• 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!

5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court Prop. 8 case

IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?

Why should it be acceptable to cast ballots on which civil rights your neighbor can or cannot exercise? Do you really want to decide our civil rights by popular vote?
 
Who has a right to refuse bisexuals or sisters/brothers from marrying each other then? Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?

You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.

In THIS Country everyone has a RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.

When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.

Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?

It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it.

No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.

What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group?

Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.

No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.

Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.

That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.

So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.

Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules.

However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.

I can't marry a man right now.

Correct. Yet a female can. The law allows a female to do what you as a man are disallowed to do. For the government to have such a law, it needs to meet certain criteria.

Why should gay people have that special right?

They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.

Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?

You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.

If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.

The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country.

And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.
 
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?


California and the United States are NOT direct democracies. We do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a Republic. With THREE branches of government.

One of those branches is the judicial branch which has the power of judicial review.

The will of the majority can not trample the rights the of the minority, which is what happened with Prop 8.
 
You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.

In THIS Country everyone has a RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.

Marriage is not a "Civil Right"

Where is marriage labeled a "right" in the Constitution. You're typing a lot here but it's based purely from emotion. Show me where the Founding Fathers ever showed intent to allow Gay Marriage. Where was this concept ever debated? If gays have the right to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want, then why don't other sexual interest groups have the same right as well?

Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?

Societal norm is absolutely relevant here. Gay Marriage goes against Natural Law. The concept of gay marriage has never been a societal norm.


No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.

Marriage has a specific purpose and it specific meaning. It has always meant man + woman. If it now means man + ? or woman + ? then shouldn't all other sexual interest groups that want to engage in their "right to marry" be allowed to do so as well?

Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.

No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.

YES. GAYS. ARE. ASKING. FOR. THAT. SPECIAL. RIGHT. NOT. MY. PROBLEM. YOU. DON'T. ACCEPT. THAT. REALITY. IT'S. YOURS

Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Marriage has always meant man + woman.

What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.

Actually yes that's exactly what's going on here. Gays have always been able to marry exactly the same sex as I've been able to as marriage has been defined throughout the history of mankind. They are now fighting to change that definition to mean man + ? or woman + ?. Why should only gays be given the right to change what marriage means to fit what they want? What makes them so special over any other sexual interest group?

That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.

So anyone can marry whatever they want. That's your position. Got it.

So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.

it's not a facade. It's just what it is. It's not my problem you're so emotional about it and are getting angry.

However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.

ofcourse it's a club. Government has never defined marriage as anything other than man + woman. Marriage psychologically and emotionally has never meant anything other than man + woman. Look listen to the oral arguments. Even the liberal justices on the court recognize this. I understand gay marriage is emotional to a lot of people, and it's probably going to be a reality, but if you change what marriage means now for one group, eventually another group is going to want the same "right". It's inevitable.

They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.

Of course it's a special right. Marriage has always meant man + woman. Gays want it to mean something different so they can get what they want. What makes gays so special over any other sexual interest group that wants to marry what they love?

You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.

Your emotions and personal attacks do not interest me.

If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.

So then why can't people marry more than one person? Sisters and brothers can marry to right? Anything goes.

And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.

The 14th amendment was never meant for gay marriage. The Founders certainly never conceived of such a social experiment either and never would have approved of it anyways. Not everyone gets what they want. Not everyone gets to join whatever club they want, ect. Gays will get marriage, through Hollywood propaganda culturally it's here to stay, but that doesn't mean everyone has to accept it as legitimate marriage. It serves no social or economic purpose in reality.

Anyways it looks like you just want to yell at people and call them names when they don't agree with you. Good luck with that.
 
Bronson, you are the one demanding your definition be used for everyone.
 
Can someone point me to a site that has the transcripts and arguments? I am NOT going to read 31 pages to find out. :)

Thanks in advance.

Tim-
 
Can someone point me to a site that has the transcripts and arguments? I am NOT going to read 31 pages to find out. :)

Thanks in advance.

Tim-

SCOTUSblog

Check Tuesday and Wednesday's roundup entry, should be a link there.
 
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.

How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
 
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?

So if, say Kentucky, decided to vote to reinstate slavery and 99% of the people voted yes, they should be able to do it? Think carefully before you answer.
 
So if, say Kentucky, decided to vote to reinstate slavery and 99% of the people voted yes, they should be able to do it? Think carefully before you answer.

The slavery and Civil Right's era persecution nonsense is so overplayed and dishonestly applied to the issue.

A person cannot own another legal person in America. However, the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional. States issue marriage certificates and they can set policy. Voters have every right to exercise democracy on issues of policy like redefining marriage.
 
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?

If the federal government doesn't exist to provide coverage of basic human rights, why the hell is it there?

Entering into a voluntary contract with another sovereign human being is a basic human right. For the government to step in and say: "NOPE, Jesus said no!" is certainly overstepping its bounds.
 
If the federal government doesn't exist to provide coverage of basic human rights, why the hell is it there?

Entering into a voluntary contract with another sovereign human being is a basic human right. For the government to step in and say: "NOPE, Jesus said no!" is certainly overstepping its bounds.

The government isn't saying "Jesus said no." You can't enter into a voluntary contract that is illegal nor does the government need to recognize every contract.
 
A person cannot own another legal person in America. However, the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional. States issue marriage certificates and they can set policy. Voters have every right to exercise democracy on issues of policy like redefining marriage.

Yet at one point in time, they could. See, you're arguing that if the voters in California want it, they should get it. It's no different than the voters in Kentucky, why shouldn't they get what they want? Hint for you... both fail for exactly the same reason.
 
The government isn't saying "Jesus said no." You can't enter into a voluntary contract that is illegal nor does the government need to recognize every contract.

Yet marriage isn't illegal. There is no statute by which gays fail the test for marriage. Gay person one can legally marry gay person 2 so long as they are of opposite genders. Therefore there is no legal cause for denying them the ability to marry another person of the same gender.
 
Yet at one point in time, they could. See, you're arguing that if the voters in California want it, they should get it. It's no different than the voters in Kentucky, why shouldn't they get what they want? Hint for you... both fail for exactly the same reason.

And Civil rights were corrected and women's rights violations were corrected after the Constitution was amendment by the people. It was perfectly legal until the law changed. The law doesn't say a state cannot uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's not illegal regardless of what people want to believe.
 
And Civil rights were corrected and women's rights violations were corrected after the Constitution was amendment by the people. It was perfectly legal until the law changed. The law doesn't say a state cannot uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's not illegal regardless of what people want to believe.

Then a state cannot uphold a "traditional definition of freedom". If the people of Kentucky wanted to change their state constitution to allow slavery, can they? You're shucking and jiving your way around the problem instead of just recognizing that equality is equality and your religious views mean nothing whatsoever to the law.
 
The government isn't saying "Jesus said no." You can't enter into a voluntary contract that is illegal nor does the government need to recognize every contract.

So you're saying that if your state were say predominantly muslim, and 51% of the state decided that christians shouldn't be able to get married, you would just as passionately argue for majority rule?

Or would you rather live in a republic, where all citizens are considered equal, regardless of what the 51% decides?
 
Let's face it, SSM ISN'T really about the rights of two people of the same sex to form a bond.

It's about $$$$$!

It's all about legal definitions whereby a couple may qualify for government and insurance benefits. That's what SCOTUS has to determine. That and the right of individual states to determine that legal definition. :roll:
 
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?

The question before the court is whether it was legal to uphold that "tradition". Voters do not get to vote to break the law.
 
Let's face it, SSM ISN'T really about the rights of two people of the same sex to form a bond.

It's about $$$$$!

It's all about legal definitions whereby a couple may qualify for government and insurance benefits. That's what SCOTUS has to determine. That and the right of individual states to determine that legal definition. :roll:

That is one of the more ignorant things said in this thread. Money is the least of the issues that involve marriage.
 
Let's face it, SSM ISN'T really about the rights of two people of the same sex to form a bond.

It's about $$$$$!

It's all about legal definitions whereby a couple may qualify for government and insurance benefits. That's what SCOTUS has to determine. That and the right of individual states to determine that legal definition. :roll:

It's about both, and more.
 
The question before the court is whether it was legal to uphold that "tradition". Voters do not get to vote to break the law.

I understand that, although I don't think it's breaking the law to uphold the traditional definition and be forced to change it. I think the law breaking would come in violating a states rights and their constitutions. I view SSM as an issue of policy with it being legally changing the definition of marriage.
 
I understand that, although I don't think it's breaking the law to uphold the traditional definition and be forced to change it. I think the law breaking would come in violating a states rights and their constitutions. I view SSM as an issue of policy with it being legally changing the definition of marriage.

What about individual rights?
 
What about individual rights?

Individuals have the right to speak, vote and amend their state constitutions/Federal Constitution. You don't have a right to change policy simply because you disagree with it or feel it violates your rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom