• 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
AGENT J said:
and that power can not violate the constitution and individual rights :shrug:
Click to expand...
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.
 
WCH said:
Except they're unaccountable and out of control in general. I suspect TX and other states will nullify any ruling on this matter.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of the "Texas doesn't have to abide by the US Constitution" clause.
 
Redress said:
AS I mentioned in the BN thread on this, there are two questions that will go before the court on this, whether states can ban SSM, and whether states can refuse to recognize SSM performed in other states. This leaves open the possibility of a partial victory for both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it'd be a victory for the anti equality side in either scenario. So a gay couple in michigan can drive to illinois, get hitched, and drive back and they have the same rights either way. This is only a "victory" in a symbolic sense, but the bigots out there want more than that, always have. They want to deny the rights just as much
 
WCH said:
Except they're unaccountable and out of control in general.

I suspect TX and other states will nullify any ruling on this matter.
Click to expand...

lol the desperation of anti-constitutional, anti-rights and bigoted views is hilarious. Equal rights is coming. :shrug:
 
WCH said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution doesn't mention marriage
Click to expand...

That would be the people. Rights not mentioned in the constitution are assumed to be rights unless otherwise prohibited by law - 10th amendment i believe. The constitution cannot foresee nor address *every* single right we take for granted everyday. Guess what, it doesn't mention a right to toilets, electricity, housing - but there are various agencies that ensure we in fact cannot be arbitrarily denied access to these

It also guarantees equal protection under the law, meaning government benefits to marriage cannot be denied to specific groups. The supreme court has also several times ruled there's a constitutional right to marry, like it or not
 
chromium said:
That would be the people. Rights not mentioned in the constitution are assumed to be rights unless otherwise prohibited by law - 10th amendment i believe. The constitution cannot foresee nor address *every* single right we take for granted everyday. Guess what, it doesn't mention a right to toilets, electricity, housing - but there are various agencies that ensure we in fact cannot be arbitrarily denied access to these

It also guarantees equal protection under the law, meaning government benefits to marriage cannot be denied to specific groups. The supreme court has also several times ruled there's a constitutional right to marry, like it or not
Click to expand...

IIRC Obama cast an EO on the Federal benefits for same sex partners. Likely as equally unconstitutional.

We here in TX prohibited [by law] SSM by a legitimate and overwhelming vote of 75%.
 
WCH said:
Except they're unaccountable and out of control in general.

I suspect TX and other states will nullify any ruling on this matter.
Click to expand...

lol this reply reveals that you aren't even trying to see things from perspective of the founders. They did not in any way intend for "the state, or the people" to mean "the state". That's you projecting your disdain for federalism, probably cause you live in a state where bigoted laws are struck down routinely
 
WCH said:
IIRC Obama cast an EO on the Federal benefits for same sex partners. Likely as equally unconstitutional.

We here in TX prohibited [by law] SSM by a legitimate and overwhelming vote of 75%.
Click to expand...

Nothing legitimate about anything out of texas. Just like "lawrence v texas," you will be shown how the civilized world functions. America, love it or leave it right? Maybe secede again and see how that goes

Last in education, environment, health care, executions, tolerance. Your 75% only convinces me it would not be missed
 
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...

You would think if anyone would hold respect for such a very basic tenet of the constitution, it would be a supreme court judge. I eagerly await further tears from scalia in june
 
chromium said:
Nothing legitimate about anything out of texas. Just like "lawrence v texas," you will be shown how the civilized world functions. America, love it or leave it right? Maybe secede again and see how that goes

Last in education, environment, health care, executions, tolerance. Your 75% only convinces me it would not be missed
Click to expand...

What... I can't hear you with that intolerance ringing out of your mouth.
 
WCH said:
IIRC Obama cast an EO on the Federal benefits for same sex partners. Likely as equally unconstitutional.

We here in TX prohibited [by law] SSM by a legitimate and overwhelming vote of 75%.
Click to expand...

as texas and you will learn shortly those votes are 100% meaningless and the constitution and individual rights trumps them :D

85% of people were against interracial marriage when SCOTUS passed it because thier opinions didnt mean diddly to the constitution lol
 
WCH said:
What... I can't hear you with that intolerance ringing out of your mouth.
Click to expand...

intolerance of intolerance yadda yadda
 
WCH said:
The states derive their sovereignty from the people.
Click to expand...
Okay. But that is saying something entirely different than States = The People, which is what you said before.

Also not sure how that is relevant. Neither the federal government, the state governments, nor the people can strip others of constitutional rights.
 
AGENT J said:
85% of people were against interracial marriage when SCOTUS passed it because thier opinions didnt mean diddly to the constitution lol
Click to expand...

Post that 1967 poll please, that shows 85%.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Post that 1967 poll please.
Click to expand...

dont have the actual 1967 poll but i have the info that supports this fact ;)
sure no problem and it was actually kept track up back to 1959, in 1967 it was approx 85%
In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958
bb8ic2qate-wa_cbgc2ifg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue - CNN.com



In your opinion, how will the SCOTUS rule?
Click to expand...

If the federal government is in the business of granting benefits to those who hold a state sanctioned marriage license, then the only just and equal treatment under the law is to sanction all marriages between two willing partners. Discrimination based on antiquated or religious notions of propriety have no business in modern day government policy and programs.

For this reason, I believe the US Supreme Court will, with a significant majority - 6-3 - , rule in favour of SSM.
 
AGENT J said:
dont have the actual 1967 poll but i have the info that supports this fact ;)
sure no problem and it was actually kept track up back to 1959, in 1967 it was approx 85%
Click to expand...

See I knew you could do it. Good job!
 
Ockham said:
In this thread you did once so far, and you get a cookie.
Click to expand...

ive never posted a lie, if you believe otherwise simply qoute the lie and use FACTS to prove it, you will fail LMAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom