• 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]

Anthony60 said:
Really? Tell me where two same sex people could go get married before recent developments.
Click to expand...

The definition of marriage is in how it operates, not the restrictions placed on it.

And socially, there have been people who accepted same sex couples as married for much longer than it has been legal anywhere. Same sex couples have been fighting for legal marriage since the 70s. They have existed since the dawn of man. And in several places in the past, they have been legally allowed to marry.

And two people of the same sex can be married legally in every state except Tennessee because that is the only state that does not grant legal sex changes to anyone. The other states all grant legal sex changes even if the person is legally married to a person of the opposite sex of their born birth. They cannot legally dissolve these marriages because they were entered into legally.
 
ernst barkmann said:
here, is you famous 14th amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


even your amendment recognizes the right to property!

discrimination laws are statutory laws.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
Click to expand...

Which has been held up to mean that we can't discriminate. Sorry you lost on this, but if you'd followed the civil rights movement, you'd know why.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which has been held up to mean that we can't discriminate. Sorry you lost on this, but if you'd followed the civil rights movement, you'd know why.
Click to expand...

when did the court rule the constitution is written for people or business to limit their freedom?
 
Anthony60 said:
In this country, no.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not by the white folks.

Two-Spirit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two-spirits might have relationships with people of either sex.[SUP] [/SUP] Female-bodied two-spirits usually had sexual relations or marriages with only females.[SUP][/SUP] In the Lakota tribe, two-spirits commonly married widowers; a male-bodied two-spirit could perform the function of parenting the children of her husband's late wife without any risk of bearing new children to whom she might give priority.
Click to expand...
 
Moderator's Warning:
People... enough with the socialism, fascism, whatever-ism. Stick to the topic of the thread.
 
disneydude said:
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California - latimes.com


"Same-sex marriages in California resumed Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a hold on a 2010 injunction, sparking jubilation among gays and cries of lawlessness from the supporters of Proposition 8.


In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge’s order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional."


Prop H8 is dead!!!! Let Freedom ring!
Click to expand...

:cheers:

Congrats to California, have fun being able to board that sinking ship just like the rest of us.:cool:
 
ernst barkmann said:
when did the court rule the constitution is written for people or business to limit their freedom?
Click to expand...

The upheld the civil rights ruling and said it did not violate the Constitution. you read that last night.
 
Boo Radley said:
The upheld the civil rights ruling and said it did not violate the Constitution. you read that last night.
Click to expand...

i didn't, but i have looked at it before, those laws are statutory laws,, and those laws are subordinate to constitutional law.

civil right laws, which pertain to government action of discrimination on there part are constitutional, becuase the constitution says the government cannot discriminate.

however no constitutional law, prohibits people or business from discrimination, therefore any federal statues applying to people or private business are unconstitutional, becuase they have no power of constructional law to back it up.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i didn't, but i have looked at it before, those laws are statutory laws,, and those laws are subordinate to constitutional law.

civil right laws, which pertain to government action of discrimination on there part are constitutional, becuase the constitution says the government cannot discriminate.

however no constitutional law, prohibits people or business from discrimination, therefore any federal statues applying to people or private business are unconstitutional, becuase they have no power of constructional law to back it up.
Click to expand...

Again, I've linked the case for you. Sorry. It was ruled it did not violate the Constitution. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, I've linked the case for you. Sorry. It was ruled it did not violate the Constitution. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


sorry...Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy). Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry...Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy). Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating it, but the court still ruled it did not violate the Constitution. It is what it is. And in context of the history, we should all be fine with it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Keep repeating it, but the court still ruled it did not violate the Constitution. It is what it is. And in context of the history, we should all be fine with it.
Click to expand...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yeah...I think I just made that argument. The point was that same sex marriage has existed before. In fact it was Christian emperors who passed the first same sex marriage ban. So in a sense, this is a debate that has gone on as long as marriage has been codified by law.
Click to expand...

no it proves the point that over a few thousands of years of civilized history you can only find two examples of gay marriage, and the two examples you give were lunatic maniacs. How does that make anyone want to jump on board as far as historical precedence goes
 
JoeTrumps said:
no it proves the point that over a few thousands of years of civilized history you can only find two examples of gay marriage, and the two examples you give were lunatic maniacs. How does that make anyone want to jump on board as far as historical precedence goes
Click to expand...

Historical precedence holds that women had very little rights in marriage, particularly as compared to her husband. Relying on historical precedence as a foundation for how we should view marriage will not work today and is a failed argument.
 
roguenuke said:
Historical precedence holds that women had very little rights in marriage, particularly as compared to her husband. Relying on historical precedence as a foundation for how we should view marriage will not work today and is a failed argument.
Click to expand...

But I can click quite a few civilized societies where women had great or equal power in a marriage(ancient sparta comes to mind), where you can't name a single society where homosexuals could marry in a common fasion. not to say they were not accepted in some societies, they were and are. but on this specific issue there is no historical context to be found.
 
JoeTrumps said:
But I can click quite a few civilized societies where women had great or equal power in a marriage(ancient sparta comes to mind), where you can't name a single society where homosexuals could marry in a common fasion. not to say they were not accepted in some societies, they were and are. but on this specific issue there is no historical context to be found.
Click to expand...

No you can't. They did not have full equality at all. I dare you to show one society where women and men had all the same rights in marriage. Where marriages were basically genderless in how they operated. I bet you can't find more than one, if that. And it is highly unlikely that you find one that we have much in common with today. In fact, the most likely places to find women accepted as close to if not equal to men were indigenous tribes, such as those in Africa (in the past) or America (pre-European discovery). Also the same places where homosexuality was accepted as part of society and such couples allowed to marry.

Even in Sparta. They were more equal to men compared to other places. They were not in fact equal to men. Many marriages were still arranged by fathers for the bride or women captured during battle who became wives. Pretty sure wives had little say in whether or not they were shared with younger men in order to have a stronger child.
 
disneydude said:
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California - latimes.com


"Same-sex marriages in California resumed Friday when a federal appeals court lifted a hold on a 2010 injunction, sparking jubilation among gays and cries of lawlessness from the supporters of Proposition 8.


In a surprise action, a federal appeals court cleared the way, bypassing a normal waiting period and lifting a hold on a trial judge’s order that declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional."


Prop H8 is dead!!!! Let Freedom ring!
Click to expand...

Prop 8 was democratically passed.

This is just another example of how anti-democratic progressives actually are.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Prop 8 was democratically passed.

This is just another example of how anti-democratic progressives actually are.
Click to expand...

So were many interracial marriage bans and segregation of schools laws.
 
roguenuke said:
So were many interracial marriage bans and segregation of schools laws.
Click to expand...

And you know what?

Those laws were changed because the constitution was amended or addendums were added to preexisting amendments.

You see how that works?

Furthermore if Prop 8 was so damn illegal then how the hell did it even make it on the ballot? got an answer for that?

Oh yeah that's right - states allegedly are protected by the Tenth Amendment...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Prop 8 was democratically passed.

This is just another example of how anti-democratic progressives actually are.
Click to expand...

And?

California has a history of voters passing poorly written unconstitutional initiatives. What is your point?
 
disneydude said:
And?

California has a history of voters passing poorly written unconstitutional initiatives. What is your point?
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** how poor of a law you think prop 8 is - the fact is that the law was democratically passed...

Your opinion is moot....

Why not amend the constitution?? oh yeah because gay marriage would NEVER pass -- even at the federal level.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I don't give a **** how poor of a law you think prop 8 is - the fact is that the law was democratically passed...

Your opinion is moot....

Why not amend the constitution?? oh yeah because gay marriage would NEVER pass -- even at the federal level.
Click to expand...

so are you saying you think all laws that are voted on should be passed and upheld even if they violate the constitution or rights? that hilarious, you are in the wrong country.
 
AGENT J said:
so are you saying you think all laws that are voted on should be passed and upheld even if they violate the constitution or rights? that hilarious, you are in the wrong country.
Click to expand...

Sorry but prop 8 was exactly that - a proposition passed via direct democracy....

If prop 8 violated the constitution then why the **** was it on the ballot?

Prop 8 DOES NOT violate the constitution because marriage is NOT a right or civil liberty - it never was in the United States and it never will be.
 
Mr.Nick said:
And you know what?

Those laws were changed because the constitution was amended or addendums were added to preexisting amendments.

You see how that works?

Furthermore if Prop 8 was so damn illegal then how the hell did it even make it on the ballot? got an answer for that?

Oh yeah that's right - states allegedly are protected by the Tenth Amendment...
Click to expand...

No they weren't. They were both struck down after decades of fighting them under the 14th Amendment, put in place right after the Civil War. Those laws weren't struck down until the 1960s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom