• 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]

Churches will be in violation of federal law if they refuse. I can GUARANTEE to you there will be discrimination lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gay couples. Hell, even private business have been sued for refusing to provide service to same-sex couples.
Because public accommodation laws apply to for-profit businesses that hold out to the public.

Churches are not that.

Cite the federal statute you think applies.


I'm already familiar with that study. Every single right-winger latches onto it. It was bogus. It took children who had literally never been in a household with same-sex parents and called them "gay households."

A “reality check” for the Regnerus study on gay parenting [UPDATED] - The Washington Post
 
You should use part of his prior post, where he ends up by saying, "I hate you." (posting to a gay or gay-support poster)

I read that. That'll probably cost him points. I couldn't get away with that.
 
Because you stole marriage from me and made it something dirty



No one has taken anything from you. Giving equal rights to all harms no one.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
True.

Both rulings will bite them in the ass.

ObamaCare is already so unpopular that it couldn't be mentioned in the 2014 Midterms elections....by the Democrats.

The Supreme Courts ruling on subsidies put ObamaCare right back in the laps of the Democrats and let the GOP Congress off the hook.

Let them celebrate. They won't be after the 2016 elections.

Considering Hillary would almost certainly support UHC, overturning ObamaCare, which is why many Democrats and Independents don't care for it, I doubt that will be an issue. And there are lots of Independents and even Republicans that support same sex marriage.
 
Oh you mean exactly the same thing they did today, then? Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about?

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


Maintaining the integrity of the Constitution is their job. When they not only fail to do that, but they directly violate the Constitution themselves and make up new "rights" willy nilly and force them against the states appropriate of nothing, that is tyranny.

This is what the left fails to realize. They are systematically destroying the Constitution and the protections that it provides, and taking our liberties and turning them into federal powers. We all lose.

The left just doesn't care about anything that is not right in front of their collective faces, they don't even know or care what happened with these decisions. All they care about is that they got a short term bone thrown to them.

The Constitution protects us from the possibility of a tyrannical government. This Supreme Court has decided that it doesn't care what the Constitution says.

Again, we all lose, so many just don't know it yet.
 
Making up **** and tacking it on to the text as though it was always there is the exact opposite of upholding the text.

The Tenth Amendment is a thing, it has not been repealed.

Pretending it has been or just ignoring it wholesale is decidely NOT upholding the text.

Do you think the tenth amendment gives the states the right to define marriage as between only Muslim men and women?
 
Making up **** and tacking it on to the text as though it was always there is the exact opposite of upholding the text.

The Tenth Amendment is a thing, it has not been repealed.

Pretending it has been or just ignoring it wholesale is decidely NOT upholding the text.

Pretending the 14th amendment did not fundamentally alter how the 10th amendment is enforced is not exactly upholding the text.
 
I read the rules. Please quote where it says I need permission.

And if he stands by what he says, why is he ashamed for people to see it?

It could be considered taunting which violates rule 14.
 
This is what the left fails to realize. They are systematically destroying the Constitution and the protections that it provides, and taking our liberties and turning them into federal powers. We all lose.

The left just doesn't care about anything that is not right in front of their collective faces, they don't even know or care what happened with these decisions. All they care about is that they got a short term bone thrown to them.

The Constitution protects us from the possibility of a tyrannical government. This Supreme Court has decided that it doesn't care what the Constitution says.

Again, we all lose, so many just don't know it yet.

I'm so very sorry you just lost your right to stop someone else from getting married. Heartbroken, really.
 
No one has taken anything from you. Giving equal rights to all harms no one.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

They have devalued marriage
 
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.



Come now, this is hardly the first time the Court has stretched a Constitutional point like a rubber band and twisted it far out of its meaning.


Roe v Wade for one, the Commerce Clause for another. It's not a constructionist decision but it isn't the end of the world either.
 
i dont need to.

bahahahahahahahhahahahahah

"I'll just pretend there's no legal justification. If I didn't see it, it doesn't exist!"
 
Churches will be in violation of federal law if they refuse. I can GUARANTEE to you there will be discrimination lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gay couples. Hell, even private business have been sued for refusing to provide service to same-sex couples.





I guess you didn't read => Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children

Instead of a rightwing fluff piece, I would go by an actual scientific study that shows not only that children with same sex parents do as well. They do BETTER.

But your logic is faulty. If studies show that children do better with same sex parents, does that mean that different-gender parents should not have children? Of course not.

If studies show that children do better with parents that have brown eyes do better than parents with blue eyes, does that mean that parents with blue eyes should not have children? Of course not.

But in this case, there is a dearth of studies on the subject, but a major recent one showed that children of same sex parents do better, across the board, than those of different-gender parents. Since you place a lot of stock in studies.
 
Your loss. Wonder how long she will be willing to stay with you if you aren't willing to marry her because of this issue? Seems a bit ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that meaningless piece of paper known as a marriage certificate.

We can be in love, live together, start a family, all without one
 
I'm so very sorry you just lost your right to stop someone else from getting married. Heartbroken, really.

ROFLMAO. Oh the irony is so delicious.
 
They have devalued marriage



Bud, I don't agree with all this SSM stuff either... but I have to say I agree with those who have said that we've ALREADY devalued marriage to a massive degree, mainly with no-fault divorce and a 50% divorce rate.

So let's not be over dramatic... it's not like we fell off a cliff. This is just another bump going down the slope we were already on.
 
Because you stole marriage from me and made it something dirty

You never owned marriage. And my marriage is doing just fine. If you think your marriage is "dirty" that is your personal problem, and has nothing to do with same sex couples being able to get married.
 
Come now, this is hardly the first time the Court has stretched a Constitutional point like a rubber band and twisted it far out of its meaning.

Roe v Wade for one, the Commerce Clause for another. It's not a constructionist decision but it isn't the end of the world either.

Actually, if Roe v. Wade and the commerce clause aren't overturned / restrained, respectively, it is the end of any sort of United States worth having, living in, or fighting for.

The court needs to swing back to limiting the expansion of federal power, which is the purpose of the entire philosophy of limited government and negative liberty that this nation is built upon. If it can't or won't do its job, then stick a fork in it.

Doubling down on the nonsense of Roe is not a good sign.
 
This will be the end of the Democratic Party for a generation. You won't see another den in the White House for a decade

Ahahahahaha.

'Nuff said.

Great ruling, and about damn time.
 
What a ****ing retarded lie.

This ruling violates the Constitution.
No. No it doesn't. And, sorry, but I'm willing to take the word of the USSC over some random DP poster with no legal credibility any day.
 
Back
Top Bottom