• 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]

Lol, that's not a Supreme Court case.

Fail.

The decision by the Supreme Court not to review the appeal from this case is a decision by the Supreme Court.

#Win
 
Why shouldn't they be able to sign that document? It doesn't hurt anyone at all for them to do it, even if they are allowed to refuse to sign it for some people. And them doing it saves the state money in having to provide more people to be available to sign those documents.

First no money will be saved by the state. As far as I'm concerned it's all said and done when a couple goes to the courthouse to get said marriage license and they make you raise your right hand and swear the oath. The more important issue is if the state is authorizing certain individuals such as ministers/priests to legally witness and sign a secular legal document I think we get on shaky ground when said person refuses to sign said document for particular people. The state aught to stay out of religious affairs and vice versa.
 
Just to make the point, the 14th amendment is the rule of law. It made this decision inevitable.

Of course, gay marriage has been a "constitutional right" ever since 1868. And so has marrying trees, but we won't discover that was the author's secret intent until 2172.
 
So it's all about politics?

Yes. Welcome to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Marriage equality was denied on the basis of politics and it has now been expanded due to politics.
 
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.

Actually no. Currently, churches already can and do decide who they as an institution will marry. As was brought up in the oral arguments for this very case, a rabbi is not required by law, and can withing the law, refuse to marry a Jewish person to a nonjew.


Anecdote, and not consistant with my experience with growing up with a gay mother. That is the thing, not all parents, straight or gay, are perfect. Many(or all really) are less than perfect. It is still preferable to have children raised in two parent households, even if those parents happen to be the same sex.
 
First no money will be saved by the state. As far as I'm concerned it's all said and done when a couple goes to the courthouse to get said marriage license and they make you raise your right hand and swear the oath. The more important issue is if the state is authorizing certain individuals such as ministers/priests to legally witness and sign a secular legal document I think we get on shaky ground when said person refuses to sign said document for particular people. The state aught to stay out of religious affairs and vice versa.

It's illegal to bar someone from holding a job because of their faith, and rightfully so.
 
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.

i realized I'm quoting this 2 hours later in an incredibly fast-moving thread but...

you do realize a majority of americans support gay marriage, right? you also realize that something like 80% of people under 35 support gay marriage, right? so how can you reconcile that with what you've posted here?
 
Just to make the point, the 14th amendment is the rule of law. It made this decision inevitable.

Even the Chief Justice disagrees with you on that one. This was a very clear abandonment of oath and illegitimate amendment to constitution by five justices, and noted as such by the remaining justices, including the Chief.
 
But they are still free to discriminate who they can marry for religious reasons...in a religious marriage. There's no reason why they can't wear both hats. If the religious official doesn't feel he can perform the duties of a civil official, then he simply wouldn't take the job. Legally barring them from taking the job would actually be illegal.

If they are willing to sign the document for anyone, even random non religious people on the street, then it would work. If one is allowed to sign the legal marriage document then one ought not be able to discriminate for any reason.
 
Even the Chief Justice disagrees with you on that one. This was a very clear abandonment of oath and illegitimate amendment to constitution by five justices, and noted as such by the remaining justices, including the Chief.

I am delaying comment until I finish reading the opinion. I have not gotten to his dissent yet. I will get back to you on this though.
 
So you can't provide anything other than a threat?

What a strange threat at that. "The God I worship will punish America one day, for something not actually not in the scriptures, with what and when I cannot say, even though our next door neighbor hasn't received anything resembling a reprimand. It'll totally happen, you'll all see."

Maybe God like poutines.

Sounds like what might have been said in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
I am delaying comment until I finish reading the opinion. I have not gotten to his dissent yet. I will get back to you on this though.

Look at my sig line.
 
You give so many ****s you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You can be a flaming faggot all you want, you'll never be accepted. You'll always be an outcast, no matter what the court says. I hate you.

Wow. Such un-needed anger.
 
Well I read the entire decision and the dissents of all 4 Justices. In the dissents, they, as I have here, intimated that, not so far into the future, we will see religious expression (Which is protected an enumerated in the Constitution) challenged, and also, the broad definition of liberty abused in ways that should worry every American, and that it doesn't matter which side of the aisle, nor of what philosophical or political lean one might entertain. In the nutshell, 5 robes just granted a right to a cross section of American's where previously none had existed. They Amended the Constitution. That is SCARY!

Tim-
They also ignored decades of precedent on equal protection law.
 
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.

The 14th amendment is part of the constitution, it's application is pretty straightforward. Not liking a ruling does not mean it is wrong.
 
Yes. Welcome to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Marriage equality was denied on the basis of politics and it has now been expanded due to politics.

So again, the wishes of the people were not honored [least the ones who voted for traditional marriage] all because the issue was used for political purposes.
 
Not necessarily 'this' world you need to worry about.

Why not? You Christians seem to worry about it a lot.
 
I am delaying comment until I finish reading the opinion. I have not gotten to his dissent yet. I will get back to you on this though.


It's clear when you read it that the other Justices in dissent, abrogated the formality to the Chief Justice, as his dissent was rooted in procedure and discretion. It was also the longest of the dissents, by design.

Tim-
 
Look at my sig line.

That is one small line. I am pretty confident he wrote more than that. If he did not, then he actually failed to address the actual issue.
 
I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S.A, the govenment treats married people differently than singles, so they should not be able to discrimiate against SSM.

That's my point - same thing happens here. We're well past the time when government has any national interest in promoting marriage through tax and benefit policy. Government should be out of the marriage business. The government should treat all individuals equally regardless of their marital status. If government wasn't in the business of picking winners and losers based on marital status, you wouldn't have had this massive battle over sanctioning same sex marriage.
 
It's illegal to bar someone from holding a job because of their faith, and rightfully so.

Employers have a duty to accommodate an employees religion unless said accommodations become too burdensome to the employer. The question is, is an employee refusing to do a required job duty because of religious reasons constitute an undue burden. I would say so.

Religion in the Workplace - FindLaw
 
Back
Top Bottom