• 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]

Religion isn't a Sunday morning from 9-10 kind of thing. If I believe participating in a ceremony will send my soul to hell, do you think it is ok for the government to force me to do it?

Then don't participate in it. But make sure you either a) don't own a business where that would be an issue (don't participate in any wedding ceremonies) or b) earn enough money to ensure that if you are sued, you can settle.
 
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.
No, there won't. This ruling does not rewrite anti-discrimination statutes of the states or the federal government.

In addition, genuine religious organizations are not subject to those anti-discrimination statues, unless they operate a facility as a public accommodation. E.g. if Our Lady of Perpetual Motion RC Church only allows its parishioners to use the church for marriages, anti-discrimination laws don't apply. If OLPMRCC rents out its meeting hall to anyone for any purpose, then the anti-discrimination laws apply, and only to that meeting hall.
 
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).

Don't see where, or why, they would have a valid argument against polygamy and close relation. Probably will start to see those lawsuits in the next few months.
 
Clearly not. You either think it takes magical robes to read the holy text, or you dishonestly pretend this is the case for what could be a variety of reasons, all of which involve negative character traits.

You call yourself a libertarian while having no respect for the rule of law and supporting judicial fiat bypassing the amendment process.
No, I just recognize true expertise and authority where it exists and you, my "libertarian" friend, have none.
 
Oh...so you mean it's empty, angry ranting because you didn't get your way, but you're not going to do anything about it. Got it.

Well have fun in your impotent rage.

That's kind of what we do here at debatepolitics...
 
Their legal justification was a bastardized interpretation of an amendment that was decided on multiple times in the past. This isnt the first time this issue has come up, nor is it the first time the 14th was considered. They used personal opinion and emotional appeal to force it to fit where Supreme Court justices on several occasions in the past said they did not fit.

It is what it is. An opinion based on feelings, not law. And so be it. This is the system we have.

No, personal opinion and emotion is what you are using to decide that the state has a legitimate interest in denying same-sex couples a marriage license.
 
If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.

No, it doesn't. It didn't work for the Piggy Park guy, it won't work here. And the SCOTUS has already refused to uphold this as any sort of reality by refusing to hear the argument with the photographer.
 
Yes, I have read the plain English of the United States Constitution as written and as amended and I expect it to be upheld and followed by the government that would have no authority to exist or to do anything whatsoever without it.

When they grievously break this contract, there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.

Translation: I don't agree with the Court.
 
No, I just recognize true expertise and authority where it exists and you, my "libertarian" friend, have none.

Nope. Either you just worship authority and can't think for yourself, or you're pretending this is the case because its convenient.
 
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.



If you live long enough you will see the court move farther to the left.

In about 30 years the GOP will be reduced to a small, regional, party when the demographic change which is building up right now hits it like a tidal wave.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

No one can stop time and/or change.
 
Nope. Either you just worship authority and can't think for yourself, or you're pretending this is the case because its convenient.

So, in addition to being a "libertarian," you are psychic too and know what I am or am not pretending? Go ahead, stick to this argument. It's great entertainment! :lamo
 
Yeah the tax breaks are appealing, but the risk of paying alimony to an adult human being outweighs that, logically

Not if you aren't taking care of her. Alimony is not common unless there is a difference in the amount of support one adult human has been providing to another, and that is due mainly to their roles in the marriage.
 
No, it doesn't. It didn't work for the Piggy Park guy, it won't work here. And the SCOTUS has already refused to uphold this as any sort of reality by refusing to hear the argument with the photographer.

Yes it does.
 
Of course you're right, but this is just one more knock against marriage. Marriage favors the woman anyway, the justice system has already taken divorce law to where your wife can cheat on you, if you divorce her, she gets HALF.

I don't really want to get saddled with that level of financial risk. This decision today just zaps whatever there was about marriage that was pure or worth pursuing anyway....because there is no logical reason for a well off man to marry, the only reason would have been emotional or traditional. Well, now those reasons are finito as well
Dood..did you just read what you said?

Come on, man. Step back. Breathe. If THAT is how you define the positives and negatives of 'marriage' then you cant POSSIBLY put that on 'gay marriage'. And if we are being honest...you probably would feel better with a blanket apology to people on this forum for letting your emotions get the better of you. Its not personal. Dont make it personal. Dont take it personally.

I've been married 33 years. Its been a battle but its also been fricken awesome. Never once has divorce come up as a possibility and the last thing ever on my mind would be about the negative financial aspect of separation and divorce. Dont tlet those things cloud your opinion on what is and always will be a powerful and beautiful thing.
 
Tell me, why is it that when a conservative hears facts they don't like, reads an academic study by trained researchers whose conclusions disagree with their dogma, it is instantly because it's a "left wing organization?" Are you really that incapable of thinking that people who don't share your narrow view of the world are incapable of research?!

The vast majority of Colleges and Universities lean left...some far left. Fact. Therefore, not a valid source of information. Not because I'm to the right, but because they're biased. The left is well-known to twist and distort information to further their agenda. Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?
 
Not if you aren't taking care of her. Alimony is not common unless there is a difference in the amount of support one adult human has been providing to another, and that is due mainly to their roles in the marriage.

I make 5 times what she makes, I'm sure I'd be strapped with alimony
 
I have no particular interest in this subject other than I don't believe that government should be in the business of sanctioning or banning individual, legally contracted, relationships and they shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers based on their piece of paper. I believe every individual, for purposes of love or security or whatever other reason, should be able to enter into a contracted relationship that is honoured and respected by government and the courts. If you can enter into a contract to have your lawn mowed, and that contract can be adjudicated in court based on the terms of the contract, there's zero reason why only a government issued piece of paper validates a relationship contract.

That said, the issue here in Canada has been a non-issue for the most part. No churches have been mandated to marry anyone and never will. It's possible, in the US, where the left takes everything to extremes and goes way overboard that there will be a push to punish the religious right by trying to force them into performing same sex marriages, but I would hope they wouldn't.

The next move, if the right is serious about the so called damage this will cause society, will be for them to push to have government eliminate all benefits that accrue to those who hold paper. Tax and other law should be based on individuals and the rights of individuals. To do otherwise will open up the courts to the next wave of social, sexual, rights seekers.

The left affirmed in the ruling that religious institutions are protected by the 1st amendment from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage. The very ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states is now the precedent that forever protects churches and other religious institutions from having to recognize or support them.
 
No, personal opinion and emotion is what you are using to decide that the state has a legitimate interest in denying same-sex couples a marriage license.

Dont be silly. I am accepting law. I am citing the justices emotional response. And you are somehow shtting yourself over that fact.
 
Yes it does.

Nope. You can continue to repeat this, but so far, the SCOTUS has not agreed with you. And that isn't likely to change soon, considering it would mean anyone could use religion as an excuse to simply not obey public accommodation laws. We are more likely to see PA laws be voted down than see the SCOTUS overrule them.
 
You call yourself a libertarian while suggesting that Americans should be able to vote away the freedom of other Americans.

If the republic is to continue, I want to work to promote liberty within the rule of law and will vote for politicians who espouse the same values.

I don't care how many people want to get "married" or whether how many of them are having sex with the others and which ones. Don't give a damn about it, in fact.

I do care about the rule of law, and this spits on it. This is evidence of corruption and incompetence within the Supreme Court. It is clear they have no interest or ability to perform their duties.
 
The vast majority of Colleges and Universities lean left...some far left. Fact. Therefore, not a valid source of information. Not because I'm to the right, but because they're biased. The left is well-known to twist and distort information to further their agenda. Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?

Thank you for proving my point. You do not believe that non-conservatives are capable of doing research. I will dismiss your opinions now, since they are obviously rooted in a deep-seeded bias that you are incapable of understanding.
 
Are you really incapable of forming your opinions on facts rather than what the left tells you is the right thing to believe?

Says the guy holding up a right-wing, biased study, as the only valid information in the world on the subject.
 
Nope. Either you just worship authority and can't think for yourself, or you're pretending this is the case because its convenient.

Part of living in a society is accepting the rules therein and the decisions which establish them. We can't always get everything we want.
 
Back
Top Bottom