• 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!

Federal judge voids Mississippi ban on same-sex couple adoptions (1 Viewer)

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
18,232
Reaction score
8,794
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Another win for humanity

Federal judge voids Mississippi ban on same-sex couple adoptions

A federal judge in Mississippi ordered the state to drop its ban on adoptions by same-sex married couples, saying Wednesday that it doesn’t pass muster under the Supreme Court’s 2015 landmark marriage ruling.

The law was said to be the last of its kind in the U.S. But efforts to skirt the full implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges using laws described as “religious freedom acts” remain alive and well in a number of Republican-led states along with measures permitting discrimination against transgender people.

[Mississippi’s Senate just approved a sweeping ‘religious liberty’ bill that critics say is the worst yet for LGBT rights]
Click to expand...

Win one but the fight continues
 
a nice win, but i see with their latest "religious freedom" nonsense that they really never learn. No doubt they will be sued over that as well. MS insists on finishing last in everything. IMO it should be taken over by the fed
 
Paleocon said:
The judge should be arrested for child endangerment.
Click to expand...

If a married lesbian conceives a child, should it be taken away at birth?

I suppose it doesn't really matter if shes married or not...
 
TheIceman said:
Your side lost. Accept it gracefully.
Click to expand...

if they had the capacity to lose gracefully, they wouldn't be on the losing side all the time. They would have given up long ago

studies on gay adoption were completed 20+ years ago, roper v evans was 20 years ago, equal protection was established 150 years ago, and there could be no other conclusion from obergefell than they were only delaying the inevitable. I'm sure too that, like kim davis' lawyers, they'll try to appeal this to the same supreme court whose rulings they constantly try to scheme around

the same exact fate awaits their "RFRA." That one senator who voted against it asked why MS is always creating a new blight on itself to be held with contempt by the rest of the country. The answer seems to me they're just terrible losers and terrible people who never learn anything
 
Paleocon said:
The judge should be arrested for child endangerment.
Click to expand...

You know full well that there isn't any measurable harm caused to children simply for being raised by same-sex parents. Your outrage is purely moral, purely religious, and you know full well that isn't good enough for the US legal system.
 
I support the ruling and at the same time it's getting kind of tired to see the tit for tat SCOTUS politics. It's a sad state of affairs when every little bigoted law has to be struck down by the courts because the legislatures lack the moral compass to not make such psychopathic laws in the first place. I mean, I'm glad the courts are there as an executive branch, but it's just... sad. The matter of freedom, equal protection and decency shouldn't come down to whether a small group of judges agrees with it or not. Our leaders should understand the Constitution already.
 
Northern Light said:
I support the ruling and at the same time it's getting kind of tired to see the tit for tat SCOTUS politics. It's a sad state of affairs when every little bigoted law has to be struck down by the courts because the legislatures lack the moral compass to not make such psychopathic laws in the first place. I mean, I'm glad the courts are there as an executive branch, but it's just... sad. The matter of freedom, equal protection and decency shouldn't come down to whether a small group of judges agrees with it or not. Our leaders should understand the Constitution already.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the leaders. It's the people.
 
Paleocon said:
The judge should be arrested for child endangerment.
Click to expand...

T1c5cfo.gif
 
shagg said:
If a married lesbian conceives a child, should it be taken away at birth?

I suppose it doesn't really matter if shes married or not...
Click to expand...

Two women can't conceive a child. Did you not know that?
 
Northern Light said:
I support the ruling and at the same time it's getting kind of tired to see the tit for tat SCOTUS politics. It's a sad state of affairs when every little bigoted law has to be struck down by the courts because the legislatures lack the moral compass to not make such psychopathic laws in the first place. I mean, I'm glad the courts are there as an executive branch, but it's just... sad. The matter of freedom, equal protection and decency shouldn't come down to whether a small group of judges agrees with it or not. Our leaders should understand the Constitution already.
Click to expand...

Every single time the religious right tries to use the law to enforce their religion they are going to get swatted. There is a moral duty to prevent dishonest, morally bankrupt racist bigots from combining their religion with the law. It has to be this way or there is no freedom for ANYBODY.
 
Somerville said:
Artificial insemination or sex with a male willing to give up rights to any child conceived
Click to expand...

In which case it is a man and a woman that have conceived.
 
Paleocon said:
In which case it is a man and a woman that have conceived.
Click to expand...

And so what.
Bigotry, sponsored and kept in place by elected officials has no place in people private lives.
 
JANFU said:
And so what.
Bigotry, sponsored and kept in place by elected officials has no place in people private lives.
Click to expand...

What is bigotry?
 
Personally, and as someone who abhors abortions of convenience, I applaud this ruling not as a gay rights issue but as a child rights issue. The more orphaned and/or abandoned children society can quickly and safely move into stable and loving homes, the better off the children will be and by extension, the better off society will be.
 
JANFU said:
I do not have a spare lifetime to try and explain it to you.
Click to expand...

So you were just repeating buzzwords that you do not understand.
 
Northern Light said:
I support the ruling and at the same time it's getting kind of tired to see the tit for tat SCOTUS politics. It's a sad state of affairs when every little bigoted law has to be struck down by the courts because the legislatures lack the moral compass to not make such psychopathic laws in the first place. I mean, I'm glad the courts are there as an executive branch, but it's just... sad. The matter of freedom, equal protection and decency shouldn't come down to whether a small group of judges agrees with it or not. Our leaders should understand the Constitution already.
Click to expand...

it's especially tiring for the gay people in those states who have endured it for decades. The reason the federal courts have to keep intervening in these petty state squabbles is because the federal legislative branch and state courts have utterly failed to protect the rights of its citizens and at times even worked directly against them (such as "DOMA") and, of course, the majority of voters in those states are equally complicit. There's plenty of blame to go around

On your last line, the slew of "RFRA"s always include something to the effect "if any of part of this is found unconstitutional, the rest of it is still valid." See, the state governments don't even TRY or PRETEND to enforce the constitution. If they would at least seek the advice of attorney generals, or a system had a check mandating a court's blessing *before* a law goes into effect or appears on the ballot, much of this could be prevented

Another check of course would be that if you vote for a law that is found to violate civil rights you lose your office or ability to vote, full stop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom