• 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]

This comes from a discussion of the new ruling over at Scotusblog: "A curious aspect of the new ruling was that, once again, Justice Kennedy did not spell out what constitutional test he was applying to a claim of gay equality. It simply discussed a series of court precedents, and his own recitation of of liberty, without saying what burden those challenging the bans had to satisfy before winning the right to equality."

So it appears that you have some basis for worrying about extending the reasoning, but I would be hesitant to read the lack of a discussion of an explicit constitutional test as a reading that a constitutional test does not exist.

By the way, I must admit that you were correct regarding my discussion of the most recent polygamist decision. I thought the Supreme Court had already issued a "cert. denied" order in regards to the Utah Supreme Court decision, but it appears that case is actually still awaiting an order from the circuit court.
Oh, it certainly exists, I'm just saying that we can no longer assume that the court will follow precedent in applying it. They've jumped that ship.
 
I guess the "people of faith" have their hatred and disrespect excused because a book told them to be that way.

I make no excuses for people of faith who practice hatred and disrespect. Are you excusing those who practice hatred and disrespect against people of faith?
 
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

If you're against polygamy, that's the question you should be answering instead of asking others to justify your position on polygamy.
 
I make no excuses for people of faith who practice hatred and disrespect. Are you excusing those who practice hatred and disrespect against people of faith?

No. I disrespect people all the time, when their actions don't warrant respect.
 
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

Similarly, allowing interracial marriage means we have to allow children to marry abstract concepts like "wellness," or allow the dead to marry furniture, right?

Or maybe you would agree that the 14th amendment is a little more nuanced?
 
No. I disrespect people all the time, when their actions don't warrant respect.

You conveniently didn't answer the question, which is, in effect, an answer it itself.

Edit - my mistake, you did say no - my apologies.
 
they could have done all of this without marriage.

Being technically possible to duplicate some of the benefits of a legal marriage contract does not at all uphold unequal treatment under the law.
 
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Yes some are very unChrist like but, they are the small minority. This is why I have no church I attend.
 
You conveniently didn't answer the question, which is, in effect, an answer it itself.

I was pretty sure the word "no" consisted of an answer to a question, but whatever dude. Have fun playing with your new mandatory gay husband.
 
That would be a pretty crappy wine company, since you would have no wine. In other words, you are applying that old saying incorrectly.

Unless, of course, your premise is that anyone that disagrees with the ruling really agrees with it but are saying it is no good because they won't ever be able to be in a gay marriage. Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying.

I'm not sure if your reading comprehension lacks or if you're just not good with puns...
 
I was pretty sure the word "no" consisted of an answer to a question, but whatever dude. Have fun playing with your new mandatory gay husband.

You'll note, hopefully, that I edited my comment prior to your posting - but your personal slag is noted as well.
 
Are you dating Satan? I do not know the nature of the relationship you have with the guy but all these intimate details are creeping me out.

It's not hard to see his work and know what makes him filled with glee.
 
This comes from a discussion of the new ruling over at Scotusblog: "A curious aspect of the new ruling was that, once again, Justice Kennedy did not spell out what constitutional test he was applying to a claim of gay equality. It simply discussed a series of court precedents, and his own recitation of notions of liberty, without saying what burden those challenging the bans had to satisfy before winning the right to equality."
The decision, it seems to me, is based on rather weak reasoning and is not a particularly well written opinion. It will be interesting to see what the scholars have to say (whether or not they agree with the outcome) once the dust settles a bit.
 
My personal beliefs do.

Really want to compare Muslim and Christians regarding their feelings toward gays?

There are some Christians who have positive feelings about gays; I suspect that is also true of Muslims as well. We humans are all different, we don't think alike. If we did it would be a boring life.
 
Yes but, they couldn't slap the face of the religious in the process.

True, and the repercussions and impact of this 'face slap' are yet to be seen.
My guess would be an even more accelerated moral decline in the population.
Wonder how long it'll be before this society slides into that Sodom and Gomorrah area (oh wait :doh, we're already there - between NYC and DC).
 
I was being tongue-in-cheek. However, they are going to be mad anyway. Social Conservatives have consistently been on the wrong side of history on every issue in at least the last 200 years. They are classic authoritarians and in this case are getting angry about something that has zero impact on their lives.

As opposed to the anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Bible, anti-family and anti-life...Left.
 
And I would note, just anecdotally, that the vast majority of people I've seen in the media participating in same sex marriage ceremonies have been fat white men and women,.


Look I understand Justice Scalia has a lot to be mad about. He's not a healthy man physically or ideologically and his ideological side is being obliterated on the political battlefield.
hhapk3s.jpg

To see all these young, healthy countrymen and women being in support of gays and other non socially conservative worldviews such as weed and healthcare must really be hard for the man. That said we must progress. We can't let a fat old angry man stuck in the past hold our citizenry back from freedoms that are long overdue in a truly free society.

xJajwcS.jpg
 
That's fair, but considering some of the comment I've seen here at DP, not specifically on this thread, related to the hatred and disrespect of people of faith, I wouldn't put it past some on the left moving in that direction, well before a million years.

Will ya let know when it happens? ;)
 
This is the second time in 2 days that the Supreme court let the GOP off the hook.
 
There comes a point where picking up the sword is much more effective.

Dylann Roof thought the same thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom