• 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!

Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

Again, other than right wing homophobes, who has 'debunked it'? Second request.

A whole lot of very liberal black activists. Justices who aren't bowing to some liberal cause rather than the constitution. Those who realize what the reconstruction amendments were all about.
 
As I said, and everyone can see, you'll post this drak endlessly. Still doesn't make it so.

I'd take his reliance on judicial precedent over your interpretation of the constitution any day of the week.
 
repeating this false statement will never make it true, nor will it make the court cases that refer to it magically vanish lol

facts, laws, rights, constitution and court cases > the your opinions

Then stop doing it.
 
A whole lot of very liberal black activists. Justices who aren't bowing to some liberal cause rather than the constitution. Those who realize what the reconstruction amendments were all about.

Really? Then why do opponents of marriage equality keep getting their asses handed to them in court on a regular basis? Both state and Federal courts.
 
People like Papa, Clown, Paleocon, etc are just angry that they lost and that the worldview they've relied upon is being eroded as time goes on. The end of this fight is in sight and they know it.
 
As I said, and everyone can see, you'll post this drak endlessly. Still doesn't make it so.

correct and everybody honest, educated and object sees its right while theres still NOTHING in your post that supports your failed and destroyer claims :D

Let isn know when you have any facts that make your false claims true . . even ONE would be great . . thanks
 
It's the favorite refrain of the Right when they keep getting their asses kicked in court over and over and over again.

dont group all the right together, millions of them support equal rights

but you are right, the bigots and people against equal rights are being destroyed in court :D
 
I'd take his reliance on judicial precedent over your interpretation of the constitution any day of the week.

Oh yes, I sure you will. You obviously care more about some folks agreeing with you than you do about the rewriting of the constitution by a few robed folks.
 
another post and another dodge

wheres those facts that support you again, we are waiting LMAO

No you aren't, you're just repeating the same old drak that has been answered ad infinitum.
 
No you aren't, you're just repeating the same old drak that has been answered ad infinitum.

another dodge and ZERO facts that support you, maybe in your next post? thanks
 
Marriage equality. That's really the right phrase because this isn't about equal rights for people.

I hope my state has the distinction of being the last to succumb to liberal social engineering
.



Someone always has to be the last one to wake up and accept reality.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
People like Papa, Clown, Paleocon, etc are just angry that they lost and that the worldview they've relied upon is being eroded as time goes on. The end of this fight is in sight and they know it.

That's clownboy and the only thing I've lost is what we all lost in this, the US Constitution, my state constitution, the will of the people and the system we were taught we had.

Yes, the end is in sight for our constitutional republic. Not because of homosexual marriage, but because of how this thing was done.
 
No, and this silly assertion has been debunked many times before in many threads.

Could you explain precisely how same sex marriage is not an equal protection issue and perhaps cite exactly how the over 45 judges who have ruled otherwise are wrong?
 
Wow, duck and weave. Your god creates gays, if they are deviant, then god is not perfect, maybe even deviant.

You still have nothing other than you don't like gay people, lots of people didn't like black people, that is why there were laws against interracial marriage.

But he denies that he believes in a god, which I think we all know is nonsense because there isn't a credible case to be made against homosexuality without a religious component. We know, as an undeniable fact, that homosexuality is pretty universal in nature. We see it in tons of species. It is no more deviant in humans than it is in chimpanzees. Having someone pretend not to be religious because it gets away from the major disagreement seems rather silly.
 
I don't support civil unions either, now. I did a few years ago. I thought it was an excellent way to provide the "equal rights" homosexuals were clamoring for without a great deal of political resistance. Of course, it became very clear to me after many discussions with homsexuals that it really wasn't about equal rights at all because that was rejected off hand because it didn't make homosexuality "as normal as heterosexuality". I was, however, of the mind that it was a reasonable concession to provide civil unions to any two people who wanted to be in a domestic partnership. But after my idiot militant homosexual activist brother (the same one that claims the government invented AIDS to wipe out homosexuals) threw a hissy fit and told me I need to get off the fence and stop being "ambivalent", I got off the fence. Now I can't and won't support either homosexual marriage or civil unions. The in-your-face attitude of militant homosexual activists isn't something that promotes sympathy or compassion. Not for me, anyway.

Those homosexuals who want to believe everyone that doesn't think homosexual marriage makes sense must be a religious right extremist are deluding themselves.

I would support black rights if they weren't so uppity about it!
 
Oh yes, I sure you will. You obviously care more about some folks agreeing with you than you do about the rewriting of the constitution by a few robed folks.

Was there an election where you were named as Supreme Interpreter of the U.S. Constitution? Damn, nobody told me.
 
State endorsement of marriage at the state level is very much about taxes. Homosexual marriage will lower state and federal revenues.
Basically, it's a tax dodge for homosexuals.



Guess what? Getting married is and always has been a big tax dodge for heterosexuals.
 
These threads always make me smile. Both the inexorable victory for equality, and the hilarious flailing opponents. The assertions that same sex equality somehow violates religious liberty never fails to amuse, since in order to make that argument, opposition to same sex conduct would have to be universal among religious beliefs, and it isn't. In order to say that some religions' beliefs against homosexuality should inform public policy but not beliefs of other religions that support homosexuality IS a violation of religious liberty, as it explicitly places some religions above others. The argument that marriage isn't a right or that the precedents established in Loving don't apply to gays frankly demonstrates how armchair crusaders are a long long way from actual constitutional scholars.

It's gratifying that the same arguments keep winning in nearly every single case. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, and to violate that right just for gays doesn't even meet a rational basis test, let alone the higher levels of scrutiny that all marriage, gay or straight, deserves. The opposition arguments about the state's interest in promoting heterosexual reproduction are rightfully discarded, as any such interest is not furthered by preventing gays from marrying. Absolutely no legitimate interest is furthered by preventing gays from marrying.

At this point, there is no reason to suspect that any state will be able to continue to discriminate against gay Americans. The circuit court judges (who are apparently all activists) know the law a lot better than the aforementioned armchair philosophers and understand that there is only one correct answer in this question. The big thing that still needs to happen is a ruling affording same sex marriage higher constitutional protections than rational basis. At very least, it should be analogous to the intermediate scrutiny of gender-based classification. However, the actual physical differences between men and women that could sometimes warrant specific protections for one sex and not the other doesn't warrant that level of protection. Sexuality is intrinsic to a person without altering them in any way, and is thus closer to skin color or national origin, warranting strict scrutiny. Either way, while it is satisfying that SSM bans fail to meet even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, sexual orientation needs to be protected at a higher level.
 
People {EDIT}are just angry that they lost and that the worldview they've relied upon is being eroded as time goes on. The end of this fight is in sight and they know it.

this is VERY true for many people.

the fear, hate bigotry and just illogical dislike that equal rights is generating in some is astounding.


All these made up excuses that have all been debunked and destroyed, all these failed scare tactics and straw-men (rogue/activist judges, states rights, pedophilia, bestiality, freedom of religion etc) and flat out lies or ignorance is all laughable and sad at the same time.

Laughable because NOBODY honest and educated falls for it and sad that some of the people spewing that mentally inane nonsensical babble actually think its true, its not an act!
 
Could you explain precisely how same sex marriage is not an equal protection issue and perhaps cite exactly how the over 45 judges who have ruled otherwise are wrong?

Why were the 13th, 14th and 15th written and ratified? Learn a bit more about the US Constitution and you'll not need to ask that. As for the over 45 judges, yes, they ruled inconsistently with both law and constitution.
 
Could you explain precisely how same sex marriage is not an equal protection issue and perhaps cite exactly how the over 45 judges who have ruled otherwise are wrong?

no no no its just a few and they were all rogue/activists!
 
Last edited:
Great news from Seward's folly.
 
Was there an election where you were named as Supreme Interpreter of the U.S. Constitution? Damn, nobody told me.

:lamo And YOU were? Or are you thinking SCOTUS justices are elected now.
 
Back
Top Bottom