Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're a Republican, you'd better hope that the Court rules bans on SSM to be unconstitutional. If you're a Democrat, you better hope they uphold the bans....
Here me out on this seemingly backwards assesment. In a political context only:
The debate over SSM is pretty much a non-starter at this point for the opposing side. At the least, the younger generation is indifferent to the idea of SSM and at most, they are downright supportive, and that gap will only continue to close with time. According to Pew Research, a whopping 61% of Republicans under 30 are now in support of Same Sex Marriage. I don't know if Republicans have figured this out yet, but they need to bring new blood in to the fold if they hope to survive as a political party.
If The court rules that bans on Same Sex Marriage are unconstitutional, this will actually be very beneficial to the Republican Party, as it will take the issue completely off the table and free up Republicans from having to pander to their older, Conservative-minded base, ( while still retaining them as a voter block ) and they can attract a younger, more Libertarian-minded base to the party. An affirmative ruling on SSM will make the Republican Party more attractive to moderates, independants, fence sitters, and middle grounders, as they will be able to take a more objective look at the party with the SSM issue out of the way.
If you're a Democrat however, it's the opposite. It will no longer be an issue that Liberal Democrats can run on and frame talking points around, and actually may have a small but albeit adverse effect on the party.
Wrong, candidates such as Cruz believe they can get around the SC and make it a big issue in their run for their Party nomination and of-course that will not go over well with a large percentage of Repubs.
Why would Republicans not want something that would hurt Democrats. Homosexual "unions" are not a partisan issue, they are a human morality issue. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Since I despise both parties, it seems that I win no matter what happens according to your faulty logic, but I do hope that the court decides on the side of right (defending marriage) rather than that of wrong (allowing homosexual perversion to carry the day).
Who is doing this defining?
Defending marriage would say that same-sex marriage bans ARE unconstitutional.
Straight Male Liberal here and I fully support same-sex marriage, I am secure enough in my sexuality and marriage to know allowing same-sex marriage has no affect on mine.
A heterosexual cannot marry a member of the same sex in states that do not marry members of the same sex.
He or she can be as heterosexual as any individual can be, but they still can`t marry a member of their own sex.
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are free to marry any member of the opposite sex.
Marriage laws do not apply to individuals based on their sexual preference.
They apply to individuals based on their sex.
Are you aware of the 70 court cases around the country, about 96% of the judicial decisions have rejected and dismissed this argument?
Are you aware the 4th, the 5th, the 9th and the 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals have rejected this argument?
Are you aware that gay and lesbian people are not interested in marrying someone of the opposite gender ... that they want the right to marry the person they love?
Right now ... at the present moment ... same sex marriage is legal in 37 states and DC (also in the jurisdictions of about 22 Native American Tribes). However the Supreme Court rules, these places will not be affected. It's only about the remaining 13 states.
Are you aware of the 70 court cases around the country, about 96% of the judicial decisions have rejected and dismissed this argument?
Are you aware the 4th, the 5th, the 9th and the 10th Circuit Courts of Appeals have rejected this argument?
Are you aware that gay and lesbian people are not interested in marrying someone of the opposite gender ... that they want the right to marry the person they love?
Right now ... at the present moment ... same sex marriage is legal in 37 states and DC (also in the jurisdictions of about 22 Native American Tribes). However the Supreme Court rules, these places will not be affected. It's only about the remaining 13 states.
Actually, they will be affected. If the SCOTUS rules that bans on same sex marriage are Constitutional, that will trump all those rulings by the lower courts and states will be free to re-institute their bans.
Wrong, candidates such as Cruz believe they can get around the SC and make it a big issue in their run for their Party nomination and of-course that will not go over well with a large percentage of Repubs.
Think bigger.....
However the court rules, it isn't likely to have that much affect on politics in the short term, and certainly not on 2016 presidential politics. I'm talking about politics in the next 10-15 years on.
And that is still discrimination in the laws based on sex, since a man can do something that a woman is not allowed to do (marry a woman).
You are very correct, but seeing as the ERA failed to achieve ratification and states still make their own marriage laws, this will continue to be the case.
For what purpose would a woman marry another woman?
If you have a compelling case, amend the Constitution.
There is no need to amend the Constitution given the Supreme Court has routinely considered the Declaration of Independence as an extension of it, and thus the Pursuit of Happiness clause, covers marriage, a privilege, which should be available to anyone in the nation.
And yes, its a privilege, not a right, because the government is able to establish limits on it, already previously ruled as well.. Example, cant marry your sibling etc..
Marriage is available to anyone, just not same-sex marriage.
False, and as long as there is there are far right wingers, there will always be social issues.
VTHokieFan's implied scenario is ridiculously naive. Gandhi said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members, and as long as there are maniacally self-motivated people, such as today's right wingers, there will be a need to keep such egoism in check, and therefore a need for what is today labeled the liberal perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer
I use Roe v. Wade because of my perception of the backlash.
So you chose your analog not based on how analogous its context was to the target, but instead based on the FUD you wanted to foster, in the interest of the partisan perspective that you wanted to support. Thanks for making that clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnitegracie
Because Roe v. Wade is a seminal case showing judicial activism instead of Constitutional Review.
Unlike the case that is being considered by the SCOTUS this session. There is simply no way for you to escape the reality that you're attempting to rationalize a corrupt perspective via a false analogy. You're choosing your analog based on what you want the outcome to be, rather than based on the actual facts of the three situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
So does this mean heterosexual marriage will no longer exist if SSM is allowed?
Heh... but I think the better question to ask would be with regard to why the institution and legitimization of divorce didn't have the prognosticated effect. The reality of the situation is that the first civil divorce deconstructed marriage as comprehensively as anything that has or could ever happen afterward.
Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are also highly unlikely to support overturning the expressed will of the people in the case of state DOMAs enacted via popular referendums.
You might pick off one of the six, but I wouldn`t bet on it.
If the Court didn`t find a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution before, they are not going to suddenly find it now...so that`s out.
Aside from that, there is not much to support your case.
Homosexuals are a minority because of a simple preference.
Good luck getting minority group status based on that.
The Constitution, while providing specific protections to racial minorities and religious practitioners, is silent on marriage and sexuality.
With no specific Constitutional authority to rule on a state matter, the Tenth Amendment comes into play.
Marriage is available to anyone, just not same-sex marriage.
Except for 31 states and DC, which soon it will be every state SSM will be in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for making that clear.
