• 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

DiAnna said:
A Constitutional Amendment that states constitutional protections don't apply to homosexuals?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the idea will entail. I imagine that whichever sides loses, an amendment will be attempted.
 
LuckyDan said:
With regard to marriage, what precedents are there to support that? States have been allowed to regulate marriage for, oh God, years now.
Click to expand...

They were also allowed to regulate inter-racial marriage until it was deemed unconstitutional. So what's your point?
 
disneydude said:
They were also allowed to regulate inter-racial marriage until it was deemed unconstitutional. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

You answer a question not asked. Let me repeat it:

With regard to marriage, what precedents are there to support the statement, "The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional."

The miscegenation comparison gets a lot of likes at DP. Not sure how high it will fly with the Supremes.
 
1Perry said:
I have no idea what the idea will entail. I imagine that whichever sides loses, an amendment will be attempted.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Even if the Supremes uphold the 9th, it might only apply to California, since the only question decided was that once a designation of marriage has been granted, it cannot be taken away. It depends on how limited the ruling is.
 
LuckyDan said:
With regard to marriage, what precedents are there to support the statement, "The constitution guarantees equal rights under the law. When one group of people are denied their rights on the basis of sexual preference, that's unconstitutional."
Click to expand...

Romer v. Evans
 
Redress said:
The problem with this, as mentioned above, is that when DOMA goes away, there will still be no federal benefits for civil unions, nor a large likelyhood of identical benefits being established. Even if you do establish identical benefits, then you have a situation where the only difference is in name, which makes two sets of identical laws kinda stupid.
Click to expand...
You say "when" DOMA goes away. That's not altogether certain. Regardless, if must first go away for remaining dominos to fall. You mentioned 5 years in a previous post. A lot can happen in five years .. and it may take longer considering it was passed by a huge margin in both the House and Senate. Anticipation may be personally specific, not at all manifestly guaranteed.

If there are currently no federal benefits for civil unions, Prop 8 supporters are asking why can't there be -- why is it unlikely that identical legal benefits be established. I'm sure they know full well that without such legal protections being made at all levels of law for civil unions, they are likely to lose their approach. Getting equal protection applied to civil unions is pivotal for Prop 8 supporters.

It seems the Prop 8 suggested approach was to secure what has long been their traditional definition of the name of the cultural institution that is greatly valuable to them as they perceive it ..

.. And then the mandate will be there to correct all level of law to support equal protection for civil union couples.

The Prop 8 supporters do not think that would at all be stupid to have equal protection under the law for both marriages and civil unions.

What they find egregious is to have the cultural institution that has long been meaningful to them as defined to be redefined to mean something else shorn of its meaning.

We may not all agree with them, but their point of nomenclature is valid and significant.

They don't mind that cat owners have cat shows with the same rules for entry and contest. What the Prop 8 dog show people are objecting to is being forced to let cat owners enter cats in their dog shows .. as those events are then no longer dog shows, about which they are most certainly accurately aware.

Naming something to reflect what it truly is a foundational way of truly understanding what that entity means -- between a man and a woman as husband and wife -- which they see as what marriage has long been, both to them, and to our long-established culture.
 
LuckyDan said:
That's really what it will come down to, or should. The level of scrutiny. Why do you or the legal scholars you refer to feel that it will be anything more than a rational basis? What precedent is there for it? For marriage laws like Prop 8 or gay rights in general?
Click to expand...

Pressed for time at the moment so am only going to respond to this part: In the original ruling on DOMA, there where a number of references to equal rights not for gay people, but for gender. That is, men could marry some one women could not, and vice versa. Gender discrimination is always strict scrutiny. I am not sure I am swayed by this argument(and I am not giving all the details here), but that is just one way that strict srutiny could be rules to be appropriate. The level of scrutiny used is one of the big questions of this case.
 
Redress said:
Actually I do not hope that since I hope that SCOTUS was affirm a broader ruling against all SSM bans.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ontologuy said:
You say "when" DOMA goes away. That's not altogether certain. Regardless, if must first go away for remaining dominos to fall. You mentioned 5 years in a previous post. A lot can happen in five years .. and it may take longer considering it was passed by a huge margin in both the House and Senate. Anticipation may be personally specific, not at all manifestly guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I can come back and respond to more if your post if you need later(probably tomorrow), but as to this: DOMA is hard to support from a legal standpoint. Historically states have been the ones to decide who they marry, and states rights arguments play very stromngly with conservative judges.
 
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...

I know you won't believe this but there are plenty of conservative arguments for SSM.
 
Redress said:
The question is whether the ban is legal, and has nothing to do with popularity. Now, what legal flaw do you see in the ruling?
Click to expand...

I am not and attorney nor are you..........I guess we will let the SCOTUS decide that
 
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...

Only problem is that the case against Prop 8 is conservative. It is lead by a conservative attorney arguing conservative principles and the original case was decided by a libertarian judge.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh good lord, do you only come to this forum to rag on gays every time we have a victory?
Click to expand...

You have no victory.........all gay marriages will be put on hold until the SCOTUS makes a decision........sorry to bust your bubble..........
 
Navy Pride said:
You have no victory.........all gay marriages will be put on hold until the SCOTUS makes a decision........sorry to bust your bubble..........
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't live in California so it wouldn't apply to me. I'm also not engaged.
 
Redress said:
Then how is it you can call the judges "activist"?
Click to expand...

Judges from the 9th are always activist................It was a 2-1 verfict the 2 judges that voted againt prop 8 were appointed by Carter and Clinton DUH you do the math
 
Navy Pride said:
Judges from the 9th are always activist................It was a 2-1 verfict the 2 judges that voted againt prop 8 were appointed by Carter and Clinton DUH you do the math
Click to expand...

So any judge who wasn't appointed by a Republican is an activist judge. Good logic kiddo.
 
disneydude said:
But you seem to have no issue with Adultery.....just sayin.
Click to expand...


Hey DD as a challenge I joined a left wing forum in Seattle............There are people there farther left then you and 90% of the members are that way...we are outnumbered about 10-1 and talk about hate...............They make you look like a Conservative...ROTFLMAO
 
LuckyDan said:
Not necessarily. Even if the Supremes uphold the 9th, it might only apply to California, since the only question decided was that once a designation of marriage has been granted, it cannot be taken away. It depends on how limited the ruling is.
Click to expand...

A limited ruling will only expand to other states. The Supreme Court sooner or later will have to make a definitive ruling.
 
disneydude said:
They were also allowed to regulate inter-racial marriage until it was deemed unconstitutional. So what's your point?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Your Star said:
I know you won't believe this but there are plenty of conservative arguments for SSM.
Click to expand...

Sorry but a person that believes in SSM is no Conservative. He might be a RINO though
 
Redress said:
Then how is it you can call the judges "activist"?
Click to expand...

Because they rule against the will of the people........If they can do it on this issue they can do it on anything..that is the scary part.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom