• 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!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

There's The CT I know! Condescending and dismissive.

Sorry. The burden is on your side, not mine.

How the hell is the burden on my side when the appeals court ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Shifting the burden of proof is pretty pathetic LD.

But here. The state has an interest in regulating marriage. It has no interest at all in expanding the traditionally understood definition of the term to include members of the same sex. Easy.

Irrelevant to this case. The Supreme Court of California already expanded the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Prop 8 then came in and effectively took away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages. That means in order to justify Prop 8, you have to argue why the state has an interest in taking away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages.

Can you explain in your own words what state interests Smith suggested might be served by upholding Prop 8?

Parroting the dissenting opinion. Jesus. I've quoted and paraphrased Reinhardt's opinion and Smith's. And my own words matter not one wit - I'm not on the court. And neither are you.

In the comment you made above, you just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand this case on the most basic level.
 
Last edited:
Assuming status quo, can you explain to me why this would be good for gays in states that currently deny civil unions equal benefits under law? It seems to me that it would disallow a "compromise" between the two sides in the form of equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage.

Question to homosexual DPers: Is this even a compromise you would ever be willing to make? "Separate but equal" so to say. Is this a major point of contention you have with President Obama?

Personally I think it has very little to do with gay marriage...........I have gay friends one on my golf team who could care less about gay marriage.....He would settle for civil unions.. I actually was friends with his partner to who died of AIDS He to did care about gay marriage.....I went to his funeral..he was a great guy.........the actual issue here that is being promoted by a few gay people and a whole bunch of feel good libs is acceptance of the gay life style as a suitable alternative life style to be taught to our children and that must not happen...... I don't care what gays or straights do in the privacy of their bedrooms, just don't tell me
 
Last edited:
Yes he would be. He is not entitled to a right that a woman has, simply because he is a man.

The woman has no right to marry a person of the same sex, either. You know better. (Or maybe you don't.) It's not a case of discrimination based on gender. Everyone has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Maybe y'all should try testing that one next. See how far you get.
 
The woman has no right to marry a person of the same sex, either. You know better. (Or maybe you don't.) It's not a case of discrimination based on gender. Everyone has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Maybe y'all should try testing that one next. See how far you get.

You have no understanding of the difference between "equal application" and "equal protection". I could make a law that argues that people are only allowed to marry their own race. That law would be considered "equal application" since only whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. However, that law would not be equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using race to apply restrictions to civil rights. Same sex marriage bans are equal application but are not equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using sex to apply restrictions to civil rights.

Nice try though. Pretending that "equal application of the law" is the same as "equal protection of the law" is the same strategy that was used by segregationists for decades. You have certainly fallen quite a bit if that is the playbook you have decided to borrow from in this debate.
 
Show me how allowing SSM will lead to those things? Those are completely different to SSM, and are strawmen, a logical fallacy. You have no argument going down this train of thought. Of course you have no argument on any train of thought, but you should know that by now.

If you allow it for gays why not other people. why are you for them and not giving the same rights to everyone?
 
Oh, I know the stereotypes, I just don't give them any credence.

And what are you talking about? That is a delicious meal!

well here is a wake up call for you........blacks are very offended by those stereotypes..........
 
I doubt this it will happen but if they do a broad ruling on equal gay rights that would be amazing!!!!!!!


Im guessing it will be a Cali decisions though. At best im hoping they rule in a fashion that kills all the discrimination laws against equal gay rights in all the states.

This would be AWESOME and AMAZING and even if it only affects Cali that WILL be another nail in the coffin discrimination and will help bring equal gay rights to all.

I mean it will happen eventually anyways but it be so phenomenal if it happen sooner than later. It be so historical and it be great for America to do something inspiring like this right now.
 
If you allow it for gays why not other people. why are you for them and not giving the same rights to everyone?

Name one country or state that has legalized same sex marriage that has allowed the partnerships you described.

I'll help you out. It hasn't happened. Your fear mongering is disproved by reality NP.
 
But 86 senators voted for DOMA including a whole bunch of democrats and Clinton signed the law... (confused)

Democrats are just as worthless as Republicans. You must be scrapping the barrel if you think that argument is going to work. Clearly you seem to have forgotten there are plenty of us here who would love to run both parties out of the country.

People who fear gay marriage on the basis of the sanctity of marriage define the value of their marriage on what society tells them it is worth. Not what they put into the marriage themselves. If you valued marriage on what you put in to it, it would not matter what anyone else did in theirs.
 
Last edited:
so should one be allowed to have 2 wives or husbands? {/QUOTE]

Sure as long as an equitable solution can be found out. As it goes now with this one woman one man thing it causes a lot of problems and legal issues.







That is already covered and family does get legal rights to inheritance


They do not get the SS if a person dies..you have to be a spouse
 
How the hell is the burden on my side when the appeals court ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Shifting the burden of proof is pretty pathetic LD.

Because the state does not have to justify it's law. The plaintiff has to show he is harmed by it.

Irrelevant to this case. The Supreme Court of California already expanded the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Prop 8 then came in and effectively took away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages. That means in order to justify Prop 8, you have to argue why the state has an interest in taking away the right for same sex couples to designate their civil partnerships as marriages.

No, it doesn't. The people of California amended their Constitution with a valid law. We've already discussed that Prop 8 could be upheld and the marriages that took place before could remain valid.

Can you explain in your own words what state interests Smith suggested might be served by upholding Prop 8'

You're asking me to paraphrase Smith? Really? Sorry, teach, I didn't take notes. My focus on his opinion was on how Romer doesn't control. He did talk about responsible procreation and the optimal parenting rationale, and he felt generally that we should be cautious about redefining marriage.

In the comment you made above, you just proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do understand this case on the most basic level.

Wow. I met the "shadow of a doubt" threshold! Go me!
 
Last edited:
Personally I think it has very little to do with gay marriage...........I have gay friends one on my golf team who could care less about gay marriage.....He would settle for civil unions.. I actually was friends with his partner to who died of AIDS He to did care about gay marriage.....I went to his funeral..he was a great guy.........the actual issue here that is being promoted by a few gay people and a whole bunch of feel good libs is acceptance of the gay life style as a suitable alternative life style to be taught to our children and that must not happen...... I don't care what gays or straights do in the privacy of their bedrooms, just don't tell me

I was waiting for you to bring your supposed "gay friends" into the mix, as if that somehow makes you less of a homophobe. It's just like the racist who claims to have a few black friends. So you know a few gay people who share your views on gay marriage. Who cares? I'm willing to bet there are even more who don't. By the way, I have a hard time believing that you actually have gay friends when you make completely moronic comments about how the gay lifestyle is something that is being "taught" to kids. Give me a break. I think any realist can see that there is truly nothing alluring about being gay considering the stigma that so many people (like you) have about them. Not to mention the people who are cast aside by friends and family when they come out.
 
well here is a wake up call for you........blacks are very offended by those stereotypes..........

Well, I'm sure that they all appreciate a white guy speaking for them on what they are or aren't offended about as a whole.
 
You have no understanding of the difference between "equal application" and "equal protection". I could make a law that argues that people are only allowed to marry their own race. That law would be considered "equal application" since only whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. However, that law would not be equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using race to apply restrictions to civil rights. Same sex marriage bans are equal application but are not equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using sex to apply restrictions to civil rights.

Nice try though. Pretending that "equal application of the law" is the same as "equal protection of the law" is the same strategy that was used by segregationists for decades. You have certainly fallen quite a bit if that is the playbook you have decided to borrow from in this debate.

Gender is not sexual orientation. Where have the two ever been treated equally?
 
You are the person asserting that the 9th is overruled more than any other court and you can't even back it up?

Happy to see you haven't changed NP.

Its not even in question. everyone I guess except you knows that........Its been posted on threads a dozen times.......even Redress knows that
 
Because the state does not have to justify it's law. The plaintiff has to show he is harmed by it.

The state did. Hence why the Appeals Court ruled it unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't. The people of California amended their Constitution with a valid law. We've already discussed that Prop 8 could be upheld and the marriages that took place before could remain valid.

The marriages that took place before Prop 8 are already valid. This court case had nothing to do with them. And Prop 8 is not a valid law. It has been determined by an appeals court to be unconstitutional.

You're asking me to paraphrase Smith? Really? Sorry, teach, I didn't take notes. My focus on his opinion was on how Romer doesn't control. he did talk about responsible procreation and the optimal parenting rationale, and he felt generaly that we should be cautious about redefing marriage.

Close enough.

Wow. I met the "shadow of a doubt" threshold! Go me!

An interesting thing you learn in academia is the difference between skimmers and comprehenders. Skimmers read enough to repeat what other people have said and then present it as their own ideas and pretend that what they say is self evident fact. Comprehenders read to understand the issue and then study to see if what was said is true and then report their opinions based on the evidence they encountered.

You are a Skimmer. I've shown that to be true in the last few posts by simply asking whether you were capable of showing even a basic comprehension of this case.
 
Gender is not sexual orientation. Where have the two ever been treated equally?

No, gender is not sexual orientation. But let us consider marriage under Prop 8.

A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman.
A woman can marry a man but a man cannot marry a man.

Each sex has a right that the other does not. That is an arbitrary infringement by the government on the civil rights of men and women based on nothing other than their sex. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It is gender discrimination pure and simple.
 
Name one country or state that has legalized same sex marriage that has allowed the partnerships you described.

I'll help you out. It hasn't happened. Your fear mongering is disproved by reality NP.


If gay marriage is legal then you will have a whole bunch of others groups wanting the same right..........will you allow gays and discriminate against them? talk about a hypocrite.
 
They won't be if prop 8 is upheld

Actually, they are currently recognized in California as valid. They were before the appeals court ruling and they were after. Those marriages have nothing to do with Prop 8 since they were perfectly legal before the referendum. In other words, they were grandfathered in.

The irony of Prop 8 is that it didn't actually eliminate same sex marriage from California. There are over 3,000 same sex couples who have marriages recognized in California simply because they got married before Prop 8.
 
Last edited:
If gay marriage is legal then you will have a whole bunch of others groups wanting the same right..........will you allow gays and discriminate against them? talk about a hypocrite.

I confess... I want to have a polygamist and a gay marriage with NP
 
The state did. Hence why the Appeals Court ruled it unconstitutional.

They struck it down based on Romer, which has nothing to do with marriage.

The marriages that took place before Prop 8 are already valid. This court case had nothing to do with them. And Prop 8 is not a valid law. It has been determined by an appeals court to be unconstitutional.

You keep saying that.

When a court comes to a decision, the people have a right to remedy through amendment - that is valid law. The appeals process is not over. This isn't settled.


An interesting thing you learn in academia is the difference between skimmers and comprehenders. Skimmers read enough to repeat what other people have said and then present it as their own ideas and pretend that what they say is self evident fact. Comprehenders read to understand the issue and then study to see if what was said is true and then report their opinions based on the evidence they encountered.

You are a Skimmer. I've shown that to be true in the last few posts by simply asking whether you were capable of showing even a basic comprehension of this case.

And you know what I think you are.

Listen, I'm sorry if my reading and comprehension skills, or my abilities to analyze 100 pages of legal opinion fall short of your standards. I do thank you for your kind and patient attention.
 
No, gender is not sexual orientation. But let us consider marriage under Prop 8.

A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman.
A woman can marry a man but a man cannot marry a man.

Each sex has a right that the other does not. That is an arbitrary infringement by the government on the civil rights of men and women based on nothing other than their sex. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It is gender discrimination pure and simple.

It would be if men could marry men, but women could not marry women.

As it is, you have described current marriage law as it has always been undestood. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 
Back
Top Bottom