Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #461
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Moderator's Warning:
    Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional Some are pushing the envelope of civility here.... let's keep it polite and IMPERSONAL, please. Discuss the topic, not each other, thanks.




    5thElemtPolice.jpg

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #462
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    At the very least a mother nurtures a child. a man no matter how hard he trys can not do that.
    W-w-w-what? Are you insane? A man cannot nurture a child? Maybe therein lies the problem, you have a backwards view of what being a father is all about. I would argue that the best fathers out there are the ones that take the time to love and nurture their children and I think most people would agree.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #463
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional Some are pushing the envelope of civility here.... let's keep it polite and IMPERSONAL, please. Discuss the topic, not each other, thanks.




    5thElemtPolice.jpg
    I know I'm not supposed to comment on mod posts here, but...

    Fifth Element!!!! I love that movie.

  4. #464
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

    If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

    If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
    You still have NEVER answered whos definition of marriage YOU are using. The question is VERY valid and i believe you dodged my question because you not it shots huge holes in your false logic of post 399
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060195434

    Why do you dodge the question? fear? deflection because you know you cant back up post 399?
    Im curious?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #465
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I cannot wait till people like you flip your lids when SSM is legalized across the country. What a joyous day that will be. Hope you don't kill yourself on that day.
    See, this is the problem we all face right now -- it's turned into such a war, when it never needed to, as both sides could have gotten want they wanted.

    Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

    And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Both would be happy -- gays would have equal rights under the law in their contract uniquely named for them, and straights would continue the same under their contract (marriage) uniquely named for them.

    There then wouldn't be this .. this war, that will most certainly not end now almost regardless of the outcome of Prop 8.

    You see, the wrong approach taken by gay leaders back then -- to invasively steal their way into something, marriage, to which they, by definition, simply do not belong -- guaranteed the war will escalate for sure if Prop 8 falls.

    Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?

    But by invasively attempting to steal their way into a millenia old highly valued institution of straight people -- marriage -- that's so highly meaningful to straight people as it is rightly defined .. well, all of you taking the liberal side on this, I don't think you realize just how important to straight people -- 91.5% of the population! -- this matter is .. and what the repercussion might likely be if Prop 8 overturns, etc.

    It is quite clear that gay leaders are simply doing two things that just isn't right: 1) they are ignoring the real substantive differences between gay and straight couples that render inapplicable the word "marriage" to gay couples, and 2) they are exhibiting huge disrespect for straight people, trying to force their way into somewhere they simply don't belong, creating huge animosity for those scores of millions of straight people who hold marriage dear.

    This is simply tyranny of the minority .. and if it succeeds, well, 91.5% of the population can find quite a large segment of people within to escalate this war.

    I mean, I'm all for peace, but there are a number of people so angered by the gay leaders' attempted invasive thievery of marriage that, who knows, they might just find out what the genetic cause of same-sex gender attraction is .. and create a pre-natal vitamin to prevent it.

    Then, in a few generations, all of this needless warring would be for nothing.

    Gay leaders would have done well to be respectful of straights and their long-established meaningfully valued institution: marriage.

    Hopefully it's not too late to change the course of likely events into a win-win scenario for both gays and straights.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  6. #466
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    See, this is the problem we all face right now -- it's turned into such a war, when it never needed to, as both sides could have gotten want they wanted.

    Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

    And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Both would be happy -- gays would have equal rights under the law in their contract uniquely named for them, and straights would continue the same under their contract (marriage) uniquely named for them.

    There then wouldn't be this .. this war, that will most certainly not end now almost regardless of the outcome of Prop 8.

    You see, the wrong approach taken by gay leaders back then -- to invasively steal their way into something, marriage, to which they, by definition, simply do not belong -- guaranteed the war will escalate for sure if Prop 8 falls.

    Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?

    But by invasively attempting to steal their way into a millenia old highly valued institution of straight people -- marriage -- that's so highly meaningful to straight people as it is rightly defined .. well, all of you taking the liberal side on this, I don't think you realize just how important to straight people -- 91.5% of the population! -- this matter is .. and what the repercussion might likely be if Prop 8 overturns, etc.

    It is quite clear that gay leaders are simply doing two things that just isn't right: 1) they are ignoring the real substantive differences between gay and straight couples that render inapplicable the word "marriage" to gay couples, and 2) they are exhibiting huge disrespect for straight people, trying to force their way into somewhere they simply don't belong, creating huge animosity for those scores of millions of straight people who hold marriage dear.

    This is simply tyranny of the minority .. and if it succeeds, well, 91.5% of the population can find quite a large segment of people within to escalate this war.

    I mean, I'm all for peace, but there are a number of people so angered by the gay leaders' attempted invasive thievery of marriage that, who knows, they might just find out what the genetic cause of same-sex gender attraction is .. and create a pre-natal vitamin to prevent it.

    Then, in a few generations, all of this needless warring would be for nothing.

    Gay leaders would have done well to be respectful of straights and their long-established meaningfully valued institution: marriage.

    Hopefully it's not too late to change the course of likely events into a win-win scenario for both gays and straights.
    Another long post based on the premise of your OPINION. You state what your OPINION of the definition of marriage is and nothing else everybody objective, logical and intellectual sees this.

    Sorry but equal yet separate is not equal history and facts prove this.

    Ill keep waiting for what you think the definition of marriage is and how it applies to your post 399. You keep dodging for some reason, its very telling.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #467
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,258

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Meanwhile... This makes me proud to be a Washingtonion today...

    Gov. Gregoire signs into law bill making Washington state 7th in nation to allow gay marriage

    Gov. Gregoire signs into law bill making Washington state 7th in nation to allow gay marriage - The Washington Post

  8. #468
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

    And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
    And with these two sentences you have just proved (and admitted) that not only are gays not getting thier 14th amendment equal protection under the law but that anything other than marriage would be seperate. And as the saying goes, "seperate but equal is not equal".

    As the saying goes...you just screwed the pooch.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  9. #469
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    And with these two sentences you have just proved (and admitted) that not only are gays not getting thier 14th amendment equal protection under the law but that anything other than marriage would be seperate. And as the saying goes, "seperate but equal is not equal".

    As the saying goes...you just screwed the pooch.
    Okay, poochily speaking, your perspective would force dog owners to let cat owners enter their cats in a dog show via appeal to "separate but equal".

    And of course, that's ludicrous to allow cats in a dog show .. just as it is ludicrous for gays to have a marriage contract, marriage being between straights by definition.

    Before separate but equal is applied jurists first examine the matter to see if it makes sense before determing if there is a valid state interest in the matter.

    Since the opposite of Prop 8 is to include gays in marriage, non-politicized jurists would rightly reject challenge to Prop 8 on those grounds, that the opposite violates the very definition of words and would thus be nonsensical to consider.

    It's like as if the CA legislature passed a bill that said "Window panes in CA will now be made of cardboard to improve visibility". If the law was tossed by a judge, would analyzing for legitimate state interest be the first thing jurists deciding an appeal attempt? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The first thing jurists would do would be to assess the structure of the law from a common sense perspective .. and they would overturn the law on that basis before they ever got to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test.

    The same holds true here. By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife", so proper non-politicized review of Prop 8 by an appellate court would be to reject overturning of Prop 8 by simple appeal to common sense definition of words, as, considering that marriage is, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", there is no equating gay and straight committed couple relationships via the word marriage, and the jurists would rightly never have gotten to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test in the Prop 8 matter.

    You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:
    Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?
    Committed gay couples have every 14th Amendment right to have a domestic partnership civil union constract like committed straight couples have .. they just can't call it marriage, by virtue of simple test of definition.

    Again, that's a win-win for everyone, gays and straights.

    It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  10. #470
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Has anyone from the non-theocratic side of this (anti-Prop 8) been able to successfully explain to the pro-theocracy side that "tradition" (however popular) is completely irrelevant to the *LEGAL* standards of compelling state interest AND rational basis tests?

    SSM was one of the rotating essay topics in a lab class I was teaching , and it seems like Pro-8 folks haven't changed their script one bit in the 13 years since. It's like they still don't grasp the basic concept that

    "Ew!! Legal equality for gays and lesbians is GROSS! Why? Because Stone Cold Steve Austin Said So...er, I mean, because Stone Cold God said so!"
    Last edited by cmakaioz; 02-13-12 at 11:40 PM.

Page 47 of 49 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •