• 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 SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.
And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.

5-4 was hardly a mandate for other decisions by this Court either--gutting the VRA, Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0.

What both sides are still missing is that Kennedy and Roberts have their own deep views of Libertarianism.
As we see with Kennedy writing today's opinion on gay marriage and yesterday's opinion on Texas Housing.
And with only Roberts voting with ACA the first time while both Kennedy and Roberts upheld ACA the 2nd time.

I'll continue to maintain these two are sick of the stalemate in Congress and will continue to legislate from the bench.
Both for and against both political parties--as we'll see with rulings next week.

With the death penalty as an example expected to swing back to the right 5-4--not a mandate.
At times, Sotomayor has joined Kennedy and Roberts as part of this new "third" wing that is non-partisan and libertarian .
 
Satan does not ****ing exist. Stop trying to run other people's lives based on the whims of your imaginary sky fairy and his evil cousin.

You lost. Eat it.

I've been told 100s of times here that SSM won't, can't and never will affect my life.

HOW AND WHAT THE **** DID I LOSE?
 
I've been told 100s of times here that SSM won't, can't and never will affect my life.

HOW AND WHAT THE **** DID I LOSE?

If it doesn't affect your life, and can't ever, then why do you waste so much of your time railing against it on this forum? Onward, Christian soldiers!
 
I've been told 100s of times here that SSM won't, can't and never will affect my life.

HOW AND WHAT THE **** DID I LOSE?

The court case.... Your side definitely lost that. Oh, and the power to dictate whether others get married. But, you know... other than that your life is pretty much the same. Have a great weekend!
 
I've been told 100s of times here that SSM won't, can't and never will affect my life.

HOW AND WHAT THE **** DID I LOSE?

Ahh, so you can't name anything! Great. I'm glad we finally agree that no harm is done to you or to society by two dudes gettin hitched. Welcome, friend.
 
But the marriage rate now is about half the rate it was in the 1960's and the divorce rate has doubled. And people were far more likely to describe their marriages as good/happy then than they are now. So maybe when marriage was considered the cultural norm, that was a healthy thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before living together, that was a good thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before having kids, that was a very beneficial thing. And expecting to make a life together and grow old together and share experiences with kids and grandchildren together was something to anticipate instead of being unusual.

Too many people, if they bother to get married at all, go into marriage as a trial thing fully expecting to divorce if it didn't turned out according to expectations. There is no longer any stigma to having kids, accidentally or on purpose, outside of marriage. And too many look to government to be their sugar daddy instead of building and sharing economic security together.

Whatever the motives or reasons were for changing the definition of marriage, I cannot see it as a good thing for anybody in the long term as I do expect as a culture marriage will be even less desirable and important than before.

What you are describing is all due to the advent of no fault divorces. I hardly see how allowing same sex couples the ability to marry will have the same impact.
 
Reagan appointee too. :lol:

Though I'm sure someone will bring up that he was appointed after Bork was deep-sixed by Ted Kennedy due to his ideology .
 
Why? It's a college. Funded in part by government monies. It has no more right to dictate morality than does a baker in a bakery.

how is a private religious college funded by the government?
it isn't.

however for the purposes it is tax exempt as much colleges are. however for them exercising their first amendment rights to religious freedom they could lose their tax exempt status for simply saying that marriage is between a man and a women and or not allowing gay couples to stay with each other.

this decision trampled on the first amendment.
 
they could have done all of this without marriage.

That's right, they CAN (usually), but it requires each couple to sign a bunch of contracts and powers of attorney and when dealing with a hospital, for example, the couple would need to produce the papers to prove you are entitled to visitation rights, or have the power to make emergency medical decisions on behalf of your wife, etc.

The advantage of state-sanctioned marriage is a whole slew of rights and responsibilities are assumed to accrue to the married couple and the law defers to that assumption in all kinds of ways (e.g. right to inherit). Without that state contract, the couple has to demonstrate those rights at every turn with individual contracts. It's a BIG deal, especially if a bitter family is intent on blocking the gay partner at every step, which sadly isn't rare. But it also provide legal certainty to all kinds of people dealing with that couple. Creditors, for example, don't have to guess when a spouse is or isn't legally obligated to pay the debts of another spouse. It's well settled law. It is less settled for a live in boyfriend of 2 years, or 10 years.... Etc.
 
how is a private religious college funded by the government?
it isn't.

however for the purposes it is tax exempt as much colleges are. however for them exercising their first amendment rights to religious freedom they could lose their tax exempt status for simply saying that marriage is between a man and a women and or not allowing gay couples to stay with each other.

this decision trampled on the first amendment.

..the first amendment right to tax-exemption?
 
Being technically possible to duplicate some of the benefits of a legal marriage contract does not at all uphold unequal treatment under the law.

actually it means they can have the same treatment under the law as a married couple. that is how civil unions were designed to begin with.
 
Though I'm sure someone will bring up that he was appointed after Bork was deep-sixed by Ted Kennedy due to his ideology .

Pretend I wasn't alive back then and explain this?
 
..the first amendment right to tax-exemption?

1st amendment right to free speech and express religious views without being punished by the government for expressing those views.
 
I'm pretty sure every person on all the dollar bills would be AGAINST gay marriage. Probably time to remove them and and replace them with the Kardashians(Caitlan would get the one dollar bill, of course).
 
Nope, I don't think think you understood what I said at all. It's pretty clear. Sour grapes? It being used for the religious argument wanting to give marriage over to "the states" because they themselves cannot have control of it. exPRESSED? Whine? Some of my best work. Seriously. There are like 4 puns in one sentence.

I know what you were trying to say, so then sour grapes reference was to a handful of people? Maybe? And, I don't know if you've heard, but when you say to "the states", that means the federal government now.
 
actually it means they can have the same treatment under the law as a married couple. that is how civil unions were designed to begin with.

Let's see, civil unions were banned to same sex couples in most states, and not one civil union has the same legal protections of marriage. So, nope, not equal protections under the law.
 
But the marriage rate now is about half the rate it was in the 1960's and the divorce rate has doubled. And people were far more likely to describe their marriages as good/happy then than they are now. So maybe when marriage was considered the cultural norm, that was a healthy thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before living together, that was a good thing. When we as a society and culture expected people to get married before having kids, that was a very beneficial thing. And expecting to make a life together and grow old together and share experiences with kids and grandchildren together was something to anticipate instead of being unusual.

Too many people, if they bother to get married at all, go into marriage as a trial thing fully expecting to divorce if it didn't turned out according to expectations. There is no longer any stigma to having kids, accidentally or on purpose, outside of marriage. And too many look to government to be their sugar daddy instead of building and sharing economic security together.

Whatever the motives or reasons were for changing the definition of marriage, I cannot see it as a good thing for anybody in the long term as I do expect as a culture marriage will be even less desirable and important than before.

Why will more people (same sex couples) getting married detract from the cultural norm of marriage? I can't connect the dots from SSM to any of those negatives you mention.

I've mentioned my brother is gay. He's got a partner of 5 years. They can get married, or live together like they are now. I'd think them getting married is a good thing for society as opposed to preventing them from making a binding legal and personal commitment to each other. But by your reckoning, if they make a binding commitment, it leads to bad things and I don't see how or why.
 
I'm sorry you feel that other peoples' freedom slaps you in the face, I really am.

when those freedom trample on other peoples freedoms then it should bother you as well.
can't wait to see pastors and church's sued for not allowing homosexuals to marry in their churchs.

good luck finding a church to allow you to marry or even use their buildings.

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Alito writes. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

alito got it right because this already goes on.
 
1st amendment right to free speech and express religious views without being punished by the government for expressing those views.

I'm not tax-exempt. Am I being punished?
 
From the majority opinion:
“Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no state shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. … In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

If that is the case than according to this opinion anyone who has a religious BELIEF which opposes gay marriage and doesn't wish to involve their labor or services in any aspect of it, than according to this opinion it is that person's RIGHT to refuse
 
when those freedom trample on other peoples freedoms then it should bother you as well.
can't wait to see pastors and church's sued for not allowing homosexuals to marry in their churchs.
How many times did this happen with interracial marriages? How many churches have been forced to perform interracial marriages against their will?
good luck finding a church to allow you to marry or even use their buildings.
Plenty of churches already perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. That is their choice.
“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Alito writes. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Why do you feel your right to your religious beliefs includes the right to silence my opinion of your belief?
 
Let's see, civil unions were banned to same sex couples in most states, and not one civil union has the same legal protections of marriage. So, nope, not equal protections under the law.

you obviously didn't read the civil unions. yep they did at the state level which is where it should have been as it is the states job to define marriage not the SCOTUS.
they overstepped their bounds once again.

they didn't uphold the law but made their own law just like they did in the obamcare ruling a few days ago.

they all need removed from the bench and arrested for the crimes against the constitution.
they are not making rulings based on the law or constitution but based on their political ideology which is unconstitutional and
not their job.
 
Back
Top Bottom