• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
Just a technical point...

It wouldn't take a 4% shift. Using your 4% number that represents a 52-48% result. Prop 8 squeaked by on a narrow margin. It only takes a 2% shift to change the outcome. The outcome for California referendums are based on 50%+1 to pass.

Prop 22 (2000) passed with a 23% margin of victory. Prop 8 passed by 5%. From 2000 to 2008 that is a shift of 2.25% per year over the intervening years. If that trend continued on an upward slope, then Prop 8 would have been repealed by the voters in 2012 if it had been on the ballot.

Personally I think there would have been a lot more capital to be made via a repeal effort instead of doing it through the courts. The court victory was a tactical victory, repeal would have been a strategic victory.



>>>>
Click to expand...

There was a heated debate on whether - and when - to go back to the polls. (I was on a couple of the email lists debating it; I'm sure it was happening even more than I saw.)

Go back in 2010? But that's an off-year election, and that tends to draw conservative voters. So I think most groups were looking at 2012.

But in Aug, 2010, Judge Walker made his ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional; at that point, it didn't seem the best strategy to spend the money to get an initiative on the ballot when the courts could settle it.

BEFORE the Perry vs Schwarzenegger case, a lot of people in the LGBT community did NOT want to go to the courts, for fear of what the Supreme Court would do. There were groups that did not support the Perry case at first. But it was so strong, and the lawyers were so good, that I think everyone came around to supporting that approach.

But going back to repeal Prop 8 was definitely the plan until the court case happened; but I think the general feeling was 2012 would be better than 2010, and by then it seemed unnecessary.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
There was a heated debate on whether - and when - to go back to the polls. (I was on a couple of the email lists debating it; I'm sure it was happening even more than I saw.)

Go back in 2010? But that's an off-year election, and that tends to draw conservative voters. So I think most groups were looking at 2012.

But in Aug, 2010, Judge Walker made his ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional; at that point, it didn't seem the best strategy to spend the money to get an initiative on the ballot when the courts could settle it.

BEFORE the Perry vs Schwarzenegger case, a lot of people in the LGBT community did NOT want to go to the courts, for fear of what the Supreme Court would do. There were groups that did not support the Perry case at first. But it was so strong, and the lawyers were so good, that I think everyone came around to supporting that approach.

But going back to repeal Prop 8 was definitely the plan until the court case happened; but I think the general feeling was 2012 would be better than 2010, and by then it seemed unnecessary.
Click to expand...


I agree that 2012 would have been a better target for a repeal vote. I'm not commenting on what other people "felt" ( ;) ), I was pointing out the difference between a tactical victory and a strategic victory. Winning the court case so that SSCM resumed in CA via a court case was a tactical victory, IMHO though there would have been much more strategic value in having the voters repeal it.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Can you think of anything that was the impetus for these amendments? Or do you think they just came up with them out of the blue?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter why the Amendments were put into place. The way they are written easily cover everyone constitutionally. "Cruel and unusual punishment" would not cover nearly as much as it currently does. Arms wouldn't cover or exclude what we currently do if we went on a meaning based from the 17/1800s.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
It really doesn't matter why the Amendments were put into place. The way they are written easily cover everyone constitutionally. "Cruel and unusual punishment" would not cover nearly as much as it currently does. Arms wouldn't cover or exclude what we currently do if we went on a meaning based from the 17/1800s.
Click to expand...

But it does. They easily cover if they are misinterpreted (which they are). Arms was written with the intention of what the military had, so it doesn't exclude.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
But it does. They easily cover if they are misinterpreted (which they are). Arms was written with the intention of what the military had, so it doesn't exclude.
Click to expand...

They cover what they need to. The entire intent of the whole Constitution is to restrict the government from denying rights to individuals. The 14th expanded that to the states. No matter the intent originally, the base intent is to treat everyone fairly to the biggest degree possibly in the law, to not allow others to be able to unfairly have power over certain people just because they possess the numbers (hence why we are not a direct democracy, but rather a constitutional republic).
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
I agree that 2012 would have been a better target for a repeal vote. I'm not commenting on what other people "felt" ( ;) ), I was pointing out the difference between a tactical victory and a strategic victory. Winning the court case so that SSCM resumed in CA via a court case was a tactical victory, IMHO though there would have been much more strategic value in having the voters repeal it.


>>>>
Click to expand...

I agree, but by 2012 it sure looked like a waste of money and time to go to the polls to get it repealed. Not saying you're wrong, though.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Old democrats and independents?
Click to expand...

There's a slide in this deck that shows voter registration by age - (around slide 15)
http://jonathanfoxucsc.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/uc_sac_center_fox_romero_jan24-final_pdf.pdf
Yes, they are more dem than repub, but less so than younger voters


and this site says
Forty-two percent of likely voters in California are 55 years or older, though this age group makes up only 30% of the state’s adult population.
Click to expand...
California's Likely Voters (PPIC Publication)


This site says
Driving Factors of Prop 8 Vote - Let California Ring
WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 — An in-depth analysis of the Proposition 8 vote released today shows that party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending worship services and age were the driving forces behind the measure’s passage on Nov. 4. The study finds that after taking into account the effect of church attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups. Through a precinct-by-precinct analysis and review of multiple other sources of data, the study also puts African-American support for Proposition 8 at no more than 59 percent, nowhere close to the 70 percent reported the night of the election. Finally, the study shows how support for marriage equality has grown substantially across almost all California demographic groups — except Republicans.
Click to expand...
and
More than two-thirds (67 percent) of voters 65 or older supported Proposition 8, while majorities under 65 opposed it.
Click to expand...

So with that last quote my guess is yes, some older dems joined in repubs in voting for prop 8. Do you have a point in asking that?

Key thing is - older voters tend to be more against SSM, but others are more in favor of it; the study just above finds:
The study found that overall support for marriage equality has increased by 9 percent since 2000, with support increasing among every age group under age 65, across all racial and ethnic groups and among Protestants, Catholics and Jews. There are three “holdout” groups where voting patterns have not changed: Republicans, conservatives, and those 65 and older. The largest gain — up 16 percent — was among voters 45-64 years of age, followed by a 13 percent increase among voters 18-29.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
It really doesn't matter why the Amendments were put into place. The way they are written easily cover everyone constitutionally. "Cruel and unusual punishment" would not cover nearly as much as it currently does. Arms wouldn't cover or exclude what we currently do if we went on a meaning based from the 17/1800s.
Click to expand...
The problem we have today is that the left tries to stretch and twist the words to get them to cover their left wing agenda. Equal protection means that everyone is treated the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone can get married. Same sex people can not get married. It applies to all. Completely equal.

There is no federal power to force states to change the meaning of marriage. That power lies with the states. If the people of a state choose to change the meaning of marriage, so be it. Utah chose not to.

I object to the federal government taking an unconstitutional action in this case.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
The problem we have today is that the left tries to stretch and twist the words to get them to cover their left wing agenda. Equal protection means that everyone is treated the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone can get married. Same sex people can not get married. It applies to all. Completely equal.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why not same sex couples?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
The problem we have today is that the left tries to stretch and twist the words to get them to cover their left wing agenda. Equal protection means that everyone is treated the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone can get married. Same sex people can not get married. It applies to all. Completely equal.

There is no federal power to force states to change the meaning of marriage. That power lies with the states. If the people of a state choose to change the meaning of marriage, so be it. Utah chose not to.

I object to the federal government taking an unconstitutional action in this case.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a federal right (see cases re prisoners who want to marry).

So the question is - is there any compelling interest for the state to keep two particular people from marrying, even if they are of the same gender? If not, then you cannot deny them the right to marry.

Federal constitution overrides states.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
So the question is - is there any compelling interest for the state to keep two particular people from marrying
Click to expand...

The fact that marriage does not mean same sex, except when politically motivated.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The fact that marriage does not mean same sex, except when politically motivated.
Click to expand...

It means same sex to same sex couples...and much of the rest of the US. So their expectations are the same.

And since politics decided that straight couples get benefits, privileges, and legal protections....and then extended that to bi-racial couples...and previously removed them from polygamous marriages....then it seems relevant that politics be consistent in how they apply their considerable weight.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
The problem we have today is that the left tries to stretch and twist the words to get them to cover their left wing agenda. Equal protection means that everyone is treated the same. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anyone can get married. Same sex people can not get married. It applies to all. Completely equal.

There is no federal power to force states to change the meaning of marriage. That power lies with the states. If the people of a state choose to change the meaning of marriage, so be it. Utah chose not to.

I object to the federal government taking an unconstitutional action in this case.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how you feel about it, the SCOTUS has consistently, for the last century held that the 14th covered much more than just "slaves" (which would actually be ex-slaves). You may not like it, but it is how our law works.

Your opinion on what is unconstitutional is duly rejected based on evidence that shows you have nothing to back up the allegation that the federal government is in any way taking any unconstitutional actions in the case of same sex marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The fact that marriage does not mean same sex, except when politically motivated.
Click to expand...

Legal marriage is a contract. Gender has no place whatsoever in how legal marriage operates. Personal marriage is whatever each couple wants. It is plainly none of your business and easily encompasses same sex couples.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
It means same sex to same sex couples...and much of the rest of the US. So their expectations are the same.

And since politics decided that straight couples get benefits, privileges, and legal protections....and then extended that to bi-racial couples...and previously removed them from polygamous marriages....then it seems relevant that politics be consistent in how they apply their considerable weight.
Click to expand...

Politically.

If it was called anything but marriage, and it came with all the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," would they say yes or no?

roguenuke said:
Legal marriage is a contract. Gender has no place whatsoever in how legal marriage operates. Personal marriage is whatever each couple wants. It is plainly none of your business and easily encompasses same sex couples.
Click to expand...

Except the state is involved, which means I am forced into their business through taxation, and other anti-property laws.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Politically.

If it was called anything but marriage, and it came with all the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections," would they say yes or no?
Click to expand...

I would disapprove and it would still be wrong, but it won't happen anyway so it will be marriage. You need to simply deal with it. Most attempts to call it something other than marriage have failed and in fact will likely be the basis of major lawsuits now that DOMA is dead when it comes to state laws that say as much. Overall, it is illogical and inefficient to have two different names for the same thing simply because some do not approve of the use of the word "marriage" when it comes to same sex couples. Those that do not approve of it just need to get over it. You/they do not own the word marriage nor whom it covers.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
Except the state is involved, which means I am forced into their business through taxation, and other anti-property laws.
Click to expand...

What state?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
I would disapprove and it would still be wrong, but it won't happen anyway so it will be marriage. You need to simply deal with it. Most attempts to call it something other than marriage have failed and in fact will likely be the basis of major lawsuits now that DOMA is dead when it comes to state laws that say as much. Overall, it is illogical and inefficient to have two different names for the same thing simply because some do not approve of the use of the word "marriage" when it comes to same sex couples. Those that do not approve of it just need to get over it. You/they do not own the word marriage nor whom it covers.
Click to expand...

I know you would disapprove because the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" are not what they are fighting for. They just want the word, as is shown in your post.

Lursa said:
What state?
Click to expand...

At the very least the federal state.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
I know you would disapprove because the "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" are not what they are fighting for. They just want the word, as is shown in your post.

At the very least the federal state.
Click to expand...

I would disapprove because it is wrong and unfair, and I was taught that fairness is very important in life.

I have used this analogy before. If you had a group of kids who were given a box of brand new crayons to color with, and then another group of kids comes in and is told by the first group that they can only use the broken crayons (the broken crayons having all of the same colors the new contained) and that the new group of kids could never use the new crayons, would it be fair? Would it be right to allow this? Why? Simply because the first group of kids was there first?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
At the very least the federal state.
Click to expand...


What federal state? I never heard of that.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
What federal state? I never heard of that.
Click to expand...

The federal state.

roguenuke said:
I would disapprove because it is wrong and unfair, and I was taught that fairness is very important in life.

I have used this analogy before. If you had a group of kids who were given a box of brand new crayons to color with, and then another group of kids comes in and is told by the first group that they can only use the broken crayons (the broken crayons having all of the same colors the new contained) and that the new group of kids could never use the new crayons, would it be fair? Would it be right to allow this? Why? Simply because the first group of kids was there first?
Click to expand...

Unfair? They receive all the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections" its just the word marriage does not need to be redefined.

Broken is not the same "benefits, privileges, and legal protections."
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

scatt said:
The federal state.
Click to expand...


No idea what that is. Googled it, only got 'federation.'


Got anything else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom