• 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]

There were four separate dissents, which is pretty rare. Last time it occurred was Gore v. Bush, I believe.

And from what I understand, the decision was written in a way to try and be very limited as it relates to potentially other non-traditional types of marriage. But, that will be a case for another day.

Unless they specifically said it was a narrow decision affecting sexual orientation, then it applies to almost every other type of prohibition.
 
Marriage has been defined for thousands of years. Now it has been redefined by the SCOTUS at the federal level.
What part of your marriage has been redefined? What about your life is changing?


Are they now going to FORCE churches to perform same-sex marriages even if it violates their religious beliefs? There is NO GOOD that can come of this.
Churches aren't now forced to perform heterosexual marriages, so I'm not sure why you think they'd be forced to perform same-sex marriages. No good can come of this? How about more children being in a two-parent, married household?
 
The court and the state may recognize their marriage, but I sure don't have to.


I'm not surprised this was the ruling, but there needed to be some clarification on who must recognize a government sanctioned marriage. What has been the trend is that homosexual relationships get precedence over religious beliefs and that is a dangerous road to travel. We are on the verge of creating classes of people that have elevated rights.
 
The integrity of the Constitution against the Supreme Court bypassing the specifically proscribed amendment process should be important to everyone.

Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

Which means that right now, we have nothing.


The Constitution is the only thing that gives the federal government any authority to do anything. It is the rule of law. With things like this, it is clear that we live under pure fiat and whim.

Says you. I am an American too and I think this is a great decision and I am very proud of our nation for taking the step forward towards freedom, liberty and justice for ALL!

View attachment 67186256
 
This isn't the end of it. There will be lawsuit after lawsuit against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. Religious freedoms are now being violated.

The majority opinion explicitly addresses that the First Amendment protects religious institutions from this ruling.
 
What exactly about my marriage makes you angry? How is it hurting you?

oh please you know you'll be told the same old tired ridiculous arguments. I'm so happy though. Happy for you. happy for myself. Happy for everyone.
 
Says you. I am an American too and I think this is a great decision and I am very proud of our nation for taking the step forward towards freedom, liberty and justice for ALL!

"May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
 
Unless they specifically said it was a narrow decision affecting sexual orientation, then it applies to almost every other type of prohibition.

No, it doesn't apply to other types of prohibition. It could theoretically be relevant precedent for other types of prohibition, but it's not some automatic road to children marrying furniture any more than the interracial marriage decision was. Interracial marriage means we have to let children marry furniture, right?
 
Oh you mean exactly the same thing they did today, then? Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about?

it's not the same. this decision is firmly supported by the fourteenth amendment.

It doesn't matter if you're talking about Dred Scott, Roe, or this newest abomination.

you're actually arguing equivalency between allowing black people to be enslaved and allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state. i'm not even going to put a question mark there, because i already know the answer.

Maintaining the integrity of the Constitution is their main job. When the foxes rule the henhouse, it's game over.

interpreting the law is their job. they might have gotten it wrong yesterday. they got the mandate part right, IMO, under general welfare and necessary and proper.

oh, and before you blow a gasket, i don't support the ACA as a solution. i do, however, support single payer, so maybe go ahead and blow a gasket, i guess.
 
Congrats everyone! It's been a long hard-fought fight. :lol:

I don't think so at all. In comparison to other groups, I think it's been a relatively quick victory.
 
Just woke up. Crying.
 
They had federal protection then; now they don't.

Incorrect. The majority opinion explicitly notes that the first amendment protects religious institutions from being forced to perform, or even to endorse, same sex marriage.
 
So does this mean that polygamy is now legal too?


Tim-

No. Simple answer. Just as the Loving decision did not automatically make same sex marriage legal (but I do wonder how many who hated that decision asked if it did though).
 
The Supreme Court may have forced this down our throats, but this just makes me hate gays where before, I didn't.

What is being forced down your throat? How wil this change your life one ioat?
 
The court and the state may recognize their marriage, but I sure don't have to.
No, you do not. And nobody cares. I mean, do you care whether random strangers recognize your marriage?


I'm not surprised this was the ruling, but there needed to be some clarification on who must recognize a government sanctioned marriage. What has been the trend is that homosexual relationships get precedence over religious beliefs and that is a dangerous road to travel. We are on the verge of creating classes of people that have elevated rights.
Homosexual relationships aren't being given precedence over your beliefs. That's absurd. You still have your beliefs. You just expressed them right now. Why would you think your religious freedom includes stopping someone else's marriage?
 
What is being forced down your throat? How wil this change your life one ioat?
And why do they always use the phrase "forced down our throats?"
 
Unless they specifically said it was a narrow decision affecting sexual orientation, then it applies to almost every other type of prohibition.

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Seems pretty narrow to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom