• 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]

Wow, how absolutely foolish of you. That's what you choose to comment on, that it's a woman, not a man? As usual, zero substance. It doesn't matter, as I have shown, this case has nothing to do with SSM. Something you have been unable to challenge with any type of thoughtful argument. Just a flip comment about who is who.

Oh, how very nice of him. Klansman. Still got elected, time after time, democrats kept voting for him, until he died. Klu Klux Klan. Think the left would be okay with the Republican Majority leader being a former Klansman? I wouldn't be okay with that. Democrats were all to happy too keep voting for one. That was the best guy they could put up, a former Klansman? For shame.

Awww... well that makes it all right then, doesn't it.

You're the one who doesn't know anything about the case, obviously, and when shown the similarities that are there, especially in the legal arguments, argue about how they aren't of any substance, despite not even knowing what is being talked about.

I could care less what or why anyone voted for Sen. Byrd. I didn't. He wasn't even in a state I ever lived in. But he denounced them in 1952. I tend to look at who people are and give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't hold old "crimes" or deeds against people if they appear to be sorry for what they did. They still may have to face punishment for what they did, if it was an actual crime, but that doesn't require holding a grudge. Unlike you appear to be, I'm not partisan. I also don't care whether someone has a D or an R or anything else by their name as a candidate or representative, but rather where they actually stand on issues and how they conduct themselves as a representative, if they have already served or what they have been doing if they haven't.

It is dishonest though to try to claim Southern Democrats of the past are not conservative Republicans now if they maintained that same ideology from the past that led them to fighting things like taking down interracial marriage bans or integration.
 
You know who you are.

My brother is gay. I can promise you that my view on SSM has nothing to do with politics. I've also been married for 24 years, and am damn positive him getting married does exactly NOTHING to diminish my marriage or my life in any way whatsoever. It's a mystery to me how expanding rights to marriage can possibly diminish the institution of marriage.

A comment like that tells me that you don't even know what the issue is. But if you do, let's hear it.

No idea what you're looking for.

I think it is pretty despicable that Obama switched solely for votes and contribution. It sure says a lot about those that voted for him too.

Obama is a politician, running for a national office. Anyone who has ever won that office, at least in the past century or more, has taken dozens of positions based on politics, polling, preferences of their donor class, political realities, whatever. The ones who stand on principles, no matter what, are those folks who poll in single digits, aka losers, and not-POTUS when the counting is done.
 
Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations


The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.



LOL!!! You have got to be kidding me! Boy, democrats will not take responsibility for ANYTHING! Yeah, when did Robert Byrd become a Republican? I don't remember that happening.

Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.
 
Well, you really didn't post anything of substance, just generalizations

The fact is, the Loving case was not about marriage at all, it was about a black man being discriminated against because of the color of his skin. Marriage just happened to be involved in this case. Again, not about marriage, it was about racism.

That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.
 
That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.

Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.
 
Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.

You all always fall back to the failed and ridiculous argument that includes your personal subjective definition of marriage based solely on who it is restricted to rather than what it actually is.
 
Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.
What was the acceptance rate among white Democrats?
 
That's not true. The same arguments that are used against SSM today were used to ban interracial marriage back then. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, only the right to marry white people. They always had the ability to marry someone of their own race. Likewise, gays have always had the opportunity to marry someone of an opposite sex. It's essentially identical.

Trying to draw an analogy between Obergefell and Loving seems to all the rage among the proponents of the homosexual agenda. It is a far-fetched and transparent attempt to legitimize an illegitimate dictate. The Virginia statutes at issue in Loving made it a felony crime for a white person and a colored person to leave the state to get married, and then return to live as man and wife. The Court found both that "penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery," 388 U.S. 1, 6 (1967), and that the Virginia laws were "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id. at 11. But "the clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States." Id. at 6.

The laws in Loving were challenged on both equal protection and due process grounds. In both analyses, the Court applies its "strict scrutiny" standard where a fundamental right is involved. The Supreme Court had long recognized that the right to marry--universally understood until last week's dictate to mean the right of one man and one woman to marry each other--was fundamental. "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id. at 12; See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) ("[T]he liberty thus guaranteed [by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] . . . denotes . . . the right of the individual to marry . . . .")

The state had to show the statutes were necessary--that they served some overriding government purpose independent of invidious race discrimination. But the Court held it did not show that: "there can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race," id. at 11, The statutes therefore failed the equal protection challenge.

The Court's due process analysis was similar, and very short:

"To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."


Loving was not that difficult a case, because the invidious racial discrimination the state statutes imposed, for the purpose of maintaining white supremacy, was obviously the very thing it was "the clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate." The notion that it was ever the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit states from choosing not to extend a government benefit like a marriage license to homosexuals does not even pass the laugh test. The only way to get that result is to ignore the Constitution completely, and make the Fourteenth Amendment say whatever supports the policy you personally favor--which is just what Anthony Kennedy et al. did. Justice Scalia summarized very simply and accurately why Kennedy's noble-sounding fortune cookie gobbledygook in Obergefell is nothing but a weak attempt to disguise an arbitrary, lawless dictate:


When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as 'due process of law' or 'equal protection of the laws'—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. (citing Town of Greece v. Galloway; all emphases added)
 
You all always fall back to the failed and ridiculous argument that includes your personal subjective definition of marriage based solely on who it is restricted to rather than what it actually is.

Sorry, I can't take credit for the definition of marriage, just falling back on facts and the truth. You should take the blinders off and try it sometime. Stop trying to put the square peg in the round hole. It doesn't fit now, and never will.

But it seems that you are a-okay with the SC shutting down the national debate on marriage and imposing the personal opinion of five people on the rest of the country.
 
Just remember, as of 2011 46% of Republicans in Mississippi still believe interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. Only 40% thought it should be allowed. These stone age cave dwellers are the GOP's problem now.

And where is this poll?

This is what I found...

On Monday, polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) revealed that 29 percent of likely GOP voters surveyed in Mississippi believe that interracial marriage should be illegal. Fifty-four percent said intermarriage should remain legal, and the rest responded that they weren't sure. The survey also found that 21 percent of likely GOP voters polled in Alabama believe that interracial marriage should be illegal.
 
Nope. One was trying to constrict marriage to less than what it was, between a man and a woman. The other is trying to change the very definition to include more than just a man and a woman. Completely different. But anyway, that is getting way off on a tangent away from what the Court did.

Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage, just as gay marriage wasn't until about a week ago. Same arguments, same bigots.
 
And where is this poll?

This is what I found...

Here's the link to the 2012 poll - it was 49/33 legal/illegal at 3/12/2012 (likely GOP primary voters)

This is the 2011 poll that shows the 40/46 legal/illegal split.
 
Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage
Of course it was.

Were it not, there would have been no need for laws that automatically voided such marriages. There would have been no reason to criminalize them.
 
Here's the link to the 2012 poll - it was 49/33 legal/illegal at 3/12/2012 (likely GOP primary voters)

This is the 2011 poll that shows the 40/46 legal/illegal split.
It's just a ridiculous poll. No attempt to poll democrats, and not even a question on party affiliation in a state with an open primary in a year where democrats had little to vote for. A campaign year where a Republican Senatorial candidate even openly campaigned for Democrats to cross-over, an action that fivethirtyeight and other sources credit with helping him to win. There was no context, no reason at all for a question of this nature to be included other than the leftist pollster's desire to provide some talking points and fuel to the "Republicans are racist" narrative.

Complete garbage.
 
It's just a ridiculous poll. No attempt to poll democrats, and not even a question on party affiliation in a state with an open primary in a year where democrats had little to vote for. A campaign year where a Republican Senatorial candidate even openly campaigned for Democrats to cross-over, an action that fivethirtyeight and other sources credit with helping him to win. There was no context, no reason at all for a question of this nature to be included other than the leftist pollster's desire to provide some talking points and fuel to the "Republicans are racist" narrative.

Complete garbage.

What can I say. One of those polls did ask party affiliation (the 2012 one) - you can see it in the internals. As I recall, democrats split about 85-15 legal/illegal on the question. The 2011 just polled likely GOP primary voters but didn't ask party affiliation.

