• 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]

I know! :doh

And that indicates zero degree of competance :( Or relevance.


In his dissent in Lawrence v Texas, the deep bigotry he revealed there was so painfully obvious (topper: his ironic remark about "taking sides in the culture war") -

To wit:

"One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14.

It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war,
departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. "

Now this:

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

He' just fine and dandy criminalizing certain sexual behaviors between consenting adults behind closed doors -- and goes on to tell us how "many" folks just don't want those icky gays around them.

Curiously, though, 15 years later, (in this most recent decision) -- he says the gay issue "is of no particular importance to me." Ha!

Jig-pokery that, Tony.
 
Once they previously decided that marriage was a civil right, it was all over. So here's a sample:

Yeah, well you quoted from the majority opinion. So what? How about some quotes from the dissent?
 
Yeah, well you quoted from the majority opinion. So what? How about some quotes from the dissent?

You claimed they didnt base their decision on the Constitution. Apparently, they did.
 
See, you have the same thinking as the republican establishment. Reagan won both NY and California. Moderate Republicans are losers. If you want that kind of person, then you might as well as vote for the Democrat. Of course, that is why the media always favors the moderate republicans. They loved McCain in the primaries. Of couse, he was then the devil in the general election.


Oh, please. Texas is the Holy Grail for them. Nay, they are not for open boarders at all. And they certainly don't want illegals voting, no way!

Reagan was a moderate Republican. It was also almost 40 years ago.
 
Nothing to elaborate on, it's all right there. You have your four core liberals, who decide the case first, based on the liberal agenda, then come up with some buffoonish reasoning to justify what they just did. No need to check with the Constitution, it's not important to them.

Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote, and wrote the majority oppinion for the same-sex ruling.
 
So like I said then, they are just selectively using sin as an excuse against gays, rather than actually objecting because of religious belief.

Thanks, that's what I said.

That's not it at all. They are selectively picking the things that are convenient to them and enforcing the things that aren't. It doesn't matter who. Gays aren't the target

Even still, if they hold the belief, our government cannot force the, to violate it.
 
I don't want any judges deciding because of their agenda, I want them to show fidelity to the Constitution and what it says, not what they think it ought to says. Clearly, Obama's appointees are there for the agenda, not the Constitution.

Did why did Scalia invoke his own personal religious beliefs in his dissent?

Is that not an "agenda" that has no god damned place in a constitutional discussion??????
 
Obama's appointees? He hasn't appointed any Judges to the SCOTUS. you guys blame him for things he hasn't even done.

He did actually appoint people to the SCOTUS.......... Lets be honest.
 
Jesus said there is absolutely repentance if you ask. Like I said...New Testament. For ANY sin.

But it's sad that you think the govt can make you fear God. God is a God of love and peace and compassion and nothing you write indicates that you recognize that, only vengeance and hate.

I guess all the bakers and photographers, etc, that have been serving adulterers and fornicators all these years have gone to Hell, or are going to? Ruh oh!

Is it safe to say that you aren't making an attempt to understand and that you would rather bash Christians and force them to follow your beliefs?
 
I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution, not the old Soviet Union's.

WTF??!?!?!?!?!?!

Please, using language directly from the majority opinion, show where they based their decision on the old Soviet Union's constitution.....

This is about the most ignorant assertion in this entire thread...
 
Is it safe to say that you aren't making an attempt to understand and that you would rather bash Christians and force them to follow your beliefs?

So, in the spirit of the post you responded to,

ec44a58b030e56716c30a1ea90a7c591.jpg
 
So, in the spirit of the post you responded to,

ec44a58b030e56716c30a1ea90a7c591.jpg

I already posted supporting links. I'm not doing it again. Your lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum is noted.
 
Is it safe to say that you aren't making an attempt to understand and that you would rather bash Christians and force them to follow your beliefs?

I am a practicing Christian. If anything, I am bashing the hypocritical ones that give my religion a black eye.
 
Did why did Scalia invoke his own personal religious beliefs in his dissent?

Is that not an "agenda" that has no god damned place in a constitutional discussion??????

You've got to be kidding. He is always looking to the Constitution for guidance. More than anyone on the Court.
 
Reagan was a moderate Republican. It was also almost 40 years ago.

Reagan was the last Republican President that wasn't completely in the pocket of the religious right. He didn't take them seriously, he knew when to pretend to be on their side to get their support but I'm pretty sure he thought they were idiots.
 
WTF??!?!?!?!?!?!

Please, using language directly from the majority opinion, show where they based their decision on the old Soviet Union's constitution.....

This is about the most ignorant assertion in this entire thread...

Please, show me where it is based on our Constitution. What an ignorant post.
 
Oh, I know what ruling we are talking about, there just isn't anything in our Constitution that supports it.

From page 2 of the decision

b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar- riage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1)The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choic- es defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying in- terests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals dis- cord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received le- gal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
 
You've got to be kidding. He is always looking to the Constitution for guidance. More than anyone on the Court.

Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.

And this fun little gem......
Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:
The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality,'" he quoted from the majority opinion before adding, "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie

And then this fun little gem.....
Antonin Scalia's Dissent said:
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

These are definitely the writings of someone who looks to the constitution..... rather than writing as a justice in the highest court, what amounts to a Debate Politics partisan rant.
 
Please, show me where it is based on our Constitution. What an ignorant post.

You are the one who made the claim that it was based on the Soviet Union's constitution......
Now support that ignorant ass claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom