• 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]

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.

And this right here is the main reason that, while I may not vote for the Democrat, it would take an act of god to get me to vote for a Republican these days.
 
It's the end of society as we know it, don'tcha know.

Hell fire shall rain down from the heavens because of this sometime over the next million years! What do you think killed the dinosaurs? Yep they turned gay and God sent forth an asteroid!
 
And this right here is the main reason that, while I may not vote for the Democrat, it would take an act of god to get me to vote for a Republican these days.

Scalia should be enough to scare anyone away from voting GOP. What a religious whack job.
 
I am scared. When is society going to start breaking down and collapsing?
 
So can we start work on getting government out of marriage now?
 
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 haven't said a word about interracial marriage or bigots. And that is irrelevant to the point I am arguing. Do have a nice day.
 
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.

Already asked and answered even in this thread though. So those years of experience haven't helped much, have they.
 
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 .

WTF does that have to do with this conversation?
 
As it always goes in these discussions, there are those who are interested in actually discussing the topic and who are able to disagree civilly. I appreciate such people very much.

And then there are the inevitable ones who want to make it personal, put words in people's mouths that they didn't say, put thoughts in their head that they didn't think, who build all manner of straw men and push the red herrings and non sequitur to ridiculous lengths. That makes it really difficult to have a comprehensive discussion of the topic.
 
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.

If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.

And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.

With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.

Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .
 
Already asked and answered even in this thread though. So those years of experience haven't helped much, have they.

Yeah, that's the kind of non-answer I've grown accustomed to receiving to that question.
 
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

technically sc is right,the 14th demands equality under law unless it has been proven by due to process otherwise a reason why they should be denied the right.

to date there has been no legal reason or even due process showing gay marriage as harmfull to society,hence the 14th amendment stands on the issue.gay couples can be prohibited from adopting by citing lack of evidence,but that will hold up in court only if studies are actually conducted to find out whether or not it affects kids.


but as far as gay marriage,the only constitutional way to ban it is to ban marriage.the constitution protects many peoples rights,from gays to gun owners to people speaking their mind,i would have preferred a comprimised approach,as less backlash would have occurred,but either way i back the constitution,and its protections.
 
WTF does that have to do with this conversation?

Were you not discussing the Constitution?
All of these decisions that GOPs don't agree with come down to a strong central Federal Government versus State's Rights.
State's Rights have been taken to an extreme since Calhoun's 1830 Manifesto on "NULLIFICATION", which are on full display in 2015.

As for Roberts and Kennedy, they may represent a "third" wing of what I believe is Libertarianism, swinging back-and-forth as a pendulum.
I'd like to think of DEMs, GOPs and Libertarians on the USSC as three circles in a Venn Diagram.

But a closer at the electoral ramifications shows that GOPs will benefit in the long run by the USSC's rulings on ACA and now gay marriage.
Why are GOP politicians privately breathing a huge sigh of relief with today's ruling, knowing that a DEM issue is off the table?
And you fully know the GOP base will be ginned up over gay marriage, as with the ACA ruling !
 
I haven't said a word about interracial marriage or bigots. And that is irrelevant to the point I am arguing. Do have a nice day.

Its not irrelevant at all....you just choose to ignore it. The reality is....the same exact argument that you are attempting to make is the same exact argument that the bigots made about inter-racial marriage, which also "changed' the definition of "traditional marriage". They predicted the destruction of the institution of marriage (which never happened). The truth is that their scare tactics are just old and boring.
 
If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.

And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.

With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.

Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .

I know others have made that threat.....the reality is that if Ginsberg retires and dies while Obama is President....the senate will be forced to confirm another justice (they can't read green eggs and ham forever and America won't put up with gamesmanship for long). My only fear is that Obama would choose somebody extremely moderate to appease them.
 
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-

So, here we have a self-identifying conservative suggesting that an unfair economic advantage is something the state has a legitimate interest in stopping.

Isn't this an argument in favor of eliminating heterosexual marriage so that an unfair advantage is not gained over single people?
 
Were you not discussing the Constitution?
All of these decisions that GOPs don't agree with come down to a strong central Federal Government versus State's Rights.
State's Rights have been taken to an extreme since Calhoun's 1830 Manifesto on "NULLIFICATION", which are on full display in 2015.

As for Roberts and Kennedy, they may represent a "third" wing of what I believe is Libertarianism, swinging back-and-forth as a pendulum.
I'd like to think of DEMs, GOPs and Libertarians on the USSC as three circles in a Venn Diagram.

But a closer at the electoral ramifications shows that GOPs will benefit in the long run by the USSC's rulings on ACA and now gay marriage.
Why are GOP politicians privately breathing a huge sigh of relief with today's ruling, knowing that a DEM issue is off the table?
And you fully know the GOP base will be ginned up over gay marriage, as with the ACA ruling !

Thats all great and all... but im talking about the constitution... not the effect of this decision on future election..... but the effect of this decision on future supreme court decisions.....
 
gay-hands-heard.jpg

Eventually love prevails....Today's ruling is a victory for Love, Justice and Freedom. 2015 is a bad time to be a bigot in America.
 
How very accepting of you. Funny how you're not interested in equal protection for all social relationship contracts, just the ones you support.

On the contrary, I'm for finding a way to make that work, make marriage available to them in a way that does not financially burden the rest of society and actually provides protections for each of those spouses, not just dropping a legitimate limit on number of spouses because some feel butt hurt that same sex couples can now enter into marriage. There is a difference in the way a two person marriage with any sex/gender combination would operate compared to having more than two spouses in a marriage or a single person with more than one legal spouse.
 
So, here we have a self-identifying conservative suggesting that an unfair economic advantage is something the state has a legitimate interest in stopping.

Isn't this an argument in favor of eliminating heterosexual marriage so that an unfair advantage is not gained over single people?


It's not my argument, silly. This is how the liberal judges on the USSC will approach the challenge. Man, sometime for someone that's usually pretty bright, ya kinda missed that one.. ;)

Tim-
 
Its not irrelevant at all....you just choose to ignore it. The reality is....the same exact argument that you are attempting to make is the same exact argument that the bigots made about inter-racial marriage, which also "changed' the definition of "traditional marriage". They predicted the destruction of the institution of marriage (which never happened). The truth is that their scare tactics are just old and boring.

I'm not going to even try to explain to you how non sequitur that is to anything I have posted. Do have a nice day.
 
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?

It affects the economy and public coffers by a significant amount. It also affects legal proceedings, how they determine divorce, who has what part in parenting, what assets. There is also whether the other spouses have to agree to their spouse having another spouse.
 
It was more of a story about a woman who had two "moms" and how it negatively impacted her life.

Anecdotes are not data.

Your (paraphrased) "putative liberals are incapable of doing unbiased research" rhetoric is breathtakingly hilarious.
 
Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade

So the punishment is nothing. Okay!

The Netherlands was the first country to legalize it, in 2001, and those hedonistic Dutch have lived the last 14 years fire- and brimstone-free.
 
Back
Top Bottom