• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Justices stay out of debate over gays (1 Viewer)


Benevolent Dictator
DP Veteran
May 19, 2004
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: Yahoo News

[size=-1] The Supreme Court declined to step into the nationwide debate over same-sex marriages Monday, refusing to hear a challenge to the only state law that sanctions such unions.
[size=-1] The court's decision leaves in place a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court, which said in November 2003 that the state's constitution required officials to license gay unions. Since then, about 3,000 gay and lesbian couples have been married in Massachusetts, fueling a national debate over gay rights and the institution of marriage.[/size]

[size=-1] [/size] [size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Robert Largess of Boston, vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 Massachusetts lawmakers. They said the state court exceeded its authority and violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a "republican" form of government in each state. The Supreme Court, as is its custom, did not explain its decision not to hear the case. A U.S. appeals court that rejected the Largess appeal said the Constitution applies only to "real threats" to government and that gay marriages did not amount to one.[/size]

[size=-1] [/size] [size=-1] [/size]

[size=-1] Gay rights groups and other backers of same-sex marriage called the Supreme Court's move a victory. But opponents, including religious and social traditionalists, said they will continue to fight such unions in courts and state legislatures, and at the ballot box.

So... are they just laying low and trying to stay out of the issue or do they really think that gay marriage is constitutional?
The constitution should apply to anything, any time! Gay marrage is between a man and a woman. :eek:
I think the message the Supreme Court is saying is, "Marriage is a state's issue." Every state should either put in place gay marriage or union laws, or ban it, based on what the people of that state want.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom