• 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]

You'd like to forgive and forget so fast. It's like the prototype coward in movies/pro wrestling who keeps taking cheap shots, then running or switching sides when failure is imminent.

Maybe after 1700 years of heterosexuals having to stay single and hide their identity, or face severe persecution, we can call it even. Please don't pretend this wasn't important to you either. I'm not falling for it

Wait. What? Be happy in your victory and move on. A lot of us are glad this is resolved, and--believe it or not--most of us are happy with the outcome. Why would you want to rattle cages?
 
Convenient how you dishonestly left out the part where I indicated that in the 21st century, marriage is no longer necessary for purposes of procreation and child rearing, but then I've come to expect nothing more.

No, I specifically stated that marriage does not have to be necessary FOR ANY PURPOSE in order for it to be a legitimate interest of govt
 
Kinda closing thoughts after I have had some time to digest this: I really wish Kennedy would have written the opinion differently. He spent almost the whole time explaining why it was the right thing to do, and almost no time explaining why it was the legal thing to do, and this despite the fact that the legal arguments where definitely there. There where multiple paths that could have explained the legal reasoning that would have been consistent with precedent, but he chose not to explain the reasoning used. This made Roberts job with his dissent very easy, and that dissent is what will be remembered(he has a very vivid writing style) along with the outcome. It is like Kennedy tailored the ruling to avoid making is usable as any kind of possible precedent, and to do that he really did not talk about the law or the constitution.

I kinda expected that I would like the outcome, but not like the ruling, but the level of my discontent with the ruling is really high. That I suspect it was intentionally done that way does not change my dislike for it.

The intent probably was to limit the scope. At least that is how I read it. Gotta tread lightly in these matters. It's not something that lends itself to sweeping adjudication. For example, churches will still be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, I believe. This decision only limits what the states can do.

That said, Scalia acted like a brat. His opinion sounded a lot like some of our posters who want to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
 
Remember when Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman? I do. He's sure changed his tune.

It does look pretty.

And a good change it was. :)
 
ya think? 5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word that has been around(and a vital part of society) since the dawn of man.


Incorrect for a couple of reasons.

5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word didn't just change the definition, the definition of marriage since the dawn has included polygamy since before the Bible, in the Bible, and even to day in a number of other countries.

5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word didn't just change the definition today, legal same-sex Civil Marriage has existed in this country for over a decade.

5 lawyers just changes the definition of a word didn't just change the definition today, SSCM has been passed by legislatures and passed at the ballot box by a vote of the people of that State.


>>>>
 
Kinda closing thoughts after I have had some time to digest this: I really wish Kennedy would have written the opinion differently. He spent almost the whole time explaining why it was the right thing to do, and almost no time explaining why it was the legal thing to do, and this despite the fact that the legal arguments where definitely there. There where multiple paths that could have explained the legal reasoning that would have been consistent with precedent, but he chose not to explain the reasoning used. This made Roberts job with his dissent very easy, and that dissent is what will be remembered(he has a very vivid writing style) along with the outcome. It is like Kennedy tailored the ruling to avoid making is usable as any kind of possible precedent, and to do that he really did not talk about the law or the constitution.

I kinda expected that I would like the outcome, but not like the ruling, but the level of my discontent with the ruling is really high. That I suspect it was intentionally done that way does not change my dislike for it.

the majority opinion should have been :

hey, everybody. while deciding this case, we were perusing the Constitution, and we happened to stumble onto this part of the fourteenth amendment :

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

so, yeah. that part, mostly.
 
I think the left supports the decision because they're under the impression that all Conservatives oppose Gay marriage.

I don't really care one way or the other.

We have much more important issues to deal with.

Seriously? You think "the left" is pleased with the outcome of this case ... out of spite?

Is there anything stupid about "the left" that you won't post? Asking for a friend.
 
The majority opinion seems to make the most Constitutional sense of equal protections, but the dissent from Justice Roberts seems to make the most sense from a standpoint of "restrained conception of the judicial role" (p.3 of his dissent, and something I argued yesterday with the ACA decision) and "what constitutes marriage, or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes marriage?" (p.4)

It is a tough one

Well kudos to you for reading through all that, but i don't see the questions roberts claims to be torn over (i suspect he just hates the homos) as compelling in any sense. They all revolve around hetero privilege, the denial of equal protection. "Who decides what constitutes marriage," well then why do heterosexuals have this right either? Force THEM to move to another state or country to marry, force THEM to call their relationships "domestic partner." So his comments and vote just represent the usual gay bashing/gays are inferior in a form you find to be tough to dismiss.

The judicial role is likewise very simple - enforce the constitution! Jesus, he doesn't even know his own job description. Anywhere else, he would be fired

Really this should've been a 9-0 decision, except bigotry tends to cloud duty and rational thinking, for those who ever had it
 
Eat it haters

white house.jpg
 
If you can find where I mentioned money or greedy people in this thread, I'll make a donation to the charity of your choice and send the evidence to the moderator of your choice.

And if you read any of my posts on gay marriage, I said I'm fine with it. I don't care who marries who...never have, never will.

Does anyone here actually read posts?

The Goshin post you responded to when you said "I couldn't agree more."
 
I don't know about Canada, but here in the U.S.A, the govenment treats married people differently than singles, so they should not be able to discrimiate against SSM.

That would probably be the republican haters' next move, if they wanted to be consistent at all, is to strip marriage of any government considerations, just out of spite of gay couples. The problem is they'd lose 90% of their votes then, so they'll keep making pathetic idle threats of 'fighting the supreme court' instead
 
Religion isn't a Sunday morning from 9-10 kind of thing. If I believe participating in a ceremony will send my soul to hell, do you think it is ok for the government to force me to do it?

why not, when your religion condemns gay people to hell. Fair is fair
 
actually just as the HELLER Ruling helped the Dems, these rulings helped the GOP

in the general election, i highly doubt it. Notice the 60% support and that will only increase by 15 months from now
 
Well kudos to you for reading through all that, but i don't see the questions roberts claims to be torn over (i suspect he just hates the homos) as compelling in any sense. They all revolve around hetero privilege, the denial of equal protection. "Who decides what constitutes marriage," well then why do heterosexuals have this right either? Force THEM to move to another state or country to marry, force THEM to call their relationships "domestic partner." So his comments and vote just represent the usual gay bashing/gays are inferior in a form you find to be tough to dismiss.

The judicial role is likewise very simple - enforce the constitution! Jesus, he doesn't even know his own job description. Anywhere else, he would be fired

Really this should've been a 9-0 decision, except bigotry tends to cloud duty and rational thinking, for those who ever had it

That it was 5-4 is disheartening. It also proves that those saying the D and R are all the same have no clue.
 
Remember when Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman? I do. He's sure changed his tune.

It does look pretty.

A lot of people did, it is about evolving and ending hate.
 
Today is truly a great day for the United States. Hopefully our government can take action on curtailing discrimination against LGBT citizens in the areas of employment and housing as well.

I am betting that the federal courts will have to accomplish this as well. Why do we even have a government, i wonder, if the courts have to do everything
 
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.

It is a bad week for angry bigots and haters who are living in the past and are being left behind by a country that is evolving and progressing.

Hell, you can't even spell Khrushchev correctly, and you have an internet at your disposal.

Evolve or die, the nation is moving forward, your choice to move with it.
 
why not, when your religion condemns gay people to hell. Fair is fair

Muslims throw gays off rooftops. Personally, I'd rather some nutter Christian condemn me to hell than kill me in the here and now. But, yes. There is a certain aspect of religion which is completely disgusting.
 
Back
Top Bottom