• 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]

The states really did not present a compelling interest, and he did consider their arguments. He just rejected them as compelling.
Simply rejecting arguments as compelling and applying the compelling interest test as has been done for decades are two separate things.
 
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-

I'm simply pointing out that he wasn't advocating that clergy should be sued or forced to perform marriages, only that he thought it would happen that either people would do so and it would be ruled on to remove religious figures or really anyone allowed to refuse from being able to sign (not forcing them to do it or even punishing them for not doing so) or that the laws would be changed so that only those who could not refuse to wed someone would be allowed to sign the marriage license. There is a difference in these arguments, and I've actually seen the argument he is making on here before. It does not advocate any sort of punishment against clergy for refusing to perform a ceremony. It only removes clergy from being able to officially sign the marriage license due to their right to be able to refuse to do so.
 
You sound bitter. And that sounds like a threat. I don't fear your Lovecraftian Eldritch Horror of a deity. I'm going to enjoy my life whether you or deity likes it or not. Right now the champagne is flowing at Chez Verthaine and I my sales reps are taking orders to cater gay and straight weddings.

As Satan smiles
 
You mentioned something about churches being required to be married, that simply is not true, churches can refuse to marry for any reason.

no they can't not now. a pastor has the ability to sign off on a marriage they technically act in the authority of the state to do so. they can be sued and the church can now be sued for not allowing gay marriage.

a Christian college that only allows men and women who are married to live together can now be sued for not allowing a gay couple.
same goes for a whole host of other religious organizations.

the SCOTUS today just tossed out the 1st amendment on it's ear.
they should be ashamed of themselves.
 
You seem a little butt-hurt over all this....:rofl

/hangs head....

yep when the constitution isn't upheld everyone should get butt hurt. when freedoms die to politics people should get butt hurt.
 
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.

Red diaper doper babies? You mean American people?

I was not aware that the 5 justices who just ruled that equal rights go for gays too were diaper babies?
 
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.

They aren't. This ruling only has to do with the actions of the state. Religious organizations are not required for any marriages.

no they can't not now. a pastor has the ability to sign off on a marriage they technically act in the authority of the state to do so. they can be sued and the church can now be sued for not allowing gay marriage.

This is not true.

a Christian college that only allows men and women who are married to live together can now be sued for not allowing a gay couple.
same goes for a whole host of other religious organizations.

A college is not a church. If it were wholly privately funded, this would likely not be true.

the SCOTUS today just tossed out the 1st amendment on it's ear.
they should be ashamed of themselves.

No, the court today ruled that one particular religious viewpoint doesn't get to control the law.
 
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-

Very little, is not none at all. And due process can still rely on a state interest, especially when it is used, as you said it was, with the 14th Amendment.
 
no they can't not now. a pastor has the ability to sign off on a marriage they technically act in the authority of the state to do so. they can be sued and the church can now be sued for not allowing gay marriage.

a Christian college that only allows men and women who are married to live together can now be sued for not allowing a gay couple.
same goes for a whole host of other religious organizations.

the SCOTUS today just tossed out the 1st amendment on it's ear.
they should be ashamed of themselves.

In fairness, they haven't actually done that yet, but they HAVE set themselves up for many challenges in the future.

Tim-
 
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-

I think eventually it will be a voluntary decision by most churches to marry SS couples. Religion needs to stay relevant in modern society or lose members and since younger generations are more accepting of LGTB the changes will come on their own. A good example is the LDS church changing it's doctrine about blacks.
 
In fairness, they haven't actually done that yet, but they HAVE set themselves up for many challenges in the future.

Tim-

which means they did it. if they had upheld the constitution then it wouldn't have mattered. they chose to ignore the constitution and the law and enact their own
policy. now they have provided a way to up sure religious freedom in this country.

you will see pastors and churches sued for not allowing gay weddings. you will see other religious organizations sued for standing up for their beliefs.
 
