• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

Or maybe they were simply expressing their rights to have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution and differ from any beliefs you & I have.


They weren't voting to to express their religious beliefs, the voted to deny other equal treatment under the law. The need to have a public vote to determine what your own individual beliefs are it - well - kind of illogical. The vote wasn't about beliefs it was about actions, the action of passing a law to deny citizens access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.



>>>>
 


That was a snap poll on election night (November 4th) to make the newspapers the next morning (November 5th) of a fairly small percentage of the voters, later analysis of precinct level voting patterns state wide later showed that Africian-Americans comprised 7% of the voters that cast ballots and 59% voted in favor of Prop 8.

The highest two indicators of voting in favor of denying same-sex couples equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws was age (65+, 23% of the vote, voting 69% in favor) and weekly religious attendance (45% of the voter, voting 70% in favor).


Age and religious observance were much bigger factors than the color of the voters skin.


http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/pi_prop8_1_6_09.pdf


>>>>
 
They weren't voting to to express their religious beliefs, they voted to deny other equal treatment under the law.
>>>>

correct! this reality is conveniently over looked
 
I don't think having a right to vote was being argued. At least I'm not arguing about people's right to vote.

Some people are arguing that you have the right to vote against the constitution and override it!
 
Actually gun bans have been tried many times, and prayer banned at a school or attempts to use a loudspeaker at high school football field to pray, or a "ten commandments" granite block at the state government building. The conservatives always launch into hysteria at these rulings despite some of them are constitutionally correct.

Just pick anything, realistic or not, that clownboy wouldn't approve of and imagine it's put into law by oregon voters and there you have it, "tyranny of the majority"

That's why it's impossible to take these pleas for "more democracy/less activist judges" seriously. BTW, how many judges have to make this ruling for that complaint to die off? Is 13 in a row enough? Maybe next year, when the SCOTUS makes the same ruling? I'll take educated judges over the mob any day, especially when it comes to actually upholding the constitution!

Absolutely true, but that's a long way from your post #675:

How do you vote to ban prayer?
"Amendment 2: This amendment establishes a lifetime prison sentence for any form of prayer within state territory"

Pretty simple i guess


Banning prayer in a state can't possibly happen, so it's irrelevant. By the way, "conservatives always launch into hysteria at these rulings" is a very broad statement.

All judges IMO are "activist" in a way because they're all human and all see things differently. They can't even agree on the interpretation of the Constitution. There will always be rulings we as individuals agree with, and then those we don't agree with.
 
They weren't voting to to express their religious beliefs, the voted to deny other equal treatment under the law. The need to have a public vote to determine what your own individual beliefs are it - well - kind of illogical. The vote wasn't about beliefs it was about actions, the action of passing a law to deny citizens access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.



>>>>

In their minds, that's exactly what they were doing.

The ones in CA who voted for Prop 8 were mostly religious people, based on the exit polls. Apparently it was their religion that caused them to vote as they did. I would need to see some evidence that their votes were based on an intent to ignore individual liberties.
 
Absolutely true, but that's a long way from your post #675:

How do you vote to ban prayer?
"Amendment 2: This amendment establishes a lifetime prison sentence for any form of prayer within state territory"

Pretty simple i guess


Banning prayer in a state can't possibly happen, so it's irrelevant. By the way, "conservatives always launch into hysteria at these rulings" is a very broad statement.

All judges IMO are "activist" in a way because they're all human and all see things differently. They can't even agree on the interpretation of the Constitution. There will always be rulings we as individuals agree with, and then those we don't agree with.

Cries of "activist judge" just means "judge who made a decision I don't like." It's a convenient method to dismiss the judge's decision without actually providing any rebuttal.

In the end, it all comes down to the test of heightened scrutiny and same-sex marriage bans are never going to pass that test.
 
How do you vote to ban marriage?

I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.
 
Cries of "activist judge" just means "judge who made a decision I don't like." It's a convenient method to dismiss the judge's decision without actually providing any rebuttal.

That's what I just said.
 
I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.

I don't need the government's approval to stab my neighbor but they do, in fact, ban that. You're talking about difficulty of enforcement, which is irrelevant.
 
I've never voted to ban marriage but it seems pretty obvious that the end result of a ban on gay marriage means that they can't get a marriage license and have their unions recognized as a marriage.

You can't ban prayer because you don't need the government's approval to pray in your shower.
Horse feathers, prayer is in no way comparable to contract rights between 2 people. Why do we keep having to remind you that this is a civil LAW matter, not a religious matter? Your silly reduction of the issue to "it is just a piece of paper", holds no water......The Constitution is just another piece of paper in those terms.

I keep searching for reasons why you supposedly support GM.....and searching....and searching....
 
I don't need the government's approval to stab my neighbor but they do, in fact, ban that. You're talking about difficulty of enforcement, which is irrelevant.

You can't police praying in the shower.

You can police murder. It involves a victim.
 
Horse feathers, prayer is in no way comparable to contract rights between 2 people. Why do we keep having to remind you that this is a civil LAW matter, not a religious matter? Your silly reduction of the issue to "it is just a piece of paper", holds no water......The Constitution is just another piece of paper in those terms.

I keep searching for reasons why you supposedly support GM.....and searching....and searching....

We were discussing votes that result in banning prayer, not comparing prayer to contracts.

For the, what, 10th time or so, I'll post why I support SSM.

Because I believe all adults of legal age of consent should be able to marry whomever they choose without explanation.

End of story.
 
In their minds, that's exactly what they were doing.

The ones in CA who voted for Prop 8 were mostly religious people, based on the exit polls. Apparently it was their religion that caused them to vote as they did. I would need to see some evidence that their votes were based on an intent to ignore individual liberties.

Bravo! Their moral conscience was indeed the ruling factor in their vote. And the dirty little secret is it never would have made it on the ballot if it was not considered constitutionally sound. The legality and constitutionality of anything that goes on a ballot is determined BEFORE it is put up for vote. If a measure is deemed legal and within the guidelines of the constitution and then voted in by the people, no one judge should be able to negate what has been passed by voters. One judge striking down a voted in measure is akin to that judge saying "everyone but me is ignorant".
 
Or maybe they were simply expressing their rights to have religious beliefs that are protected by the Constitution and differ from any beliefs you & I have.
Religious beliefs that run counter to the Constitution are not protected by the Constitution.
 
Bravo! Their moral conscience was indeed the ruling factor in their vote. And the dirty little secret is it never would have made it on the ballot if it was not considered constitutionally sound. The legality and constitutionality of anything that goes on a ballot is determined BEFORE it is put up for vote. If a measure is deemed legal and within the guidelines of the constitution and then voted in by the people, no one judge should be able to negate what has been passed by voters. One judge striking down a voted in measure is akin to that judge saying "everyone but me is ignorant".

This is where the horrible fuzziness of this all comes into play. At one time even Barack Obama, who were have been told was a Professor of Constitutional law, opposed SSM. So obviously it's not as cut and dry as people would like the issue to be. And to your point, people who I suspect know something about the CA constitution believed it could pass, and the voters passed it. The single judge who overturned both the votes of the citizens as well as the potential legality of the matter had his own different interpretation. Who was right and who was wrong? I don't think anyone really knows the answer.

It's really too bad this issue has come to this.
 
We were discussing votes that result in banning prayer, not comparing prayer to contracts.
YOU compared a ban on prayer to a ban on gay marriage, that IS comparing prayer to a civil contract....FFS, don't you undersatnd what you are saying?

For the, what, 10th time or so, I'll post why I support SSM.

Because I believe all adults of legal age of consent should be able to marry whomever they choose without explanation.

End of story.
I know you keep repeating this pleasantry, but as usual, it still conflicts with all of your argument. You still say that marriage "is just a piece of paper", negating the civil law aspects, and defend votes in opposition to gay marriage as "people expressing their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs".

It is just one contradiction after another, none actually supporting your pleasantry.
 
Religious beliefs that run counter to the Constitution are not protected by the Constitution.

Which is why it all comes down to a judge's interpretation of the Constitution and you'll unfortunately you'll never get all judges in this country to agree on the meaning of the words in that document. That's why this issue keeps running on a case to case basis.

It's rare for SCOTUS to have a unanimous ruling on everything, so even they don't see the words the same.
 
This is where the horrible fuzziness of this all comes into play. At one time even Barack Obama, who were have been told was a Professor of Constitutional law, opposed SSM. So obviously it's not as cut and dry as people would like the issue to be. And to your point, people who I suspect know something about the CA constitution believed it could pass, and the voters passed it. The single judge who overturned both the votes of the citizens as well as the potential legality of the matter had his own different interpretation. Who was right and who was wrong? I don't think anyone really knows the answer.

It's really too bad this issue has come to this.

This is the result of people who are lazy and do not take the effort, time and energy to make their case to the public to earn their vote instead judge shop till they find a political appointed one of the same stripes to shove it through for them.
 
YOU compared a ban on prayer to a ban on gay marriage, that IS comparing prayer to a civil contract....FFS, don't you undersatnd what you are saying?

I know you keep repeating this pleasantry, but as usual, it still conflicts with all of your argument. You still say that marriage "is just a piece of paper", negating the civil law aspects, and defend votes in opposition to gay marriage as "people expressing their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs".

It is just one contradiction after another, none actually supporting your pleasantry.

I'm not the poster who brought up the banning of prayer.

I support SSM because I believe adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. I'm not an expert on the Constitution nor pretend to be. I have my opinions based on my opinions. There is no other reason for them.
 
The single judge who overturned both the votes of the citizens as well as the potential legality of the matter had his own different interpretation. Who was right and who was wrong? I don't think anyone really knows the answer.
This again shows your two faced, contradictory argument, one face says " I support SSM", the other says "We don't know what is right".....completely ignoring that at some point YOU did decide for yourself which is right.

Judge Walker came to his decision by solid fact finding, it has not been faulted, nor will it. To question it is to not understand it......and to question it while saying you support SSM.....is VERY strange indeed.
 
In their minds, that's exactly what they were doing.

The ones in CA who voted for Prop 8 were mostly religious people, based on the exit polls. Apparently it was their religion that caused them to vote as they did. I would need to see some evidence that their votes were based on an intent to ignore individual liberties.


That fact that they ignored individual liberties is an apriori probability. They didn't vote as to whether THEY should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that would be a statement of their beliefs in terms of their own conduct. They did vote as to whether OTHERS should or should not join in marriage to someone of the same sex, that is enacting a law to restrict the freedoms of others.

There "intent" isn't relevant at the point they expand their belief when enacting laws that require the government to discriminate against others. That isn't about personal belief, it's an action to restrict others.



>>>>
 
I'm not the poster who brought up the banning of prayer.
You used it in argument, you compared it to civil law, you still cannot show that you even understand this part of your argument.

I support SSM because I believe adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. I'm not an expert on the Constitution nor pretend to be. I have my opinions based on my opinions. There is no other reason for them.
Your opinions are based on your opinions? Tautology at its finest along with circular logic. Thanks for confirming that there is little or no reasoning going on, that was the point I have been making about your opinions for quite a while here.
 
Back
Top Bottom