• 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]

Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere? Because you forgot to include one. I guess you just saw what you wanted to see in my post, otherwise you would not have posted that statement, since it is the complete opposite of my position.

Your point was that marriage, since the dawn of time, has been between people of the same races? Sorry, I did not realize you agreed with the judge in Loving v. Virginia.
 
500px_Jack_sparrow_wut_by_zackfair1219_d4117e5.jpg


I am pretty sure gay men in 1990 were trying to get married....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1975



Keep telling yourself this was made up in the later half of the 20th century.

yeah, saw a youtube clip once saying "the gays have been fighting for rights for almost 20 years now, they need to learn patience." Apparently never heard of stonewall, ww2 dishonorable discharges, institutionalization, or hell even sodomy laws go back to the country's founding
 
Why would churches be required/forced to marry people they don't want to marry? That by definition would requires them to accept homosexuality as something other than a sin which they are told to not commit. First amendment protections would apply like they did in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

Once again, where did I say anything about churches being forced to adopt any beliefs, religious or otherwise?
 
Technically you are correct. But if you look ALL of our clearly enumerated Rights are able to be regulated to some extent by the states. Does this mean that all the regulations that a state can possibly do are legitimate and not unconstitutional? Or is there a limit to what they can regulate? If there is a limit how do we go about deciding where that limit is? Who can do that determination so that mob rule does not interfere with Rights?

The 14th amendment at least makes those limitations clear - there has to be a "compelling governmental interest" to void equal protection

Re: polygamy - child custody, taxes, green cards, inheritance, court testimony, the fact equal protection doesn't even apply since like everyone they can marry a person they love, the ratio of multiple husbands to multiple wives all come to mind
 
Ah, you failed. You got it wrong, I invite you to think a little harder, and try again. But, I'm not expecting too much.

Whatever. I am married. Feel free to let me know how that fact has hurt you or your rights in any conceivable way. It seems you want to go out of your way to defend restricting my marriage, so I hope you have some compelling argument as to why you want to restrict my rights.
 
The 14th amendment at least makes those limitations clear - there has to be a "compelling governmental interest" to void equal protection

Re: polygamy - child custody, taxes, green cards, inheritance, court testimony, the fact equal protection doesn't even apply since like everyone they can marry a person they love, the ratio of multiple husbands to multiple wives all come to mind

Where is it made clear there has to be compelling state interest to void equal protection? Making something clear usually means stating it outright, and I can't find any mention of anything pertaining to a compelling state interest.
 
Where is it made clear there has to be compelling state interest to void equal protection? Making something clear usually means stating it outright, and I can't find any mention of anything pertaining to a compelling state interest.

Look up "levels of scrutiny".
 
Once again, where did I say anything about churches being forced to adopt any beliefs, religious or otherwise?

Sigh... here we go:

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.

You singled out that specific statement, and then asserted it wasn't entirely correct (thus not willing to put your house on it). If it's not correct in its entirety, then the opposite can happen. No? So then it's clear that you think churches may be forced to marry gays. That's not necessarily what you may want, but if CT isn't correct in his assertion to the 100%, then that is what your post is asserting can happen. Now, with that said: Churches won't, in any way, be forced to marry gays because the matter has already been sorted in previous cases. Case closed.
 
Whatever. I am married. Feel free to let me know how that fact has hurt you or your rights in any conceivable way. It seems you want to go out of your way to defend restricting my marriage, so I hope you have some compelling argument as to why you want to restrict my rights.

Oh, God, strike three. Wrong again. I guess you are just going to keep the blinders on. I just can't repost things I've been saying for days, weeks, and months.
 
Oh, God, strike three. Wrong again. I guess you are just going to keep the blinders on. I just can't repost things I've been saying for days, weeks, and months.

So nothing. Got it. I figured as much.
 
Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..


Tim-

contradicted by 200 million citizens who think the other 100 million are morons. What's your point? Unless in a dictatorship, there's a tabulation of votes by *some* entity. That's how it goes. You'd be up in arms still if it were 8-1, but not at all if it were 5-4 the other way around. Can't take this seriously
 
Wow. According to you medical marijuana is now legal in all 50 States. Now it is REALLY time to celebrate.

yeah and assisted suicide is legal in all 50 states just cause it's legal in oregon - the supreme court mandated that just as soon as one state did so

some of the haters here are forgetting/purposefully ignoring that this was a centuries-long struggle
 
5-4 was hardly a mandate for other decisions by this Court either--gutting the VRA, Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0.

What both sides are still missing is that Kennedy and Roberts have their own deep views of Libertarianism.
As we see with Kennedy writing today's opinion on gay marriage and yesterday's opinion on Texas Housing.
And with only Roberts voting with ACA the first time while both Kennedy and Roberts upheld ACA the 2nd time.

I'll continue to maintain these two are sick of the stalemate in Congress and will continue to legislate from the bench.
Both for and against both political parties--as we'll see with rulings next week.

With the death penalty as an example expected to swing back to the right 5-4--not a mandate.
At times, Sotomayor has joined Kennedy and Roberts as part of this new "third" wing that is non-partisan and libertarian .

Agree, but i think it's more like everyone else is sick of congress, and what other recourse is there to solve our problems other than the courts? If congress had done their damn job and upheld their oath, this decision today wouldn't have been necessary.

The supreme court isn't perfect but i will take them over self-serving politicians and uneducated and uniformed voters any day
 
I love how people on the right are bitching about this being a 5-4 victory. I don't remember the same people having a big problem with Citizens United. I can't believe how many people are attacking people being happy over this. What the **** did they expect? People have been working and fighting for this day for 30, 40 years in some cases. They have every right to be happy, and Democrats have every right to be like:

8Y8Rm5J.gif
 
Sounds like something the courts just made up to me.

Yeah, that is generally how it works. The judicial branch has to interpret the Constitution, so they create rules to govern themselves in how they interpret it. Scalia and Roberts did not argue that this was an incorrect or unconstitutional practice, they argued that the justices in the majority incorrectly utilized it or disregarded it entirely.
 
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.



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 can just see from his oozing compassion that he abhors the previous SCOTUS decisions that denied equal rights to gays, since those rulings "vilified" gays and their supporters.

Yeah pardon me for not giving a damn that bigots are vilified as they should be, and not believing that some court decision is what will tip the balance of sentiment in either direction. Talk about a bloated ego
 
Sounds like something the courts just made up to me.

Would you rather they not have that at all? Before you answer that think how those scrutiny rules apply to, and how it might affect your other rights if they weren't there.
 
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.

right like SSM is going to have any meaningful impact on birth rate...

maybe you should blame the 70% who are hetero christians and have stopped breeding, or god forbid, acknowledge that we're overpopulated and there is no way 300 million shar'ia muslims will be added to the voter rolls.
 
Back
Top Bottom