• 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]

Another failed attempt at characterization. Your take on my education and constitutional knowledge is as weak as your supposed knowledge of the constitution. You have demonstrated zero respect for the constitution and clearly have no problem ignoring it in toto as long as your desires are slaked.

That last bit of yours is highly hilarious considering you're the one taking the position that this decision is A-Okay despite the fact that the Chief of the Judicial Branch is telling you it is NOT consistent with the constitution at all.

It is ABSOLUTELY consistent not only with the Constitution but stare decisis/jurisprudence, i.e., Loving v. Virgina.
 
It is ABSOLUTELY consistent not only with the Constitution but stare decisis/jurisprudence, i.e., Loving v. Virgina.

Yeah, sorry, with the lack of knowledge you've demonstrated thus far and the fact that the Chief Justice, whom you supposedly consider an authority on the matter, says otherwise, your take on it is incorrect and useless.
 
I support same sex marriage, as I don't care whether two people of the same sex want to get married. And yes, polls showed this sentiment to be in the majority. Of course, those polls also painted a different picture when the question involved the use of the word "marriage". But the point is moot now.

However, you mentioned things that are more important to the masses, and I responded with an example related to immigration. Not sure why you ignored that to repeat something about SSM.

Oh, and really, liberal/progressives need to stop pushing the lie about the Supreme Court giving Bush the White House. It just makes them look ignorant and foolish. Multiple recounts by multiple sources showed Bush won. What the Supreme Court did do, however, was stop Gore and the Florida Legislature from re-writing voting laws after the vote was cast. Perhaps you could educate yourself on those facts so you won't make the same mistake again.

I am not sure why I did not respond to the immigration either I will go back and look I usually answer everything.
 
I've been married twice. The last one for longer than you may have been alive. Legally civil unions and marriage are about the same thing. The push for gay marriage wasn't about the institution of marriage. It was about gay people appearing to be as normal as everyone else in society. I've always considered it to be a non issue and now with a little luck we won't have to hear about it anymore.

I agree. Hopefully we can turn our attentions to other matters, now.

But...I used to think civil unions would have the same benefits, but others told me that isn't true. The use of spouse & family is used throughout our laws, state and federal, as well as company policies and procedures. It would be almost impossible to change all that. The only way to give the rights of marriage to people is to allow them to marry. That way, all those other references in laws and policies and procedures and rules and regs automatically apply to them.

I don't have feelings about this, one way or the other. I suppose my thinking is still based on a generation gone by. But I'm okay with the gay marriage thing...or not. I don't see it as affecting me. None of my business.
 
"A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
 
“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."
 
"A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Thankfully... we don't live in a democracy.

I would hate it if we did.
 
“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."

And that is true too.....

It was never an issue before because it was never brought up......
 
And that is true too.....

It was never an issue before because it was never brought up......

This too...

"They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not."
 
That is your belief. There is no evidence of this, no proof. You have to have faith in that fact. I don't, as many others don't.

You can't see an electrical current, but you can feel it if you stick your finger in a light socket.
 
Another failed attempt at characterization. Your take on my education and constitutional knowledge is as weak as your supposed knowledge of the constitution. You have demonstrated zero respect for the constitution and clearly have no problem ignoring it in toto as long as your desires are slaked.

That last bit of yours is highly hilarious considering you're the one taking the position that this decision is A-Okay despite the fact that the Chief of the Judicial Branch is telling you it is NOT consistent with the constitution at all.

Let me put this another way: Even if the constitution flat out stated "same sex is a right in every state," you would STILL be throwing tantrums. Once again, you're not fooling anyone
 
So you're bigoted against people with Objectum-Sexuality..... poor poor Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer and Sal9000.

Not at all. Legal marriage in the US involves a legal contract, as well as forms a legal kinship. You cannot sign a contract with an inanimate object or with an animal, or even with a minor. You cannot form a legal kinship of any kind with an inanimate object or an animal. None of those things can be claimed, ever on your taxes as a dependent, many legal relatives can, especially your closest legal relative, your spouse.
 
You can't see an electrical current, but you can feel it if you stick your finger in a light socket.

That feeling would still be a verifiable sensation, which is objective evidence of an electrical current, as is the ability to measure the current, along with plenty of other things pertaining to the current.

The Bible is not any sort of objective evidence of God. It is not evidence of any specific thing in the Bible being true.
 
Yeah, sorry, with the lack of knowledge you've demonstrated thus far and the fact that the Chief Justice, whom you supposedly consider an authority on the matter, says otherwise, your take on it is incorrect and useless.

LOL......and yet 5 other Justices say otherwise. Sorry dude.....you lose. The Chief Justice doesn't have any more sway/authority than any other Justice.
 
LOL......and yet 5 other Justices say otherwise. Sorry dude.....you lose. The Chief Justice doesn't have any more sway/authority than any other Justice.

Those 5 look tired. They need some time off.
AFTER obama is replaced with a conservative President.
 
Last edited:
Let me put this another way: Even if the constitution flat out stated "same sex is a right in every state," you would STILL be throwing tantrums. Once again, you're not fooling anyone

You have never demonstrated any ability to read my mind, and in this you show you definitely cannot. If you managed in some fictional universe to add that hot mess of a statement to the constitution, I'd have been all for it. In fact, I'll go a bit further, come up with a textually sound constitutional amendment that allows free and equal access to marriage and I will wholeheartedly support it.

But until you do, this decision was entirely outside the constitution and is the sign of a system that has abandoned the constitutional model and strayed into social engineering by a robed panel. Star chamber.
 
Not at all. Legal marriage in the US involves a legal contract, as well as forms a legal kinship. You cannot sign a contract with an inanimate object or with an animal, or even with a minor. You cannot form a legal kinship of any kind with an inanimate object or an animal. None of those things can be claimed, ever on your taxes as a dependent, many legal relatives can, especially your closest legal relative, your spouse.

Well now, you can leave your millions to your cat. :mrgreen:

6 Cats Who Inherited Fortunes - Catster
 
Those 5 look tired. They need some time off.
AFTER obama is replaced with a conservative President.

You are probably going to have to wait several election cycles before another Republican makes it into the whitehouse.
 
LOL......and yet 5 other Justices say otherwise. Sorry dude.....you lose. The Chief Justice doesn't have any more sway/authority than any other Justice.

And you claim to know all about law and constitution. :lamo

Do a little reading, learn something and catch up to your claims.
 
You have never demonstrated any ability to read my mind, and in this you show you definitely cannot. If you managed in some fictional universe to add that hot mess of a statement to the constitution, I'd have been all for it. In fact, I'll go a bit further, come up with a textually sound constitutional amendment that allows free and equal access to marriage and I will wholeheartedly support it.

But until you do, this decision was entirely outside the constitution and is the sign of a system that has abandoned the constitutional model and strayed into social engineering by a robed panel. Star chamber.

So you believe Loving v. Virginia was also outside the Constitution?
 
So you believe Loving v. Virginia was also outside the Constitution?

Nope, and if you knew as much about the constitution as you claim you'd know better than to ask that question.
 
You are probably going to have to wait several election cycles before another Republican makes it into the whitehouse.

Right, like your obama wasn't a total screw up.
You certainly do live up to your name. Because, you're living in a fantasy world if you think obama has done any good to my country.
 
And you claim to know all about law and constitution. :lamo

Do a little reading, learn something and catch up to your claims.


You believe that 4 is bigger than 5? Do you believe that the Chief Justice has more sway/authority than the other Justice? Do you know how someone becomes a Chief Justice?

Lets see if you can answer these three questions....and then tell me what is incorrect about my post you are referring to. (Somehow...I suspect all we will see is shuffle and dodge.....surprise us)
 
Back
Top Bottom