• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

Well, you're in the right state to hate gays; you will fit right in.

Actually, there are about 11 states that oppose same sex marriage in higher numbers than Texas. Texas, for the South, is really pretty "loving" of gays, relatively speaking.
 
True.

Both rulings will bite them in the ass.

ObamaCare is already so unpopular that it couldn't be mentioned in the 2014 Midterms elections....by the Democrats.

The Supreme Courts ruling on subsidies put ObamaCare right back in the laps of the Democrats and let the GOP Congress off the hook.

Let them celebrate. They won't be after the 2016 elections.

Unpopular?

Even accounting for cranky old people, Obamacare's popularity is above water, 43 percent to 42 percent, and its trend lines are improving. The numbers reflect a steady but remarkable climb back from November 2013, when the Healthcare.gov outage left the law under water by a 16-point margin. Part of the reversal owes to the simple fact that the website now works. But even that only returned the numbers to their pre-launch levels, when the law was under water by margins of 4 to 8 points.

Obamacare Popular Kaiser Poll | The New Republic

Grow and evolve, or be angry and left in the dust.
 
They have devalued marriage

No...they really haven't. I mean...seriously...what 'value' did you assign to marriage before, and what 'value' exists now? How did that change?

Relax. Gay marriage has been occurring in parts of the country since 2004.
 
What's ridiculous is that meaningless piece of paper known as a marriage certificate.

We can be in love, live together, start a family, all without one

Then do it. But you won't have the same protections or benefits that my husband and I have, or will pay more for them just because of your stubbornness. If you're fine with that, it doesn't bother me.
 
You are telling us a law is unconstitutional, but you have never actually studied the law.

Yes, I have read the plain English of the United States Constitution as written and as amended and I expect it to be upheld and followed by the government that would have no authority to exist or to do anything whatsoever without it.

When they grievously break this contract, there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.
 
Dood...nothing personal...but thats just goofy. What you are claiming is that YOU are allowing others to redefine marriage for YOU. If you believe as you believe...then BELIEVE. When you are ready to marry (and based on that posting...I dont know that you are) then choose based on YOUR belief...not someone elses.

Yoru second sentence can be made a lot more rationally. I agree...most homosexuals problems were never caused by others, by their families, or even the lack of marital rights...but by their lack of acceptance of themselves. The reality is that no one will be forced to accept or even proclaim that homosexuality is good, right, or 'normal.' Everyone will be much happier when they start with acceptance of SELF. A ruling on gay marriage isnt going to change that.

Do you understand that there is a difference between supporting homosexuals and supporting homosexuality? You dont have to understand or even agree with someone to be their friend and to offer love and support. I personally dont agree with the ruling, but that doesnt impact my belief on homosexuality, nor does it impact my relationships with friends, familiy, and coworkers that happen to be gay.

Maybe you should take a step back and breathe. Seriously...you cant POSSIBLY have NOT seen this coming. Breathe, baby...its going to be OK. The sun will still come up tomorrow. Life will still go on.


Of course you're right, but this is just one more knock against marriage. Marriage favors the woman anyway, the justice system has already taken divorce law to where your wife can cheat on you, if you divorce her, she gets HALF.

I don't really want to get saddled with that level of financial risk. This decision today just zaps whatever there was about marriage that was pure or worth pursuing anyway....because there is no logical reason for a well off man to marry, the only reason would have been emotional or traditional. Well, now those reasons are finito as well
 
Which studies? From leftwing Universities or other LW organizations? Please...

Tell me, why is it that when a conservative hears facts they don't like, reads an academic study by trained researchers whose conclusions disagree with their dogma, it is instantly because it's a "left wing organization?" Are you really that incapable of thinking that people who don't share your narrow view of the world are incapable of research?!
 
Actually, there are about 11 states that oppose same sex marriage in higher numbers than Texas. Texas, for the South, is really pretty "loving" of gays, relatively speaking.

Did you forget that I have lived in Texas for over 60 years?
 
I have no particular interest in this subject other than I don't believe that government should be in the business of sanctioning or banning individual, legally contracted, relationships and they shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers based on their piece of paper. I believe every individual, for purposes of love or security or whatever other reason, should be able to enter into a contracted relationship that is honoured and respected by government and the courts. If you can enter into a contract to have your lawn mowed, and that contract can be adjudicated in court based on the terms of the contract, there's zero reason why only a government issued piece of paper validates a relationship contract.

That said, the issue here in Canada has been a non-issue for the most part. No churches have been mandated to marry anyone and never will. It's possible, in the US, where the left takes everything to extremes and goes way overboard that there will be a push to punish the religious right by trying to force them into performing same sex marriages, but I would hope they wouldn't.

The next move, if the right is serious about the so called damage this will cause society, will be for them to push to have government eliminate all benefits that accrue to those who hold paper. Tax and other law should be based on individuals and the rights of individuals. To do otherwise will open up the courts to the next wave of social, sexual, rights seekers.

I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S.A, the govenment treats married people differently than singles, so they should not be able to discrimiate against SSM.
 
Yes, I have read the plain English of the United States Constitution as written and as amended and I expect it to be upheld and followed by the government that would have no authority to exist or to do anything whatsoever without it.

When they grievously break this contract, there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.
Other than your dogmatic insistence that you know better than the USSC (LOL at that, by the way), what is your basis for making these claims? A JD? Years of experience on the bench? Trial experience? Civil Rights law experience? Have you worked for the ACLU, FIRE, Lambda Legal, or any other pro-bono legal agency?
 
Then do it. But you won't have the same protections or benefits that my husband and I have, or will pay more for them just because of your stubbornness. If you're fine with that, it doesn't bother me.

Yeah the tax breaks are appealing, but the risk of paying alimony to an adult human being outweighs that, logically
 
:2party:

I raise my glass from this end of the pond to my many friends who will have their lives changed and improved by this. Geez, finally.
 
Oh, I am quite educated, thank you.

Clearly not. You either think it takes magical robes to read the holy text, or you dishonestly pretend this is the case for what could be a variety of reasons, all of which involve negative character traits.

You call yourself a libertarian while having no respect for the rule of law and supporting judicial fiat bypassing the amendment process.
 
Is your flower shop a church? A religion? Is its primary purpose to serve paying customers?



Crazy goal post move buddy.

Religion isn't a Sunday morning from 9-10 kind of thing. If I believe participating in a ceremony will send my soul to hell, do you think it is ok for the government to force me to do it?
 
STAdoma2p062713.jpg
 
Churches will be in violation of federal law if they refuse. I can GUARANTEE to you there will be discrimination lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gay couples. Hell, even private business have been sued for refusing to provide service to same-sex couples.

I guess you didn't read => Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children

Churches refuse to wed couples of certain races, religions, and combinations of these above all the fricking time, and it is absolutely legal. Those laws don't apply to religious ceremonies (which is what happens when someone is married in a church).

That is a personal opinion where someone is stupidly trying to apply his experience, feelings to all. It would be no different than someone saying that being raised with stepparents is wrong because they didn't like it or had a bad experience. It is a subjective opinion.
 
Very bad week for the GOP. Heads exploding all over the place. LOL

actually just as the HELLER Ruling helped the Dems, these rulings helped the GOP
 
bahahahahahahahhahahahahah

"I'll just pretend there's no legal justification. If I didn't see it, it doesn't exist!"
Their legal justification was a bastardized interpretation of an amendment that was decided on multiple times in the past. This isnt the first time this issue has come up, nor is it the first time the 14th was considered. They used personal opinion and emotional appeal to force it to fit where Supreme Court justices on several occasions in the past said they did not fit.

It is what it is. An opinion based on feelings, not law. And so be it. This is the system we have.
 
Depends on state laws. If you open a flower shop and refuse to participate in an interracial wedding or interfaith wedding or Jewish wedding or atheist wedding, are you going to be prosecuted for doing so? Why is it okay for you to face punishment for refusing to participate in those other weddings but not for a same sex wedding?

If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.
 
Clearly not. You either think it takes magical robes to read the holy text, or you dishonestly pretend this is the case for what could be a variety of reasons, all of which involve negative character traits.

You call yourself a libertarian while having no respect for the rule of law and supporting judicial fiat bypassing the amendment process.

You call yourself a libertarian while suggesting that Americans should be able to vote away the freedom of other Americans. You think Americans have the right to use the government as a bludgeon against someone else's personal choice.
 
I was just on a flight with a gay flight attendant. Everyone was nice to his face but they were laughing at him behind his back.

I was just on a flight with a muslim who was waiting until the sun officially set so he could break his ramadan fast. Nice guy, had a very good conversation with him.

marriage.jpg
 
Yeah the tax breaks are appealing, but the risk of paying alimony to an adult human being outweighs that, logically

Pre-nuptial agreements. I was already wealthy and my wife was very well off when we got ours.
 
Back
Top Bottom