Not sure what basis you conclude it's garbage other than you don't like the results. I'd buy the answer is more a reflection of approve/disapprove than an actual desire to bring back laws prohibiting it, but if you've spent any time in Mississippi you know it's not exactly progressive on matters of race.

The bigger surprise to me is large majorities of republicans don't believe in evolution. That would be a delicate issue to dance around if you're running for office in Mississippi and believed about 99.9% of scientists.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I can't take credit for the definition of marriage, just falling back on facts and the truth. You should take the blinders off and try it sometime. Stop trying to put the square peg in the round hole. It doesn't fit now, and never will.

But it seems that you are a-okay with the SC shutting down the national debate on marriage and imposing the personal opinion of five people on the rest of the country.

When it is your personal definition of marriage, regardless of where you got it from, then it is not in any way "facts" or "truth".

Same sex couples fit into marriage just fine. They have been doing so for a while now with pretty much no issues besides some people attempting to stop them from doing so. You don't agree? Please tell me what legal part of marriage same sex couples have significant issues with or that cause issues for society (your or other people's personal objections is not a significant issue). In fact, tell me what personal part of marriage they can't fit that applies to any and all opposite sex couples (besides "they are of the same sex", that would get a "duh" answer, and has nothing to do with how they are in marriage).
 
Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage, just as gay marriage wasn't until about a week ago. Same arguments, same bigots.

That's just plain wrong. Marriage was between a man and a woman, no colors specified, just two genders.
 
When it is your personal definition of marriage, regardless of where you got it from, then it is not in any way "facts" or "truth".

Same sex couples fit into marriage just fine. They have been doing so for a while now with pretty much no issues besides some people attempting to stop them from doing so. You don't agree? Please tell me what legal part of marriage same sex couples have significant issues with or that cause issues for society (your or other people's personal objections is not a significant issue). In fact, tell me what personal part of marriage they can't fit that applies to any and all opposite sex couples (besides "they are of the same sex", that would get a "duh" answer, and has nothing to do with how they are in marriage).

LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.
 
LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.

No, your analogy fails because it deals with concrete subjects, where things are defined in concretes. I can describe a gallon of anything. I can objectively define milk and water. You cannot objectively define marriage unless you do so just by the laws regarding how marriage works, which is still a very subjective definition of marriage, since it is not true for every country or civilization, or even every time of our own country.
 
LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.

I ... am pretty sure... SCOTUS... is a proper channel... when it comes to... dealing with the constitutionality of marriage bans...
 
I ... am pretty sure... SCOTUS... is a proper channel... when it comes to... dealing with the constitutionality of marriage bans...

Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.
 
Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.

No, they shouldn't have. They did the right thing. The rights of individual US citizens were being oppressed by the states, people were being prevented from getting married due to their relatives sexes by the states. That is very much an issue for the SCOTUS to resolve, to decide if this is true or not, if they really should have the right to marry, to equal protection of the laws pertaining to marriage. The states made their arguments, and failed to show that those restrictions furthered any state interest.
 
No, they shouldn't have. They did the right thing. The rights of individual US citizens were being oppressed by the states, people were being prevented from getting married due to their relatives sexes by the states. That is very much an issue for the SCOTUS to resolve, to decide if this is true or not, if they really should have the right to marry, to equal protection of the laws pertaining to marriage. The states made their arguments, and failed to show that those restrictions furthered any state interest.

No rights were being "oppressed". But, I'm not interested in that, or the lack there of. The serious problem is that they knew that they had four members of the Court that they could count on to not do their job, not respect what the Constitution, not even look at the Constitution. They knew that the four liberals would decide in their favor first, and then make up some way (though unconvincing and inaccurate) to justify what they had done.
That is dangerous.
 
No rights were being "oppressed". But, I'm not interested in that, or the lack there of. The serious problem is that they knew that they had four members of the Court that they could count on to not do their job, not respect what the Constitution, not even look at the Constitution. They knew that the four liberals would decide in their favor first, and then make up some way (though unconvincing and inaccurate) to justify what they had done.
That is dangerous.

What you mean is that you knew there were at least 4 members of the Court that do not agree with your personal interpretation of the Constitution. Just as most of us knew that at least two/three of the Justices had an interpretation of the Constitution that matched yours, which was extremely limited because they support states' rights over individual rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom