• 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!

Ginsburg nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony

Bodhisattva said:
I find her Decisions and reasoning to be far too Liberal (just as some Conservatives are far too Conservative) and her work with the ACLU bugs me.
Click to expand...

Care to get more specific??
 
opendebate said:
Care to get more specific??
Click to expand...

I could but I am not really that interested in going back and finding the cases that she voted on and discussing it. This is also over the last 20 years, mind you. The one thing that I do remember well is that she would not answer Senator questions about her views nor how they might affect her voting. I remember Senators being frustrated and so was I. She is an advocate Judge and I feel that this has influenced her view of the Constitution. She votes according to her wishes about how society should be and that is wrong.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I could but I am not really that interested in going back and finding the cases that she voted on and discussing it. This is also over the last 20 years, mind you. The one thing that I do remember well is that she would not answer Senator questions about her views nor how they might affect her voting. I remember Senators being frustrated and so was I. She is an advocate Judge and I feel that this has influenced her view of the Constitution. She votes according to her wishes about how society should be and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

I hear you but I really think that is unavoidable, conservative justices do the same thing. (not meant to be a tit-for-tat just to show that it is universal because we are human beings) The question is to what extent does it actually influence anyones position. Does it cause them to stray from a loyalty to the integrity of the constitution.
 
opendebate said:
I hear you but I really think that is unavoidable, conservative justices do the same thing. (not meant to be a tit-for-tat just to show that it is universal because we are human beings) The question is to what extent does it actually influence anyones position. Does it cause them to stray from a loyalty to the integrity of the constitution.
Click to expand...

I used to follow SCOTUS more but I find their fallibility, yet iron fisted power, disturbing. I find the Court Process disturbing after going through it three times. The power that a Judge wields is not right. They are just people and can assume, be wrong, not get it, be swayed for whatever reason in my case sexist old school family court mind set..;. etc. I have a problem with Ginsberg and her ilk trying to regulate their views from the Court more alarming and destructive than just about anything else.
 
opendebate said:
Exactly, you always have the co-hones to call them out on that BTW. Well done. I am much concerned with being diplomatic sometimes at the expense of my voice.
Click to expand...

well thats a good quality to have, i simply dont have the patients in most cases or time because im usually doing other things while im here.
many posters who i think that are better than me are really good at setting posters up and making them punch themselves right in the face with their own words or link after link of proof and facts to destroy them.
 
Thrilla said:
yeah..umm.. we're not talking about judges in general

....we're talking about supreme court justices.

I don't think I've ever heard of any sitting supreme court justice officiating any weddings ( which is why i asked earlier if anyone has heard of such a thing)

I think the OP nailed it.. it was a middle finger to political rivals.
Click to expand...

I doubt I will see a retraction from you when someone proves you wrong, correct?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I used to follow SCOTUS more but I find their fallibility, yet iron fisted power, disturbing. I find the Court Process disturbing after going through it three times. The power that a Judge wields is not right. They are just people and can assume, be wrong, not get it, be swayed for whatever reason in my case sexist old school family court mind set..;. etc. I have a problem with Ginsberg and her ilk trying to regulate their views from the Court more alarming and destructive than just about anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree. They get those jobs for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.....that's fkn scary.

The power that a Judge wields is not right. They are just people and can assume, be wrong, not get it, be swayed for whatever reason in my case sexist old school family court mind set..;. et
Click to expand...

Agreed, they are just people and because of that fallible. I had bad experiences in family court too. Don't know what an alternative would be though.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL.

Just about every time a person gets into a discussion about this issue with a member of the thought police, one of the first things that has to happen is to be told you hate, you are a bigot and so on. It's like an old stuck broken record or something. Just so you will know, that crap doesn't work on me. So keep it up if you want or try something else if you want. Maybe your thought police friends get off on it but I don't pay it much mind.

If the bakery couple didn't want to make the cake for the gay couple on their religious beliefs, well, there is that freedom of religion thing that the Constitution is supposed to look out for people for. Funny how that thought never crossed your mind or if it did, you didn't mention it because it wouldn't fit your legal theory example. Last time I checked, the US constitution checked any and all state law. But maybe you and the thought police don't care much for the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah thought police blah blah. Their religion doesn't say anything about baking except when it's okay to use leavened bread. The state voted, and they decided they didn't want discrimination against gays. That was your standard, wasn't it? Or is it only the standard when the state votes the way you want it to?
 
opendebate said:
I agree. They get those jobs for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.....that's fkn scary.
Click to expand...

I think that they should get a ten year term with no chance for another appointment on the Court... a simple solution.

Agreed, they are just people and because of that fallible. I had bad experiences in family court too. Don't know what an alternative would be though.
Click to expand...

Me either. I was just shocked at some of the conclusions that our Judge came up with. Shocked. My ex had a history of physically attacking me, etc. yet somehow the Judge concluded that I had the anger problems and that I was the resentful bitter ex. etc. It was ridiculous and insulting reading his Decision, even though I won.
 
disneydude said:
I doubt I will see a retraction from you when someone proves you wrong, correct?
Click to expand...

Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at Rush Limbaugh's wedding in 1994,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over Alan Greenspan's wedding in 1983 and National Public Radio correspondent Nina Totenberg's wedding in 2000,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor performed her former law clerk's wedding in 2009
Justice Stephen Breyer married Patrick Kennedy with his bride Amy Petitgout in 2011

Supreme Court Justice to Officiate Kennedy Wedding - People and Events - U.S. Supreme Court
 
Grendel said:
Blah blah blah thought police blah blah. Their religion doesn't say anything about baking except when it's okay to use leavened bread. The state voted, and they decided they didn't want discrimination against gays. That was your standard, wasn't it? Or is it only the standard when the state votes the way you want it to?
Click to expand...

Now you are going to pretend to be an expert on what a persons religious beliefs are too? LOL.


Did the people of a state vote or did a judge rule? Big difference. But either way, a state can pass any law it wants but if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster it won't be that long before a judge rules the correct way. Freedom of religion is protected in our country, some people or some groups of people may not like it one bit (especially the thought police) but that's just to bad. In the end, people place more value in the constitution and tradition, family values, common sense, morality and such than they do about peoples sex habits.
 
Peter King said:
Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at Rush Limbaugh's wedding in 1994,
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over Alan Greenspan's wedding in 1983 and National Public Radio correspondent Nina Totenberg's wedding in 2000,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor performed her former law clerk's wedding in 2009
Justice Stephen Breyer married Patrick Kennedy with his bride Amy Petitgout in 2011

Supreme Court Justice to Officiate Kennedy Wedding - People and Events - U.S. Supreme Court
Click to expand...

Wow, I Googled that and got an article stating that she was the first. hmmmmm.
 
opendebate said:
Wow, I Googled that and got an article stating that she was the first. hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

I put my google search in the past. From 2001 until November 2012 and I found that article.

If you searched today, almost all the stories would be about Ginsberg and this same sex wedding.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Now you are going to pretend to be an expert on what a persons religious beliefs are too? LOL.


Did the people of a state vote or did a judge rule? Big difference. But either way, a state can pass any law it wants but if it doesn't pass Constitutional muster it won't be that long before a judge rules the correct way. Freedom of religion is protected in our country, some people or some groups of people may not like it one bit (especially the thought police) but that's just to bad. In the end, people place more value in the constitution and tradition, family values, common sense, morality and such than they do about peoples sex habits.
Click to expand...

It's illegal for businesses to discriminate in that state. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to do it in another state. That state said "No."
 
The Baron said:
If two people want to find someone to marry them so they can go play house…I don’t care. But there are multiple reasons for the state to only recognize opposite-sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Wow, so your position is that a religious ceremony binding a same-sex couple is perfectly fine with you, but it should not have the same LEGAL effect as a heterosexual marriage! That’s the first time I’ve seen that argument. Let’s examine it, shall we?


The Baron said:
Such as,

1. Marriage--as defined as being between men and women exclusively--is the basis for any culture. This has been true regardless of the culture itself including factors such as time, geography, religion, race, etc. And children are best served in a family consisting of their biological mother and father.
Click to expand...

Not quite true. Marriage, as an “institution” has only existed in relatively recent times as part of the outgrowth of organized religion. For the greatest part of human existence there was no such thing. The dominant male could do whatever he wanted, including have sex with every female member of the tribal group, or “dominate” any younger or weaker male if he felt like it. Even in historical times there are oodles of examples of same sex bonding recognized by law or culture. What is true in your statement is that one important social aspect of organized religion was the power to sanctify a bond between a man and a woman so as to lend stability to a family unit.

The Baron said:
2. Fatherless homes are the number one predictor of antisocial behavior in teens.

3. Maternal deprivation is shown to increase a child’s incidence of alcoholism and impulsiveness (while I’ve posted a few links I think we all intuitively know that a child needs both a mother and a father for proper development).
Click to expand...

So having two fathers or two mothers might double antisocial behavior in teens or serve to increase alcoholism in children? Hardly a factual presumption.

I think you misrepresent the problems with having a single parent household as being uncorrectable in a two-parent household of same-sex parents. Having few examples of same-sex situations to prove your point, you again project your personal bias and assume facts not in evidence.

The Baron said:
4. A change in the definition of marriage only hurts the institution of marriage and thus society as a whole. Consider that marriage used to be a permanent institution and divorce was a rather rate occurrence until “no-fault divorce” became law and divorce became easier to obtain. Today nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and the impact on children in devastating.
Click to expand...

It is your assumption this will “hurt the institution of marriage,” but this presumes facts not in evidence. Simply because YOU don’t like the idea is no basis for that presumption either. In fact, YOUR heterosexual marriage is not affected at all unless YOU allow it to be. Opining about divorce, aside from being a red herring issue here, only affects those who choose to get a divorce not those who remain “happily married.”

The Baron said:
5. As a result of high divorce rates many couples choose to live together without the benefit, responsibilities and obligations of marriage. This, too, has a dangerous affect on marriage as those who live together first and then marry are more likely to get divorced, once again, harming any children involved.

6. The state provides divorce courts, child services, women services, etc. all relating to the break-up of families. It is a multi-billion dollar expense that tax-payers must absorb. As such the state would be better off limiting divorces to the best of their ability (limiting marriage to it traditional sense: one man + one woman for life).
Click to expand...

Again with the “divorce” issue? We are talking about same-sex marriage and thus you are again presuming facts not in evidence. Why should you care about same-sex couples getting a divorce affecting children? Whether or not a same-sex couple makes some arrangement about having a child (adoption, artificial insemination, w/e) at worst it would be little different from heterosexual couples who contemplate children and divorce. All of your “divorce points” apply to marriage in general, thus none of them have special merit in relation to same sex marriage.

The Baron said:
7. As marriage comes to mean less and less, people are relying less and less on the institution. One of the newer trends in relationships involves the “hook up”, where an individual finds a sexual outlet in another person for a time. There is only a minimal, in any, relationship outside a sexual relationship. Children born out of such arrangements will suffer.
Click to expand...

You final point is a blatant appeal to emotion based upon false premises, red herrings, presumptions of facts not in evidence, and simple personal bias. Try again, this "don't make it legal" argument simply won’t fly.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
a retraction for what?...I really have never heard of Justices presiding over weddings.
Click to expand...

Well...you are wrong. Now....are you willing to admit it and issue a retraction....or are you going to look foolish and keep spouting off the same garbage even though you have been proven wrong?
 
Grendel said:
It's illegal for businesses to discriminate in that state. If they want to run a bigoted business, they have to do it in another state. That state said "No."
Click to expand...
.. public business... i'm quite certain there are private businesses, association, clubs, etc that are bigoted or discriminatory and operate in your area... many whose bigotry or discrimination you agree with.
 
Thrilla said:
.. public business... i'm quite certain there are private businesses, association, clubs, etc that are bigoted or discriminatory and operate in your area... many whose bigotry or discrimination you agree with.
Click to expand...

Whether or not there are, and whether or not I agree with them, and whether or not anything else about me and some imaginary groups, it's still illegal for businesses in that state to discriminate. If you want a business license there, if you want to be open to the public, then you're not allowed to refuse service to people based on gender. That's the law the state passed and enforces. So, if they want to refuse service to gay couples, then they can't be open to the public. That's the law in that state.

Maybe they can move to another state and try again.
 
disneydude said:
Well...you are wrong. Now....are you willing to admit it and issue a retraction....or are you going to look foolish and keep spouting off the same garbage even though you have been proven wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm wrong?... you mean i have actually heard about justices presiding over weddings?...interesting, you would have thought i would remember hearing about them, you'd think i would have never asked the ****ing question if i did hear about them....
are you stupid or something?

so they have presided over weddings... now I know they have.

from me, you get nothing.... you earned nothing, you deserve nothing...get back under your bridge.
for Peter King .. Kudos...well done bringing the facts man.
 
Grendel said:
Whether or not there are, and whether or not I agree with them, and whether or not anything else about me and some imaginary groups, it's still illegal for businesses in that state to discriminate. If you want a business license there, if you want to be open to the public, then you're not allowed to refuse service to people based on gender. That's the law the state passed and enforces. So, if they want to refuse service to gay couples, then they can't be open to the public. That's the law in that state.

Maybe they can move to another state and try again.
Click to expand...

yes.. all that is true for public access business.... but not just in your state, but every state.... your state is not special... it's federal law.

my point is that you can have a discriminatory business, it just can't be a pubic access business.... and that too, goes for all 50 states.
 
opendebate said:
I agree. They get those jobs for the REST OF THEIR LIVES.....that's fkn scary.

Agreed, they are just people and because of that fallible.
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
I think that they should get a ten year term with no chance for another appointment on the Court... a simple solution.
Click to expand...

The idea for lifetime apointments is based upon the legal principle of Res Judicata; Latin for "a thing decided; a matter [already] judged." This common law doctrine is meant to prevent relitigation of cases between the same parties regarding the same issues and preserve the binding nature of the court's decision.

Many Americans seem to like trying to relitigate any issue they don't like the ruling on. This happans often in State courts where most judges are elected to terms in office, even at the State Supreme Court level. Thus, issues regarding property rights, civil rights, criminal law interpretations, etc. are constantly being rehashed in attempts to reverse decisions back and forth.

Having a Supreme Court Justice serve for a life term means that as long as that Justice sits...you know where they are going to side when it comes to cases attempting to challenge prior decisions already established by the Court. At the very least, they will be able to argue their rationale with newly appointed members in an effort to preserve the rulings; at the most, insure the decision remains binding.

I don't think setting term limits is a good idea for SCOTUS because when it comes to decisions about Constitutional interpretation we need long-term stability in judicial decision-making.

(Woo-hoo, my 2,000th post! I'm glad it was an important one and not one of my facetious ones. ;) )
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
I'm wrong?... you mean i have actually heard about justices presiding over weddings?...interesting, you would have thought i would remember hearing about them, you'd think i would have never asked the ****ing question if i did hear about them....
are you stupid or something?

so they have presided over weddings... now I know they have.

from me, you get nothing.... you earned nothing, you deserve nothing...get back under your bridge.
for Peter King .. Kudos...well done bringing the facts man.
Click to expand...

LOL....I expected no less....you come into this thread....knee-jerk and spew all over the place and when proven wrong....you shuffle away. typical
 
Thrilla said:
yes.. all that is true for public access business.... but not just in your state, but every state.... your state is not special... it's federal law.

my point is that you can have a discriminatory business, it just can't be a pubic access business.... and that too, goes for all 50 states.
Click to expand...

First of all, these guys were charged with a state law. It's not illegal by federal law. So you're making stuff up.

Second, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what level the law was passed at (which was state), they were still breaking it. If they don't like the state anti-discrimination law, they can move to another state.

Isn't taht what the state's rights crowds keep saying when they try to pass religious law at the state level?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom