Page 48 of 49 FirstFirst ... 3846474849 LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #471
    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 cmakaioz View Post
    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!"
    That's already been addressed: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060195300

    The reasonable and customary subject applicability test is employed first before anything else.

    This matter is simply rightly one of appeal to definition .. and there's no theocratic/non-theocratic element to the matter.
    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?

  2. #472
    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
    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:

    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.
    Still dodging my question huh. Tell me USING YOUR ABOVE LOGIC (which is total bs), how would blacks become men by law using your example?


    Seems to me they would simply look at the definition of what a man was (at that time) and throw the case out because blacks were not defined as men. Wonder what definition they used if not the current one?

    Like I said, you refuse to answer the question I asked because LOGICALLY your opinion can not be backed up with anything factual.
    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

  3. #473
    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

    Let me see:

    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".
    That's funny, because there's no such thing as "the long-standing sole definition of marriage" in the first place. Forms of marriage have been widely varied almost since the first historical records of them:

    Egypt: marriage is between a man and his cousin (Pharaoh)
    Bible: marriage is between a man and his cousin/slave/woman taken in battle)
    Feudalism: marriage is between a lord's son and the daughter of the lord's business partner (typically another lord, in order to secure a real estate deal)


    "Negroes can't be people...because Everyone Knows that The Definition of 'person' is White."
    Racism: That's odd, given that so-called "white" people didn't exist until (at the earliest) a few centuries ago, and then only as a political fiction.
    U.S. Constitution: for tax and census purposes, "blacks" are 3/5ths of a person (3/5ths is NOT equal to zero)
    Damn Near Every Human-Populated place on earth outside of Europe and North America (not only are non-Whites human, they are MOST of the population)
    etc.


    Hmm...nope, sorry...it just doesn't work in either case (appeal to popular prejudice to define "marriage" OR "person")

  4. #474
    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's already been addressed: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060195300

    The reasonable and customary subject applicability test is employed first before anything else.

    This matter is simply rightly one of appeal to definition .. and there's no theocratic/non-theocratic element to the matter.


    again where does this fantasy definition come from?
    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. #475
    Student Krasche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Great Lakes, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-15 @ 05:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    153

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    What I don't understand is why there's such opposition to SSM. Reason being is: what people do behind closed doors is their business. SSM has no effect on straight people whatsoever, other than maybe those with gay family members. So why do people have such an issue with something that doesn't even affect them? Because "the bible says it's wrong"? Ok let's go with that. Lets say all gays go to hell (Which by the way, is not my personal view, I'm just using this as an example for those of you who only see what you want to see). Does it affect the straight people? No?? Then why do you care? "Judge not lest ye be judged" is also in the bible, correct? Get off your holier-than-thou pedestal, and leave these people alone. And for the ones who are just disgusted by gays and don't want to live near them, you can move if you have that big of an issue. You have no right to infringe on someone else's life.

    Furthermore, as to the question of it's constitutionality, Americans, by the constitution, have to the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", liberty and happiness being the key component in this statement. If gays wish to get married because it makes them HAPPY, they should have the LIBERTY to do so.

    I'm saying this as a Straight man who thinks all this fighting over the subject is just plain stupid. We have other problems in this country without fighting over something this simple.
    "Sometimes we must look beyond what we want to do what's best."

  6. #476
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    This matter is simply rightly one of appeal to definition .. and there's no theocratic/non-theocratic element to the matter.
    Sorry, but that's even more absurd than your other appeals to popular prejudice/tradition.

    I dealt with this topic professionally for about four years, and in all that time (with hundreds of students writing persuasive essays each quarter), I didn't encounter a single rational, non-contradictory argument against SSM. The remaining arguments -- the irrational ones -- were ALL easily traceable to religious dogma.

    In fairness, one very real possibility for explaining this is that there ARE NO rational and logically consistent arguments against legal marriage equality.

    As for theocracy, there's no chance in hell Prop 8 would have come within miles of passage were it not for OPEN, OVERT appeal to religious doctrine and vigorous fundraising and GOTV campaigns wages by religious adherents (both within and -- most infamously -- outside of California). Basing electoral decisions upon religious dogma IS theocracy, but since there is an electoral culture in the United States in which sound justification for one's vote is a minimal -- if not altogether absent -- concern. Many (if not most) religious adherents here don't reject the notion of applying self-discipline to avoid polluting one's vote with religious dogma...so much as the relevant danger of theocracy not even occurring to them as a hazard in the first place.

  7. #477
    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 Ontologuy View Post
    By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife" ....
    It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.
    LOL....you seem to be the one who doesn't "Get it". You act as if the definition of marriage has never changed over the course of history. "Marriage" used to mean a union of a man/woman who were of the same race. That definition has changed over the years.
    Last edited by disneydude; 02-14-12 at 12:53 AM.
    <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>

  8. #478
    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
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    Your analogy would make since if dogs and cats were protected by the 14th amendment. But they are not. Plus you're trying to compare two completely different species (cats & dogs) vs one species (human). And that is ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    The only part where you are wrong here is using the word "jurists". In this kind of case there are no juries. Only a judge. Juries are only used in criminal cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    That's not how it works. In order for a law that restricts rights to be valid it must serve a legitimate state interest that over rides a persons rights. Restricting the rights of a murderer for example is acceptable because it is in the states interest to keep its citizens alive. This is the way that it has always been done. So for this to hold true the state must have a legitimate interest in restricting the right of gays to marry. The only thing that would give the state a legitimate interest in denying SSM is if SSM harms society. Which it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    Again, there are no juries available when determining if a law is constitutional or not. Only judges. And judges do not look at "common sense". When it comes to Constiutionality and restricting rights the very first thing they look at is "does this law serve a state interest?" No judge bases thier decision on "common sense". They are not even allowed to do that as common sense is subjective. It changes from one person to another. For instance, in our arguement here you think that it is common sense to deny SSM (reasons don't matter at this moment). I however think that it is common sense to allow SSM (again, reasons don't matter at this moment). A judge must make thier judgement based upon facts and the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    Again, the definition doesn't really matter for the simple fact that the definition of words change. Remember, the definition of marriage use to include a definition that restricted inter-racial marriage. Obviously that has changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:

    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.
    Again, seperate but equal is not equal.

    As for the part that you quoted yourself saying lets re-quote it here...

    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?
    Bold part: You're going to have to explain this. In what way are homosexuals not equal to heterosexuals?
    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. #479
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Either allow any 2 adults to get married or dont allow any of them to do it.

  10. #480
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    Either allow any 2 adults to get married or dont allow any of them to do it.
    I dunno, I'm actually leaning towards that "traditional marriage" definition now. The one where the wife is literal property of the husband.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 48 of 49 FirstFirst ... 3846474849 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
  •