I think you don't understand the Constitution. It ennumerates our rights in general, but does not rule on specific real life situations and how they may apply to our rights. The founding fathers set up the court system to "interpret" the Constitutional protections, as they apply to real life situations. Real life situations would be so numerous and varied that there could never be a list of them all, not to mention that some situations in the future could not have been foreseen by our founding fathers.

So...the three branches of govt were set up to deal with real life situations. The U.S. S.Ct. being the ultimate and final determiner of the interpretation of the Constitution.

And so said our founding fathers.

Equal protection is in the constitution.
 
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

You can bet the bank that those activists are plotting just that. This is just part of the incremental process.

This sets this country on yet another slippery slope. [that the Left doesn't believe in]
 
I think eventually it will be a voluntary decision by most churches to marry SS couples. Religion needs to stay relevant in modern society or lose members and since younger generations are more accepting of LGTB the changes will come on their own. A good example is the LDS church changing it's doctrine about blacks.

So then you agree with the 4 dissenting judges? Because this is exactly what they said in their dissent, ALL OF THEM in rebutting the majorities reliance on Due Process. ;)

Tim-
 
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.

ya think? 5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word that has been around(and a vital part of society) since the dawn of man. and the left thinks we should all just shut up and get in line. doesn't work that way. They could make a ruling tomorrow saying the sky is orange and not blue. doesn't mean everyone blindly goes along. you mostly just smirk and slowly shake your head and just move on with your life.
 
I could start my own wine company with the collective amount of sour grapes being expressed over this decision...
 
Four justices including the Chief Justice saying this decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution might give you a clue however. But hey, I've been saying the court is rogue for some time now. There's no doubt now, we've accepted being ruled by the Ayatollahs.

I promised to get back to you, so here is what I can tell from reading(skimming alot since I am time pressed) Roberts dissent. First, the guy can write! He is really well spoken and articulate and able to turn a phrase, kinda reminding me somewhat of Ginsberg in that respect. I always enjoy reading his opinions.

His big argument is that the court should not decide which unenumerated rights are "fundamental" for purposes of the 14th. I am not sure that is a particularly strong argument since that is how such rights are recognized and that marriage has repeatedly been stated as a fundamental right for quite some time. Seems kinda late in the game to be saying "oh, but not it really isn't".
 
ya think? 5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word that has been around(and a vital part of society) since the dawn of man. and the left thinks we should all just shut up and get in line. doesn't work that way. They could make a ruling tomorrow saying the sky is orange and not blue. doesn't mean everyone blindly goes along. you mostly just smirk and slowly shake your head and just move on with your life.
People can still choose to fight it...legally. They just shouldnt be a dick about it.
 
I think eventually it will be a voluntary decision by most churches to marry SS couples. Religion needs to stay relevant in modern society or lose members and since younger generations are more accepting of LGTB the changes will come on their own. A good example is the LDS church changing it's doctrine about blacks.

The church isn't supposed to follow the ways of the world. it is supposed to stay separate from the world.
any church that does so violates biblical scriptures.
 
In fairness, they haven't actually done that yet, but they HAVE set themselves up for many challenges in the future.

Tim-

Religious liberty versus public accommodation laws...should be interesting.
 
So then you agree with the 4 dissenting judges? Because this is exactly what they said in their dissent, ALL OF THEM in rebutting the majorities reliance on Due Process. ;)

Tim-

There is a difference between changes in society to accepting same sex couples/marriages, and changes within the laws to doing so. Society is allowed to maintain bias, the law should not, at least not without some state interest furthered in doing so. Waiting longer for this is hurting people, their families. The bans themselves do not do anything but maintain unfair treatment of people based on their relationship choices that certain others don't approve of within the law.
 
As Satan smiles

And you know what an alleged being from an alleged different universe is doing right now how? Sorry,WHC,you can keep your fairy tales and your boogeyman to yourself. Your beliefs are inconsequential to me. If all you have are scare tactics,you might as well give up right now. I don't scare easily.
 
Back
Top Bottom