• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

Rule of the People? That is a scary proposition. America would look like Egypt.

the founders did not want what is know as direct rule of the people, which is why america was created with a mixed constitution.....federalist 40

direct rule or popular government is democracy or majority rule which the founders sought to void be it direct or representative democracy .....they liked neither.
 
If you knew anything about the Yes on H8 campaign...it was funded in large part by the Mormon church....so you are absolutely dead wrong.

My facts are correct, sorry Charlie. The Mormon church should be ashamed of themselves.
how can i be dead wrong if i agree with you that they provided funding?
( it wasn't " in large part".. it was less than 200k... you are confusing the church with individual member donations )


you previously stated the church ran ads , propagandized, and told lies.... each of those claims is false.
you are confusing the campaign with the church.... which are two separate entities altogether.

don't get mad at me... it's not my fault you can't tell the difference between the campaign and the church.
 
Kinda like how the conservotards are all about judicial activism ... until the courts hand down a decision they like.

Yeah, but it was the pro-gay marriage folks that raised nine kinds of hell that this should be put to a referendum. Then, when things didn't go their way, they through a temper-tantrum. It is what it, bro; ain't no denying it.
 
Constitution of the United States = The Will of the People. A 51% majority vote in one state is not the will of the people. It is the document that serves as the supreme law of our land that is the will of the people.

It's the will of the people in which the referendum will serve as law.
 
As I understood the Constitution, one of its core principles was to protect against the tyranny of majority.

Not only that, but I'm not too keen on the idea that equal treatment and human rights are subject to the will of the people.

agreed, but that stuff seems to be out of style, especially in California.... the mob can vote on anything out there ( ballot initiatives) if they can find 500k signatures ( 800k for constitutional amendments)

no way in hell will they restrict voting on human rights or equal treatment though..... the only qualifier for a ballot initiative is signatures..content/substance is not restricted
 
Sortof like conservatives are all about individual liberty except when they want to infringe on someone else's individual liberty. Then the will of the people is supreme, and **** rights. **** the constitution.

Like gun control? Oh...wait...
 
Ah we should crawl to our betters and say please massa can we please have equal rights? Not. we are going to demand equality and take it.

Nice race card you're playing, there.
 
Agreed, but that's not my point.


this is not a argument with you, just a question.

why if the majority vote to ban gay marriage ,did they not throw out the politicians of California and replace them, with those are are against gay marriage.

that's is the way the system is suppose to work, you petition your government and if the are unresponsive you get rid of them, and if they become tyrannical in you taking action against them, you throw off that government and create a new one.
 
this is not a argument with you, just a question.

why if the majority vote to ban gay marriage ,did they not throw out the politicians of California and replace them, with those are are against gay marriage.

that's is the way the system is suppose to work, you petition your government and if the are unresponsive you get rid of them, and if they become tyrannical in you taking action against them, you throw off that government and create a new one.

For the same reason that Prop 8 failed in referendum.
 
No race card.

We are not asking for liberty. We are demanding and taking our liberty.

No race card? Why did you use, "massa"? Are gays some kind of slave? That's stupid.
 
No race card? Why did you use, "massa"? Are gays some kind of slave? That's stupid.

We are second class citizens at the moment. It is changing quickly though.
 
I will always stand in awe at APDST.

Taking the most rediculous positions, getting annihilated and just continuing to dig himself deeper and deeper.

Rather entertaining eh chaps?
 
Yeah, but it was the pro-gay marriage folks that raised nine kinds of hell that this should be put to a referendum. Then, when things didn't go their way, they through a temper-tantrum. It is what it, bro; ain't no denying it.

No it wasn't. The opponents of same sex marriage came up with Prop 8 to counter same sex marriage being made legal. Same sex marriage was legal. Very few sane proponents of ssm would actually want a referendum with such odds to be voted on when they had what they wanted. It is very wrong to believe that pro-ssm people wanted a vote on same sex marriage. The majority of same sex marriage proponents say that people should not be voting on other people's rights. The only reason it is being done is because either a) same sex marriage opponents pushed for the referendum or b) same sex marriage proponents are pushing to repeal a referendum or law already passed by the opponents. The voting on same sex marriage always starts with anti-ssm people, not with pro-ssm people.
 
No race card.

We are not asking for liberty. We are demanding and taking our liberty.

umm, not so much... you sat back and waited for SCOTUS to rule on the case like the rest of us.
you demanded it, but you sure as hell didn't take it.

I support SSM, but lets not get carried away here...
 
umm, not so much... you sat back and waited for SCOTUS to rule on the case like the rest of us.
you demanded it, but you sure as hell didn't take it.

I support SSM, but lets not get carried away here...

I guess these lawsuits just file themselves.

The push for equality is in full swing.
 
The ordeal goes back even further, to 2004 really, when a judge ordered an end to marriages in CA. So after the better part of a decade of this nonsense, some happy couples are finally vindicated.
 
I guess these lawsuits just file themselves.

The push for equality is in full swing.

no, they don't file themselves... but chill out , you're no warrior , you're not taking anything..... you're sitting on your ass waiting for government to give you rights.

I have little interest in equality... I have lots of interest in rights, freedom, and liberties
 
no, they don't file themselves... but chill out , you're no warrior , you're not taking anything..... you're sitting on your ass waiting for government to give you rights.

I have little interest in equality... I have lots of interest in rights, freedom, and liberties

I have an interest in rights, freedom, and liberty. I want them equally.

I don't just sit around either. I am active and canvased for Houston's first openly gay mayor.
 
Back
Top Bottom