• 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!

Crystal Ball Time: SCOTUS and SSM

How will SCOTUS rule?


  • Total voters
    60
Neither the women's rights movement, nor the Civil Rights movement preserved the sincere "free religious practices" of being able to act exclusionary/discriminatory towards a group of people.

Actually the only "free religious practice" that I can seem to recall being preserved are alcohol's blue laws.

And really the only reason for that is because the Courts can't really find an actual person that has found a creative way of claiming legitimate harm from not being able to buy alcohol on a Sunday or between certain hours.
 
I was predicting option two, but then I listened to the entirety of the audio and transcripts from today and became convinced that option 4 is what will happen. The best challenge that any of the Justices could muster against the argument that the 14 Amendment guarantees a right for same-sex couples to marry was 'well, the ancient Greeks didn't have same-sex marriage.' That was pretty much their only response and it was discussed at length; ancient civilizations didn't do it so why should we? As far as the argument against a 14th Amendment guarantee, the majority of the Justices made it very clear that it didn't make any logical sense at all.
 
Option 4. I was hoping for option 4 anyway, and some of the stuff I read on news articles today was slightly discouraging as far as the swing judge. But after listening to about two hours of transcripts, it seems as though he was posing these questions to get them out of the way, which is typical with him.

Gay marriage proponents can't really fall back on religion to defend their stance, so they are playing up the "states rights" card, which is actually pretty smart. Don't think it will work, but I'll give them credit.
 
Ahhh - Same-sex Civil Marriage doesn't do anything for "tossing free religous practice" of anyone. You may be confusing the Same-sex Civil Marriage issue with Public Accommodation laws which are a different matter all together.


Did you know that Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon), Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado), and Elane Photography (New Mexico) were all cases from States that did not have SSCM at the time?


Finally, since you are concerned about government and religious practices, can we assume that you support same-sex couples that have been married by a religious organization as being equally recognized by the government and that their religious practices should not be "tossed" by the government?



>>>>

I do not think that government should be recognizing any kind of marriage nor attaching privilege of any type to it. It no longer fulfills the original functions. Government treatment of married persons has become inconsistent, ineffective and messy. Therefore, we should be seeking ways of getting those functions taken care of instead of widening use of the dysfunctional instrument. We should use the misbegotten drive for ssm to rethink, what we want to salvage from the old way we did things.
 
Neither the women's rights movement, nor the Civil Rights movement preserved the sincere "free religious practices" of being able to act exclusionary/discriminatory towards a group of people.

Actually the only "free religious practice" that I can seem to recall being preserved are alcohol's blue laws.

Are you sure that you cannot remember conscientious objection? Were Civil Rights contested for religious reasons? I cannot remember having read of a case.
 
Are you sure that you cannot remember conscientious objection? Were Civil Rights contested for religious reasons? I cannot remember having read of a case.

Seriously?

From the first Judge in Loving:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sounds pretty religious to me.

During Newman v Piggie Park, the restaurant owner claimed it was his strongly held religious belief that the races should not mix in any way. The SCOTUS rejected this defense.
 
Interesting run down. It does not however take much notice of the rights ssm infringes on and breaks. By accepting ssm we will be tossing free religious practice, after all. And that was at the very heart of what America was about.

What are you talking about? lol
Free religious practice isn't impacted in anyway by equal rights for gays/SSM.

Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.
 
No matter what the court decides, those opposed to SSM have vowed to never give up their fight against it. Like legal abortion, SSM will always be a wedge issue.

Well, no. If the court imposes a top-down national solution, then this will remain a problem for some time. If the court leaves it to the States and to the public debate, then it will simply go there, like our other national debates.
 
Seriously?

From the first Judge in Loving:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sounds pretty religious to me.

During Newman v Piggie Park, the restaurant owner claimed it was his strongly held religious belief that the races should not mix in any way. The SCOTUS rejected this defense.

Personally, I would not interpret that to mean that intermarriage was a crime against God, but if you say so. Certainly, if someone really believed it were, I would not want the government to be allowed to force her to bake a cake for a Jewish/Muslim wedding.

I will look up the case, though the last time I took your hint, it turned out that the study was severely flawed ;) . We had a lot of cases, where people were not allowed to avoid the draft. That usually boiled down to being judged dishonest.
 
No matter what the court decides, those opposed to SSM have vowed to never give up their fight against it. Like legal abortion, SSM will always be a wedge issue.

But nobody will care what those against equal rights thinks. They lost, are losing and if they want to continue to fight let them,. They will only HELP equal rights while making themselves look like the complete jackasses they are.


there are people right now that still think women are lessers, that minorities are lessers, that neither should have equal rights, . . nobody takes those morons seriously. Those views are simply seen for the indefensible, illogical, hateful bigotry they are.
 
I'm pro SSM, but without having a law degree and true understanding of American law including the constitution in its entirety, I cannot say I'd know which argument the court could make in regards to the constitutionality of states being able to ban SSM.

From what I can gather, the states were never necessarily barred from the power of deciding marriage laws within their domain. As far as I'm concerned, there is definitely a possibility that SSM state bans can be constitutional, as disgusting as that may sound.

Unfortunately with 10A arguments... They're rarely, if ever, used in SCOTUS, because for some reason they tend to fail.
 
Well, no. If the court imposes a top-down national solution, then this will remain a problem for some time. If the court leaves it to the States and to the public debate, then it will simply go there, like our other national debates.

It might easily exacerbate the problems, as it would in the mind of persons who think that individuals should be protected from governmental interference delegitimize the state and Constitution. It is the type of right, no less, that people could easily think worth protecting and taking up arms to do. That would not at all be inconsistent with this Nation's traditions, when you think of the reason many of the first settlers left their homes in the Old World to begin in the wilderness in freedom of religious practice.
 
What are you talking about? lol
Free religious practice isn't impacted in anyway by equal rights for gays/SSM.

Legal marriage has nothing to do with religion.

As I see, you have never even thought about the matter.
 
It might easily exacerbate the problems, as it would in the mind of persons who think that individuals should be protected from governmental interference delegitimize the state and Constitution. It is the type of right, no less, that people could easily think worth protecting and taking up arms to do. That would not at all be inconsistent with this Nation's traditions, when you think of the reason many of the first settlers left their homes in the Old World to begin in the wilderness in freedom of religious practice.


LMAO good thing that right isnt in any HONEST or REAL danger. ANd to those that are seriously uneducated, dishonest and biased enough to think it is? I WELCOME them to take up arms and fight for thier fallacy ideas, equal rights will win, they will lose and america will be a better place for it. :D

I don't condone violence on this issue but by all means if the bigots feel giving gays equal rights is a reason to take up arms and fight the government, have at it lol
 
As I see, you have never even thought about the matter.

Translation: you can't support your ridiculous claim so you deflect . . maybe try answering the question this time instead of dodging it . . . .lol

How does giving gays equal rights/legal marriage toss free religious practice aside? Please list the facts that make your statement true, I can't wait to read this :popcorn2:
 
It might easily exacerbate the problems, as it would in the mind of persons who think that individuals should be protected from governmental interference delegitimize the state and Constitution. It is the type of right, no less, that people could easily think worth protecting and taking up arms to do. That would not at all be inconsistent with this Nation's traditions, when you think of the reason many of the first settlers left their homes in the Old World to begin in the wilderness in freedom of religious practice.

...not sure exactly what I just read.



Are you stating that, if SCOTUS leaves the decision with the people and the states, that homosexuals will begin killing people? Or that if SCOTUS decides to nationalize Marriage that Christians will begin doing so?
 
...not sure exactly what I just read.



Are you stating that, if SCOTUS leaves the decision with the people and the states, that homosexuals will begin killing people? Or that if SCOTUS decides to nationalize Marriage that Christians will begin doing so?

he'll have to answer but equal rights are winning and is going to win so people that support equal rights (not just gays) are going to be doing any killings

if equal rights wins "chrisitians" have no reason to be upset to kill people, millions of Christians support equal rights and Christianity itself is no reason to be against equal rights
 
...not sure exactly what I just read.

Are you stating that, if SCOTUS leaves the decision with the people and the states, that homosexuals will begin killing people? Or that if SCOTUS decides to nationalize Marriage that Christians will begin doing so?

I think that the decision to make conscientiously objecting persons participate in what their religion says be mortal crime against their God is what makes martyrs and revolutions. It certainly delegitimates the state that does this and stabilizes it in that way.

We need a solution to the problem that deescalates and not one that escalates. The only one I see is taking marriage out of the government portfolio. In that way we would come clean.

The other way would be to amend the Constitution, but that could prove extremely divisive. But it would be fair and clean and not dependent on the accidental assortment of judges hearing the case.
 
Last edited:
1.) I think that the decision to make conscientiously objecting persons participate in what their religion says be mortal crime against their God is what makes martyrs and revolutions. It certainly delegitimaes the state that does this and stabilizes it in that way.
2.)We need a solution to the problem that deescalates and not one that escalates.
3.) The only one I see is taking marriage out of the government portfolio.

1.) well good thing thats factually not happening
2.) that solution is already being done, equal rights
3.) this is impossible, legal marriage will always involve government, it has too
 
1.) well good thing thats factually not happening
2.) that solution is already being done, equal rights
3.) this is impossible, legal marriage will always involve government, it has too

You are wrong on evry point. Sorry.
 
You are wrong on evry point. Sorry.
you dont have to apologize for being wrong, people make mistakes and we are just pointing yours out

also you keep saying stuff like this but see, honest and educated people need proof and facts
in your next post, simply post any facts you have that support your proven wrong claims . . . one . . .thanks


who wants to bet this request is dodged again?
 
I think that the decision to make conscientiously objecting persons participate in what their religion says be mortal crime against their God is what makes martyrs and revolutions. It certainly delegitimates the state that does this and stabilizes it in that way.

We need a solution to the problem that deescalates and not one that escalates. The only one I see is taking marriage out of the government portfolio. In that way we would come clean.

The other way would be to amend the Constitution, but that could prove extremely divisive. But it would be fair and clean and not dependent on the accidental assortment of judges hearing the case.


You don't have to take marriage out of the government portfolio. That's a false either/or dichotomy. No one is forced to enter into a same-sex civil marriage against their will.


We can have government recognize the rights of same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage and allow private businesses to make their own decisions as to which customers to serve or not - whether it be race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or any other criteria.


>>>>
 
I think that the decision to make conscientiously objecting persons participate in what their religion says be mortal crime against their God is what makes martyrs and revolutions. It certainly delegitimates the state that does this and stabilizes it in that way.

We need a solution to the problem that deescalates and not one that escalates. The only one I see is taking marriage out of the government portfolio. In that way we would come clean.

The other way would be to amend the Constitution, but that could prove extremely divisive. But it would be fair and clean and not dependent on the accidental assortment of judges hearing the case.

No. If forced to participate, Christians will divide into those who change their beliefs, those who keep their beliefs but submit to the state, and those who keep their beliefs and practice civil disobedience.
 
Back
Top Bottom