• 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!

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue[W:141]

How will SCOTUS rule on SSM issue?

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, but I'm against it.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll rule in favor of SSM, and I'm in favor of it too.

    Votes: 31 68.9%

  • They'll rule against SSM, and I'm against it as well.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They'll rule against SSM, but I support SSM rights.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • They won't actually rule on it. Some loop hole will prevent a true decision.

    Votes: 4 8.9%

  • They'll wuss out and leave it to each state - which is total BS in my mind.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • They'll leave it to each state, as it should be in my opinion.

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • other - please explain

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Total voters
    45
shrubnose said:
The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court a lot of power.
Click to expand...

Yep, even the power to reverse itself with no change in the constitution; which implies that the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS (at that time) says that it does. If SSM was "clearly defined" as a right in 1868 (or was it 1967?) then what took so long for the SCOTUS to discover that "fact"?
 
disneydude said:
Which exactly what Kennedy said. He wrote that while states are free to fashion their own rules and regulations regarding marriage, they must do so in a way that does not violate protections guaranteed under the Constitution. This is what set Scalia off on his vitriolic response saying that the writing is on the wall.....which is absolutely is.
Click to expand...

That's similar to what they said about prisoners - prisoners have the right to get married, but the prisons can put in the rules around how the marriages happen.

Of course, once (hopefully) SSM is legal, any rules the states put in around marriage will affect all couples, not just same sex couples, so they will probably be pretty hesitant to change anything. Although those clerks in Florida don't seem to mind inconveniencing straight couples...
 
cpwill said:
Presumably that compromise ruling would overturn strictly the cases where the definition had been found to violate the U.S. (vice a state) Constitution. In Cali you could probably simply put it back to a vote and win this time. As much as everyone hated on the Mormons last time, it was the African Americans who came out in favor of traditional marriages - the President may have flipped enough of that demographic.
Click to expand...


In the Prop 8 vote it is true that 58% of African-Americans votes to support the law, but they comprised only 7% of the voting population.

Compare that with 70% of those who attended religious services on a weekly basis and comprised 45% of the voting population.



So which had the bigger impact on the outcome, the race of the voter or the religious views of the voter?



>>>>
 
cpwill said:
Presumably that compromise ruling would overturn strictly the cases where the definition had been found to violate the U.S. (vice a state) Constitution. In Cali you could probably simply put it back to a vote and win this time. As much as everyone hated on the Mormons last time, it was the African Americans who came out in favor of traditional marriages - the President may have flipped enough of that demographic.
Click to expand...

The problem that people had with the Mormons and prop 8 was the level of lies and distortions that they engaged in.....and the fact that a church bankrolled the proposition and engaged in clearly unlawful activity to promote their agenda.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, even the power to reverse itself with no change in the constitution; which implies that the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS (at that time) says that it does. If SSM was "clearly defined" as a right in 1868 (or was it 1967?) then what took so long for the SCOTUS to discover that "fact"?
Click to expand...

Because they are human and their interpretation of the constitution is heavily biased, like everyone else. No one is saying that "SCOTUS rules SSM a constitutional right, therefore it validates what i believe." Just like opponents will continuing arguing the ruling in june will be wrong, supporters will argue the court was wrong up to that point. The difference is that, over time, the court tends to enhance civil rights. The bigots never will
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, even the power to reverse itself with no change in the constitution; which implies that the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS (at that time) says that it does. If SSM was "clearly defined" as a right in 1868 (or was it 1967?) then
what took so long for the SCOTUS to discover that "fact"?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



SCOTUS had what it believed were more important things to do.
 
chromium said:
probably say we shouldn't get comfortable, soon as ginsburg keels obama will be forced to appoint rick santorum to the court, which will then take up the issue again and ban gay marriage nationwide

and this will all happen within a month, 2 tops
Click to expand...

Oh gawd, if santorum got on the court, not just SSM but also contraception would be banned and we'd be living "the handmaid's tale" (by Atwood) in no time

Sorry you have such nightmares!
 
roguenuke said:
Like they did with Loving or Lawrence? You do realize many have said this before and yet so far very few SCOTUS rulings have ever been really challenged by states, particularly ones like this where people are so sure their state would ignore such a ruling.
Click to expand...

Agree, it's unlikely they would ignore it when it comes down to it.

Wish we could ignore Citizens' United or the Hobby Lobby ruling though... sigh.
 
What was wrong with the Hobby Lobby ruling?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand? How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
Click to expand...

personally, I think the draft SHOULD apply to both genders.
 
Josie said:
What was wrong with the Hobby Lobby ruling?
Click to expand...

That a "closely held" corporation can have a religion is beyond reason. If you want the legal separation from personal liability that incorporation offers you then you should (must?) also accept personal religious separation.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Oh gawd, if santorum got on the court, not just SSM but also contraception would be banned and we'd be living "the handmaid's tale" (by Atwood) in no time

Sorry you have such nightmares!
Click to expand...

yeah but it's more like NP's wet dream. I don't actually fear this happening lol
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That a "closely held" corporation can have a religion is beyond reason. If you want the legal separation from personal liability that incorporation offers you then you should (must?) also accept personal religious separation.
Click to expand...

They narrowly tailored it to address contraception benefits only, and made clear it could not be used as an excuse to discriminate in other regards (such as sexuality). If an individual were to offer to pay for others' health care, with exception of contraception, that has always been their choice.

