• 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!

Rick Santorum says supreme court's gay marriage decision not 'final word'

'%s' mean precisely nothing as they are 'polls'. But...the plus side...if you are right this would be made manifest by a landslide, and it would be put to bed forever.

Your hysterical rant in response is cute. In case you have missed it...I'm not invested in this. Couldnt give half a damn to be completely honest. I fully expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of gay marriage and will be glad when it is done and over with and I only wish they had had the guts to take this on a decade ago.

So...thats a YES BTW...right? You WOULD expect the pro-gay marriage side to just completely accept the SCOTUS decision as final...even if it goes against them. Glad to see we are all on the same page.

The guy who doesn't care always seems to have a hypothetical gay marriage and gay marriage issues that he feels nobody has ever thought of (well, people have, they just find it absurd). Is that your shtick? This persona that doesn't really care about an issue but always seems to have some illogical hypothetical that tries but fails to get across its nonpoint? We get it. You feel that a constitutional amendment today has enough support because of laws passed on average 10 years ago when entire campaigns could be run on the gays coming to get you. The real world, however, has changed a bit in a decade even if your understanding of these issues hasn't. The reality is that I am so sure that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage advocates that I simply refuse to play your game of "what if?". It's not going to happen VanceMack, the right will lose on this issue and we'll get 50 years worth of whining about evil activist judges and how liberals are destroying society because da gays can get married. :shrug:
 
IDK what to tell you. If you get out of your parent's basement more maybe you'd see that on this issue things are changing.

It's a poll from Pew, and they seem to have a good reputation. Just because you don't agree with their findings you think it's skewed and a big conspiracy between the government and the polling centers! I can only address that with sarcasm.

:lamo You're a funny kid, but the last time I or my parents had a house with a basement was in the late 60s and I was already off to serve in the Army.

And yes, Pew does propaganda polling too. They do commission polling as well. They are not as transparent in their methods or who is paying for the polling as you believe.
 
IDK what to tell you. If you get out of your parent's basement more maybe you'd see that on this issue things are changing.

It's a poll from Pew, and they seem to have a good reputation. Just because you don't agree with their findings you think it's skewed and a big conspiracy between the government and the polling centers! I can only address that with sarcasm.

There have been a whole lot of polls -- Gallup has been polling the question for decades.

Plus quite a few more. All -- All show a marked uptrend to place it now in majority status.

These kind of skewed polls believers are wayyyy out of touch. Reminds me of Rove and the wishful connies on election night a few years back.
 
Nonsense, there is no electoral college for direct vote initiative.

It's almost like you failed to understand my point so you could go on a tangent. MAJORITY OPINIONS which is what polls measure doesn't necessarily translate into majority power. I showed an example of that (electoral colleges). The majority of the US now supports gay marriage, that doesn't mean that majority has the same 60% voting power everywhere. Hell, it doesn't even mean they have that 60% voting power anywhere.

What you're trying to avoid is saying the state legislatures, the closest direct representatives of the people show a reality that is out of odds with the propaganda polling.

Direct representatives don't show what a majority of people/voters want. That's what this poll does. They (direct representatives) show what the voters who got them elected want. We have a plurality system. Please pursue this line where you confuse plurality with majority voting systems.
 
Last edited:
:lamo You're a funny kid, but the last time I or my parents had a house with a basement was in the late 60s and I was already off to serve in the Army.

And yes, Pew does propaganda polling too. They do commission polling as well. They are not as transparent in their methods or who is paying for the polling as you believe.

Me too. I'm no kid.

Time's a changing. And you're out of touch, and with due respect a little delusional it you believe all these polls are skewed and purposely misleading. America's views on gays are changing quickly.
 
Here's another tidbit:
The majority of the states that put it on the ballot - voted 10-15 years ago.

Attitudes change.


The last 4 times Same-sex Marriage was on a General Election Ballot (2012), Marriage Equality won in all 4 cases. This shows the attitude change from years ago. As a matter of fact one of the States that voted in Marriage Equality was a State that had voted in discrimination just 3 years earlier (2009).*

*Hattip again to WW
 
Me too. I'm no kid.

Time's a changing. And you're out of touch, and with due respect a little delusional it you believe all these polls are skewed and purposely misleading. America's views on gays are changing quickly.

It's absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age there are people who refer to these polls as mere "propaganda". Propaganda by whom!? The super secret gay club for gay acceptance? People really are coming to terms with the reality that homosexuality is not going back in the closet. Our society now has openly gay actors, gay characters, gay film directors, gay doctors, gay lawyers, gay lawmakers. What the hell do regular people do in a situation where they are exposed to gay people 24/7? Some will hold back but the majority will just accept it. The proof is in the pudding but there is a small group of people who simply ignore the very real interactions between people so that they can continue to scream that everyone hates gays as much as they do.
 
Me too. I'm no kid.

Time's a changing. And you're out of touch, and with due respect a little delusional it you believe all these polls are skewed and purposely misleading. America's views on gays are changing quickly.


The "polls" were skewed in Ireland too. :lol:

A religious, conservative country like that: Voted near two to one to make SSM legal.

When Ireland goes, it's over -- near two to one!
 
WTH is *this* supposed to mean:

“I don’t advocate civil disobedience,” he said. “I do advocate the role of an informed citizen to try to overturn when a court makes a mistake and gets an issue wrong."

That's a politician providing himself cover from the riots that may ensure from hard-line Right-Wing Evangelicals...you know, those people who are suppose to stand up for individual liberty except when the rules covering their version of morality trumps individual liberty on religious grounds. He's basically saying he'd stand out of the way if people who disagree with gay marriage as he does stand up against it. It's kind of like what happened during the lead-up to the Civil War. There were plenty of people who stood against changing "their southern way of life" despite the fact that their way infringed on the rights of human being to freely exist and no longer be treated as property. Granted, gay marriage doesn't reach that same standard of living, but the rational behind "changing the way things are into something I don't like" remains the same.

BTW - my state has a new Republican governor that also recently announced he doesn't have to listen the State Supreme Court when he believes they are 'wrong'!

Must be something in the water.

But it's not the State Supreme Courts rulings that Santorum, Huckabee or Carson are advocating defiance against. It's the actually Supreme Court of the United States, the last arbiter of justice in our land. If you're not going to respect their judgement and instead seek to over turn such unpopular decisions using civil disobedience to do it, then you may as well be calling for anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Um...

This is a list from 2013:


Delaware – Legislatively - 2013
District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009
Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013
Illinois – Legislatively - 2013
Maine – Ballot – 2012
Maryland – Ballot - 2012
Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009
New York – Legislatively - 2011
Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013
Vermont – Legislatively - 2009
Washington – Ballot - 2012 *

(there may be a few more since then, I'll have to check)

Nearly a third.

*Hattip to WorldWatcher

How nice and I'm perfectly okay with that. Then there should be no need for the SCOTUS to be deciding a state's issue as it is. Just like medical or recreational marijuana. If that's a priority for you, then move to a state that allows it.

And btw, Santorum would never be my choice for POTUS, nor would I vote for him for dogcatcher.
 
The guy who doesn't care always seems to have a hypothetical gay marriage and gay marriage issues that he feels nobody has ever thought of (well, people have, they just find it absurd). Is that your shtick? This persona that doesn't really care about an issue but always seems to have some illogical hypothetical that tries but fails to get across its nonpoint? We get it. You feel that a constitutional amendment today has enough support because of laws passed on average 10 years ago when entire campaigns could be run on the gays coming to get you. The real world, however, has changed a bit in a decade even if your understanding of these issues hasn't. The reality is that I am so sure that SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage advocates that I simply refuse to play your game of "what if?". It's not going to happen VanceMack, the right will lose on this issue and we'll get 50 years worth of whining about evil activist judges and how liberals are destroying society because da gays can get married. :shrug:
Its a legitimate hypothetical. Why are you so afraid of answering it?

We'll see once the Supreme Court rules. If it rules in favor of gay marriage, as I presume it will, then I have no doubt there will be many people that will clamor for a Constitutional Amendment. It should be evident very quickly if the movement has traction or not. Your continued frothy state and hatred notwithstanding...I wont support it and truly will not care less gay marriage is passed. As I have stated before and has been proven to date...if it is made legal, the sun will still come out, life will still go on. The only one spun up here is...well...you.

Wait...is THAT it? Is it because it DOESNT piss me off that has you so tightly wound? Thats hilarious! :lamo
 
There have been a whole lot of polls -- Gallup has been polling the question for decades.

Plus quite a few more. All -- All show a marked uptrend to place it now in majority status.

These kind of skewed polls believers are wayyyy out of touch. Reminds me of Rove and the wishful connies on election night a few years back.

Yes, yes, and folks have been compiling statistics for much longer, and still stats are used to lie. Again, it's all in who you ask and how you ask and sometimes what answer they EXPECT. Not to mention who you can get to take your poll.
 
Its a legitimate hypothetical.

There is no such thing as a legitimate hypothetical that starts out completely dependent on views from 10 years ago and ignores modern opinions on the issue. That's a fallacy. Keep pretending you've got anything other than a fallacy on your hands.
 
Here's another tidbit:
The majority of the states that put it on the ballot - voted 10-15 years ago.

Attitudes change.


The last 4 times Same-sex Marriage was on a General Election Ballot (2012), Marriage Equality won in all 4 cases. This shows the attitude change from years ago. As a matter of fact one of the States that voted in Marriage Equality was a State that had voted in discrimination just 3 years earlier (2009).*

*Hattip again to WW

As I mentioned, I'm very okay with the people of any state doing this. However, part of the "trend" you are seeing is people just flat out being boxed into a corner by court decisions and giving up. The courts simply will not allow them to vote otherwise, for when they do their vote is nullified by the court.
 
How nice and I'm perfectly okay with that. Then there should be no need for the SCOTUS to be deciding a state's issue as it is. Just like medical or recreational marijuana. If that's a priority for you, then move to a state that allows it.

And btw, Santorum would never be my choice for POTUS, nor would I vote for him for dogcatcher.

There shouldn't be a need, but there is. Unfortunately, my fellow Americans took it upon themselves to vote against someone else's freedom, (either directly or indirectly via legislation) based on nothing other than a moral disapproval of that freedom. It's sad, and fundamentally unamerican. But because they did that, there is a need for SCOTUS to step in. Because my fellow Americans violated the constitution when they did that.

Santorum's quote is just lip service. He is technically correct, there is never a "final word" on anything because any law can change. Even the constitution can change. But it is still just lip service to the religious right because nobody is really delusional enough to believe this is going to go back to the way it was. Santorum knows full well there will never again be enough votes in congress or enough votes on a ballot to reverse the decision we all know SCOTUS is about to make.
 
There is no such thing as a legitimate hypothetical that starts out completely dependent on views from 10 years ago and ignores modern opinions on the issue. That's a fallacy. Keep pretending you've got anything other than a fallacy on your hands.
The hypothetical does NOT start out on 10 years ago. It is in fact what was presented in the OP. The 'change' would be to the status quo. And your refusal to answer such a direct and honest question speaks volumes. You WOULD NOT expect the pro gay marriage side to just quit and accept it if the SCOTUS ruling were in favor of the states right to choose.

For the record...if the SCOTUS does rule in your favor, I want you to know I will be happy for you. Truly.
 
That's a politician providing himself cover from the riots that may ensure from hard-line Right-Wing Evangelicals...you know, those people who are suppose to stand up for individual liberty except when the rules covering their version of morality trumps individual liberty on religious grounds. He's basically saying he'd stand out of the way if people who disagree with gay marriage as he does stand up against it. It's kind of like what happened during the lead-up to the Civil War. There were plenty of people who stood of against changing "their southern way of life" despite the fact that their way infringed on the rights of human being to freely exist and no longer be treated as property. Granted, gay marriage doesn't reach that same standard of living, but the rational behind "changing the way things are into something I don't like" remains the same.
Yep, that's kinda' like a politician saying: "I'm against abortion, but I respect other's decisions"!

Well, doesn't that mean your public policy is 'pro choice'?


But it's not the State Supreme Courts rulings that Santorum, Huckabee or Carson are advocating defiance against. It's the actually Supreme Court of the United States, the last arbiter of justice in our land. If you're not going to respect their judgement and instead seek to over turn such unpopular decisions using civil disobedience to do it, then you may as well be calling for anarchy.
Exactly!

And who should more respect the laws & Constitution of the United States, than those elected to office sworn-in by taking the Oath of Allegiance?
 
Its a legitimate hypothetical. Why are you so afraid of answering it?

We'll see once the Supreme Court rules. If it rules in favor of gay marriage, as I presume it will, then I have no doubt there will be many people that will clamor for a Constitutional Amendment. It should be evident very quickly if the movement has traction or not. ...

Dude. When they tried it and tried it over and over -- they couldn't even get the votes to push it forward.

Federal_Marriage_Amendment





There was much less support for SSM then. It's not going to reverse.
 
Dude. When they tried it and tried it over and over -- they couldn't even get the votes to push it forward.

Federal_Marriage_Amendment





There was much less support for SSM then. It's not going to reverse.
WHen it has been tried in the past, there wasnt a Supreme Court decision standing against the rights of the states.

BUT...we shall see. In case you have missed it..I have stated several times now...I would hope that they accept the ruling and we move forward. But that does not remove the individuals RIGHT to pursue it.
 
The hypothetical does NOT start out on 10 years ago.

It does start out with views from 10 years ago. The majority of these gay marriage bans were enacted 10 years ago when one could still run a campaign on hating gays and it would work. The reality today is much different. States have had time to come up with solutions that aren't affected by recent rulings. They haven't. It's simply not all that profitable to attack the gays anymore. People have kids who are coming out of the closet now and they are being forced to change their views as more people are less and less afraid of being openly gay. This is the world we now live in VM and your continued tacit denial of it just makes it all the more enjoyable. I don't answer hypotheticals based on flawed "what ifs?!"
 
It does start out with views from 10 years ago. The majority of these gay marriage bans were enacted 10 years ago when one could still run a campaign on hating gays and it would work. The reality today is much different. States have had time to come up with solutions that aren't affected by recent rulings. They haven't. It's simply not all that profitable to attack the gays anymore. People have kids who are coming out of the closet now and they are being forced to change their views as more people are less and less afraid of being openly gay. This is the world we now live in VM and your continued tacit denial of it just makes it all the more enjoyable. I don't answer hypotheticals based on flawed "what ifs?!"
:lamo Your dogged belief that I cant/wont accept things is comical. But if the hatred makes you feel better...by all means...CLING to it.

The primary driver that will have changed is that a Judicial Entity will in effect FORCE 37 states (plus Puerto Rico) to act against their will. That MAY cause representatives of those states to seek a Constitutional Amendment to overthrow that decision and that will be their right. Thats how the system works. Will it pass? I think we agree its doubtful. But...does that mean they cant or wont attempt to? Nope.
 
VanceMack said:
Santorum is of course CORRECT...absolutely. The SCOTUS has a ROLE...but that role is NOT God and Gospel. The SCOTUS interprets law. So if the vast majority of states that have been forced not by their citizens but by a handful of judges decide that it is time to pass a Constitutional amendment then they absolutely have that right to pursue it. Will it pass? Who knows. But there is a process.

Judges that were duly elected by the citizens of their state and, as such, as duly representing their constituents. This is much different that those Supreme Court Justices where were appointed by the POTUS.

What Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are trying to do is play off the personal anxieties of the religious faithful, that somehow their way of life and sense of morality will be crippled. Oddly enough, the people should be more pissed off about the SCOTUS' landmark decision on Citizens United than they need be on the gay rights issue, but because "marriage" and procreation are personal issues, standing up against gay marriage is an easy target since it conjures up fears of "diminished returns on life" itself.

As to the "process" you mentioned above, since marriage is a licensed practice afford to the states, I'd say only the states have a right to make the decision on who will be permitted to marry. But once the SCOTUS rules favorable on ground of equality (and they'll have no choice since 37 states allow gay marriage), Congress won't be able to do a thing about it.

Those that are claiming Santorum is wrong are themselves 'wrong', but really...they are just partisan ideologues being snarky.

It's not being snarky. I happen to oppose gay marriage myself, but the only way to resolve the conflict that life partners are currently experiencing when a loved one is seriously injured or is dying due to a fatal illness and that loved one can't be at his/her partner's bedside or make any decisions on their behalf or claim their death benefits despite what was previously agreed upon through a legally binding contract that is voided due to conflicting federal laws is to grant them some form of a civil union even through common law to recognized their rights as human beings who otherwise shared a period of happiness and devotion to one another that for the lack of gender identity and procreation would be no different from the love you or I share with our "gender identifiable" female spouses (as men; males spouses as women).
 
:lamo Your dogged belief that I cant/wont accept things is comical.

Well, you are the guy coming up with hypotheticals for things that won't happen so that automatically leads to the conclusion that you refuse to accept the inevitable. SCOTUS will rule in favor of gay marriage, and the majority of those who oppose it will simply wallow in attempts to explain why the system didn't work for them. The evil judges, the gay conspiracy, the media, you know, the usual drill. Why can't you simply accept this and move on? None of that pipe dream of yours is going to happen. The gays will keep getting married, and we'll have 50 years worth of whining on another issue that those who oppose change were defeated on.
 
Judges that were duly elected by the citizens of their state and, as such, as duly representing their constituents. This is much different that those Supreme Court Justices where were appointed by the POTUS.

What Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are trying to do is play off the personal anxieties of the religious faithful, that somehow their way of life and sense of morality will be crippled. Oddly enough, the people should be more pissed off about the SCOTUS' landmark decision on Citizens United than they need be on the gay rights issue, but because "marriage" and procreation are personal issues, standing up against gay marriage is an easy target since it conjures up fears of "diminished returns on life" itself.

As to the "process" you mentioned above, since marriage is a licensed practice afford to the states, I'd say only the states have a right to make the decision on who will be permitted to marry. But once the SCOTUS rules favorable on ground of equality (and they'll have no choice since 37 states allow gay marriage), Congress won't be able to do a thing about it.



It's not being snarky. I happen to oppose gay marriage myself, but the only way to resolve the conflict that life partners are currently experiencing when a loved one is seriously injured or is dying due to a fatal illness and that loved one can't be at his/her partner's bedside or make any decisions on their behalf or claim their death benefits despite what was previously agreed upon through a legally binding contract that is voided due to conflicting federal laws is to grant them some form of a civil union even through common law to recognized their rights as human beings who otherwise shared a period of happiness and devotion to one another that for the lack of gender identity and procreation would be no different from the love you or I share with our "gender identifiable" female spouses (as men; males spouses as women).
We'll see. If SCOTUS rules as expected, there will definitely be heat from many states to overturn their decision. AS is currently ongoing, states are still appealing the federal judges decisions which is a pretty clear indicator that they are not all willing to just go down without a fight.

(BTW...most of those judges that decided on the states laws were not elected judges...they were appointed federal judges)

Again...I personally hope this is settled once and for all in June.
 
Back
Top Bottom