• 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]

*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.

You are moving the goals posts. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a church will be forced to marry same sex couples, or even successfully sued for it. However, a college or adoption agency is not an inherently religious organization and those situations could potentially be much more complicated. Also, a business which offers a venue for weddings could be required by localities to host same sex weddings under public accommodation laws but that varies significantly depending on the state and area. It is really tough to say how those will work out, but I imagine there will be a push for same sex couples to simply publicize such businesses so people can vote with their wallets and choose not to do business with them of their own accord rather than to bring the state into it by suing.
 
Did you read the ruling at all?

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges. He notes:


Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Alito notes:


The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

he is right because that happens now before that decision.

That is the majority opinion, not the dissent. The very ruling that gave same sex couples the right to marry, is now also the precedent that makes as you put it "sue happy militant gay activists" waging any sort of court battle against a church for refusing to marry them a virtual impossibility. It is there in black and white. A religious organization cannot be sued for refusing to marry same sex couples because they are protected by the 1st amendment. That is the law, as was ruled today, as incontrovertible as a right to same sex couples to marry before the state.

read the dissent that railed on that language used. there is nothing there that says they cannot sue. these militant activist will sue and press more and more lawsuits.

it isn't impossible. they can file whatever lawsuit they want.
we will see.
 
*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.

So their bigotry well be exposed? And I really have no problem with that
 
Yep, but we're not talking about "the federal government" when we refer to the states. Are we?

According to the Supreme Court, we are.


Terrible decision made by the men of its time, eventually it was overturned... just like the bans on gay marriage were today. :)
If you only care about gay marriage being forced on the States, and you don't give a crap that the federal just took power that it is not granted by the Constitution, it's just dandy. If you are not all that enamored with tyranny and going further down that road than ever before, not so much.
 
*sigh*

just because you say so is idiotic.

pastors are authorities in the state to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign the marriage license. they technically could be forced to do so.
most church open their doors to people outside the church for weddings and such. most will stop doing this as a court (and they have) can cite public accommodation
and force the church to allow gay marriage.

religious schools and other religious organizations are now at risk for losing tax exempt status for citing that they believe marriage is between a man and a women.

no these militant activist as soon as they can will have lawsuits against pastors and church's not allowing gays to use their buildings and for pastors not marrying them.

Signing the marriage license itself is separate from the actual marriage. And really, the most the state could do is simply remove the ability of pastors/clergy to sign marriage licenses, which hurts the state (financially) more than it does anything else.
 
And the retards will get their tax exempt status revoked! Yee haw!

Wait - are you calling churches "retards"? Don't you think that's a little much?

I have no use for religion, but millions of people do, and lots of people on this board do.
 
"The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges. He notes:


Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Alito notes:


The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

he is right because that happens now before that decision.



read the dissent that railed on that language used. there is nothing there that says they cannot sue. these militant activist will sue and press more and more lawsuits.

it isn't impossible. they can file whatever lawsuit they want.
we will see.

Roberts is an idiot. The majority spelled it out. If any court rules against a religious organization, then they would be citing Robert's deluded interpretation of the majority's ruling, not what the majority actually said.
 
You are moving the goals posts. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a church will be forced to marry same sex couples, or even successfully sued for it. However, a college or adoption agency is not an inherently religious organization and those situations could potentially be much more complicated. Also, a business which offers a venue for weddings could be required by localities to host same sex weddings under public accommodation laws but that varies significantly depending on the state and area. It is really tough to say how those will work out, but I imagine there will be a push for same sex couples to simply publicize such businesses so people can vote with their wallets and choose not to do business with them of their own accord rather than to bring the state into it by suing.

I am not moving the goalposts at all.

Church offer their buildings for various activities to people outside of their church. From weddings to funerals etc ...
someone could easily argue that it is open to the public for use and gay should be allowed to marry.

these aren't businesses but churches.

the other justices did not rule it out of context for the very thing you said to happen happen.
Notre Dame is very much a religious school yet could lose it's status for exercising a 1st amendment right.

no these militant advocates do not just march with their wallets they bring the courts into it and force their way.
 
That isn't a remotely accurate portrayal of that decision.

i was referring to this bit from his opinion:
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"

i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.

i don't want to derail this thread, i made a similar comment in the thread about the king/burwell ruling and we can take it up over there...

for the gay marriage one, i thought it should have been a no-brainer, 9-0, obviously constitutional for same sex couples to be entitled to marriage licenses from the state

and to the slippery slopers out there - go ahead and petition the court for your ability to marry your brother or your dog or your big screen tv. then we can have that debate. theres a reason that the scope of this argument has been limited to man/man & woman/woman - because no one else is demanding the right to marry a pet.
 
Uhh, people at the time argued that overturning interracial marriage bans was changing the definition of marriage. They used that exact phraseology. Also invoked tradition and God's will. Oh, and "will of the people."

They did? I wonder why, since it was still between a man and a woman? How many people argued that? Kind of a stupid argument, isn't it? Since it was, quite obviously, not changing the definition at all, as the did today.
 
Roberts is an idiot. The majority spelled it out. If any court rules against a religious organization, then they would be citing Robert's deluded interpretation of the majority's ruling, not what the majority actually said.

No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.
 
i was referring to this bit from his opinion:
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"

i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.

i don't want to derail this thread, i made a similar comment in the thread about the king/burwell ruling and we can take it up over there...

for the gay marriage one, i thought it should have been a no-brainer, 9-0, obviously constitutional for same sex couples to be entitled to marriage licenses from the state

and to the slippery slopers out there - go ahead and petition the court for your ability to marry your brother or your dog or your big screen tv. then we can have that debate. theres a reason that the scope of this argument has been limited to man/man & woman/woman - because no one else is demanding the right to marry a pet.

Like many, you are making the mistake of taking one sentence out of a legal opinion and treating it like it is in a vacuum.
 
I am not moving the goalposts at all.

Church offer their buildings for various activities to people outside of their church. From weddings to funerals etc ...
someone could easily argue that it is open to the public for use and gay should be allowed to marry.

these aren't businesses but churches.

the other justices did not rule it out of context for the very thing you said to happen happen.
Notre Dame is very much a religious school yet could lose it's status for exercising a 1st amendment right.

no these militant advocates do not just march with their wallets they bring the courts into it and force their way.

You are very clearly moving the goal posts. You went from "churches will be forced to marry same sex couples" to "churches will be forced to allow their facilities, which are generally open to the public, to be used by same sex couples." That is quite a different argument. I do not know if the latter case will occur, and I hope nobody is petty enough to make it an issue, but we shall see. Regardless, since you will not admit it, I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.
 
Signing the marriage license itself is separate from the actual marriage. And really, the most the state could do is simply remove the ability of pastors/clergy to sign marriage licenses, which hurts the state (financially) more than it does anything else.

no it isn't you can't officially be married without someone signing the license whether it is a justice of the peace or a clergy member.
 
They did? I wonder why, since it was still between a man and a woman? How many people argued that? Kind of a stupid argument, isn't it? Since it was, quite obviously, not changing the definition at all, as the did today.

Because to them, marriage had always been between a man and a woman of the same race. It had been this way for centuries, it was tradition, it was the will of God. It was the will of the people, and you darn liberals were forcing your changing definition of marriage on them via judicial fiat.

You can see why, today, you saying exactly the same thing, is not compelling.
 
No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.

There is a reason they are called opinions. Roberts has his opinion, just as the majority has theirs. The majority opinion, as they stated it, is the First amendment protects religious organizations from being compelled to perform same sex marriages. Robert's opinion is that the crap will hit the fan. Only time will tell which opinion is correct.
 
I know what Satan likes and he's loving today's ruling.

So, you know what something that does not exist likes? Interesting.
 
You didn't pay attention to what I said, guy. In the view of the anti-mixed-race marriage crowd - the conservatives of the time - miscegenation WAS against "God's laws", and against nature. The arguments were not much different.

And as time goes on and people become more educated, the sky-is-falling outrage among the anti-SSM crowd will fade as they - or at least their children and children's children - come to realize that YES, people really are "born that way", and that there's no good reason why someone who was born that way should be disallowed from marrying a consenting adult who was also born that way.

Okay? Get over it.

Oh, I paid attention, guy. It was just wrong. So, move on.
 
No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.

The court did not deny religious freedom. They banned states from discriminating against consenting adults who wish to marry.
 
Another loss for social conservatism.
 
<snip> I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.

Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
 
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.

The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

-Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia

History does not seem to agree with you.
 
Another loss for conservatism.

Uh, no. I'd consider myself conservative in a lot of ways. I didn't lose anything today.

You must confuse "conservative" with "religious". They aren't the same thing. And remember, 7 short years ago, Barack Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman. He probably still does, but he's no fool. He won't get away with making that statement anymore.
 
And if they had ruled the opposite you would have been saluting them. See how that works?

Really? You figured that out all on your own? They give power to the federal government, that is no where in the Constitution, so they make it up, they are idiots. If they make the right decision, I salute them. Hmm... that's brilliant, give yourself a gold star!
 
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.

I gave up too. It just doesn't compute for me. It's not even that I disagree , I can't figure out the actual argument so that I can agree or disagree. I watched all of an hour long presentation the other night on why I should oppose SSM and was just as confused afterward as I was when I started. I'm missing something key, and can only guess it relates back to a religious argument, that SSM defiles the entire institution of marriage, in a way that Rush Limbaugh's 4 marriages doesn't, or something.
 
Back
Top Bottom