one to get the true gist, much less put into practice.

But hey, half-assed learning is trendy.
 
blarg said:
so shows that show a connection to a devil?

or that people are conditioned into accepting homosexuality and ssm
Click to expand...

Google: Manifestations of Perverseness

(saves me time)
 
WCH said:
Yes Sir...cheapened. Relegated to the basement.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. The notion that your marriage, your lifelong commitment to another human being, is somehow "cheapened" by gay marriage means that said relationship was never particularly strong to begin with.
 
Lursa said:
But many other Christians did/do and found ways to pervert and interpret the Bible to support their racist views. They believed/believe wholeheartedly that interracial marriage is an abomination. How are they different from you?
Click to expand...

Because that broad brush doesn't apply to me.

And as I repeat...interracial marriage is not in the Bible.
 
it's just me said:
Yeah, try any of that and you will be shouted down by the mob.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that you are NOT the majority, not in South Carolina, which is what this thread is about. The people's legislature enacted the law that says marriage is between a man and a woman, and it was signed by the governor. The state is well within it's rights according to the Constitution, and it is you who are in the minority, even if you do live in South Carolina, which I doubt. The power to interfere in the state's business has not been given to the federal government, Constitutionally speaking. But that's what left wingers do on this issue...mind other people's business.

There are a few FACTS for you.
Click to expand...

except the state is not treating its citizens equally since men can marry women their but women cant marry women their and the reverse

its as legal as banning interracial couples
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom