• 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]

So just to be clear, you are in agreement with the devil's stance that gay marriage is good?

Gay marriage is neither inherently good nor bad.

But I realize that answer isn't really in the spirit of the question, so my answer would be a big resounding YES. If this result is the work of the devil, then Go Team Devil.
 
Suck it fundies..

You know I think highly of you, and I understand the desire to kinda rub it in, but really, things like this are really unhelpful. Raising emotional ire is exactly the last thing that gay people and those who want to get SSM and live a happy life need. It just makes people mad, and they will then take it out on the most obvious targets. It is time to celebrate(and I am incredibly happy right now), but it is also time to start working on mending fences and getting past the ire. And I think it is those of us who have pushed for this to happen who should start doing the mending.
 
Ah, that loving christianity where your god is a hit man, who will torture and kill and all that. And the folk that have to cling to that snuff film mentality of their loving god to get them through the day.

Actually,it sounds more like some malevolent Cosmic Eldritch Horror straight out of the pages of H.P. Lovecraft.
 
It doesn't have to be that way. Salvation is free. You only need to take it.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
Eph 2:8

Your book means nothing to me. If you want to cling to your angry hitman god who created gay people in the first place, so be it.

I'd rather live in rational land.
 
So just to be clear, you are in agreement with the devil's stance that gay marriage is good?

Oh ****? You've got a quote from Satan? Please do share.
 
Money would be saved because doing the whole taking the oath thing takes time and someone would have to make up that time.

The only shaky grounds would be if the state were paying the person to sign it. They aren't.

Hmm, well I know all states are different so I can only speak to the state I got married in. Honestly we had to raise our right hand and swear we weren't inebriated and of all things not imbeciles.

As far as shaky ground, I still think it's there being clergy is specifically authorized by the state to sign and perform the legal ceremony. If anybody could sign and authorize said legal document I might agree with you.
 
Don't kid yourself. What one Supreme Court has ruled can be overturned by another court in the future - it's happened many times before. When the constitution doesn't seem to bind justices to ruling under the law, then an alternate interpretation can be the "forever" ruling next time around.

It can be, but in this case, almost certainly won't be because of the fact that support for same sex marriage is only increasing not decreasing, and the only way for this to go back to Court is if the states refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling and the federal government refuses to enforce it.
 
Christians would absolutely love for a government law barring them from holding civil jobs. Sorry, but I have absolutely no intention of giving them that martyrdom.

A civil job, not all of them, and only if they refused to perform the legal duties required of the job.
 
Hmm, well I know all states are different so I can only speak to the state I got married in. Honestly we had to raise our right hand and swear we weren't inebriated and of all things not imbeciles.

As far as shaky ground, I still think it's there being clergy is specifically authorized by the state to sign and perform the legal ceremony. If anybody could sign and authorize said legal document I might agree with you.

Signing the document was done in my husband's aunt's house, where the officiant had me, my husband, my best friend, and his best friend (our witnesses) all sign, then she signed it. The clerk who gave us the license didn't require the witnesses nor any but our ID cards.

The only thing required to sign that document is to receive some approval from some religious group (either in person or over the internet) or become a JoP. Many people have found it incredibly simple to get ordained over the internet and then you just sign up with the state you live in.
 
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.

Ah, yes, the end of the world is near! Lawsuits! Religious oppression! The REAL victims are the religious! Etc.... blah, blah, blah.

I wouldn't worry - we have other rights to protect churches. They'll be fine, and can continue to oppose SSM all they want, refuse to marry SS couples, etc. same way they can refuse to marry straight couples for pretty much any reason.
 
The 14th amendment is part of the constitution, it's application is pretty straightforward.
Apparently not. You'll note Kennedy's lack of any consideration whatsoever regarding a compelling interest. This is not straightforward application of equal protection law.
 
Signing the document was done in my husband's aunt's house, where the officiant had me, my husband, my best friend, and his best friend (our witnesses) all sign, then she signed it. The clerk who gave us the license didn't require the witnesses nor any but our ID cards.

Yes but the officiant had to have legal standing with the state did she not?
 
Some of us are starting to understand how the colonists felt. Perhaps it's coming on time again.
 
Yes but the officiant had to have legal standing with the state did she not?

Yes, only in signing up to be able to basically sign the document. That doesn't matter though, despite objections. It might change in the future, but since most people don't care to see that happen, it isn't likely to happen. And this doesn't really violate any laws or the Constitution because it is a ceremony, which could be done for free. In fact, many people get ordained just to do a wedding for a friend or family member, without getting paid at all.
 
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

Frankly what soils the institution of marriage more to me is someone like Newt Gingrich getting serially married to his former mistresses, etc. But that's not much. My marriage is between me and my wife, and I cherish it, but I can't see how Newt's 4th or Rush Limbaugh's 5th or my brother's 1st affects mine.
 
The decision by the Supreme Court not to review the appeal from this case is a decision by the Supreme Court.

#Win
The Supreme Court did no such thing. Quit making stuff up. You learned something today. Be happy and move on.
 
The 14th amendment is part of the constitution, it's application is pretty straightforward. Not liking a ruling does not mean it is wrong.

Another that doesn't know what happened. Do you know what a "State" is in this country?
 
No the book and I have no power over you but, our Lord definitely does....Bro

What's this "our" bullcrap? Your deity is not my deity.I am not bound one iota by your religious beliefs. I am bound by my own. If your deity has a problem with me,he knows where to find me.As It stands I am healthy,have a great wife,wonderful kids,beautiful grandchildren,a successful career,great friends,and plenty of wealth. I believe that I am,what you might called,blessed. And I am thankful for it. I don't need to thank you or your "Lord" for that.
 
Yes, only in signing up to be able to basically sign the document. That doesn't matter though, despite objections. It might change in the future, but since most people don't care to see that happen, it isn't likely to happen. And this doesn't really violate any laws or the Constitution because it is a ceremony, which could be done for free. In fact, many people get ordained just to do a wedding for a friend or family member, without getting paid at all.

I agree, most people don't care who signs or refuses to sign a marriage document, including myself. However, I can guarantee there will be lawsuits when some minister, who has legal standing with the state to sign said document, refuses to do so because the couple is same sex.
 
What's this "our" bullcrap? Your deity is not my deity.I am not bound one iota by your religious beliefs. I am bound by my own. If your deity has a problem with me,he knows where to find me.As It stands I am healthy,have a great wife,wonderful kids,beautiful grandchildren,a successful career,great friends,and plenty of wealth. I believe that I am,what you might called,blessed. And I am thankful for it. I don't need to thank you or your "Lord" for that.

Apparently his god removed all your spaces MUHAHAHAHAH
 
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

Finally. Now, THAT makes sense. Although, I do consider myself a "happily married man," I do so highly recommend that if one could avoid marriage altogether, they should. Hey, I even think the bible says something to that effect.
 
I agree, most people don't care who signs or refuses to sign a marriage document, including myself. However, I can guarantee there will be lawsuits when some minister, who has legal standing with the state to sign said document, refuses to do so because the couple is same sex.

I didn't read it, but do you think that is what the decision demands? I mean I'm a supporter of SS marriage, but I don't think that religious institutions should be forced to marry if they don't want to.
 
Back
Top Bottom