• 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]

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.

So... you think a gay person is going to reluctantly reproduce with someone they have no desire to have sex with... on a mental level....

Or are you still one of those people that think the Jesus Camps to "turn gay kids straight" will actually work?

Gay people are born that way.... they aren't going to change because access to marriage isn't around.....
 
Okay, now I am having comprehension problems. Who is "they"?

The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.

And what does "since them colored and whites got the right to get married" mean or have to do with anything???

It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.
 
As to the supposed MORAL FABRIC .... lest we forget that for a very long time slavery was part of that conservative MORAL FABRIC.
Yes, the roots of the modern American left.
 
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."

Im just saying...... by making the statement in the majority opinion... they have now created "constitutional backing" for more than just gay marriage.

I have no doubt this could have been handled by legislative action without opening up a potential can of worms.



However, if polygamy is legalized... I could give two ****s less..... still doesn't harm my marriage at all. Neither does gay marriage... despite what the jesus freaks seem to think.
 
The state finds it beneficial to provide certain benefits to couples in order to create more stable, self-sufficient, productive households.

So, in other words, once again, some people are more equal than others.
 
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???

If you really knew the arguments used by the segregationists during the Jim Crow era, you'd understand...because the arguments they used then really aren't much different from those used against same-sex marriage today - against God's law, against nature, and all that.

Look up "Loving v. Virginia" and you should see what I mean.
 
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.

Anyone notice that the people in the ME are also killing each other at such a rate that birth rates are negative in some places? Oh and birth rates .. have you actually bothered to look that up?
 
Pretend I wasn't alive back then and explain this?

Probably means that people will try to marginalize Kennedy, the swing vote, as a second-choice who somehow "doesn't count." Bork never would have ruled in favor of gay marriage. Of course, Bork died three years ago, so if he had been confirmed, all that means is that Obama would have appointed another pro-gay marriage justice.

A columnist for The National Review (yeah, yeah, I know) wrote this nonsense earlier:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420366/bork-game-changer-gay-marriage-michael-potemra
 
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.

I think they explained those costs very well. They are still explaining those costs very well. But those who don't want to hear those costs refuse to hear or consider them and blow them off as irrelevant or nonexistent.
 
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.

Just to give you a heads-up, guy - that doesn't wash. The single most common determinant for a nation's growth rate is the level of poverty therein. There are other factors, but that's the big one. Has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with poor people looking for something to do that they can afford to do.
 
However, if polygamy is legalized... I could give two ****s less..... still doesn't harm my marriage at all. Neither does gay marriage... despite what the jesus freaks seem to think.
Why not go post somewhere on a topic that you do give two ****s about?
 
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.

The thing is JasparL, I have already explained it in some detail during the course of this discussion and in many discussions preceding this one. Those who pick up on one post and don't take time to read the others will not see all of the argument. And that's okay. That's the way these things go. My concern has been in the past and is now for the kids that I can see nothing good that will come from this. You cannot change the definition of something without making that something different from what it was. So marriage as we have long understood it no longer exists according to the Supreme Court. And THAT is what will make it increasingly irrelevant to our society in general because if getting married makes no difference, why bother to do it? And when people don't bother to do it, all the historical, cultural, and societal benefits are lost. I do believe it will be the children, both straight and gay, who will suffer the worst consequences of that.
 
Something along these lines.....



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

Also.... there is this...
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.
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...

Polygamy it is. Unless you can identify a legitimate state interest that can be identified in preventing it.
 
So, in other words, once again, some people are more equal than others.

Stable, self-sufficient, productive households are a legitimate state interest and therefore efforts to promote that pass the rational basis test.

Only a whackjob interprets equal protection arguments as "no law can affect any person differently from any other person for any reason."
 
So, in other words, once again, some people are more equal than others.

Correct and your problem with that is what exactly? Citizens are more equal than non citizens. Charities are tax exempt and I can deduct contributions to them but not if I give a homeless man a gift of $5.

Etc....................
 
Pretend I wasn't alive back then and explain this?

Bork was nominated in 1987 by Reagan and defeated by SEN. Ted Kennedy on the basis of his conservative ideology, not his credentials.
Reagan then nominated Anthony M. Kennedy, the Justice who wrote today's and many other GLBT opinions.

Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy's gay marriage decision makes justice a gay rights icon - POLITICO

The author of the article states that this action by T. Kennedy became the playbook for nomination battles from then on .
 
Polygamy it is. Unless you can identify a legitimate state interest that can be identified in preventing it.

Well there is one.. The state could refuse polygamous marriages due to those in polygamous marriages having an unfair advantage over those in non plural marriages. In that, government benefits would multiply by the number of plural members in the marriage thus unduly burdening the rest of the tax base. Further, plural marriages would also theoretically have advantages in other intangible ways such as education, employment, property ownership, and many other economic situations. Moreover, plural marriages convey, and encourage more plurality, and discourage diversity among other plural relationships. It is this (of course cleaned up much better into really neat legal sounding big words and all) and for these reasons that the state does have a compelling interest in regulating plural marriage.


Just off the top of my head, but you get the idea..;)


Tim-
 
Why not go post somewhere on a topic that you do give two ****s about?

I thought I was posting on a topic I gave a **** about......

I was discussing this decision's effect on the Constitution.

All Americans should give two ****s about the Constitution.
 
Polygamy it is. Unless you can identify a legitimate state interest that can be identified in preventing it.

I can't identify a legitimate state interest to preventing it.
 
The thing is JasparL, I have already explained it in some detail during the course of this discussion and in many discussions preceding this one. Those who pick up on one post and don't take time to read the others will not see all of the argument. And that's okay. That's the way these things go. My concern has been in the past and is now for the kids that I can see nothing good that will come from this. You cannot change the definition of something without making that something different from what it was. So marriage as we have long understood it no longer exists according to the Supreme Court. And THAT is what will make it increasingly irrelevant to our society in general because if getting married makes no difference, why bother to do it? And when people don't bother to do it, all the historical, cultural, and societal benefits are lost. I do believe it will be the children, both straight and gay, who will suffer the worst consequences of that.

The bigots said the same exact thing about inter-racial marriage. Marriage will continue to exist as it always has...if anything if will be stronger as a result of this ruling.
 
I thought I was posting on a topic I gave a **** about......

I was discussing this decision's effect on the Constitution.

All Americans should give two ****s about the Constitution.

Would this be the same Constitution that Sen. John C. Calhoun's father refused to sign and become a Founding Father from South Carolina?
With Sen. Calhoun being the father of the civil war with his "Nullification" Manifesto and description of slavery as for the "positive good" in 1830 .
 
I think they explained those costs very well. They are still explaining those costs very well. But those who don't want to hear those costs refuse to hear or consider them and blow them off as irrelevant or nonexistent.

They've never been explained. In fact, I know better than to ask you what those costs are because I know from years of experience that no answer would be coming.
 
Bork was nominated in 1987 by Reagan and defeated by SEN. Ted Kennedy on the basis of his conservative ideology, not his credentials.
Reagan then nominated Anthony M. Kennedy, the Justice who wrote today's and many other GLBT opinions.

Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy's gay marriage decision makes justice a gay rights icon - POLITICO

The author of the article states that this action by T. Kennedy became the playbook for nomination battles from then on .


A good lesson for those who think that elections don't matter. The next President will likely appoint at least 1 if not 2 to the Supreme Court. People should think very carefully before casting there ballot. If McCain or Romney had been elected....we wouldn't have this historic ruling today....that is for certain.
 
Back
Top Bottom