• 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

States have the right to ban gay marriage. This should be preserved and not infringed upon especially after it was presented to voters who chose to define marriage between a man and woman.

Then why do states not have the right to ban interracial marriage or interfaith marriage or marriages that are between someone who is 22 years old and someone who is 96?
 
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.........

So those SCOTUS Justices who ruled on Loving v VA were activist judges as well since they too ruled against the will of the people? And don't forget those who ruled on Brown v. the Board of Education. They were against the will of the people as well.
 
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.


Why? It doesn't matter what the race is of those who disagree with this. If it were a law against atheists marrying theists, it would still be unconstitutional. And it wouldn't matter if gays were for such a law or white people were for such a law or women were for such a law, it would still be wrong.
 
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.

Let me get this straight, you think because some black people don't agree with SSM that the same legal precedent that stopped limiting marriage within the races doesn't apply?

Let me take a moment here, :lol: :lol:
 
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.........

The will of the people and the law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. We are a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. The will of the people is our Constitution not a 52% majority in California.

The courts are charged with making sure that laws are in compliance with the Constitution. That is there job. If they declare something is unconstitutional, then they are saying it goes against the will of the people.

Seriously, don't they teach you basic civics in the Navy?
 
Last edited:
So those SCOTUS Justices who ruled on Loving v VA were activist judges as well since they too ruled against the will of the people? And don't forget those who ruled on Brown v. the Board of Education. They were against the will of the people as well.


You said it not me but I believe that court was stacked left..........Like most democrats in the senate did at the time I have no problem with a woman marrying a man regardless of their race.........A class of people defined by their sexual orientation is a differnet matter
 
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

Ahh, I see. So that was just seriously retarded rhetoric and has no basis in reality. Thanks for clearing that up NP, I can rest assured that anything you post will be mindless talking points totally divorced from the real world.
 
You said it not me but I believe that court was stacked left..........Like most democrats in the senate did at the time I have no problem with a woman marrying a man regardless of their race.........A class of people defined by their sexual orientation is a differnet matter

Are you defined by YOUR sexual orientation?
 
Let me get this straight, you think because some black people don't agree with SSM that the same legal precedent that stopped limiting marriage within the races doesn't apply?

Let me take a moment here, :lol: :lol:


A huge majority don't you need to check out that church to
 
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.........

"The will of the people" against the constitution will lose every time in the courts, as it should. There is a method to change the constitution, and that is to amend it. Unless you do that, the will of the people is not sufficient to overcome the constitutions. Why do you hate the constitution so?
 
Ahh, I see. So that was just seriously retarded rhetoric and has no basis in reality. Thanks for clearing that up NP, I can rest assured that anything you post will be mindless talking points totally divorced from the real world.

Check it out Redress, check how often the 9th circuit is over ruled.....by far more then any appelate court in the nation and you know it.....
 
You said it not me but I believe that court was stacked left..........Like most democrats in the senate did at the time I have no problem with a woman marrying a man regardless of their race.........A class of people defined by their sexual orientation is a differnet matter

I am not defined by my sexual orientation, it is only apart of me, not all of me.
 
A huge majority don't you need to check out that church to

No, I'd rather not spend 8 hours in a hot small room with the only reward being KFC after.


:lol:
 
No but gays are......


And this, my friend, is why people call you a bigot. You don't see people. You only see that one characteristic.
 
"The will of the people" against the constitution will lose every time in the courts, as it should. There is a method to change the constitution, and that is to amend it. Unless you do that, the will of the people is not sufficient to overcome the constitutions. Why do you hate the constitution so?

Did you know there is nothing in the Constitution abour marriage.
 
I am not defined by my sexual orientation, it is only apart of me, not all of me.

but you are defined by your race and a woman can marry a man not vice versa nor can you have 2 husbands............that is just a fact.......open the door for one you open it for all kinds of marriages...............why should others be denied if gays are allowed to marry
 
Did you know there is nothing in the Constitution abour marriage.

Well thank you for admitting that the Constitution does not define marriage as between one man and one woman. That means that gays have the same rights you and I have, unless the Constitution is amended.

/thread
 
And this, my friend, is why people call you a bigot. You don't see people. You only see that one characteristic.


wow only 142 posts until the name calling started because I have a difference of opinion......and you lefties call us the intolerant ones...............what a joke.
 
Check it out Redress, check how often the 9th circuit is over ruled.....by far more then any appelate court in the nation and you know it.....

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.
 
Well thank you for admitting that the Constitution does not define marriage as between one man and one woman. That means that gays have the same rights you and I have, unless the Constitution is amended.

/thread

it gives no rights either way my wanna be conservative..........still playing both sides against the middle huh..........don't you ever get tired of doing that...........you forget I know you Dan from way back.......
 
Did you know there is nothing in the Constitution abour marriage.

Are you familiar with the 14th amendment or any of the legal arguments involved in this case? If not, do you really think you should be commenting on the legal aspects?
 
Back
Top Bottom