• 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]

Where in the WORLD did you come up with that?


the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)
 
You mentioned something about churches being required to be married, that simply is not true, churches can refuse to marry for any reason.

I never made such a statement. I said, it should be hoped that after this victory the left does not become vindictive and attempt to have courts force churches and/or the religious to perform marriages that are against their religious teachings.
 
I, for one, have indicated my religious and legal opinion on the subject. The religious aspect trumps man's law though.

Not in my country, USA, it doesn't. Are you willing to say that for Muslims as well?
 
What I find interesting is they somehow found a right for gays to marry in the constitution, but can't seem to find the right to keep and bear arms.....



Note: I am not against gay marriage, I simply do not care other than to say the government has no right to tell you who you can or cannot marry.
 
it's not just this issue
if you don't agree with the liberal agenda you are not only wrong, you are evil. that is their mindset. it also happens to be the mindset of a small child. and we have to deal with these people and these situations. its.......not fun
Fun schmun. Look I understand what you are saying but you cant combat that mindset,so dont try. Frankly...its not even worth the battle. They arent interested in it so why should you be?

I love some of the exchanges. YOu conservatives and your religious beliefs! Yes..but my beliefs mirror Obama's...and up until a few years ago my beliefs mirrored his political position as well and you VOTED for him. Yeah...but THATS DIFFERENT!

:lamo

Come on...that ****s just funny. You have to be able to see that stuff and then see them for who and what they are.
 
5 lawyers just changes the definition of marriage. you can dodge that obvious fact all you want. It happened. That does not mean it is right, it's just what happened. and the liberals vote in a sheep-like block on all this issues anyway. \
they ignored the words in the constitution in the Obamacare ruling, yet today they are defend it, is that your warped theory?

The definition of marriage was changed by people, a lot of people, using it to describe same sex couples in the same type of relationship as married opposite sex couples.
 
Apparently my earlier questions about multiple marriage restrictions were answered as Roberts said the majority opinion opens the door for legal multiple marriages

A dissenting opinion, even from the Chief Justice, does not hold any jurisprudential value. So no, any future challenge to polygamy laws would still need to address the previous Supreme Court holdings which note the State's legitimate interest in limiting fraud through the application of multiple licenses and obtaining the tax and inheritance benefits. You can try, again, to find language within the majority's opinion (and unlike the Chief Justice, stick to actual quotes as opposed to selectively edited quotes) to support new arguments, but I do not believe they exist.
 
I could start my own wine company with the collective amount of sour grapes being expressed over this decision...

That would be a pretty crappy wine company, since you would have no wine. In other words, you are applying that old saying incorrectly.

Unless, of course, your premise is that anyone that disagrees with the ruling really agrees with it but are saying it is no good because they won't ever be able to be in a gay marriage. Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying.
 
Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.

This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.

NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.

NBC

Here's a link to a story covering it.

Supreme Court rules states must allow same-sex marriage - CNNPolitics.com
 
The definition of marriage was changed by people, a lot of people, using it to describe same sex couples in the same type of relationship as married opposite sex couples.

yeah, i got that part. I just missed the part where the citizens voted for it.
 
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.

Here in Canada, as an example, even though the political ideology of our court is varied, the Supreme Court itself strives to issue decisions and rulings that are almost always unanimous or in the vast majority. We seldom have the type of division in our Supreme Court that you have.

Rulings should be fairly straight forward and shouldn't have political or personal bias - that's basically the oath of office. If a justice can't adhere to his/her oath, he/she should resign. The court is not such a vehicle. It's why we have elected government.
 
What I find interesting is they somehow found a right for gays to marry in the constitution, but can't seem to find the right to keep and bear arms.....

Did you just forget DC v. Heller?
 
You are correct as far as the college goes. But that isn't a church so :shrug:. As for pastors being sued for not performing SSM. Guess what? Pastors in churches have always been able to deny performing a marriage. Or to be more specific, pastors dedicated to specific religious marriages have been able to deny performing a marriage. I know this because my mother in law's pastor refused to perform my wife and I's marriage on the grounds that we 1: were not Christian and 2: We did not attend their church. This ability will not change.

But if it somehow does end up being as you imagine then I will fight just as strongly for religious freedom as I did for SSM.

A religious college has the right to dictate the morale compliance of it's students. it is a religious college. that should be a protected right.
however as was told during the trial this ruling tramps on religious organizations protected religious freedoms.

you have 1 right tramping on another which is unconstitutional.
the SCOTUS might as well pre-pare itself for all the legal challenges that are headed its say and we will see if kennedy is right that these organization still maintain
their religious freedom.
 
Ask your question using understandable english - all people have distinguishing features.

Ok then, the federal judiciary recognized marriage to be a fundamental right in three well known cases, however, the question of who could marry outside of race, and ethnicity, was left to the states to regulate. They said nothing about same sex, or plural marriage, or any other kind of marriage because, those things were, as it were, unrecognizable. Now the USSC has said, oh, wait, sorry states, we now say that you are free to regulate marriage BUT, you must not regulate gender, or sexual orientation as criterion... Next it will be, oh sorry states, yes you are free to regulate marriage as you see fit, however, you may not regulate marriage to exclude multiple partners.. But other than that, go ahead and regulate to your hearts content. ;)

Tim-
 
Because marriage causes societal benefits that the govt has a legitimate interest in promoting

Unless the government has a societal interest in the well being of divorce attorneys, that's just bull**** in the 21st century.

Other than for purposes of procreation and child rearing, marriage is irrelevant to government. And since single people are deemed appropriate for adopting and raising children, and single people can conceive a child through artificial means, promoting procreation and child rearing is no longer a valid rationale for marriage in a secular society.
 
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.

It would be hard to legitimately strike down those restrictions based off this decision, because there is no distinction of people bring discriminated against there, are legitimate legal considerations for such restrictions on number of legal spouses a person has, as well as very few if any of the arguments made for or against polygamy are the same arguments for or against same sex marriage.
 
That would be a pretty crappy wine company, since you would have no wine. In other words, you are applying that old saying incorrectly.

Unless, of course, your premise is that anyone that disagrees with the ruling really agrees with it but are saying it is no good because they won't ever be able to be in a gay marriage. Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying.

uh...what?
 
the idea of gay marriage wasn't conceived or thought of till the 90's. if you can show me one gay group in the 80's who demanded to get married I would love to see it. but since no evidence exists maybe you can see my point(who am I kidding. of course you don't)

In the early 1970s, amid a burst of gay activism unleashed by the Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village, several same-sex couples filed lawsuits demanding marriage licenses. Courts did not take their arguments very seriously. A trial judge in Kentucky instructed one lesbian plaintiff that she would not be permitted into the courtroom unless she exchanged her pantsuit for a dress. Minnesota Supreme Court justices would not dignify the gay-marriage claim by asking even a single question at oral argument.

Harvard Magazine ~ How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be

You were saying?
 
Once the court announced it would hear this, the decision was a foregone conclusion.

Well they tried their asses off to avoid hearing it but two lwer courts produced conflicting rulings which forced their hand.
 
We are in an age where any decision can be justified broadly. I'm not gay and none of my family (that I know of) is gay or wants to have a gay marriage so this affects me personally not at all. I'm however glad that people can gain benefits, visiting rights in hospitals, etc....

they could have done all of this without marriage.
 
It's good that gays get equality. I'm sick of hearing Christian Southern Conservatives sit there and lecture straight Atheists such as myself on their rigid versions morality then turn around and openly discriminate against gays for no better or more logical reason than they discriminate against atheists such as myself.

They're all Republicans too. So comical to see Christian Republicans sit here and claim conspiracy after conspiracy when we all know they're the ones out in real life that make life hard on everyone else simply because we don't share their Christian religiosity fanaticism.
 
Back
Top Bottom