• 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]

If that were true I damn sure would. Not much for mincing words.

Now back to the abortion question....

You embrace a deep deep evil and you are merely trying to distract yourself from your evil behavior with that question. You refuse to accept your hatred of minorities and wish to focus on abortion. I won't give you the satisfaction.
 
Equal protection under the 'law'. They changed the 'law' of 14 states.

it is the constitution of USA that provides equal protection.
 
You happy ass secular feelings and emotions do nothing for me.

Good for you,what do you want,a cookie?
I didn't require or demand it from you. You don't need my approval or permission,and I sure don't need yours.
 
the problem with that argument is that the slave's KNEW they were slaves and people who couldn't vote KNEW they couldn't vote. a gay man who died in 1990 did was never DENIED marriage because he didn't KNOW he was being denied it. this....this....thing....issue of being denied "rights" he didn't even know he was being denied until the lefte decided to MAKE IT a right they were being denied.

i know, it makes absolutely NO SENSE to me either. why try to understand it. I'm just going to smile and nod like I know what's going on. enjoy your victory.

500px_Jack_sparrow_wut_by_zackfair1219_d4117e5.jpg


I am pretty sure gay men in 1990 were trying to get married....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1975

October 15: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution."[19] This was in reference to a marriage application filed by activist Jack Baker and Michael McConnell in 1970, which garnered extensive media attention. An appeal of that decision ended when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case as required by a law in effect but then dismissed it "for want of a substantial federal question".[19] (see Baker v. Nelson). Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S.

January 1: Maryland becomes the first state in the U.S. to statutorily ban same-sex marriage.[20] In the following two decades, other states joined Maryland in statutorily banning same-sex marriage, reaching almost the totality of US states by 1994.

May 20: Singer v. Hara, a lawsuit filed by John F. Singer and Paul Barwick after being refused a request for a marriage license at the King County Administration Building in Seattle, Washington on 20 September 1971, ends with a unanimous rejection by the Washington State Court of Appeals.[21]

March 26: Boulder County clerk Clela Rorex issues first U.S. same-sex marriage license. During the following month, she issued five more same-sex marriage licenses. Boulder District Attorney deferred the licenses, which became void. The matter never reached the courts.[22][23][24]

Keep telling yourself this was made up in the later half of the 20th century.
 
Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.
 
Masha Gessen:

I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.

I sometimes think that gay marriage advocates are acting in bad faith.

from the majority opinion
it is the enduring importance of marriage that
underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is
their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage,
the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their
respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.

And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage
is their only real path to this profound commitment.

Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases
illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their
perspective.

Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the
Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They
fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting,
committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was
diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known
cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to
commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur
died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from
Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It
was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were
wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the
tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died.
Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the
surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute,
they must remain strangers even in death, a stateimposed
separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest
of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit
to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death
certificate.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the
case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony
to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They
both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse
in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered
and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year,
they welcomed another son into their family. The new
baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological
mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a
baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan,
however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or
single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one
woman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to
arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children
as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall
either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal
rights over the children she had not been permitted to
adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty
their unmarried status creates in their lives.

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his
partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee
case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy
to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married
in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment,
which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two
settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the
Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from
them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and
disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who
served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution
protects, must endure a substantial burden.

The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners
as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories
reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather
to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined
by its bond
.

We cannot deny fundamental rights to some people merely because someone else has an opinion you don't like
 
Well...more than two adults, hence the term polygamy. Heh.

But the primary issue that someone challenging a law preventing polygamy is that they have to overcome the State's legitimate interest of preventing fraud and folks being able to claim the tax benefits without any of the associated societal benefits.

That's got to be the first legitimate argument against polygamy that I've ever seen. However, its still not enough. They have the same concern (fraud) when it comes to permits and licenses for people owning a gun. Yet since its a Right then they still have to find a way to deal with it. ;) Same goes for people claiming that their home/land should be considered church property and as such exempt from taxation.
 
So you don't have a concept of G and E?

I do have a concept of good and evil. I am just not required to run it by you or your religion for approval.
 
Sorry but, in the end it will.

In the end? Lol. Good grief, here, I'll make you a deal. If you're right, I'll buy you a beer in hell. What? You didn't think you'd end up in heaven because you hated on homosexuals from the anonymity of a computer... did you? :lol: I'm being facetious of course. There is no heaven or hell. You live, you die, then you get eaten by worms.
 
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.

You could be right - no way to be certain, either way. For me, however, courts are now a crap shoot - judges have become purveyors of opinion rather than upholders of the law. They are true politicians, more concerned with the prevailing winds rather then their oath of office. I hope you're right about support for same sex couples growing - at one time many Americans were pretty confident about the abortion decision being unassailable, and you see where that is now. The courts should never move faster than society, in my view. But it is what it is and many, if not all, should be hopeful of calm going forward.
 
What people that would otherwise have any distinguishing feature that are not man and woman? Can you be specific?


Tim-

Ask your question using understandable english - all people have distinguishing features.
 
Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages

And who says multiple marriages cannot be inter-species - or even with inanimate objects? Yes this does open up a whole pandora's box of paths for the future.
 
I'm happy that this is over and settled. Time to move on. Incidentally I was also pleased with Jeb Bush's handling of the matter, no theatrical hysterics just a reasoned understanding that the issue is over and it is time to move forward.
 
R.e. Sodom and Gomorrah...



For there to have been so many - i.e. "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old" (Genesis 19:4) homosexuality must have been a common sin. And it was judged with the rest of their sins.

The very fact that there were children, generations in that community proves they weren't doing planning the rape due to attraction, homosexuality, but rather rape being used to intimidate or exert power over others, even those of the same sex.
 
I'm starting to think that the majority of people who are opposed to everyone else having the same things they do are young Midwestern/Southern protestant men between the ages of 25-65 and with an income above the $45K mark but bellow $100K. There are exceptions of course. The black community, for all of its support of Democrats on different issues, has quite a sizeable population of congregations that have shown some opposition to gay marriage. However, they're nowhere near as vocal as the other group I've mentioned. To believe that our rights and benefits should be left up to these people is absolute insanity and has never been practiced in the history of the US. Ever. Even in the dark ages of the 1800s, people were bringing court cases against established traditions like the disenfranchisement of poor whites and blacks.

For many peoples, we have had to subjugate ourselves to the so-called "wisdom" of the American public at many times in our past, and at many times in our past it reaped the "rewards" that are expected of that endeavor (namely, oppression).

But the American public thinks we owe it to them to put our fate in their hands. They would never do so for themselves, but it is demanded that we do so. Only occasionally can we avoid their slimy hands, and that is often at the grace of them being distracted....retaining their ever-vigilant stance as being uninterested in our general welfare.
 
Last edited:
To your first point, read what you wrote, Kal. The denial of it to anything other than one man and one woman is regulating it, until now of course.

Technically you are correct. But if you look ALL of our clearly enumerated Rights are able to be regulated to some extent by the states. Does this mean that all the regulations that a state can possibly do are legitimate and not unconstitutional? Or is there a limit to what they can regulate? If there is a limit how do we go about deciding where that limit is? Who can do that determination so that mob rule does not interfere with Rights?

To your second point, If you read the decision, there is no way this majority could refuse a polygamy challenge based entirely on the language the majority used to justify this decision. It's a foregone conclusion actually.


Tim-

Agreed. But it will have to go through its own court process as this particular decision only related to monogamous marriages as that is what was brought before them. SCOTUS cannot make a ruling on something that was not brought before them, and this case definitely was not about polygamy.
 
I certainly hope that won't happen and don't really think it's even a remote possibility. There are simply many advantages to recognizing marriage and stripping those advantages away because a small % of the population can now also get married would be the ultimate exercise in self destructive bigotry.

Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?

How about actually believing and implementing equal protections under the law and having each individual, regardless of race, gender, and marital status treated equally by government?
 
In the end? Lol. Good grief, here, I'll make you a deal. If you're right, I'll buy you a beer in hell. What? You didn't think you'd end up in heaven because you hated on homosexuals from the anonymity of a computer... did you? :lol: I'm being facetious of course. There is no heaven or hell. You live, you die, then you get eaten by worms.

I never said I hated anyone. Only some of their practices.
 
You could be right - no way to be certain, either way. For me, however, courts are now a crap shoot - judges have become purveyors of opinion rather than upholders of the law. They are true politicians, more concerned with the prevailing winds rather then their oath of office. I hope you're right about support for same sex couples growing - at one time many Americans were pretty confident about the abortion decision being unassailable, and you see where that is now. The courts should never move faster than society, in my view. But it is what it is and many, if not all, should be hopeful of calm going forward.

They've always been a crap shoot. This isn't the first time they've ruled on something controversial, or that pissed people off or even with a split court. We wouldn't need 9 Justices if the decisions were all or even mostly straight forward, or if no personal bias were involved on either or both sides.
 
Why should a minority of American citizens, whether in same sex marriages or heterosexual marriages, get special tax and benefit treatment when large and growing numbers of people, particularly young people, have never been married and believe that priorities other than marriage and children are equally or more important to them?

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

Add to that the obscene level of divorce in our society, well over 50% of all marriages failing, what's the national interest in treating this group differently?

Because marriage causes societal benefits that the govt has a legitimate interest in promoting
 
Technically you are correct. But if you look ALL of our clearly enumerated Rights are able to be regulated to some extent by the states. Does this mean that all the regulations that a state can possibly do are legitimate and not unconstitutional? Or is there a limit to what they can regulate? If there is a limit how do we go about deciding where that limit is? Who can do that determination so that mob rule does not interfere with Rights?



Agreed. But it will have to go through its own court process as this particular decision only related to monogamous marriages as that is what was brought before them. SCOTUS cannot make a ruling on something that was not brought before them, and this case definitely was not about polygamy.

I said this earlier in the thread, but I suspect old polygamy challenges can be dusted off and made more compelling by adding most of the majority opinion. Roberts' decent made this exact point.
 
Back
Top Bottom