• 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]

Apparently not. You'll note Kennedy's lack of any consideration whatsoever regarding a compelling interest. This is not straightforward application of equal protection law.

The states really did not present a compelling interest, and he did consider their arguments. He just rejected them as compelling.
 
Another that doesn't know what happened. Do you know what a "State" is in this country?

I am probably one of those who knows more about the legal issues than almost any one on the board. I have studied the issues in some depth. How about making an argument and I will get back to you.
 
I support the ruling, but in its wake I hope the religious are not repressed, oppressed or attacked. I hope that religious freedoms prevail when it comes to those not wanting to recognize or provide services to homosexuals weddings
 
equal protection clause. good decision. no state should be allowed to deny a fundamental right based on sexual orientation.

Especially not if you are legally wed in one state and another state says, well, not here. Here you have no rights based on your legal marriage. It gives all the protection same sex parents need for making important life decisions like insurance, adoption, making medical decisions for your significant other, etc. etc. etc.

It is ridiculous that it has taken this long for marriage inequality to finally get the boot. First it was whites only, then it was whites and colored, then it was just 1 man and 1 woman and now it is 2 people regardless of gender.
 
I agree, most people don't care who signs or refuses to sign a marriage document, including myself. However, I can guarantee there will be lawsuits when some minister, who has legal standing with the state to sign said document, refuses to do so because the couple is same sex.

We haven't seen any and it isn't likely to happen anytime soon. This issue is just way too out there, especially since you can get someone to get ordained for free for your specific wedding with little effort, and the government provides the service as well. Now, I can see lawsuits if the JoPs refuse, or worse, are allowed to refuse by law, as some states are trying to do. But that is different because they are being paid by the state to do this.
 
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 certainly hope that won't happen and don't really think it's even a remote possibility. There are simply many advantages to recognizing marriage and stripping those advantages away because a small % of the population can now also get married would be the ultimate exercise in self destructive bigotry.
 
I didn't read it, but do you think that is what the decision demands? I mean I'm a supporter of SS marriage, but I don't think that religious institutions should be forced to marry if they don't want to.

I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.
 
We haven't seen any and it isn't likely to happen anytime soon. This issue is just way too out there, especially since you can get someone to get ordained for free for your specific wedding with little effort, and the government provides the service as well. Now, I can see lawsuits if the JoPs refuse, or worse, are allowed to refuse by law, as some states are trying to do. But that is different because they are being paid by the state to do this.

You're probably right.
 
I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.

See^^^ It's already happening. You do realize that by virtue of your statement you are invalidating the right of a person to religiously express their faith. This right is precisely the right to pick and choose!


Tim-
 
So .... it sounds like the SCOTUS left it up to the States to still make the decision as to the legality of SSM, but if done in a state where it IS legal, they states that have banned it must recognize it as legal. A bit nuanced and lets see if those states which still ban it either reverse their ban or re-litigate.

I do agree with the decision though - if State A says it's legal and the couple moves to State B where it's illegal - State B still has to recognize the marriage. It seems reasonable.

"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

we don't have a court that upholds the constitution. we have a court that does whatever the hell it wants based on the political view of the justices.

2 times in 1 week they have failed up hold the constitution and instead come up with unconstitutional acts.

the entire bench needs to be removed and arrested for violation of their duty this week. they have proven that they are not capable of office or capable of
constitutional judgement just whatever whim they want to pass when they want to pass it.

next we will see them stopping all over religious rights next.
 
Tyranny is not a win just because you agree with what the tyrant does today.

What is bizarre to me is equating the expansion of a right (in this case to marry) with tyranny. I find the concepts directly opposed - expanding rights that don't infringe on anyone else's rights is the polar opposite of my idea of "tyranny." Tyranny would be living in Saudi Arabia where the Imams or whatever dictate their narrow religious views on the rest of us and those of us who step out of line get charged with crimes and punished. We're doing the exact opposite - expanding individual freedom.
 
I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.

I dunno, I don't agree. I mean making a bakery baked a cake for a SS couple is not the same as forcing a Baptist minister to perform a SS marriage. I would be shocked if that's what it comes to.
 
That's my point - same thing happens here. We're well past the time when government has any national interest in promoting marriage through tax and benefit policy. Government should be out of the marriage business. The government should treat all individuals equally regardless of their marital status. If government wasn't in the business of picking winners and losers based on marital status, you wouldn't have had this massive battle over sanctioning same sex marriage.
You mentioned something about churches being required to be married, that simply is not true, churches can refuse to marry for any reason.
 
See^^^ It's already happening. You do realize that by virtue of your statement you are invalidating the right of a person to religiously express their faith. This right is precisely the right to pick and choose!


Tim-

You should probably go back and read the discussion. He thinks that no one but government employees should be able to sign the marriage certificate/license altogether, which would completely avoid lawsuits on this issue. He did not say that such lawsuits would be right and should go through.
 
These people are on here gloating and rubbing it in...they'll never get an apology from me.

Marriage certificates are a relic of yesteryear. Over half of married couples divorce. To not prepare for the possibility is foolish
Some of them are. Butwhat does that tell you about who they are and ultimately, how they feel about themselves?

Going into a marriage preparing for the divorce is a pretty rock solid way to ensure you will need that preparation. Just sayin.
 
I don't think they should be forced to marry people either. However I think it will eventually come down to you either marry everyone or no one, no picking and choosing.

right here it is folks the next violation of the constitution in one post.
 
I am probably one of those who knows more about the legal issues than almost any one on the board. I have studied the issues in some depth. How about making an argument and I will get back to you.

