• 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

LuckyDan said:
This isn't gender. It isn't even sexual preference or orientation. It is marriage and the constitutionality of state laws regulating it. With regard to same sex couples, SCOTUS has a precedent of summary dismissal of the question in Baker v. Nelson. You can't get more relaxed scrutiny than that.

From Smith's opinion:
Click to expand...

The argument that it is gender is in fact possible. While as I stated, I doubt it will actually be ruled as such, the potential argument is there. Baker and it's status as a precedent are questionable at best. To use it as a precedent in a legal case, a case has to be in all legal aspects identical to Baker.
 
Redress said:
The argument that it is gender is in fact possible. While as I stated, I doubt it will actually be ruled as such, the potential argument is there. Baker and it's status as a precedent are questionable at best. To use it as a precedent in a legal case, a case has to be in all legal aspects identical to Baker.
Click to expand...

I don't see the gender thing as even remotely possible. But okay.

Baker denied a marriage license to a same sex couple. That's pretty dang on-point. Then there will be Reinhardt's reasoning, all based on Romer - completely off-point. SCOTUS should hand him his ass for that.
 
LuckyDan said:
I don't see the gender thing as even remotely possible. But okay.

Baker denied a marriage license to a same sex couple. That's pretty dang on-point. Then there will be Reinhardt's reasoning, all based on Romer - completely off-point. SCOTUS should hand him his ass for that.
Click to expand...

Baker is not identical since it did not involve a right taken away. Romer does not have the limitations Baker has a a precedent due to procedural crap, and is a legit precedent.
 
Redress said:
Baker is not identical since it did not involve a right taken away. Romer does not have the limitations Baker has a a precedent due to procedural crap, and is a legit precedent.
Click to expand...

Baker is perfectly legit procedurally. Cases summarily dismissed for want of a substantial federal question are considered to have been decided on their merits and are precedent.

This "right taken away" thing seems to be a Reinhardt invention. Californians never gave any SS couple a right to marry. That too, was judicial.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
We should make a friendly bet on that..............I say prop 8 will be held up by a 5-4 count with Kennedy casting the deciding vote.........Your only chance is if a conservative judge leaves the court and is replaced by a lib.......Problem is the next judge to go will be Ginsberg. She will either die since she has cancer or retire..........Perfect situation for me is a Conservative gets elected Prez and appoints another Roberts.......Your side would definitely be in deep Kimchee then. If Obama wins then he will just replace her with another lib.....nothing changes
Click to expand...

You want another Activist Judge on the court like Roberts or Alito....who will pay lipservice to the Constitution and impose a right-wing agenda? Why am I not surprized....LOL. Too bad that it will get to the court before that could ever happen....and your 5-4 prediction is about as good as your "Thompson will kill everyone in the election....and you can take it to the bank"....predictions.....
 
Navy Pride said:
same old stale crap.....one of these days go to a black church and ask some of the atendees what they think of gay marriage..........you will get and earful my left wing friend.
Click to expand...
Bigotry has never been exclusively White...NP.....Blacks can be bigots as well.
 
LuckyDan said:
I don't see the gender thing as even remotely possible. But okay.

Baker denied a marriage license to a same sex couple. That's pretty dang on-point. Then there will be Reinhardt's reasoning, all based on Romer - completely off-point. SCOTUS should hand him his ass for that.
Click to expand...

I am straight and cannot marry a man because he is a man. How is it not gender?
 
LuckyDan said:
Baker is perfectly legit procedurally. Cases dismissed on merits are precedent.

This "right taken away" thing seems to be a Reinhardt invention. Californians never gave any SS couple a right to marry. That too, was judicial.
Click to expand...

You might want to do some reading on Baker. There is a precedural issue involved that makes it unusable in most cases.
 
LuckyDan said:
And one reason why a SCOTUS ruling here could be limited to CA, and could then further be limited to those marriages that occurred pre-Prop 8.
Click to expand...

Actually all those marriages are still in effect and recognized in California.
 
LuckyDan said:
I've read enough legal crap today. What is it?
Click to expand...

It is interesting. I've been trying to get people to discuss the specific legalities of Prop 8 forever, and now that this appeal decision has finally forced people to do so, all you guys are doing is parroting the dissenting opinion. Are you even capable, in your own words, of concisely explaining why Prop 8 should be delegated to rational basis scrutiny and precisely what state interests are served by not allowing same sex couples to call their civil relationship "marriage"?
 
MarineTpartier said:
I'll be the rare conservative on here who doesn't get in line with everyone else. I don't think the gov't should have anything to do with marriage. If two men want to marry, have at it. I don't agree with it and I believe it is a sin. However, I don't want the gov't telling us who can and can't be married. Two gays getting married isn't hurting anyone. They only condemn themselves. Who am I to judge them? I'm not God. I can judge their sin, not them. The slippery slope to go down is should they get adoption rights? My thoughts on gay marriage are based on the precedent that no innocent person is harmed. In stark contrast to abortion, I believe that two homosexuals getting married harms no one. Abortion does harm a person, so I don't agree with it. However, the issue of gay couples adopting children is one I can't decide and is a subect I would like to hear debate on. My gut tells me, no, they shouldn't get them. However, if we allow gays to marry, eventually the right to adopt will be pushed for. So, what say everyone else on this?
Click to expand...

I would put to you that you hold a position that most Conservatives once held, but few do now. From one old Paleocon to another, good post. However, I disagree with you on adoption. Kids adopted by gays turn out quite well.
 
Last edited:
MarineTpartier said:
However, the issue of gay couples adopting children is one I can't decide and is a subect I would like to hear debate on. My gut tells me, no, they shouldn't get them. However, if we allow gays to marry, eventually the right to adopt will be pushed for. So, what say everyone else on this?
Click to expand...

Over 30 years of research has conclusively shown that children raised by same sex couples turn out just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples. Would you like to see any of it?
 
Navy Pride said:
By his reputation, come on the 2 judges that voted against it were appointed by Carter and Clinton DUH
Click to expand...

NP. Arguing that any judge that is not appointed by a Republican is an "activist" is kind of weak.
 
Redress said:
How is the McCain presidency going NP?
Click to expand...

To old, not the case this time........I read that in the 12 battleground states that Obama does not have and approval rating above 50% in any of them....Be afraid Regress, be very afraid.
 
Redress said:
Already covered NP. It has more cases overruled, but it also rules on more cases. On a percentage basis it is pretty close to the rest of the courts.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that? I am talking percentage anyhow.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you have a link for that? I am talking percentage anyhow.
Click to expand...

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.
 
danarhea said:
wow only 146 posts until the name calling started from you because I have a difference of opinion......and you call me the intolerant one...............what a joke.

Just paraphrasing your own post. Looks like he who smelt it dealt it.
Click to expand...

Huh, I called you no name........You can fool the new members to DP Dan but you can't fool the old timers :)
 
danarhea said:
Actually, the originators would have said it's none of the government's business. For a wannabe Conservative, you sure like to stick your nose into peoples' business, don't you? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Your rear end if you think they would have back then........
 
CriticalThought said:
It is interesting. I've been trying to get people to discuss the specific legalities of Prop 8 forever, and now that this appeal decision has finally forced people to do so, all you guys are doing is parroting the dissenting opinion. Are you even capable, in your own words, of concisely explaining why Prop 8 should be delegated to rational basis scrutiny and precisely what state interests are served by not allowing same sex couples to call their civil relationship "marriage"?
Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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.
 
Navy Pride said:
Huh, I called you no name........You can fool the new members to DP Dan but you can't fool the old timers :)
Click to expand...

No, you just keep on fooling yourself. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom