• 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]

I'm pretty sure they hate religion. Why shouldn't they, it calls them out for what they are.... sinners, deviants and perverts.

Nah, the SSM advocates don't hate "religion" just bigotry masquerading as religion...........ahem...........^^^^^^^

Seriously, that's the kind of language that demonstrates a pretty astounding amount of ignorance. Gay people are people attracted to the same sex, and otherwise pretty much like you and the straight people you know. There are deviants and perverts among them same as in the straight population. They are sinners, as are you. There are also people who go to church, believe in God, are honest, loving, hard working, good to their friends, dependable for their family, etc. And disparaging the group of them is pretty offensive, but unfortunately common.
 
you obviously didn't read the civil unions. yep they did at the state level which is where it should have been as it is the states job to define marriage not the SCOTUS.
they overstepped their bounds once again.

they didn't uphold the law but made their own law just like they did in the obamcare ruling a few days ago.

they all need removed from the bench and arrested for the crimes against the constitution.
they are not making rulings based on the law or constitution but based on their political ideology which is unconstitutional and
not their job.

The states can define marriage. But any such decision must comply with the constitution. This includes the 14th amendment.
 
At it's core "marriage" is a state defined contract, with rights and responsibilities that the couple agrees to and that is common across all married couples and therefore known to creditors, hospitals, day care centers, schools, employers, etc. And that contract by being defined by the state does require government "sanction." And no, the government doesn't HAVE to reward marriage, but if a married couple results in societal benefits, then I see no problem rewarding marriage with tax or other benefits.



I also said, "It's often/usually a virtue, but there is no problem in my view for society to grant benefits to activities that produce social benefits. We provide preferential tax treatment to adopting kids, which is a good thing. Also for charitable donations, and tax benefits for taking care of dependents, even dependent adults. All good things in my view. "

If you'd like to address that snippet in context that would be helpful!

I'll add I'm not a fan of fake black and white choices. Life isn't black and white so if I'm for equality in marriage and support SSM, I don't feel any obligation at all to support marriage between an adult and a 8 year old, although we aren't treating those relationships "equal" under the law.

And again, you provided no actual rationale for a government piece of paper as opposed to a contract between parties. Saying "that contract by being defined by the state does require government "sanction." is a pretty circular argument of no value. The point is, why does it have to be defined by the state?
 
Why will more people (same sex couples) getting married detract from the cultural norm of marriage? I can't connect the dots from SSM to any of those negatives you mention.

I've mentioned my brother is gay. He's got a partner of 5 years. They can get married, or live together like they are now. I'd think them getting married is a good thing for society as opposed to preventing them from making a binding legal and personal commitment to each other. But by your reckoning, if they make a binding commitment, it leads to bad things and I don't see how or why.

I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.
 
And again, you provided no actual rationale for a government piece of paper as opposed to a contract between parties. Saying "that contract by being defined by the state does require government "sanction." is a pretty circular argument of no value. The point is, why does it have to be defined by the state?

The state finds it beneficial to provide certain benefits to couples in order to create more stable, self-sufficient, productive households.
 
How many times did this happen with interracial marriages? How many churches have been forced to perform interracial marriages against their will?

they are not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.

Plenty of churches already perform ceremonies for same-sex couples. That is their choice.=

The ones that don't will be sued for not allowing it and the courts will uphold the suits in the name of discrimination.
pastors are technically officials of the state when they do weddings they would be forced to do so under discrimination laws if they refused.

that is why this ruling is so bad.

Why do you feel your right to your religious beliefs includes the right to silence my opinion of your belief?

read alito's dissent I posted it. it says why.
 
I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.

This has been in the courts for years and not one single person on the conservative side has managed to provide any evidence of such a cost. All anyone on the conservative side had to do was demonstrate a legitimate state interest in stopping a man from signing a legal contract with another man.
 
I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.

Those opposed to ssm were unable to explain those costs before it was made legal in any state, they were unable to point to any costs after it was made legal in 36 states, and they are unable to define what the future costs will be. Just vague assertions of the downfall of civilization and "costs." That, in a nut shell, is why they lost.
 
when those freedom trample on other peoples freedoms then it should bother you as well.
can't wait to see pastors and church's sued for not allowing homosexuals to marry in their churchs.

good luck finding a church to allow you to marry or even use their buildings.

When that happens, start a thread and we'll talk about it. But churches are protected by other rights, and can marry or not for any reason as we speak.

“It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” Alito writes. “In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

alito got it right because this already goes on.

Wow, that's an amazingly dumb comment from Alito. I hope there is more to it than that. "Vilifying" others with which we disagree is a cherished American right, and so is dissent. After all the church vilifies gays every day of every week of every year and has for centuries. That's not a problem with him and it's not a problem with me. I can disagree, and I can say they're bigots or idiots or worse (I don't believe that is necessarily true), and we are ALL exercising our rights as Americans.
 
I've stated my case and I don't want to take the time to repeat myself. I have no problem with your brother or his partner any more than I have a problem with my associates, friends, neighbors, and family who are gay, many who are in long term committed relationships. But I can connect the dots sufficiently to believe the original definition and tradition of marriage was a good thing and that while the new thing will be welcomed and approved by many, I believe in the long run it will be very costly for all.

OK, but I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative. I seriously don't understand how the dots connect and was hoping for an explanation. I'm not offended by your position, just trying to understand better. But if you don't care to explain that's fine of course.
 
I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.
 
they are not the same and shouldn't be treated as such.
That's a cop out. I've never seen a report of any church being forced to perform any wedding ceremony against its will. (not including "churches" that are actually for-profit wedding venue businesses open to the public).


The ones that don't will be sued for not allowing it and the courts will uphold the suits in the name of discrimination.
pastors are technically officials of the state when they do weddings they would be forced to do so under discrimination laws if they refused.
There aren't any laws against "discrimination" in such a broad sense. Cite your legal precedent. Which law do you think this will fall under? I want specific language from a specific statute.

that is why this ruling is so bad.



read alito's dissent I posted it. it says why.

If you are unable to articulate your own opinion, it must be a weak argument.
 
I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.

What wording, specifically?
 
I only have a problem with this because the court has now opened itself up to having to defend its decision here by challenges from those being denied Plural marriages. The argument can now be made based on the wording of the Decision that Plural marriages are also constitutional.

Just remember that a slippery slope starts at the top: "Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you know people of the same sex will start demanding the right to marry."
 
Just remember that a slippery slope starts at the top: "Once you give men and women the right to marry, next thing you know people of the same sex will start demanding the right to marry."

If we let interracial couples marry, we have to let children marry verbs.
 
Why will more people (same sex couples) getting married detract from the cultural norm of marriage? I can't connect the dots from SSM to any of those negatives you mention.

I've mentioned my brother is gay. He's got a partner of 5 years. They can get married, or live together like they are now. I'd think them getting married is a good thing for society as opposed to preventing them from making a binding legal and personal commitment to each other. But by your reckoning, if they make a binding commitment, it leads to bad things and I don't see how or why.

Has anyone noticed that the people in the ME are breeding like rabbits, while we allow SSM and abortion, and don't reproduce ourselves? I see that the EU is currently relocating 40,000 muslims who have come to Europe, by sending them to Greece and Spain and more arrive every day, overwhelming the system. Then they start making demands to have things their way. Brilliant strategy - use sheer numbers to kill the democratic process.
 
I know what you were trying to say, so then sour grapes reference was to a handful of people? Maybe? And, I don't know if you've heard, but when you say to "the states", that means the federal government now.

The power to decide which marriages they accepted and didn't has kind of been in jeopardy since them colored and whites got the right to get married... don't act like it was a surprise.
 
This is a bad week for America and Americans. The moral fabric of the USA is coming apart at the seams. The SCOTUS has just redefined "marriage". The Red Diaper Doper babies are succeeding in taking down America from the inside without even firing a shot. Just as Krustev promised a half century ago.

Only of those on the right wing of the spectrum.

As to the supposed MORAL FABRIC .... lest we forget that for a very long time slavery was part of that conservative MORAL FABRIC.
 
Has anyone noticed that the people in the ME are breeding like rabbits, while we allow SSM and abortion, and don't reproduce ourselves? I see that the EU is currently relocating 40,000 muslims who have come to Europe, by sending them to Greece and Spain and more arrive every day, overwhelming the system. Then they start making demands to have things their way. Brilliant strategy - use sheer numbers to kill the democratic process.

Oh no soon I will be forced to gay marry a muslim
 
you obviously didn't read the civil unions. yep they did at the state level which is where it should have been as it is the states job to define marriage not the SCOTUS.
they overstepped their bounds once again.

they didn't uphold the law but made their own law just like they did in the obamcare ruling a few days ago.

they all need removed from the bench and arrested for the crimes against the constitution.
they are not making rulings based on the law or constitution but based on their political ideology which is unconstitutional and
not their job.

Well, I did read the laws of my state that banned marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships to same sex couples. And I also read the legal protections that are included in marriage (including federal protections) and civil unions (none of which have any federal protections.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to what I missed.
 
Scalia seems to desire affirmative action for fleshing out the supreme court bench.
 
Has anyone noticed that the people in the ME are breeding like rabbits, while we allow SSM and abortion, and don't reproduce ourselves? I see that the EU is currently relocating 40,000 muslims who have come to Europe, by sending them to Greece and Spain and more arrive every day, overwhelming the system. Then they start making demands to have things their way. Brilliant strategy - use sheer numbers to kill the democratic process.

Holy non sequitur Batman!!!

If you are worried about breeders you should probably focus on straight people. Wow.
 
Holy non sequitur Batman!!!

If you are worried about breeders you should probably focus on straight people. Wow.

Not just any breeders. Those people, if you know what I mean.
 
The power to decide which marriages they accepted and didn't has kind of been in jeopardy since them colored and whites got the right to get married... don't act like it was a surprise.

Okay, now I am having comprehension problems. Who is "they"? And what does "since them colored and whites got the right to get married" mean or have to do with anything???
 
What wording, specifically?
Something along these lines.....

Majority Opinion said:
The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and belief

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Also.... there is this...
The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.
My emphasis added via bold/underline..

This next part really helps the argument of someone who would petition the government that plural marriages are constitutional.
A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
Just think of a case where a man in an open relationship got another woman pregnant and wanted to marry her as well to bring her and his new child into his larger family..... for the above reasons that, according to this ruling, are protected by the constitution.


And then of course.... the "in closing" type statement is very supportive of the right of plural marriages...
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person....
 
Back
Top Bottom