Although i disagree with the ruling, it's really not the harbinger that so many make it out to be. SCOTUS would turn right around and rule that these "RFRAs" must include 'compelling governmental interest' exception, if they don't one day throw them out altogether.
 
shrubnose said:
SCOTUS had what it believed were more important things to do.
Click to expand...

They actually considered a SSM case 40 years ago, dismissing it in one sentence. Not to excuse prejudiced judges like scalia or their nomination to begin with, but there's no question personal beliefs are behind many of their civil rights rulings

Same reason sodomy laws were upheld in 1980s but struck down in 2003
 
paddymcdougall said:
That's similar to what they said about prisoners - prisoners have the right to get married, but the prisons can put in the rules around how the marriages happen.

Of course, once (hopefully) SSM is legal, any rules the states put in around marriage will affect all couples, not just same sex couples, so they will probably be pretty hesitant to change anything. Although those clerks in Florida don't seem to mind inconveniencing straight couples...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that has always been infuriating. Violent criminals can marry because religions demanded it, but churches have always spared no expense or tantrum trying to prevent law abiding same sex couples from marrying.
 
Dragonfly said:
72% of the states in the country have made it legal.

Including the states with some of the highest populations in the country.

What's left are the states with the smallest populations per square mile, or the states in the bible belt, and a few oddity states like Ohio and Michigan which really boggles my mind.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't boggle your mind if you lived there. There's been a huge exodus of the educated out of those states as the economy has crumbled, and the past decade has seen tax funds diverted from education to prisons.

There's also a huge rural population (roughly half) in towns with no diversity and with a church for every 100 people, where no one is openly gay and the subject is still taboo (except to lampoon the 'gay agenda' in liberal cities). This is now part of the bible belt
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That a "closely held" corporation can have a religion is beyond reason. If you want the legal separation from personal liability that incorporation offers you then you should (must?) also accept personal religious separation.
Click to expand...

Meh. It's a private company. Their religious beliefs should and are being protected. All is well.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that were true then most (if not all) gun control laws would be ruled unconstitutional. If SSM is made universal then how can a male only draft law stand? How can gender based differences in military "fitness" standards pass muster under equal protection?
Click to expand...

Because SCOTUS hasn't gotten around to those yet. There is plain disagreement as to what the founders intended as far as possession of automatic weapons, private vs public property, and concealed weapons, hence different state laws. The 2nd and 14th are separate.

Fitness standards? Come on, whose rights are being denied?

There won't be another draft, so that's not worth the court's time. However, if some guy wanted to refuse to register selective service and then was denied college funding, as the FAFSA threatens, that would be an interesting lawsuit that the court might then take up.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That a "closely held" corporation can have a religion is beyond reason. If you want the legal separation from personal liability that incorporation offers you then you should (must?) also accept personal religious separation.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But I promise not to re-argue it on this thread!

Unlike Chromium, I don't think it's going to have just a narrow implication, although guess we'll find out as there are more cases in the courts based on Hobby Lobby but trying to extend it.

Anyway, just like even liberal states can't ignore Hobby Lobby nor Citizens' United, if the SCOTUS says SSM bans are unconstitutional, I don't see the conservative states ignoring it, although I'm sure they will blather about it.
 
cpwill said:
I do not think that is correct. If a state defining marriage for itself is found to be Constitutionally valid, then in those states where it is "currently legal" only because of a judicial finding that it was not, the decision is overturned.
Click to expand...

If SC was in any way inclined to create this impact, they would have taken the appeals from the states whose bans were overturned by lower courts. Instead they quickly took an appeal of the 6th's ruling the bans are constitutional. Your scenario has 0 chance of happening. At most they could rule that the 4 states in the 6th district can determine marriage laws for themselves, which they won't
 
cpwill said:
Presumably that compromise ruling would overturn strictly the cases where the definition had been found to violate the U.S. (vice a state) Constitution. In Cali you could probably simply put it back to a vote and win this time. As much as everyone hated on the Mormons last time, it was the African Americans who came out in favor of traditional marriages - the President may have flipped enough of that demographic.
Click to expand...

Typical to blame the outcome for SSM on the president's blackness. Despite obama did not support SSM until well after prop 8, almost half of black CA voters disagreed. But by all means, blame a politician for the fact more and more people are letting you down. At least i will not mask my contempt for the voters in 2004-2008. I won't blame a politician, or race. Saying it was due to lies spread by the mormons is the same to me as blaming the voters themselves.

Way more than just cali also, by 2016. Estimated 60% of the country will support SSM. I would estimate that if all states had such a vote, all except the bible belt, arizona, and possibly michigan/ohio would legalize it. So roughly the exact same as we have now.
 
roguenuke said:
The 14th Amendment is how we recognized that this is not true, that many times the states do not represent the people, especially not all of the people so it is important to protect the other people from the tyranny of the states over minorities within those states.
Click to expand...

Not recognizing their marriage is not tyranny. It's called maintaining decency.
 
roguenuke said:
Like they did with Loving or Lawrence? You do realize many have said this before and yet so far very few SCOTUS rulings have ever been really challenged by states, particularly ones like this where people are so sure their state would ignore such a ruling.
Click to expand...

Notice how Texas is making it more difficult to kill the unborn? We can do the same with those trying to usurp marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom