• 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

digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

WOW the State has more rights than the individual. That is pretty damn scary.
 
winston53660 said:
WOW the State has more rights than the individual. That is pretty damn scary.
Click to expand...

What's damn scary is saying voters have no rights to change and define legal terms in their constitution because some feel it's their right to impose their definition upon everyone and thus can violate the democratic process. Defining marriage is an issue of policy.
 
digsbe said:
What's damn scary is saying voters have no rights to change and define legal terms in their constitution because some feel it's their right to impose their definition upon everyone and thus can violate the democratic process. Defining marriage is an issue of policy.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the tyranny of the majority
 
winston53660 said:
You are talking about the tyranny of the majority
Click to expand...

It would be tyranny to say that people can't vote and have their belief on the definition of marriage being one man one woman upheld into law. Tyranny would be overriding a publicly supported policy because a minority wants to declare it's their right to do so. Marriage has legally been the union between a man and woman, that's not unconstitutional. States have jurisdiction over marriages, some allow for cousin marriage and SSM, others do not. It's within the rights of those states and the rights of the people to vote and change state policies.
 
digsbe said:
It would be tyranny to say that people can't vote and have their belief on the definition of marriage being one man one woman upheld into law. Tyranny would be overriding a publicly supported policy because a minority wants to declare it's their right to do so. Marriage has legally been the union between a man and woman, that's not unconstitutional. States have jurisdiction over marriages, some allow for cousin marriage and SSM, others do not. It's within the rights of those states and the rights of the people to vote and change state policies.
Click to expand...


Tyranny is taking individuals freedoms away via the state
 
winston53660 said:
Tyranny is taking individuals freedoms away via the state
Click to expand...

And the freedom being taken away is the right to vote and the states sovereignty to govern and define what is within their jurisdiction. Is it Tyranny to have a progressive tax system?
 
digsbe said:
And the freedom being taken away is the right to vote and the states sovereignty to govern and define what is within their jurisdiction. Is it Tyranny to have a progressive tax system?
Click to expand...

And again you give States rights prerogative over individual rights.
 
winston53660 said:
And again you give States rights prerogative over individual rights.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the individual rights lie in an individuals right to vote and speak on an issue.
 
digsbe said:
What's damn scary is saying voters have no rights to change and define legal terms in their constitution because some feel it's their right to impose their definition upon everyone and thus can violate the democratic process. Defining marriage is an issue of policy.
Click to expand...

Kindof like defining "people" was an issue of policy!

digsbe said:
Like I said, the individual rights lie in an individuals right to vote and speak on an issue.
Click to expand...

That is objectively false in any number of situations.
 
Mr.Nick said:
If progressives are really this passionate about gay marriage than why don't they TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of running to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah they can't because defining marriage is impossible not to mention a slippery slope argument, or the so-called fallacies they refuse to recognize even exist. They can't do it because defining would be de facto discrimination.

Unbelievable...
Click to expand...

Well we don't need to because unequal treatment under the law is already unconstitutional.
 
Philly Boss said:
Well we don't need to because unequal treatment under the law is already unconstitutional.
Click to expand...



There is a difference between freedom and equality....
 
Last edited:
Philly Boss said:
Thanks for that irrelevant observation. Now go read the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

the 14th states privileges<----- and immunities, due process of law, and that governments cannot discriminate.

privileges and rights are two different things, marriage would have to be declared a right, to call it inequality, privileges through licensing are not given to every American, you have to meet what the state sets as the standard.

marriage cannot be a right because it imposes on another person or entity force, because marriage is a contract, and no one has the authority to force a third party to be part of a marriage, by preforming a ceremony.

nothing can be a right if it has the power of force behind it.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
the 14th states privileges<----- and immunities, due process of law, and that governments cannot discriminate.

privileges and rights are two different things, marriage would have to be declared a right, to call it inequality, privileges through licensing are not given to every American, you have to meet what the state sets as the standard.

marriage cannot be a right because it imposes on another person or entity force, because marriage is a contract, and no one has the authority to force a third party to be part of a marriage, by preforming a ceremony.

nothing can be a right if it has the power of force behind it.
Click to expand...

Marraige is legally in this country a right, and has been affirmed so in numerous(15?) supreme court rulings.
 
Redress said:
Marraige is legally in this country a right, and has been affirmed so in numerous(15?) supreme court rulings.
Click to expand...

if that were true, then it would be and open and shut case, and the court would just reference a case which state that.

you understand, that a right is an ABSOLUTE, and MUST BE FULFILLED.

if marriage were a right then you could force a person or an entity to marry you.

therefore they are in servitude to serve your rights....and that's illogical when it comes to rights, because they have no force behind them.

anything which places a demand for goods and services on another is unconstitutional, ....food ,water, housing, healthcare...cannot be rights.....because it requires other people to pay for them, so you can have them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if that were true, then it would be and open and shut case, and the court would just reference a case which state that.

you understand, that a right is an ABSOLUTE, and MUST BE FULFILLED.

if marriage were a right then you could force a person or an entity to marry you.

therefore they are in servitude to serve your needs....and that's illogical when it comes to rights, because they have no force behind them.

anything which places a demand for goods and services on another is unconstitutional, ....food ,water, housing, healthcare...cannot be rights.....because it requires other people to pay for them, so you can have them.
Click to expand...

Huh what?

Let's take this step by step. Marriage is a right: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Click to expand...


So we now know that marriage is in fact a right as defined in US law.

For the rest of your post...huh what?
 
Redress said:
Huh what?

Let's take this step by step. Marriage is a right: FindLaw | Cases and Codes




So we now know that marriage is in fact a right as defined in US law.

For the rest of your post...huh what?
Click to expand...

sorry, these so call civil rights ....are not rights at all, government cannot create rights, only privileges.

the 14th amendment to the constitution can be repealed, at any time, the Bill of Rights...cannot be repealed according to the founders, which state they are unalienable.

if you have a right to have something, then it cannot be denied to you, therefore you can DEMAND IT GIVEN TO YOU, ....can you make other citizens or governments give you things?....no!

marriage is licensed, anything that is licensed, is a privilege dispensed by government, and they set the standard for obtain that license

do you have a right to be a hairdresser, a retailor...they are licensed, and you must do what the state expects to get the license from them.

a right is absolute, which you need no authority to act on.

a privilege , you need higher authority to act on.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
the 14th states privileges<----- and immunities, due process of law, and that governments cannot discriminate.

privileges and rights are two different things, marriage would have to be declared a right, to call it inequality, privileges through licensing are not given to every American, you have to meet what the state sets as the standard.

marriage cannot be a right because it imposes on another person or entity force, because marriage is a contract, and no one has the authority to force a third party to be part of a marriage, by preforming a ceremony.

nothing can be a right if it has the power of force behind it.
Click to expand...

I have good news for you, nobody is suggesting anyone will be forced to perform the ceremony!

ernst barkmann said:
sorry, these so call civil rights ....are not rights at all, government cannot create rights, only privileges.

the 14th amendment to the constitution can be repealed, at any time, the Bill of Rights...cannot be repealed according to the founders, which state they are unalienable.

if you have a right to have something, then it cannot be denied to you, therefore you can DEMAND IT GIVEN TO YOU, ....can you make other citizens or governments give you things?....no!

marriage is licensed, anything that is licensed, is a privilege dispensed by government, and they set the standard for obtain that license

do you have a right to be a hairdresser, a retailor...they are licensed, and you must do what the state expects to get the license from them.

a right is absolute, which you need no authority to act on.

a privilege , you need higher authority to act on.
Click to expand...

So you are literally arguing over semantics here. Is that really your basis for opposing same-sex marriage? Quibbling over rights vs. privileges? According to George Carlin, we don't have any rights at all, ever, because the government can and does take them away. Fine, whatever, interpret it that way if you like. What does that have to do with whether or not the government should recognize a marriage contract between two people of the same gender?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry, these so call civil rights ....are not rights at all, government cannot create rights, only privileges.

the 14th amendment to the constitution can be repealed, at any time, the Bill of Rights...cannot be repealed according to the founders, which state they are unalienable.

if you have a right to have something, then it cannot be denied to you, therefore you can DEMAND IT GIVEN TO YOU, ....can you make other citizens or governments give you things?....no!

marriage is licensed, anything that is licensed, is a privilege dispensed by government, and they set the standard for obtain that license

do you have a right to be a hairdresser, a retailor...they are licensed, and you must do what the state expects to get the license from them.

a right is absolute, which you need no authority to act on.

a privilege , you need higher authority to act on.
Click to expand...

The bill of rights can absolutely be repealed with the same process that would be used to repeal any other amendment.
 
clownboy said:
Part of the oath of office:



Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment upheld by the state supreme court - it wasn't just any law or ballot measure.
Click to expand...

It mentions supporting and defending both constitutions. So if they conflict, then the person cannot do both legitimately. They must choose which one they will defend and that is their choice and right to choose.
 
Philly Boss said:
The bill of rights can absolutely be repealed with the same process that would be used to repeal any other amendment.
Click to expand...

according to the foundering fathers in their letters they cannot........to do so would then, would make the rights of the people,....not unalienable.

rights are unalienable

how can the federal government, then the state governments who would try to repeal the amendments, have power to take away rights of the people......are not rights in the people hands-----> not governments.

government is does give or take rights.

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
 
ernst barkmann said:
"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
Click to expand...

I have no clue where you people get the idea that just because they founded this nation, they are somehow godlike. The founding fathers were just men.
 
Cephus said:
I have no clue where you people get the idea that just because they founded this nation, they are somehow godlike. The founding fathers were just men.
Click to expand...

are you saying government dispenses rights to the people?

therefore any time government feels your rights should be taken from you-----> they can do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom