• 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]

Oh you mean exactly the same thing they did today, then? Exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about?

It doesn't matter if you're talking about Dred Scott, Roe, or this newest abomination.


Maintaining the integrity of the Constitution is their job. When they not only fail to do that, but they directly violate the Constitution themselves and make up new "rights" willy nilly and force them against the states appropriate of nothing, that is tyranny.

When the foxes rule the henhouse, it's game over.

did you just compare slavery to the protection of equal rights? wow an argument like that will never be taken seriously by anybody honest
 
The court and the state may recognize their marriage, but I sure don't have to.


I'm not surprised this was the ruling, but there needed to be some clarification on who must recognize a government sanctioned marriage. What has been the trend is that homosexual relationships get precedence over religious beliefs and that is a dangerous road to travel. We are on the verge of creating classes of people that have elevated rights.

this is straight dishonesty in so many ways its not even funny. they were lessers now they are equal, theres no elevation. What you actually want would be the elevation of religion and thank god that aint gonna happen.
 
I don't think so at all. In comparison to other groups, I think it's been a relatively quick victory.

what other groups?
gays just dint magically appear in 1985, they been around forever
 
That said, the issue here in Canada has been a non-issue for the most part. No churches have been mandated to marry anyone and never will. It's possible, in the US, where the left takes everything to extremes and goes way overboard that there will be a push to punish the religious right by trying to force them into performing same sex marriages, but I would hope they wouldn't.

no that is not going to happen because its impossible here too lol
 
Nothing is impossible in America where your courts are far too political and ignore the law when it suits them.

like i said it aint gonna happen, "churches" are protected and its impossible unless the constitutions manically changes. You statement is conspiracy theory at best and thats the only way honest, educated and rational people will ever view it. To even fathom it will actually happen is nonsense. Churches discriminate everyday for any reason they want and theres nothing to change that.
 
If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.

no one is forcing anybody so no worries
 
Nothing is impossible in America where your courts are far too political and ignore the law when it suits them.

and they are fine with it because they got what they wanted. if the conservative justices were as selfish and political it wouldn't have happened. and notice not a single liberal on this site has thanked or given respect to those conservatives that did vote for it. they could give a crap. tomorrow they will all go back to being evil enemies, even though it is the liberal justices who are the politically motivated scumbags in this case.
 
First of all, it isn't just "liberals/progressives" fighting for same sex couples to be able to marry. Second, it isn't just "liberals/progressives" who don't care about marriage as an institution. In fact, the most common complaint about marriage I hear comes from libertarians, not liberals. Most people aren't completely shunning marriage, but rather simply putting it off.

His entire premise is flawed....if gays and liberals/progressives didn't care about marriage as an institution they wouldn't be fighting to be included. The fact of the matter is, gays who want to be married care every bit as much about marriage as their heterosexual and/or conservative counterparts. His is just sour grapes rhetoric....nothing more.
 
Why should businesses have to pay men and women the same, or in this case offer everyone the same benefits? Well, because apparently it's unfair if they don't, ignoring that there is literally no other reason to do it. It's not like the employer will lose business because they don't and it's not like there is any connection between hirings, but well, it's unfair, so yeah. It's entertaining how it's fair to force yourself on people though.

I guess we will see.
 
like i said it aint gonna happen, "churches" are protected and its impossible unless the constitutions manically changes. You statement is conspiracy theory at best and thats the only way honest, educated and rational people will ever view it. To even fathom it will actually happen is nonsense. Churches discriminate everyday for any reason they want and theres nothing to change that.

Perhaps you hadn't heard about attempts by the Obama administration to force Catholic institutions to fund health insurance packages that included free access to contraceptives. Perhaps you haven't heard about Human Rights Commissions ruling against religious people who wish not to have their businesses used in connections with same sex marriages. Perhaps you haven't heard some opine that if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages then the government should refuse to recognize all of that church's marriages.

America, at this point in time, is fully engaged in chipping away at the extent to which religious freedoms are enjoyed in the public square. It is not the least bit a "conspiracy theory" to believe that such chipping will continue to occur and courts may, if they continue to legislate social policy, find a time when they'll cross the line into individual rights superceding religious rights.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, so my view should be taken solely as a reflection on jurisprudence these days.
 
and they are fine with it because they got what they wanted. if the conservative justices were as selfish and political it wouldn't have happened. and notice not a single liberal on this site has thanked or given respect to those conservatives that did vote for it. they could give a crap. tomorrow they will all go back to being evil enemies, even though it is the liberal justices who are the politically motivated scumbags in this case.

What are you even talking about? The 4 conservatives on the court voted against it.....should we give thanks for their vote? The deciding vote was Kennedy who although is conservative on some issues, it much more moderate on others and has been the deciding vote on many key issues. We as a nation are forever indebted to Kennedy who has the wisdom and foresight to understand the Constitution and its guarantees.
 
and they are fine with it because they got what they wanted. if the conservative justices were as selfish and political it wouldn't have happened. and notice not a single liberal on this site has thanked or given respect to those conservatives that did vote for it. they could give a crap. tomorrow they will all go back to being evil enemies, even though it is the liberal justices who are the politically motivated scumbags in this case.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do appreciate the sentiment.
 
Perhaps you hadn't heard about attempts by the Obama administration to force Catholic institutions to fund health insurance packages that included free access to contraceptives. Perhaps you haven't heard about Human Rights Commissions ruling against religious people who wish not to have their businesses used in connections with same sex marriages. Perhaps you haven't heard some opine that if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages then the government should refuse to recognize all of that church's marriages.

America, at this point in time, is fully engaged in chipping away at the extent to which religious freedoms are enjoyed in the public square. It is not the least bit a "conspiracy theory" to believe that such chipping will continue to occur and courts may, if they continue to legislate social policy, find a time when they'll cross the line into individual rights superceding religious rights.

I'm not the slightest bit religious, so my view should be taken solely as a reflection on jurisprudence these days.


Chipping away at religious freedoms in the public square? Religious Freedom was NEVER intended as a way for people to get around the laws of the country. Religious Freedom is about the individual freedom to practice whatever religion you want...but don't kid yourself...it was never intended to give people a license to use religion as a shield to practice bigotry.
 
What are you even talking about? The 4 conservatives on the court voted against it.....should we give thanks for their vote? The deciding vote was Kennedy who although is conservative on some issues, it much more moderate on others and has been the deciding vote on many key issues. We as a nation are forever indebted to Kennedy who has the wisdom and foresight to understand the Constitution and its guarantees.

You know what The ironic thing is?

Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.
 
Ok. So if I open a flower shop and refuse to participate in a gay wedding, I won't be prosecuted? I'm glad that is settled law then.

Freedom of religion does not give you a shield to write your own rules....you have to follow the laws. You are still absolutely free to practice your religion, attend your church, pray anywhere and anytime you want to....it even protects your right to be a bigot...it just does not protect your right to practice that bigotry against others. Its actually pretty simple.
 
You know what The ironic thing is?

Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

(Unless you are Donald Trump....who thinks Bush appointed him....LOL)

It is ironic....but sometimes, like Souter....they turn out ok.
 
Chipping away at religious freedoms in the public square? Religious Freedom was NEVER intended as a way for people to get around the laws of the country. Religious Freedom is about the individual freedom to practice whatever religion you want...but don't kid yourself...it was never intended to give people a license to use religion as a shield to practice bigotry.

Perhaps you should address your comments to Agent J since he's the one who insists it's impossible that people like you will continue to chip away. You're a prime example of what I was referring to. Thanks
 
CanadaJohn;10647619761.) said:
Perhaps you haven't heard some opine that if churches refuse to perform same sex marriages then the government should refuse to recognize all of that church's marriages.
2.)America, at this point in time, is fully engaged in chipping away at the extent to which religious freedoms are enjoyed in the public square. It is not the least bit a "conspiracy theory" to believe that such chipping will continue to occur and courts may, if they continue to legislate social policy, find a time when they'll cross the line into individual rights superceding religious rights.
3.)I'm not the slightest bit religious, so my view should be taken solely as a reflection on jurisprudence these days.

sticking with the actual topic and not strawmen and hyperbole

1.) constitution excists so no worries, churches will not be forced
2.) actually since i live here and i myself am a chrisitina and therehave been ZERO infringements on my religious rights it is a conspiracy theory. . .this equal rights victory has ZERO impact on religious rights and freedoms
3.) religious or not i just take it for what it is. illogical, unsupportable and a fantasy conspiracy theory.
 
Perhaps you should address your comments to Agent J since he's the one who insists it's impossible that people like you will continue to chip away. You're a prime example of what I was referring to. Thanks

No one is chipping away at anything. That is the point. What we have seen over the last 2-3 decades is a push by the radical right-wing to try to infiltrate the public square with a state sponsored religion. This is what people have fought back against. Most people in this country are fine with people practicing whatever religion they want....in their churches, homes and hearts. But like Christ rejected the Pharisees who were hypocrites and wanted to pray in the public square so that others could witness them....the American people will continue to reject the right-wing social agenda. That isn't "chipping away at religious freedom".....that is rightfully defending a separation of church/state.
 
What are you even talking about? The 4 conservatives on the court voted against it.....should we give thanks for their vote? The deciding vote was Kennedy who although is conservative on some issues, it much more moderate on others and has been the deciding vote on many key issues. We as a nation are forever indebted to Kennedy who has the wisdom and foresight to understand the Constitution and its guarantees.

don't be fooled. Kennedy is extremely conservative with gay marriage being an exception. He's been talked up as being the central position but he is waaaaaaayyyy right on just about every other issue.
 
You know what The ironic thing is?

Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

It's not ironic, but it is telling. It seems that the litmus tests of Republican Presidents isn't nearly as effective as the lockstep litmus tests that Democrat Presidents follow when appointing solid, down the line, non wavering, adherents to the liberal prime directives. You'd be hard pressed to name a single time Ginsberg, as an example, hasn't opted to rule in the most liberal/progressive manner possible irrespective of the law.
 
don't be fooled. Kennedy is extremely conservative with gay marriage being an exception. He's been talked up as being the central position but he is waaaaaaayyyy right on just about every other issue.

He's definitely conservative on many issues.....I completely recognize that...but compared with Scalia, Scalito and the nimble-brained Thomas....Kennedy has shown a more moderate side on several issues.
 
It's not ironic, but it is telling. It seems that the litmus tests of Republican Presidents isn't nearly as effective as the lockstep litmus tests that Democrat Presidents follow when appointing solid, down the line, non wavering, adherents to the liberal prime directives. You'd be hard pressed to name a single time Ginsberg, as an example, hasn't opted to rule in the most liberal/progressive manner possible irrespective of the law.

The whole "litmus-test" really got started with GHB....since then it has been much more prominent from both sides of the aisle. Prior to GHB....you had a number of justices appointed by both sides that didn't cow-tow the party line. O'Connor being another appointed by Reagan.
 
Back
Top Bottom