• 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]

It's a vote to turn America into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now America gets to pay the price for this spiritual dwarfism, and it's not going to be pretty.

"Supreme Court Justices, can you judge the ways of God? Can you, with manmade verdicts, overrule the eternal laws of God? There is another court, and there is another Judge. And before Him, all men and all judges will give account. If a nation's high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised if the Almighty should pass judgment on that court and that nation?" Rabbi Jonathan Cahn

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn Gives America a Final Warning - Freedom Outpost
Havent you learned by now that we don't believe nor care what you say your god thinks?
 
Maybe our nation can finally move on? Doubt it.
 
Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade

So the punishment is nothing. Okay!

Judgment doesn't always come right away, but it will come. And then there's Judgment Day before the Almighty when it will certainly come.
 
I'm so very sorry you just lost your right to stop someone else from getting married. Heartbroken, really.

I never could, so I didn't lose it. I'm so very sorry you are not aware of what was lost and what's being done to you. Most of you will realize it once it's too late.
 
I am not a Catholic, trust me Catholic churches are not required to marry me, it's been that way forever. No wait is required.

I don't think anyone would challenge the church directly. It makes more sense that they would challenge continuing to allow someone to select which marriage licenses they will sign and which ones they won't.
 
It was more of a story about a woman who had two "moms" and how it negatively impacted her life.

And I can find millions of stories on the internet about people having a mom and dad who stayed together and it negatively impacted their life.
 
this is one of the topics where i held the wrongheaded position as recently as 2002. that scalia hates this prose makes me admire it all the more:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
 
It's a vote to turn America into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Now America gets to pay the price for this spiritual dwarfism, and it's not going to be pretty.

"Supreme Court Justices, can you judge the ways of God? Can you, with manmade verdicts, overrule the eternal laws of God? There is another court, and there is another Judge. And before Him, all men and all judges will give account. If a nation's high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised if the Almighty should pass judgment on that court and that nation?" Rabbi Jonathan Cahn

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn Gives America a Final Warning - Freedom Outpost

Good thing we don't all hold to the teaching of an old relic that belongs in a museum. I imagine god will be as silent on this as he is when people cry out to him in a disaster.
 
:2party:

I raise my glass from this end of the pond to my many friends who will have their lives changed and improved by this. Geez, finally.


Tears_zps1d8b717b.jpg
 
Yeah, here comes the "angry god" as a hitman theme. You soooo want your god to start killing and punishing that it excites you. How savage of you.

It's not up to me, beefheart. It's up to God and I doubt you're going to be a fan of what ultimately happens.
 
I don't think anyone would challenge the church directly. It makes more sense that they would challenge continuing to allow someone to select which marriage licenses they will sign and which ones they won't.

Which is why the religious ceremony should be divorced from the civil ceremony.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Roberts that this ruling has delayed that, if anything.

A-yup.

By removing this from the realm in which it justly belongs by the rule of law, preventing the people from voting on the topic at hand as is their authority under the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment, this court has rendered "moving on" a logical impossibility.

Had the people of each state come to this conclusion on their own or had the majority of states ratified an amendment stating so, that would be a different matter.
 
Which is why the religious ceremony should be divorced from the civil ceremony.

It isn't already? When I got married it was in no church and there were no church officials (that I was aware of) in the room.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Roberts that this ruling has delayed that, if anything.

God I hope not. This issue should have been dead 20 years ago. I'm tired of hearing about.
 
Way to go SCOTUS...finally America joins the 21'st century on this.

It is absolute nonsense that the state could decide who can marry and who cannot. ANY consenting adults should be able to marry.

And the hypocrisy of the right saying that same sex marriage is against the Bible, yet the Pope now supports global warming being caused by humanity - though the right is still insisting there is little/no global warming.

So, basically, the right just wants to believe whatever it wants and only uses the Bible whenever it suits them.


Once again, I am neither lib nor con.

Using the Bible to make law would be unconstitutional any which way you look at it.
 
Judgment doesn't always come right away, but it will come. And then there's Judgment Day before the Almighty when it will certainly come.

Just keep clinging to your fear, it is all you have.
 
I don't think anyone would challenge the church directly. It makes more sense that they would challenge continuing to allow someone to select which marriage licenses they will sign and which ones they won't.

There is already a movement within Christianity to get Christian clergy to refuse to sign marriage licenses.
 
No they didn't.

Oh yea?

Brown v. Buhman, 11-cv-0652-CW (2013)[10] — the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation ruled unconstitutional, but Utah allowed to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses
 
It isn't already? When I got married it was in no church and there were no church officials (that I was aware of) in the room.

There's no requirement to have a religious ceremony, but any clergy are allowed to sign a license. Since the majority opinion rests in making things equal, you can't have two classes of enablers that can follow different rules.
 
You haven't heard that I don't care or value what you think?

Well, you can always push through a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom