• 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]


You are the one calling for more restrictions on freedoms. That is much more in line with Middle Eastern Politics whether you accept it or not. The Constitution is and always will be the ultimate authority. It is intended to stand up to people such as yourself who would seek to restrict our freedoms (much like middle eastern countries). You are looking in a mirror and trying to deflect what is staring back.
 

I have to say that his ruling will not change one relationship in America. Marriage isn't about government permission, it's about who you love and want to spend a life with. The government telling you it's ok is just a side show. Now gays get to have government sanctions when they get divorced just like everyone else in the country. Good luck with that. I think it's a states rights issue but our values are so corrupt it was just a matter of time anyway even on the state level.
 
disneydude said:
Your sour grapes are no more founded in logic than the dissenting opinions.
Click to expand...

I give that peevish bleat all the weight it deserves. As usual, all you have to offer is uninformed prattle. You don't know the first thing about the legal reasoning of the dissenting opinions. I doubt you understand the substantive due process theory this result-driven decision was based on about any better than you understand the theory of relativity. You have no idea why substantive due process has been so harshly criticized--and with good reason--for so many decades, and apparently you don't care.

Nor do you care, evidently, that Obergefell subverts democracy, threatens religious freedom, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. This was nothing but judicial fiat, and as an unconstitutional dictate it deserves no one's respect. Even a homosexual with a modicum of respect for the Constitution and for democracy would condemn this sorry excuse for a decision as arbitrary and undemocratic. The states should remember that there would not even be a Supreme Court, if they had not agreed to create it in the Constitution, and that the Court has no way to enforce any of its decisions. It is THE STATES AND THEIR PEOPLE--and NOT the Supreme Court--who have the final say about what the Constitution means.
 

I don't want to shock you but you're quite easy to understand. Not at all complex. Evasive, but not complex.
 

Wrong. Simply Wrong. I understand perfectly the Obergefell opinion and the dissent. I spent three years in Law School and have been a practicing attorney for over 25 years...so I think I know how to read an opinion.

Where your entire premise is flawed is in the very basic understanding of the Constitution. The Constitution was created will the principle idea that there are certain fundamental/inalienable rights that are not to be subject to the whim of the majority, i.e., a popular vote. So the Obergefell decision is completely in line with the Constitution (you would know that if you understood how the Constitution works).

And your conclusion is completely wrong again. It is not the "STATES AND THEIR PEOPLE" that have the final say about what the Constitution means.....it actually IS the Supreme Court. The state/people remedy if they disagree with the Supreme Court is to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That is how our system is set up (you might understand that if you understood how the Constitution works).
 
bubbabgone said:
I don't want to shock you but you're quite easy to understand. Not at all complex. Evasive, but not complex.
Click to expand...

Then I don't know how you misunderstood. Do you care to offer an opinion as to what slippery slope we are headed down?
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

So all these societal changes aren't changes? Man, denial is alive and well in the liberal/progressive world. Explains much.
Click to expand...
I mean, really, what has changed? You can't say gay marriage doesn't affect anyone other than the couple AND sociaty as a hole has changed. Gay marriage has to affect other people in order for sociatyou to be changed by it.

Anyway the Supreme Court forcing a change in law doesn't mean sociaty has move one ounce on the issue.
 
I just found out that a friend of mine who is transgender and a lesbian just got engaged. Thanks to this ruling. WOOT!

:applaud :2dancing: :ind: :bravo: :2party:
 

Well, there IS a difference between living with someone and being married under the law. Ask any 25 year old guy, many of whom aren't ready to commit. Under the law, married people become one, in a way. Together they pay a lower income tax rate than if they are single. One can represent the other when he becomes incapacitated. They can share insurance premiums. And so on.

In the words of the mother at the end of the movie "Blast From the Past": "No, Calvin. It's NOT the same!"
 
bicycleman said:
They were men who were given the information from God.
Click to expand...

That is your belief. There is no evidence of this, no proof. You have to have faith in that fact. I don't, as many others don't.
 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sounds like this ruling does just those things that I bolded. Note how an opposite ruling would not have done anything for this very first line of the Constitution. Opening up marriage to any combination of sexes secures more liberty for everyone and helps bring justice for those people. Continuing to restrict marriage based on sex does not do anything for justice, domestic tranquillity, common defence, the general welfare, or securing liberty for ourselves or our future children and while some may say that it could make a "more perfect union", this is not only subjective but also unlikely considering same sex marriage has been legal in many of the states for a while now, meaning that not having it legal in every state causes much more problems between those states and the citizens of those states.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just found out that a friend of mine who is transgender and a lesbian just got engaged. Thanks to this ruling. WOOT!

:applaud :2dancing: :ind: :bravo: :2party:
Click to expand...
Have they been living together?
 

Yes, I'm a little confused by the several posts that claim that SCOTUS does not have the final say on interpreting the constitution, and the vague assertions that the SC doesn't have any way to enforce its rulings.

Is not the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and have the final say in such matters?

Certainly there have been times when individual states have resisted court rulings. Most notably when Arkansas national guard attempted to prevent the implementation of desegregation in 1957. Eisenhower intervened, and with the help of the 101's airborne enforced the law.

Are posters suggesting this ruling will prompt another such action, or series of actions? Seems unlikely at best.

Desegregation was extremely unpopular among a certain group in society, and this same posturing was attempted then. But eventually, the ruling was enforced. In today's society, it seems an extreme stretch to think that history might repeat itself over this ruling, much less be taken any further. I suppose anything's possible, just seems highly unlikely.

More likely that there will be some political posturing, and some ineffectual (presumably) attempts to amend the constitution. Then the whole thing will blow over when sexual orientation is finally recognized as a civil right.

I could be wrong of course, it just seems that is the course we're on.
 

Equal protection under the law isn't "judicial fiat," it's a constitutional right.
 


You are absolutely correct. The whole slippery slope argument is nothing more than sour grapes and paranoia.
 
i'd like to point out that this ruling is also huge even for gay couples in states that *already* allowed SSM. My gay uncle in california suddenly becomes unmarried every time he visits michigan. If one of them had an emergency during the trip, no hospital visitation, too bad! If they drove, they'd be unmarried in idaho, married again in utah, unmarried again in oklahoma, married in indiana...you get the point, it was stupid as hell

This aspect of the ruling isn't getting as much attention, but it goes deeper into illustrating the absurdity of "states' rights" in an age of traveling across the entire country in a matter of hours. Every other country except mexico legalized SSM for the whole country simultaneously.
 
disneydude said:
If you think that Scalia's vitriolic dissent was becoming of Supreme Court Justice and was founded in logic....then I think it speaks clearly as to what constitutes a "dim bulb".
Click to expand...

yeah at one point he even blamed the "hippies" and used a phrase no less childish than 'doody head'. If this man is one of our top legal minds, we may as well have P Diddy as chief justice

he truly comes across as a typical dullard redneck
 

At the time of your post, the decision was about three hours old. I think it was way too early to expect the celebrants to pipe down. And I have no idea why you think activists should be apologizing for finally attaining marriage equality.
 
Ockham said:
And who says multiple marriages cannot be inter-species - or even with inanimate objects? Yes this does open up a whole pandora's box of paths for the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, DO let me know when inanimate objects can enter into a contract.
 
disneydude said:
You are absolutely correct. The whole slippery slope argument is nothing more than sour grapes and paranoia.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what a lot of people said after the Hobby Lobby decision, including me. And we were right. There also is no slippery slope in this ruling.
 
MrT said:
Did you just forget DC v. Heller?
Click to expand...



Funny, I still cant legally carry in my state. I guess now that states must recognize gay marriage, they will also have to recognize CCW's from out of state?
 

Well, thanks for clearing that up. :roll:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Funny, I still cant legally carry in my state. I guess now that states must recognize gay marriage, they will also have to recognize CCW's from out of state?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 

Well let's see.

One example: The liberal/progressive forces are attempting to reward illegal aliens, and in fact are promoting more to come here. This agenda is being pushed at the extreme peril of the Black Communities, who apparently aren't viewed as important, other than to gin up occasional emotional responses that will be met with nothing but platitudes from the left.

In light of everything else, how long do you think voters are going to tolerate the heavy handed actions that are being force fed to them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…