• 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]

What you mean is that you knew there were at least 4 members of the Court that do not agree with your personal interpretation of the Constitution. Just as most of us knew that at least two/three of the Justices had an interpretation of the Constitution that matched yours, which was extremely limited because they support states' rights over individual rights.

No, you are in error. My personal view does not enter into it. There should be no party affiliation detectable in a Supreme Court Justice, they should all be able to read the Constitution and do what it says.

And it's not that the four liberals can't do that, it's that they won't do it. The Constitution is in conflict with their liberal agenda, so they ignore it. Has nothing to do with me. Today's democrats have strayed so far left, and far from what this country was founded on, that the Constitution isn't even in their ballpark.
 
No, you are in error. My personal view does not enter into it. There should be no party affiliation detectable in a Supreme Court Justice, they should all be able to read the Constitution and do what it says.

And it's not that the four liberals can't do that, it's that they won't do it. The Constitution is in conflict with their liberal agenda, so they ignore it. Has nothing to do with me. Today's democrats have strayed so far left, and far from what this country was founded on, that the Constitution isn't even in their ballpark.

All of this is a partisan rant that only recognizes the partisanship of one side and refuses to recognize that the US Constitution has been interpreted many different ways, by many different people for hundreds of years. You trying to change that to your fixed definition is still your subjective opinion. It has everything to do with you because you are the one making the claims of partisanship then going off on "the other side" (Democrats, liberals) in one of the most partisan rants I've seen in a while.
 
It is astounding to me that there are now nearly 2000 posts in this one thread on a ruling that will have zero impact on the lives of 95% of the people on here, and will have no impact at all on the lives of 100% of the people that are angry about the decision.
 
Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.

I understand how it works perfectly. You just didn't like the ruling. Your argument simply fails on the grounds of what SCOTUS has done historically. It has ruled on the constitutionality of marriage bans, and the like. :shrug:
 
I understand how it works perfectly. You just didn't like the ruling. Your argument simply fails on the grounds of what SCOTUS has done historically. It has ruled on the constitutionality of marriage bans, and the like. :shrug:

But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works. Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.
 
But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works.

Given the number of cases where SCOTUS has ruled on marriage? Nope, I definitely do. Continuing to claim the opposite is contrary to reality. :shrug:

Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...al_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments.[1] The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

Please, please stop this.
 
Last edited:
But, you demonstrate that you don't understand, or are willing to understand, how it works. Here is a little pointer... it's not a marriage ban, it's changing marriage to include more combinations than just a man and a woman. No one was banned.

People were banned from marrying someone of the same sex, just as people were banned from marrying someone of a different race.
 
Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist

By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.

[h=2]Land of the What-Was-That?[/h] Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.

None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.

If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .


[h=2][/h]
 
People were banned from marrying someone of the same sex, just as people were banned from marrying someone of a different race.
Barring legal recognition is not the same thing as banning marriage altogether.
 
Barring legal recognition is not the same thing as banning marriage altogether.

They were banned from legal recognition of their marriages. Seriously, what is up with all the semantics arguments lately? They have been referred to as "same sex marriage bans" for over a decade now, pretty sure there wasn't this many people complaining about that before now.
 
They were banned from legal recognition of their marriages. Seriously, what is up with all the semantics arguments lately? They have been referred to as "same sex marriage bans" for over a decade now, pretty sure there wasn't this many people complaining about that before now.
It has nothing to do with semantics. Even if not legally recognized, same sex couples could still marry (or not) and live their lives together. Perfectly legal and acceptable. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple could be sentenced to prison for that sort of thing.
 
It has nothing to do with semantics. Even if not legally recognized, same sex couples could still marry (or not) and live their lives together. Perfectly legal and acceptable. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple could be sentenced to prison for that sort of thing.

Are you kidding me? Ever hear of The Stonewall riot? Ever hear of a guy named Turing? Ever hear of Matthew Shepard?
 
It has nothing to do with semantics. Even if not legally recognized, same sex couples could still marry (or not) and live their lives together. Perfectly legal and acceptable. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple could be sentenced to prison for that sort of thing.

They could not get married in the same way that opposite sex couples could get married. They were banned from receiving legal recognition for their relationship, for their marriage. Banned from legally becoming spouses. And not too long ago, same sex couples could have been sentenced to prison and were for their relationships. The only difference is that those laws that put same sex couples in prison were struck down first, separately, which could have happened with the Loving decision as well, but the Court chose in that instance to take it further.
 
People were banned from marrying someone of the same sex, just as people were banned from marrying someone of a different race.

Now, now. I know it is required to be misleading to be on the left, but please, do you have to do it on every little thing?
 
Judge to Bakers: No Free Speech for You - Rachel Lu, The Federalist

By decree of the great state of Oregon, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa must pay $135,000 to the lesbian couple whom they “mentally raped” by refusing to bake their wedding cake. This was expected, but the final judgment, handed down last Thursday, came with another twist. Aaron and Melissa Klein have also been given a “cease and desist” order, which effectively decrees they must refrain from stating their continued intention to abide by their moral beliefs.

[h=2]Land of the What-Was-That?[/h] Let’s be clear on why this is so sinister. There are times when speech rights conflict with other legitimate social goods. The public’s right to know can conflict with individual privacy rights. Sometimes threats to public safety warrant keeping secrets. There can be interesting debates about intellectual property rights. These cases can get tricky, and we should all understand that speech rights necessarily do have certain pragmatic limits.

None of those concerns apply here. The Kleins did not threaten public safety. They violated no one’s privacy or property rights. Rather, the Oregon labor commissioner, Brad Avakian, wanted to silence them because the content of their speech. Presumably he was angry that the Kleins’ defiant stance had earned them a potentially profitable reputation as heroes for religious freedom. They were meant to be humiliated and cowed; instead there was a real chance they would land on their feet. So they had to be gagged to prevent that from happening.

If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to a case like this, it is meaningless. . . .


[h=2][/h]

There is no difference between a business stating their refusal to serve gay people on a huge billboard and telling gay people to their face.Either way, it's discrimination
 
T Seriously, what is up with all the semantics arguments lately?

Lately?

The rights opposition to SSM has always been based on dishonest semantics such as the definition of marriage, the definition of religious practice, etc
 
There is no difference between a business stating their refusal to serve gay people on a huge billboard and telling gay people to their face.Either way, it's discrimination

I wonder why these people involved in SSM always go to christian owned bakeries to get their cakes? And they can never find any other bakery to do the job? Don't you suppose they would go to gay bakeries instead?

Hey, here's an idea, why don't they go to muslim owned bakeries? I think the left's collective heads would explode on that one, they wouldn't know what to do!
 
I wonder why these people involved in SSM always go to christian owned bakeries to get their cakes? And they can never find any other bakery to do the job? Don't you suppose they would go to gay bakeries instead?

Hey, here's an idea, why don't they go to muslim owned bakeries? I think the left's collective heads would explode on that one, they wouldn't know what to do!

persecution.jpg
 
Wow, you drew that pretty fast. So, it's a holocaust now? Wait, does the left acknowledge that it even happened? Again, give the Muslim bakeries some business!
 
I wonder why these people involved in SSM always go to christian owned bakeries to get their cakes? And they can never find any other bakery to do the job? Don't you suppose they would go to gay bakeries instead?

Hey, here's an idea, why don't they go to muslim owned bakeries? I think the left's collective heads would explode on that one, they wouldn't know what to do!

Because there is no sign on most businesses announcing to the public exactly what everyone believes or what their sexuality is. There are plenty of Christians who have no issue at all serving same sex wedding cakes, but a person doesn't automatically no what kind of Christian a person is even if they are "obviously" Christian.
 
Because there is no sign on most businesses announcing to the public exactly what everyone believes or what their sexuality is. There are plenty of Christians who have no issue at all serving same sex wedding cakes, but a person doesn't automatically no what kind of Christian a person is even if they are "obviously" Christian.

Oh, we are still pretending on this? I think we all know why they are going to these bakeries.
 
Oh, we are still pretending on this? I think we all know why they are going to these bakeries.

I know that you have no evidence whatsoever to support any assertion that any of the cases we have seen so far involved a couple who was trying to set up a business. Don't agree? Provide the evidence concerning the following bakeries, Masterpiece Cakeshop and SweetCakes by Melissa.
 
I know that you have no evidence whatsoever to support any assertion that any of the cases we have seen so far involved a couple who was trying to set up a business. Don't agree? Provide the evidence concerning the following bakeries, Masterpiece Cakeshop and SweetCakes by Melissa.

Okay, just put your head in the sand. I don't need evidence to speculate, especially if it would have to come from those couples, who, I'm pretty sure, would not provide it. This is standard MO for the left. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
 
Back
Top Bottom