• 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]

It's not my argument, silly. This is how the liberal judges on the USSC will approach the challenge. Man, sometime for someone that's usually pretty bright, ya kinda missed that one.. ;)

Tim-

You are the only person I've ever heard express such a view, so declaring it to be the view of others is a bit ambitious of you. Good luck with your theory.
 
I'm not going to even try to explain to you how non sequitur that is to anything I have posted. Do have a nice day.

You don't have to......because your avoidance and ignorance is blarring. The fact of the matter is that the exact argument that you are trying to make is the same exact argument that the bigots of the 50's attempted to make. That is hardly "non-sequitur.....it is directly on point....your choice to ignore it doesn't strengthen your claims....in fact it weakens them.
 
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).

Since Sodom and Gomorrah had problems which had absolutely zero to do with same sex marriage or homosexuality (there is a difference between homosexuality and dominance/power assertion rape, even of people of the same sex), it stands to reason if we were to see something, it'd have been before now.
 
You don't have to......because your avoidance and ignorance is blarring. The fact of the matter is that the exact argument that you are trying to make is the same exact argument that the bigots of the 50's attempted to make. That is hardly "non-sequitur.....it is directly on point....your choice to ignore it doesn't strengthen your claims....in fact it weakens them.

I don't have time to explain why the argument I am making is quite different from any argument from the 50's either, but again, have a pleasant evening.
 
I don't have time to explain why the argument I am making is quite different from any argument from the 50's either, but again, have a pleasant evening.

I can understand that. It must be pretty complicated seeing as how every argument is word-for-word identical to the ones used by people in the 50's, just swapping same-sex for different-race as needed.
 
I don't have time to explain why the argument I am making is quite different from any argument from the 50's either, but again, have a pleasant evening.

I'm not asking you to...and to be honest it would be a failed attempt anyway because you cannot rationally make such an argument. You and your ilk will continue to make the same claims that the bigots of the 50's did with the same results. Bigotry dies hard but America moves forward. Enjoy.
 
The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.

Well, I asked "who is they?", so I guess you mean to say that you are referring to the States. But, we must keep in mind that the word "State" includes the federal government.

It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.

They never should have had the right to "discriminate." Though, the Supreme Court has given them the okay on slavery, etc... for hundreds of years.
 
If you really knew the arguments used by the segregationists during the Jim Crow era, you'd understand...because the arguments they used then really aren't much different from those used against same-sex marriage today - against God's law, against nature, and all that.

Look up "Loving v. Virginia" and you should see what I mean.

I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.
 
Well, I asked "who is they?", so I guess you mean to say that you are referring to the States. But, we must keep in mind that the word "State" includes the federal government.

Yep, but we're not talking about "the federal government" when we refer to the states. Are we?

They never should have had the right to "discriminate." Though, the Supreme Court has given them the okay on slavery, etc... for hundreds of years.

Terrible decision made by the men of its time, eventually it was overturned... just like the bans on gay marriage were today. :)
 
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.

Uhh, people at the time argued that overturning interracial marriage bans was changing the definition of marriage. They used that exact phraseology. Also invoked tradition and God's will. Oh, and "will of the people."
 
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.

Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.

It was a rant, clearly Scalia has no idea what he's on the court to do. It isn't to support the will of the people, it's to decide what laws are Constitutional and which ones are not. This is a massive problem because, in recent years, the political parties have stacked the court with people who are supposed to follow a particular political bent, not actually do the job they're put in power to do.
 
This goes against the wishes of the people. It's like in 2010 when the people reacted to having Obamacare shoved down their throats...too much too soon. There will be backlash in the electorate.

The wishes of the people don't matter. The Supreme Court decides what laws are in line with the Constitution and what laws are not. Clearly, you have no idea what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.
 
This goes against the wishes of the people. It's like in 2010 when the people reacted to having Obamacare shoved down their throats...too much too soon. There will be backlash in the electorate.

The wishes of some of the people. And if you think the GOP is going to win an election based on gay marriage, pass whatever you're smoking. It ain't 2004 anymore.

Also, the SCOTUS doesn't exist to cater to the whims of any portion of the electorate.
 
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.

Interpretation: (Hands over eyes and ears).....LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA........I'm not going to educate myself.....I'm not going to listen.....I'm just going to keep believing the same false ideas that have been spewed to me in the past.

If you actually picked up a legal digest and read Loving....you would be embarrassed by how terribly wrong you are.......sorry.
 
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.

Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.

Scalia is an idiot and his dissent reads exactly as you characterize it. He doesn't have a clue what his role as a Supreme Court Justice is....THAT is what is truly scary.
 
There is increasing rate of divorce and late marriage around the world. It is good to know someone wants to marry this days. At least gays can save marriage tradition. (Kidding.)
 
Last edited:
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.

You didn't pay attention to what I said, guy. In the view of the anti-mixed-race marriage crowd - the conservatives of the time - miscegenation WAS against "God's laws", and against nature. The arguments were not much different.

And as time goes on and people become more educated, the sky-is-falling outrage among the anti-SSM crowd will fade as they - or at least their children and children's children - come to realize that YES, people really are "born that way", and that there's no good reason why someone who was born that way should be disallowed from marrying a consenting adult who was also born that way.

Okay? Get over it.
 
The decision is pretty fairly grounded in constitutional law. 14th amendment is clear, marriage, like many rights in the US, is considered a right based on precedent(and trust me, if we stopped having all those rights derived from precedent, you would be unhappy), and from there there is not many options for the court.



Yeah, I understand it. Even though I consider it a stretch in some ways I was pretty sure they'd invoke the 14th if they ruled this way, it's pretty obvious.

Personally I thought the silence of the Constitution on marriage rendered the 10th the most important, and that the matter should be left to the several states with SCOTUS maybe deciding a "full faith a credit" clause applied.


But I get the rationale behind the ruling and can't really blame them for going that way.



At least, if they stretched a point, they stretched it in favor of an individual liberty... :shrug:
 
Figured this was going to happen at some point. :shrug:



Well maybe now we can move on and address some issues that are actually important to us all...

Yeah, this was pretty predictable. I'm fine with it, but I'm finer with the idea that we don't have to talk about it anymore and people can focus on issues that impact all of us now.
 
Yeah, I understand it. Even though I consider it a stretch in some ways I was pretty sure they'd invoke the 14th if they ruled this way, it's pretty obvious.

Personally I thought the silence of the Constitution on marriage rendered the 10th the most important, and that the matter should be left to the several states with SCOTUS maybe deciding a "full faith a credit" clause applied.


But I get the rationale behind the ruling and can't really blame them for going that way.



At least, if they stretched a point, they stretched it in favor of an individual liberty... :shrug:

Surely you'd agree that even state powers under the 10th amendment are still subject to the 14th amendment. Basically, states have the right to define marriage, but just like every other law, such a definition is subject to equal protection and due process.

Either that, or a state can legally define marriage as between a Jewish black man and a hispanic buddhist female only. Right? If states have the right to define marriage, can they do that?
 
Surely you'd agree that even state powers under the 10th amendment are still subject to the 14th amendment.



Absolutely... if we're talking enumerated rights.


If we're talking assumed/implied rights, the matter is perhaps a smidge more hazy.
 
Absolutely... if we're talking enumerated rights.


If we're talking assumed/implied rights, the matter is perhaps a smidge more hazy.

What? No. All laws are subject to the 14th amendment. Right? You agree?

Basically, states have the right to define marriage, but just like every other law, such a definition is subject to equal protection and due process.

Either that, or a state can legally define marriage as between a Jewish black man and a hispanic buddhist female only. Right? If states have the right to define marriage, can they do that?
 
Yeah, this was pretty predictable. I'm fine with it, but I'm finer with the idea that we don't have to talk about it anymore and people can focus on issues that impact all of us now.



Well, maybe. :D


"Movements" don't stop moving just because they achieved their primary goal; they never say "Ok, we won, we're good now. Go home and be happy." Heh, no. They get in the habit of pushing for things (and some people get in the habit of making a comfy living by being a vocal spokesperson of the movement, ahem) so they tend to find more things to pitch a bitch fit about and continue generating news and consuming bandwidth for at least another generation. :doh:


Eh, we'll see... :shrug:
 
Well, maybe. :D


"Movements" don't stop moving just because they achieved their primary goal; they never say "Ok, we won, we're good now. Go home and be happy." Heh, no. They get in the habit of pushing for things (and some people get in the habit of making a comfy living by being a vocal spokesperson of the movement, ahem) so they tend to find more things to pitch a bitch fit about and continue generating news and consuming bandwidth for at least another generation. :doh:


Eh, we'll see... :shrug:

Are you under the impression that no more injustice remains regarding sexual orientation?
 
Back
Top Bottom