What kind of argument? You mean me saying I know more than most people on the board? You call that an argument? Here's a hint, I've already posted it, but I'm not trying to argue the case here, it's the long term effects that worry me. There are ways to redefine marriage, this was the worst of them all to do it.
 
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening," he wrote. "... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment."

Roberts wrote: "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. ... But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

we don't have a court that upholds the constitution. we have a court that does whatever the hell it wants based on the political view of the justices.

2 times in 1 week they have failed up hold the constitution and instead come up with unconstitutional acts.

the entire bench needs to be removed and arrested for violation of their duty this week. they have proven that they are not capable of office or capable of
constitutional judgement just whatever whim they want to pass when they want to pass it.

next we will see them stopping all over religious rights next.

The problem with that first quote is that the very idea of allowing people to have their laws put in place, enforced, including restrictions on other people's marriages, just because of their vote is ruling by men, not by law. The supreme law of this land is the Constitution, and that is in place to protect people specifically from being oppressed by either an overreaching government or the majority, especially if the majority/government cannot show a state interest is furthered by such laws (which they couldn't).
 
Sounds like what might have been said in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, not really. Lack of poutines and same sex marriages come to mind.

Also we're not raping angels for SSM, we'll get back to you if we go down that road.

Although there are awfully too many child rapists, many who get away. You'd think God would have some priorities set and unleash some of that deus ex machina divine punishment right then and there. Just saying if I saw a child being molested, I wouldn't wait until some arbitrary, never known day of judgment. If I walked by and let It happen people would think I was complicit or at least completely immoral.
 
You should probably go back and read the discussion. He thinks that no one but government employees should be able to sign the marriage certificate/license altogether, which would completely avoid lawsuits on this issue. He did not say that such lawsuits would be right and should go through.

Fast moving thread so I apologize, however, the ONLY valid signature is that of the State on the marriage certificate/license anyway, so I don't see how that changes anything?

Tim-
 
This is a bad week for America and Americans. The moral fabric of the USA is coming apart at the seams. The SCOTUS has just redefined "marriage". The Red Diaper Doper babies are succeeding in taking down America from the inside without even firing a shot. Just as Krustev promised a half century ago.

It is a good week for America and Americans and for all the close to 60% of Americans who approved of gay marriage.

The moral fabric is not coming apart at the seems because now 2 men/women are allowed to marry. That is just ridiculous. In fact I think it should work to strengthen the moral fabric. Family (according to most conservatives too) is the cornerstone of society. Now a lot more families can be formed. A lot more babies potentially adopted and more happiness all around.

In the grand scheme of things, gay marriage is not ripping America apart at the seams. I do not think there is anything in the US that is able to do that, unless it is race relations. And SCOTUS has not hurt that, in fact it has strengthened and protected race relations. It is sadly politicians who do everything to wreck that (or militant little assholes like the man who shot those people in that church).

The comments of Donald Trump about Mexicans and the resistance of some people to even remove the symbols of slavery from the public life, let alone deal with the actual issue of slavery and race problems itself. Gay marriage does nothing to tear the seams of the moral fabric apart, that was done by the people who viciously opposed it iMHO, they compared gays to people who would want to marry children, animals, etc. Moral fabric is not destroyed by honest discussion and disagreement but by not willing to listen or by willing to compromise and open up the rights others already have in abundance to the rest of the American public and not discriminate on gender, sexual preference, color, religion etc.

The most important moral fabric any country can have is simple, equal protection under the law. That is where moral fabric begins IMHO and I congratulate anone who can now finally marry their loved ones.
 
They used flowery language, yes. That happens.

But the legal argument is sound. No state interest exists in barring a same-sex couple from signing a legal contract and therefore the equal protection challenge is upheld.

If you think emotion is the basis for their argument, all you have to do is prove their argument wrong with some sort of unbiased fact.
4 justices already provided that basis, reinforced by court decisions that go back to 1971. This decision is a complete departure from 230+ years of precedence and was made based on feelings and emotions.

And thats FINE. The SCOTUS is ultimately populated by 'people' that have an obvious political bent. While I think that is horrid and even dangerous...it is what it is.
 
The problem with that first quote is that the very idea of allowing people to have their laws put in place, enforced, including restrictions on other people's marriages, just because of their vote is ruling by men, not by law. The supreme law of this land is the Constitution, and that is in place to protect people specifically from being oppressed by either an overreaching government or the majority, especially if the majority/government cannot show a state interest is furthered by such laws (which they couldn't).


Did you read the decision? The majority relied very little on the 14th in this case, instead they justified their decision based of their interpretation and marrying (Pardon the pun) of the Due process clause with the 14th. The decision was argued from a due process (5th Amendment) standpoint, NOT the 14th.


Tim-
 
Yes, absolutely. Your wishes are purely political purposes, derived in no great fashion from a purely objective view of the Constitution. Democracy can be a vile institution which requires the majority to determine the rights of a minority. Minorities are usually despised by the majorities, thus democracy has often tended to destroy their liberty.

Civil liberties should not to be determined by the ignorant masses, of which you would be among them.

My beliefs are based on 2000 years old words of our Creator and the prophets not, some flip-flopping morons with a black robe. They were never suppose to legislate or be activists from the bench. The STATES [those 50 divisions in this country] should have, according to the Constitution, the right to say what marriage is in their domain. That has been taken away.

The fact you have no knowledge of or refused to adhere to those words make you ignorant.
 
Back
Top Bottom