• 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!

Texas Gay Marriage Ban Latest to Be Struck Down[W:97]


What you fail to understand is that the right of marrigae is upheld by the constituonal rights of equal protection under the law... As It was in Loving.

One man one woman or interracial persons were not the issue, it was eqaul protection for all. The very same constitutional principles that upheld Loving are the same that will uphold SSM. Equal protection under the law.

I though Loving would be sufficient because you argued that marriage was not in the constitution.

Here , here's Widsor...


Windsor v US
 

And what you fail to understand is that marriage is a state issue and you aren't being denied the right to marry but you do so under state law. Loving vs. Va was about race not gender.

Amazing what passion some have for a title. The SC has never ruled on the definition of marriage, why don't you ask yourself why?
 


Loving was not about race. If it was, what is the constitution racial principle that was used by the supreme court to overturn Virginia's racial ban? What race amendment was used in the reasoning? The 13th?
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
Loving was not about race. If it was, what is the constitution racial principle that was used by the supreme court to overturn Virginia's racial ban? What race amendment was used in the reasoning? The 13th?
Click to expand...

That is your opinion the fact is two people wanted to get married under Va. law, one was black and the other white but both met the Va. law in that they were of the opposite sex. They were denied based upon race and that was the reason for the ruling.
 

Hey, we rarely freeze our asses off.

Anyplace or anyone can have natural disasters but, the Lord will help you overcome.
 
Deuce said:
My explanation is that God does not actually selectively apply weather based on the political leanings or "sins" of the local population.
Click to expand...

Not that we would necessarily be aware of anyhow.

According to the Bible God has done some extreme damage to sinners. Tower of Babel, Sodom, Egypt, to name a few.
 
Good argument!
chromium said:
How bout we make it instead that no one can marry the *opposite sex* for the next 200 years, then see you not at all blow a gasket over this equality.
Click to expand...
 



And what you are failing to understand is that gender is also a protected classification.

Also, you mention economic issues and completely ignore DEAD TROOPS OVERSEAS. What's with your priorities, worrying about economic statistics instead of dead soldiers!? Oh wait. Is it that you think both of those things are important? That someone can actually believe two things are important? Wait. Children are dying of starvation in Africa. Literally dying children. Do you think that's worthwhile too? How about the environment? Major chemical spills, can we worry about those too?

The deflection to economic issues is the most blatant cop out I've ever seen. Don't even try to bring that weak **** up in here, son. It's a thread about same-sex marriage that you found important enough to make MANY posts in, don't try and act like you don't think this is an important issue too. If that were true, you wouldn't be here.
 
sneakosview said:
I doubt seriously he would consider a wedding cake their last hope.
Click to expand...

So he wouldn't bake them a cake? Funny how there isn't a single righty here that will answer my question.
 

Again you don't understand how the Rights work... the Constitution limits the GOVERNMENT not citizens, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says any Right not listed in the Constitution first belongs to the States and only what they don't want is given to the People... :doh

No, Sir, States are trying to ban SSM, 'defend' hetro marriage, and deny basic rights based on sexual orientation. If the States were allowing Same Sex MARRIAGE the courts would not be involved!!!!

What 'finish the job'???? The JOB is declaring bans Unconstitutional. The bans being taken to the Supreme Court are in violation of the 14th amendment, sec 1.

FYI, I don't want the courts to finish the job for ME, I married a woman,thankuverimuch.

You keep saying the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the definition of marriage but produce no proof they were ever offered the opportunity and refused to do so.

But bet your bottom dollar THIS is how our system works, a law is passed and until someone takes the matter to court, it is the law of the land. If someone objects the law comes under judicial review. The Courts don't act proactively review laws a plaintiff must bring it to the attention of the court.

Soon the High Court will do it's job, not finish the job.
 
Top Cat said:
So he wouldn't bake them a cake? Funny how there isn't a single righty here that will answer my question.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't bake them a cake because he was a carpenter and not a pastry chef. He'd gladly have made them a nice set of chairs for the dinner table, though. Pretty swell guy, that Jesus.
 
Our church operates a soup kitchen where we share all our blessings and we never turn anyone away. We also have cake!
 
LowDown said:
This will certainly be good for Republicans in the coming elections.
Click to expand...

many republicans believe in equal rights along with the majority of the country but thats just a bonus

opinions dont matter nor does party affiliation when it comes to equal rights, thats the best parts of rights and freedom
 

LMAO are you still trying to sell this failed strawman, every time you do posters destroy it and laugh at it

rape isn in the constitution either, guess states can make it legal
 

factually false this has been proven many times already but repeating this lie shows how severely

civil unions and domestic partnerships are factually not equal to marriage this fact will never change

there are about 1200 federal rights and protections alone and then the state ones many that cant be duplicated by one contract or multiple contracts



facts win again
 

Hopefully you do not think you are quoting the constitution.
 
Deuce said:
He wouldn't bake them a cake because he was a carpenter and not a pastry chef. He'd gladly have made them a nice set of chairs for the dinner table, though. Pretty swell guy, that Jesus.
Click to expand...

Wish I could say the same about many of his flock.
 

He will just keep trying to spin his way past the facts.
 
Top Cat said:
He will just keep trying to spin his way past the facts.
Click to expand...

thats the fun part, nobody buys it.
this is why many posts and many posters have destroyed that false claim
 
Deuce;1062978003]And what you are failing to understand is that gender is also a protected classification.
Click to expand...

Protected to do what, whatever you want? No, gender isn't a license to violate state law and Marriage is common law controlled by the states having nothing to do with gender


I could have given you a list as long as this thread and nothing on that list would have anything to do with SSM. There are so much more worthy issues than SSM but in this forum SSM gets the most posts and that is a shame. People's priorities are screwed up. Why is having the title of married so important to you and others SSM proponents


It is priorities, son, and your focus on social issues says it all while ignoring that handling the economic issues will handle most social issues. It is important to a very small minority and one that in the total scope of things really is irrelevant. You want to define marriage the way you want then sell your state and stop having the courts try to do it for you
 

No apparently they didn't teach you history in your school. If it isn't in the Constitution it becomes a state issue if the states enact the laws which they have. You talk about limited govt but now want the Federal Govt. to overturn state law all because it is important to you.

States defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. You want that changed then let the people of the state decide. You live in Oklahoma, that isn't going to happen so you trump up some bogus argument about equal protection for something that isn't in the Constitution.

If you married a woman then why is this such an issue for you? The high court had its chances over and over again so you better stick with the states
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO are you still trying to sell this failed strawman, every time you do posters destroy it and laugh at it

rape isn in the constitution either, guess states can make it legal
Click to expand...


There are laws against rape and that is what states and local communities do, make laws. Only in the liberal world do you only enforce or support the laws you believe in. "Your" AG told State Attorney Generals not to enforce laws they didn't agree with. Is that the country you want to live in and the one that was created?
 

Facts? you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. A Civil union can be defined as whatever you want, your problem is you want to ignore that reality and not go through the work of defining a civil union. Instead you want to overturn centuries of precedence and common law.
 

LOL so states can allow rape? thank you for this post because it just helps prove us all right, thank you so much

i cant wait to tell people that states can allow rape whenever they want
 
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…