• 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 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.

No, it doesn't. Red tape and other issues keep the voters from being able to vote on this one every year to show the changing views of the people often enough to show that there would be a lot more votes striking down same sex marriage if it were practical to do so often enough to actually recognize changing views on this.
 
"May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I'm thinking someday your ideological chains will no longer yoke and choke the masses. And that countrymen like you will be 3 chapters back in our history books alongside the other oppressor's of our past.

Let freedom ring!

View attachment 67186257
 
No, you do not. And nobody cares. I mean, do you care whether random strangers recognize your marriage?



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?

Ok. So if I open a flower shop and refuse to participate in a gay wedding, I won't be prosecuted? I'm glad that is settled law then.
 
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?

I'm referring to the existing prohibitions on the number of marriages one is allowed to have and the blood relation restrictions.
 
I don't think so at all. In comparison to other groups, I think it's been a relatively quick victory.

Well, to some extent you are correct. From the moment that individuals began to really come into the open about being gay (roughly the 1970s) until today, that is a fairly quick turnaround. And in terms of how rapidly the national opinion shifted over the last 10 years, it is nothing short of amazing.
 
What a steaming crock of bull****.

The Constitution says nothing about this topic.

Didn't say anything about the Marriage License either, yet here we are.
 
Let's see if you're still so arrogant about it in 2016. It's gonna be a rout.

Unless you have support (which you don't) for an Amendment to the Constitution concerning this issue, its over. There is no way to get another case up through the SCOTUS unless the next POTUS simply refuses to obey the law and allow states to refuse to obey this law over a year after it has been recognized in those states. Pretty sure that isn't likely to happen. The POTUS alone, nor Congress can overturn a SCOTUS decision on this. The most they could do would be something close to "jury nullification", but even then it would take some support elsewhere, which isn't really there and is even less likely to be there in a year and a half.
 
I think conservatives are going to try and downplay their opposition to same sex marriage or to cover themselves by cloaking the argument in a state's rights style of argument.

Why? Not all Republicans are against Gay marriage and many don't care if same sexes want to live life with each other.

The good news with this is.....is now all are recognized. Which means that the last remaining group of special people can't run around and think they are very special anymore.

Means they will now have to actually focus on what is happening with the country. Rather than themselves. Its a win win!
 
"The stories of the people asking for the right to marry reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond." Justice Kennedy

As expected...they did not rule based on Constitution or law. They ruled on emotion and personal opinion.

C'est la vie. The upside is...people can get on with their merry lives. There will still be many court battles on implementation, but this issue looks settled.
 
It soils the institution of marriage but, more importantly, it solidifies the idea that we're not a democracy....we're lorded over by 5 unelected and robed buffoons who call all the shots.

It's ridiculous and infuriating that Justice Kennedy, by himself, can lord over 350 million people without receiving a single vote

How exactly does my marriage "soil" the institution of marriage?
 
Unless you have support (which you don't) for an Amendment to the Constitution concerning this issue, its over. There is no way to get another case up through the SCOTUS unless the next POTUS simply refuses to obey the law and allow states to refuse to obey this law over a year after it has been recognized in those states. Pretty sure that isn't likely to happen. The POTUS alone, nor Congress can overturn a SCOTUS decision on this. The most they could do would be something close to "jury nullification", but even then it would take some support elsewhere, which isn't really there and is even less likely to be there in a year and a half.

What I meant was the right will come to the polls in droves, Hillary will be routed
 
it's not the same. this decision is firmly supported by the fourteenth amendment.

Steaming. Crock. Of. ****.

We're going to bend over backwards for "author's intent" when it comes to the sloppy writing in Obamacare, effectively rewriting the bill they voted yes on for them, but we're going to pretend that the people writing and voting for the 14th Amendment not only considered marriage a "right" but that a marriage that would be totally alien to them is also a "right?"

That's ****ing absurd. This entire line of reasoning is a joke and has been since the first time some liar ever tried it.


you're actually arguing equivalency between allowing black people to be enslaved and allowing gay marriage to be recognized by the state

Absolutely not.

The equivalency is in pretending the Constitution, a plain English document, says something it does not. In this, these decisions are equal and they are to be condemned.

The nation is a federal republic of states, and those individual states are supposed to have broad leeway to set their own internal policy in any matter in which the Constitution is silent. You're dead set on the 14th and trying to hallucinate new meanings its authors would have never written and couldn't have conceived of while ignoring the final item in our Bill of Rights.

Dred Scott did exactly what Roe or this does - run roughshod over the rule of law.

I actually think marriage should not be a word the state ever uses and licenses should be a thing of the past. I don't care if gays want to have a joint property contract - that's all fine and dandy - I do care about the integrity of our Constitution.
 
Last edited:
There something the Chief justice said that is curious considering yesterday's ruling.

He said the Court was not a Legislature ?

Does that depend on your mood or the day or the cycles of the moon ? Because you sure were the legislature yesterday.
 
Ok. So if I open a flower shop and refuse to participate in a gay wedding, I won't be prosecuted? I'm glad that is settled law then.

Is your flower shop a church? A religion? Is its primary purpose to serve paying customers?



Crazy goal post move buddy.
 
[sarcasm]Finally President Obama has completed his job of destroying America![/sarcasm]
 
I'm referring to the existing prohibitions on the number of marriages one is allowed to have and the blood relation restrictions.

Does today's future have any direct impact or permit any of those types of non-traditional marriage? No.

Will future attorneys try and use today's ruling to make the argument for those types of marriages in the future? Probably.

But when they do, they will have to overcome the Government's argument that the prohibition helps to prevent fraud and tax evasion (for polygamy) and that the situation will not lead to abuse (in the case of underage marriage) and that the marriage will not likely be the result of undue influence (very close familial marriage).
 
Back
Top Bottom