• 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

19 states have constitutional bans not just on same sex marriage, but on civil unions and domestic partnerships. The reality is that the same sex marriage opponents drew blood first.
The existence of such bans against gay civil unions and domestic partnerships came about not as an attack, but as a defense.

Not long ago this past century when the strategy of gay leaders to ludicrously redefine marriage was put into tactical execution, the first vanguard in defense of marriage recognized how events would likely unfold. They realized that though the first onslaught on marriage would surely fail, the impetus for creation of or modifications to civil unions in support of the 14th Amendment would legitimize committed gay couple relationships, and thereby such would function as a closer base by which a subsequent attack on marriage might more easily win the war.

The first vanguard in defense of marriage reasoned that the reality of the age-old adage "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" was most certainly at play here .. and so they acted to institute bans on gay civil unions and domestic partnerships, thereby not giving "'em an inch".

Was that the the right thing for the first vanguard in defense of marriage to do?

It's debatable.

But, their behavior is easy to understand: their cultural tradition to which they were endeared -- marriage, "between a man and a woman as husband and wive", by instrinsic rationally unconjecturable definition, was under attack. They feared, in this land of increasing liberal influence, that if they didn't put up the best defense that they could, taking into consideration likely possibilities, they would lose their valuable, meaningful institution.

Clearly, the first vanguard in the defense of marriage did not draw first blood as revisionsists "carelessly" claim.

The gay leaders back then, agreeing to employ a quick-fix invasive thievery of a time-honored institution of straight people by definition, without question fired the first salvo.


They have denied same sex couples anything even comparable to marriage across this country.
Yes, they did -- some of them -- and for the understandable reason I just presented.

Gay leaders have only themselves to blame for that, as they callously pooh-poohed an entire large class of innocent people in their invasive thievery attempt to ludicrously redefine marriage into an oxymoron.

These leaders thereby declared war on an entire segment of innocent people in the population, a very large segment of innocent people.

They were likely not really surprised at all by the very strong defense these innocent people undertook.


They pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act which established a federal definition of marriage.
Actually, that's not true with regard to "they". The first vanguard in defense of marriage did not enact DOMA.

DOMA was championed by a subsequent group of people that was larger in size and comprehensive in power.

Understandably, DOMA was passed by a landslide of both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate, greatly supported and signed by President Clinton.

Also, DOMA did not establish a federal definition of marriage. DOMA merely clarified relevant words as appropriate in statutes. DOMA was a defense against gay leaders' invasive thievery attempts to ludicrously redefine marriage into something it was not. Restipulating the one and only definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" was simply required protocol, and in no way "established" a "federal" definition of marriage.


And you want to rant and rave about compromise?
Thus, I'm sure you'll see that, when the revisionist history is removed, it's the ranting and raving of gay leaders that's unjustified, since they attacked first in their attempt to invasively steal what, by intrinsic foundational definition, they had no right to.

As for compromise, no, uniquly named civil unions for committed gay couples, Prop 8 supporters say, for the purpose of creating equal legal protection, is not a compromise at all -- it is a long-overdue right thing that needs to be done.

It is important to remember that for the word "compromise" to be applicable, gays would have to have even a slight valid claim to use of the word "marriage" .. and, since they simply do not have any valid claim on a word which has one and only one meaning -- "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" -- the one and only definition of marriage from its inception through the centuries up to and including now, the word "compromise" as used here is simply completely inapplicable.


You want to accuse liberals and gay rights advocates on trampling on a definition when the other side has gone so far as to deny even civil unions to same sex couples?
Well .. yes. And that's because the two -- the waring act of said "trampling" and the understandable secured defense of denying civil unions in some states -- are most certainly and understandablly connected.

Gay leaders executed a strategy of unconscionable act of invasive thievery on the cultural institution of marriage without regard to those that would harm or perhaps also to the consequences to their own cause of their egregious action.

Gay leaders didn't "ask" if they could be included, and though the answer would still most certainly have been "no", if gay leaders had then behaved honorably in both asking and accepting that answer, marriage defenders in some states might not have spent energy putting up a defense where no attack seemed likely.

Again, gay leaders have only themselves to blame here .. and gay leaders feigning obliviousness to the most certain reaction in some states in defense of marriage won't garner any respect.


What the hell world are you living in when a traditional definition of a word has more value than basic equal rights?
The world where invasive thievery is not tolerated, and is "rewarded", understandably, by the kind of self-defeating roadblocks to equal protection that strategy was sure to erect.

Again, gay leaders have only themselves to blame.

They fired the first salvo in a war where they attempted to invade and steal something they had no right to steal.

Seriously, gay leaders can't really expect much sympathy for being wounded when they drew first blood.

And, there is no either-or here with regard to "traditional definition" of a word and "basic equal rights".

Marriage is what it is, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". If that is removed .. it's no longer marriage. The word marriage must include it's fundamental identifier .. or it ceases to exist. When a word, marriage, is the foundation of a cultural tradition that for centuries brought deep meaning to its participants, re-writing its definintion is simply a ludicrous notion.

"Equal rights" for commited gay couples, however, meaning equal rights under the law according to the 14 Amendment for committed gay couples, and marriage being what it is -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- are not mutually exclusive.

A "specially uniquely-named" civil union contract for committed gay couples, with the same equal rights under the law afforded the "marriage" contract for straight couples, solves the problem, with both types of contracts existing at the same time.

Gay leaders would do well to admit to their wrongful initial tact, apologize, request a truce, and ask everyone, gay and straight, to work tirelesslly in every state to enact such legal contracts for committed gay couples.

My guess is that they would thereby greatly increase their chances of getting what they really want: equal protection under the law -- legitimized status for committed gay couples.
 
The existence of such bans against gay civil unions and domestic partnerships came about not as an attack, but as a defense.

Rhetoric. You aren't defending anything but a tradition.
Not long ago this past century when the strategy of gay leaders to ludicrously redefine marriage was put into tactical execution, the first vanguard in defense of marriage recognized how events would likely unfold. They realized that though the first onslaught on marriage would surely fail, the impetus for creation of or modifications to civil unions in support of the 14th Amendment would legitimize committed gay couple relationships, and thereby such would function as a closer base by which a subsequent attack on marriage might more easily win the war.

Oh goody. We went right to conspiracy theory and malicious intent.

The first vanguard in defense of marriage reasoned that the reality of the age-old adage "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" was most certainly at play here .. and so they acted to institute bans on gay civil unions and domestic partnerships, thereby not giving "'em an inch".

Or maybe the more likely explanation is they saw homosexuality as a sin and tried to establish that no legal recognition of such relationships should occur.

Was that the the right thing for the first vanguard in defense of marriage to do?

Nope.

It's debatable.

No it isn't. You can try, but it isn't.

But, their behavior is easy to understand: their cultural tradition to which they were endeared -- marriage, "between a man and a woman as husband and wive", by instrinsic rationally unconjecturable definition, was under attack. They feared, in this land of increasing liberal influence, that if they didn't put up the best defense that they could, taking into consideration likely possibilities, they would lose their valuable, meaningful institution.

They argued the gays were out to molest the children, lower the age of consent, and destroy the moral fabric of society. What America have you been living in for the last two decades?

Clearly, the first vanguard in the defense of marriage did not draw first blood as revisionsists "carelessly" claim.

Dude, homosexuality was declared a mental illness for half a century until it became clear that there was no evidence to back up that argument. Am I "revisioning" history that gays were institutionalized and subjected to electo shock therapy and other such "therapies"? The only person who is a revisionist here is you.

The gay leaders back then, agreeing to employ a quick-fix invasive thievery of a time-honored institution of straight people by definition, without question fired the first salvo.

By seeking legal recognition and protections for their relationships? Oh good lord! What a horrible thing for them to do!



I can't stand to stomach the rest of your drivel and stupidity. How bout you start providing some actual evidence to support your accusations and demonization of the gay rights movement. It seems to me that you are little more than a religious bigot and historical revisionist.
 
A few points for you, Angel.
You shouldn't play with points, Spike -- you never know when one might come whizzing back at the heart of your matter. ;)


First, the claim of "one man and one woman" as a historical context for marriage is simply not accurate.
Your point is dull, that is to say, false.

Marriage has always been, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

As I stated previously:
Historical tiny anecdotal occurrances of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.

It's ludicrous to think otherwise.

I mean, from your perspective, all the exceptional cases of murder that have occurred over time would mean that murder can be included in the list of generally acceptable human behavior, simply because murder happens as a "tiny anecdotal occurance of ignorant or brash violation" in the realm of human behavior.

Ludicrous.


This comes up in just about every thread on SSM.
And understandably so, since it's the truth gay leaders are hoping will be ignored.

Why the very phrases "SSM", "same-sex marriage", "gay marriage", are all oxymoronic by nature.

They were coined and employed by gay leaders and function over time to get minds accustomed to the "idea" as if it wasn't oxymoronic.

After enough time has passed, gay leaders are hoping many will not see these phrases as the oxymorons they truly are .. and they think that then their invasive thievery will more likely succeed.

Why even you here use the phrase "SSM" as if it isn't the oxymoron it most certainly is.

Mind-control is a lot easier to effect than you might have thought .. obviously.


One man and many women is likely the most common historical form of marriage. So, the appeal to history does not hold water.
With "most likely" being 99.999999+ percent of the time, hence the definition of marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" from the get-go thru now.

That reality holds a lot of foundational water.


Second, the supposed "right" of heterosexuals to define marriage how they choose is necessarily unequal protection, since homosexuals are denied that same right. Not that such a right actually exists in the first place, but even if it did, it would not be equal application of the law.
"Heterosexuals" didn't define marriage -- people did, reflecting what marriage truly was -- "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" --, and who knows what the sexual preference makeup of such lexicographers were through the ages.

So no "unequal protection" applies here. The word marriage is what it is: "bewteen a man and a woman as husband and wife". Anything else, historically speaking, isn't marriage.

You can't deem as rational an attempt to redefine words, especially those at the heart of a millenia-old cultural tradition, and then inappropriately appeal to "in the name of correcting unequal protection" just to suit quick fix needs.

That's irrational.

As to "the right to define", yes, it's rather absurd to think that anyone has the right to redefine a word like marriage. Words are defined to mean what they are, which occurs naturally in cultures, the process of which is not a matter of "rights". Marriage is between a man and a woman as husband and wife, so defined because marriage and marriage alone so describes the matter.


Third, the compromise of civil unions. American law long since holds that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Equal access to marriage for any couple, regardless of gender, is the only way to actually apply the law equally to everyone.
Civil unions are not a compromise -- they are the one and only correct respectful approach to solving the equal protection problem for committed gay couples.

"Separate but equal", as cemented by Brown v. Board, basically means that "separate often really means not equal". This does not, of course, ludicrously mean that separate "always" means "not equal".

In Brown v. Board it was ruled that the very pre-defined words "school" and "student" and "classroom" and the like, the substantive relevance of the case, made no implication about White v Black, and therefore, due to the much lower funding of the Black schools, such segregation was found to result in unequal "schools", unequally educated "students", as a result of unequally lower caliber "classrooms" in Black schools. Thus "separate but equal" was rightly applied in this case to end school segregation.

But the substantive relevant word "marriage" is completely about straight couples, by definition. When it comes to "marriage", "separate but equal" is foundationally inapplicable .. hence your first pointy thing's attempt at revisionist history. That's why gay leaders are so committed to their use of oxymornic terms like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", and "gay marriage" in their attempt to persuade people falesly that marriage has historically meant something other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife". If they can't convince people their revisionist history is the case, their application of the "separate but equal" test fails.

There are, of course other examples where the "separate but equal" test for discrimination is inapplicable.

It is inapplicable to let high school boys claim discrimination for not being allowed to be on the "girls' basketball team" and shower with the girls.

It is inapplicable to let cat owners claim discrimination for not being allowed to enter their cat in a "dog show".

And the list goes on.

In all of the disallowed applications of "separate but equal", the substantive nature of the case is judiciously examined, and if "separate" still truly means "equal", the separation is allowed with respect to the 14th Amendment.

Now I know that liberals and many so-called "progressives" ideologically prefer a less intelligent more ideological application of "separate but equal" .. which is why so many social conservatives ask, "what's next -- four men and a woman being called a marriage, or the end of separate public showers at public pools for men and women?". True, those are literal absurdities, but they make the point that an inappropriate thoughtless almost carte-blanche application of the "separate but equal" test is ludicrous .. despite what gay leaders would like to think.

It is simply not a violation of the "separate but equal" test to allow gays to have a separate coined word for their committed couples that truly describes the relationship with respect to its gay nature, with complete legal equality under the law, "under the law" being the key point of the 14th Amendment.

That's why separate high school boys and girls teams are allowed, girls can't be forced to shower with boys in one "equal" shower room, dog owners aren't forced to allow cat owners to enter their cats in their dog shows, etc. Boys have their own teams and showers and cat owners can enter their cats in a .. wait for it .. .. cat show .. .. none of which is a violation of the "separate but equal" test because the test is not substantively applicable in these matters.

Due to the very defined meaning of marriage being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", the "separate but equal" test is inapplicable here, as otherwise the word marriage would cease to exist.


And that's all there is to it, luv.
View attachment 67122190
Oh, there might be a little more to it .. such as Buffy always liked me best .. and "luv", well, come to think of it, she loved me, and never really loved you, did she Spike?! :cool:
Buffy-and-Angel-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-23103914-300-400.jpg
 
I see what you're insinuating here. Nasty.

Activist judges aren't "irrelevant." Count me among those who oppose judges who try to legislate from the bench. You might like this at the moment because of the issue, but if the judges are legislating for an issue which you oppose, you won't feel the same, I'll bet.

It's not the issue, you see; it's the principle, which isn't just "relevant." It's Constitutionally essential for all three branches to do their jobs within Constitutional restraints.

Their job is to decide if laws are constitutional or not. That is exactly what they are doing.
 
Do you have proof of this? Have you met many kids raised in a gay household to see how they turned out? Or is this purely speculation on your part?

Whether you like it or not your mother had a roll in your development that a man can not copy....That is a fact of life.........
 
Read my post. It would be about the HUNDREDTH time I've posted something like it to you. If it doesn't show equal benefit... WHICH IT DOESN'T, it's not discrimination. It's not EQUAL, NP.

That is a matter of opinion my friend. I believe if gays are allowed to marry then so should they.
 
Watch the SCOTUS overturn their decision

If they do, it will only be another few years til the SCOTUS overturns their own previous decision. The only way this argument will end and have no more cases reach the SCOTUS is if same sex marriage is allowed or there is a Constitutional Amendment in place banning same sex marriage. With same sex marriage getting more and more support every day, it is unlikely that there is truly enough support for a Constitutional Amendment against it.
 
Wrong, as usual. All research demonstrates that your post above is invalid. NP, you can have your beliefs, but understand that you beliefs, from a logical and research standpoint, are incorrect.

Its common sense. Can a man breastfeed a child...We are getting off topic here but it is my opinion gays should be allowed to adopt as a last resource.
 
So you're saying that no two gay men or women can raise a child that turns out better than Hitler/Mason/Pol Pot/Stalin?

That Homosexuals are INCAPABLE of raising a child that is better than the WORST heterosexual raised child?

Do you realize just how insane you sound?


So you think that two otherwise normal gays with good jobs and stable lives cannot raise a child better then a crack addicted abusive father paired with an alcoholic mother who's constantly prostituting herself out to pay the basic bills?

A $5 donation bet to this site says YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THAT


You can always pull out bad examples but the good examples out weigh the bads ones a million to one.........The best way to raise a child is with a mother and father. It is hard enough to raise them that way as it is.
 
If they do, it will only be another few years til the SCOTUS overturns their own previous decision. The only way this argument will end and have no more cases reach the SCOTUS is if same sex marriage is allowed or there is a Constitutional Amendment in place banning same sex marriage. With same sex marriage getting more and more support every day, it is unlikely that there is truly enough support for a Constitutional Amendment against it.

only in your dreams, if we can win the presidency and the senate we will replace Ginsberg with a Conservative and the court will be 6-3 to throw out Roe V Wade and any states that have gay marriage. we will pass a constituional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, live with it my friend. the silent majority will speak in November and we will bring God back into this country including the pledge and school prayer
 
The house has already voted for what?

to reinstate DADT. On a side thought I was talking to a couple of sailors at the Naval Hospital the other day and the only gays to come out were guys pretending to be gay as a joke by holding hands.......
 
How does a single father or a single mother raise a child Navy? They do it all the time...and they do it quite well.

It doesn't take a penis or a vagina to raise a child. It takes love and understanding.


Sorry a single father is not the same as 2 gay men...even you know that.
 
Its common sense. Can a man breastfeed a child...We are getting off topic here but it is my opinion gays should be allowed to adopt as a last resource.

Many women don't breastfeed, and some can't. And certainly women who have a surrogate carry the child dont breastfeed. They cant without major help. And guys who lose their wives during childbirth cant breastfeed either . Should we take those kids away since children need a mother and father?
 
Sorry a single father is not the same as 2 gay men...even you know that.

Yes, a single father is generally inferior raising a baby to 2 gay men. Two parents will almost always outperform a single parent.
 
only in your dreams, if we can win the presidency and the senate we will replace Ginsberg with a Conservative and the court will be 6-3 to throw out Roe V Wade and any states that have gay marriage. we will pass a constituional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, live with it my friend. the silent majority will speak in November and we will bring God back into this country including the pledge and school prayer

It's not a right left thing, it's a generational thing. We will win, no matter what you believe.
 
Really? Here's the link. Give it a try...

http://www.nambla.org.
Nah, I'm good. I'll rely on news reports stating you can find maps of where to find children. I don't want any trace of NAMBLA on my computer. I am a military man after all. Probably wouldn't look good. lol


Let's get real here. Parks and playgrounds where children play can be found on any map. You don't need a special website.
Big difference between any old park and say, parks in the inner city where children play unattended. Thats the difference.


Can I ask how many you have interviewed in order to have arrived at such a gem of a conclusion?
I'll answer your question with a question. Do you believe pedophiles have a mental disorder or is it a natural sexual function? Either way, can they deny either one without medication? No. There's your answer.


I guess it's time to shut down the NRA then, given their opposition to child safety-locks. Just common sense, really.
Nice straw man. I don't see a gun waiting in a bush ready to jump out and make a child pull its trigger with its barrel aimed at their head. If you have seen one of these walking and talking guns that is capable of blending in with human beings, I would like to see it. I may see if the US Marine Corps would like to procure it for use in our fight against terrorism.
 
Religious officials may perform marriages only to the extent that they have been issued a license to do so by the state. Marriage is an entirely civil function to which some participants elect to add religious trappings of their choosing. Those trappings are just that, however.


I agree thats what I said in a different fashion. Only area I disagree with is the use of trappings. Legally yes they are trapping but religiously they are not. To some people the religion aspect is more important.
 
You're right. A single father is going to have a much harder time because he wont have the second person to help him.

I totally disagree, at least the kid will know he had a mother and if its a divorce then maybe the mother might even be able to raise him and give him the thing a child needs to grow up. You can give examples of straight and gay couples raising children where things went bad but when its a straight family its a million to one against a kid going bad...........that is just and undenialable fact...........even you as a mother in your heart of hearts knows that there are intangibles that you give to your children that no man could ever give them. You are unique as a mother........I am sorry your liberal views won't allow you to admit that........Maybe someday when your older and wiser.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a single father is generally inferior raising a baby to 2 gay men. Two parents will almost always outperform a single parent.

Sorry I totally disagree, some kids never recover from being raised by 2 parents of the same sex. They are embarressed by it. teased abut it. I believe a lot of kids commit suicide because they can never adjust to the idea of same sex parents.......The kids have no clue of their own identity. I think a lesbian woman who has a child should be allowed to keep the child. I believe gay adoption should be a last resort and it only should be allowed to older children in their teens who understand the importance of having parents of the opposite sex.
 
Sorry I totally disagree, some kids never recover from being raised by 2 parents of the same sex. They are embarressed by it. teased abut it. I believe a lot of kids commit suicide because they can never adjust to the idea of same sex parents.......The kids have no clue of their own identity. I think a lesbian woman who has a child should be allowed to keep the child. I believe gay adoption should be a last resort and it only should be allowed to older children in their teens who understand the importance of having parents of the opposite sex.

So how many suicides have there been by children of same sex parents?
 
Sorry I totally disagree, some kids never recover from being raised by 2 parents of the same sex. They are embarressed by it. teased abut it. I believe a lot of kids commit suicide because they can never adjust to the idea of same sex parents.......The kids have no clue of their own identity. I think a lesbian woman who has a child should be allowed to keep the child. I believe gay adoption should be a last resort and it only should be allowed to older children in their teens who understand the importance of having parents of the opposite sex.

This is such a gigantic load of **** it's not even worth replying to.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You're making **** up.
 
Navy and pride lol must ignore obvious homosexual jokes that immediately come to mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom