• 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!

Mary Fallin blocks same-sex benefits

tererun said:
Actually, california had a ban and it's state judicial overturned it. The supreme court wouldn't touch it because no one had standing to fight for the ban since the state would not fight for it. If you have a state that is willing to fight for it SCOTUS will touch it. In the end since precedent is set and the language was set in place to call it unconstitutional we already know that decision is coming when it does get there.

You can cheer for the small victories of spiteful denial of equal rights to gays, but slowly the courts will iron out any loopholes and each one of those victories will turn into defeat for you. So cheer now because we all know later we will be laughing as people like you get personally offended as the courts keep stepping on your ability to discriminate.
Click to expand...
Californians got screwed but they had no amendment...............I am not denying anyones rights...I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.
 
Navy Pride said:
Californians got screwed but the had no amendment...............I am not denying anyones rights...I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.
Click to expand...

You are denying the right to marriage and benefits from said marriage every step of the way. Frankly, I find it amusing you talk about "libs" so much when there is hardly anything more liberal than a guy promoting "the will of the people."
 
Anagram said:
That's not even true any more. The majority of states who have it either voted on it or had it enacted by their legislature. And at the very least all the states except Iowa who had it implemented by judges favor it now anyway.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong One state I believe it was Iowa even recalled the Judges that made that decision
 
Fiddytree said:
You are denying the right to marriage and benefits from said marriage every step of the way. Frankly, I find it amusing you talk about "libs" so much when there is hardly anything more liberal than a guy promoting "the will of the people."
Click to expand...

I am not denying anyones rights...I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.
 
Navy Pride said:
You are simply wrong One state I believe it was Iowa even recalled the Judges that made that decision
Click to expand...

So Navy, about that state's rights stuff? Do you still buy into it?
 
Fiddytree said:
And what of those states that did not, and in fact voted in favor of gay marriage? What of those that have yet to decide, or could overturn their state amendments? The use of the federal government is a means to prevent that from happening, yes?
Click to expand...

You got all your going to get and you may not hold on to all of them
 
Navy Pride said:
You are simply wrong One state I believe it was Iowa even recalled the Judges that made that decision
Click to expand...

Which is why I said except Iowa. The other three, Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut have had multiple polls showing significant support for Same-sex marriage since it has become legal. It is also shown by less liberal states in similar regions and with similar demographics in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting for same sex marriage.
 
So what happens when the "will of the people" contradicts the constitution?
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not denying anyones rights...I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.
Click to expand...

Well we know that's not true. You don't want any person to get federal benefits as a result of gay marriage, you don't want marriage rights to transfer across state borders, you don't want gay marriage by way of judiciary, legislature, or popular referendum. If a majority of the populace in a state voted in favor of gay marriage, or even tacitly bought into it via another mechanism, you would turn to the federal government to overturn it.

Hell, Navy, the only thing that we can't get you to admit to is that even if a majority of the country and the states agreed to gay marriage, you'd still support the minority trying to remove it.
 
Anagram said:
Which is why I said except Iowa. The other three, Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut have had multiple polls showing significant support for Same-sex marriage since it has become legal. It is also shown by less liberal states in similar regions and with similar demographics in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting for same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? the people of Cal voted against gay marriage several times and have never voted for it.....A gay judge on the 9th circuit who wanted to marry his male lover overturned he will of the people.
 
Navy Pride said:
always have, always will. Keep the Fed Gov out of states business.
Click to expand...

You spoke for years about the need to have the feds step in. A constitutional amendment is having the government tell the states their business. You have little qualms with that. You said so yourself years ago.

Face it Navy. If we are going by that small government definition of conservative, you'd be a flaming liberal. Even your promotion of mass democracy against the elites would grant you that label.
 
Fiddytree said:
Well we know that's not true. You don't want any person to get federal benefits as a result of gay marriage, you don't want marriage rights to transfer across state borders, you don't want gay marriage by way of judiciary, legislature, or popular referendum. If a majority of the populace in a state voted in favor of gay marriage, or even tacitly bought into it via another mechanism, you would turn to the federal government to overturn it.

Hell, Navy, the only thing that we can't get you to admit to is that even if a majority of the country and the states agreed to gay marriage, you'd still support the minority trying to remove it.
Click to expand...

Now I want you to concentrate like a laser beam as I have said I don't care what gays call their marriage I just don't want the definition of marriage changed.
 
Navy Pride said:
What are you smoking? the people of Cal voted against gay marriage several times and have never voted for it.....A gay judge on the 9th circuit who wanted to marry his male lover overturned he will of the people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 5 years ago. Since then, their opinions have changed. Multiple polls show California approving gay marriage. Less liberal Washington voted to support it. It's fairly safe to say Prop 8 would lose today.
 
Anagram said:
Which is why I said except Iowa. The other three, Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut have had multiple polls showing significant support for Same-sex marriage since it has become legal. It is also shown by less liberal states in similar regions and with similar demographics in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voting for same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Conn and Mass very blue states
 
Navy Pride said:
Californians got screwed but they had no amendment...............I am not denying anyones rights...I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.
Click to expand...

First off, prop-8 was an amendment that was passed by the people banning marriage, and you know that so you are lying. You are denying equality under the law. That is a doomed argument in the courts. Your argument here is based on a fantasy land which you live in. Since we are not forced to live in your make believe world it might be nice if you joined us in this one.
 
Navy Pride said:
Conn and Mass very blue states
Click to expand...

Yes, what's your point. I was just showing you that most states where SSM is legal was not the result of judicial proceedings and the ones where it was would support SSM now anyway.
 
Navy Pride said:
Now I want you to concentrate like a laser beam as I have said I don't care what gays call their marriage I just don't want the definition of marriage changed.
Click to expand...

That's it, Navy, retreat, but don't forget what you said. You don't get off that easy, pal. You have said you were approaching this from a state's rights position. That was patently false. You even argued from the liberal position about "the will of the people", my Left-wing friend.
 
tererun said:
First off, prop-8 was an amendment that was passed by the people banning marriage, and you know that so you are lying. You are denying equality under the law. That is a doomed argument in the courts. Your argument here is based on a fantasy land which you live in. Since we are not forced to live in your make believe world it might be nice if you joined us in this one.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.....Prop 8 was a referendum. very different from a constitutional amendment.
 
Navy Pride said:
Wrong again.....Prop 8 was a referendum. very different from a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

It was a constitutional amendment that passed by ballot proposition. In California, State Constitutional Amendments can be passed that way.
 
Fiddytree said:
That's it, Navy, retreat, but don't forget what you said. You don't get off that easy, pal. You have said you were approaching this from a state's rights position. That was patently false. You even argued from the liberal position about "the will of the people", my Left-wing friend.
Click to expand...

Whatever as and Independent Conservative I am always for states right............One question.....Why do you call yourself a centrist when your one of the biggest libs in DP .......Why are you ashamed..........I wear my conservatism like a badge of honor and would never deny it. God Bless Ronald Reagan
 
Navy Pride said:
Whatever as and Independent Conservative I am always for states right............One question.....Why do you call yourself a centrist when your one of the biggest libs in DP .......Why are you ashamed..........I wear my conservatism like a badge of honor and would never deny it. God Bless Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

God knows how you can keep up this thing about state's rights when we already have established you aren't.
Because I am, according to the political spectrum today, a slight-right of center authoritarian and anti-populist. From my angle, many times you conservatives sound like the liberals of yonder. Furthermore, Ronald Reagan's record on state's rights is also mixed, and loved FDR.
 
Navy Pride said:
I did support DOMA and so did 90% of the Senate signed by President Clinton into law.
Click to expand...

DOMA was a big government federal over states rights law, so, as I stated, claiming to be for small government and states rights is a lie on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom