• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

But that argument is nothing more than circular reasoning.

If the people of the State of California amended the Constitution to say that "marriage is only between heterosexual or homosexual latinos" that would change the IF in your equation.

It will all be moot anyway, because two years from now or 4 years from now the issue will be on the ballot again andI suspect with the movement from the 2000 referendum, it will most likely pass and gay marriage will once again be legal in California. Its only a matter of time.
There is nothing to barr the majority from instigating such legislation.
At one point such bigoted legislation was the norm, they were known as jim crow laws.
California has taken a big step backwards due to homophobic bigotry.
Such legislation which is exclusionary of one group of people in favor of another group is clearly Un-American and goes against Californian's own constitution which gaurentees equal rights under the law.
This is anything BUT equal rights, this is the very opposite of equal rights, we're right back to seperate but equal - promoted by the usual suspects.

Interestingly we have a large group that overwhelmingly is against gay marriage. I'm curious as to why blacks are so homophobic? Why Latino's are so homophobic?
 
Unfortunately, a simple majority of people in California believed that discrimination should be written into our state Constitution. Sad. I am ashamed of my state today.
The same majority believed that farm animals ought to have rights more so than they believed that people should have equal rights.
For shame.
 
"Yes" on prop 8 won?
Gay.
 
"Yes" on prop 8 won?
Gay.
Well, I guess it would've been asking for too much, we've finally broken through the confines of racial prejudice, but still some ways away from the bigotry that stems from homophobia.
 
People need to recognize that the United States constitution supersedes any and all State constitutions. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court recognizes that, this Prop 8 will be irrelevant.
 
Next Year I call for proposition 8A - a ban on hetero sexual marriages.
The state of California shall no longer recognize the marriage of heterosexual marriages regardless of state.


Fine, get it on the ballot and vote for it and if its approved so be it......That is the way we do things in this country my left wing friend.............
 
People need to recognize that the United States constitution supersedes any and all State constitutions. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court recognizes that, this Prop 8 will be irrelevant.


Don't bet your house on it my left wing friend..........;)
 
People need to recognize that the United States constitution supersedes any and all State constitutions. Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Once the Supreme Court recognizes that, this Prop 8 will be irrelevant.
On what grounds does the SC have to supercede a state constitutional amendment?
This is a marriage which is a state issue, not federal, so I don't know A) on what grounds the USC has to intervene; B) What bearing the constitution has on marriage.
 
Don't bet your house on it my left wing friend..........;)

First of all, I'm not "left wing" - in fact, I'm center-right. I'm actually a member of a few organizations on either side. I'm a member of the National Right to Life organization; the RainbowPUSH Coalition; and the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). I lean right on taxes, defense and some social issues; I just happen to believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
 
First of all, I'm not "left wing" - in fact, I'm center-right. I'm actually a member of a few organizations on either side. I'm a member of the National Right to Life organization; the RainbowPUSH Coalition; and the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). I lean right on taxes, defense and some social issues; I just happen to believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
Don't take it to heart, NP calls everyone that disagrees with him such. Being on the extreeme fringe right validates that position - literally. he's only saying so to troll.
 
On what grounds does the SC have to supercede a state constitutional amendment?
This is a marriage which is a state issue, not federal, so I don't know A) on what grounds the USC has to intervene; B) What bearing the constitution has on marriage.

Because the Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the Alpha and Omega. A State cannot amend their Constitution to ban black people from voting - that would be against the United States Constitution. With the issue of same-sex marriage, banning it is clearly against the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (regardless of what the "legal scholars" on this forum believe). If you ban same-sex marriage, you must ban all marriage.

State governments are not subunits of the federal government; each state is sovereign and does not report in any constitutional way to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution and federal law, however, supersede state constitutions and state laws in areas where they are in disagreement

State Governments in About America: How the United States is Governed
 
Last edited:
Because the Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the Alpha and Omega. A State cannot amend their Constitution to ban black people from voting - that would be against the United States Constitution. With the issue of same-sex marriage, banning it is clearly against the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment (regardless of what the "legal scholars" on this forum believe). If you ban same-sex marriage, you must ban all marriage.
State governments are not subunits of the federal government; each state is sovereign and does not report in any constitutional way to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution and federal law, however, supersede state constitutions and state laws in areas where they are in disagreement
State Governments in About America: How the United States is Governed
That's all fine, and given that the US constitution says nothing nor mentions anything of marriage, I still don't see how the USSC has grounds to intervene on the matter.
Marriage liscence are issued by the state, not by the federal government - as are drivers liscence - I still don't understand how the 14th would make any difference to that matter whatsoever.
 
That's all fine, and given that the US constitution says nothing nor mentions anything of marriage, I still don't see how the USSC has grounds to intervene on the matter.
Marriage liscence are issued by the state, not by the federal government - as are drivers liscence - I still don't understand how the 14th would make any difference to that matter whatsoever.

It's not about marriage - it's about laws and Equal Protection. Allowing one group of similarly situated people to do a thing, but not allowing another group of similarly situated people to do a thing is not Equal Protection, and is therefore unconstitutional.
 
It's not about marriage - it's about laws and Equal Protection. Allowing one group of similarly situated people to do a thing, but not allowing another group of similarly situated people to do a thing is not Equal Protection, and is therefore unconstitutional.
How does the 14th provide that authority then?
 
How does the 14th provide that authority then?

I'm not sure I understand your question. But here is the text of Section 1 of said amendment. The most important part will be in red.

Section. 1. 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.
 
I'm not sure I understand your question. But here is the text of Section 1 of said amendment. The most important part will be in red.

Section. 1. 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.

How does "protection of the laws" factor? To the point, which "laws" are being violated?
 
How does "protection of the laws" factor? To the point, which "laws" are being violated?

I don't know if I understand your question, but I think your question is asked with the assumption that laws are simply rules. Not so. Laws can be rules, principles, procedures, or any type of legislation, such as the right to marry. It's about entitlement. Opposite-sex couples who are married are entitled to certain rights that same-sex couples are not, because they cannot be married.
 
Last edited:
If the people are going to grant the government the power to validate marriage (which we have) then we are also granting them the power to determine what isn't a valid marriage. People shouldn't be surprised when their group isn't one of the chosen few.
The real answer here is that government becoming involved in marriage, a wholly religious ceremony with 2000+ years to back it up, violates the 1st Amendment's separation of Church and State Clause. Unless the government backs out of marriage this is going to be a constant problem. If gays get the government to recognize their marriage (not likely), Polygamists will be next in line and if they get the recognition then people will ask the government to recognize marriages to family members. Then the totally absurd like marriage to animals or furniture.
On this issue, for once, I would like to see freedom and liberty prevail over convenience and government handouts.
 
I must admit, I'm enjoying all the pain you angry whining advocates are relating on this thread today. Not because I have ever persecuted gays, but rather because of all the previous name calling and shame ploys you continually have tried to cast over we conservatives on threads here this year on the subject. Not to mention the related don't ask don't tell threads.

Some of you are even suggesting the US Supreme Court will eventually overturn this new California law? Of course that means it would also be overturning all the other state constitutional laws that have already been passed in two dozen states and are common law in another dozen or so. Gee what do you think would happen my short sighted opponents if the lets say for hypothetical sake, liberal in congress in the near future replaced present retiring members of the court, and then such a court tried to force that on the country? Would certainly outrage a lot of Christians, conservatives and the halls of congress representing those people. The current vote here in California might have been close, but one can be certain given the even greater support in most others states, that a cry for a US constitutional amendment would be certain. Your side simply does not have the numbers in the current generations. So go stir this up some more you avocates just like you just did.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if I understand your question, but I think your question is asked with the assumption that laws are simply rules. Not so. Laws can be rules, principles, procedures, or any type of legislation, such as the right to marry. It's about entitlement. Opposite-sex couples who are married are entitled to certain rights that same-sex couples are not, because they cannot be married.

The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.
 
You lost, get use to it....All you lefties can do is bitch and call names when you lose..........

Really since I came here I am the one that has been called names, I didn't call one person a name in my response.
 
The law is applied equally. They state that NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex. Since this law applies to EVERYONE it is applied EQUALLY.

Please note I said "similarly situated" people, like two consenting adults. So, no, the law is not applied EQUALLY.
 
Last edited:
Please note I said "similarly situated" people, like two consenting adults. So, no, the law is not applied EQUALLY.

"Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
umm.....okay let me try this.
If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
No. These two people are "Similarly Situated" they are both smoking, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.

My theory is for the government to get out of marriage altogether. The purest way for government to be equal is to do nothing. An empty scale is always balanced.
 
If gays get the government to recognize their marriage (not likely), Polygamists will be next in line and if they get the recognition then people will ask the government to recognize marriages to family members. Then the totally absurd like marriage to animals or furniture.
On this issue, for once, I would like to see freedom and liberty prevail over convenience and government handouts.

I think gay couples and polygamists (of legal age) should have a right to marry. I think that many churches are willing to recognize marriage as being about love and not just gender or two people.
(Where I made bold)I really hate when people say this kind of thing, you really think a gay couple who have been in a committed relationship and technically are married except for the "legal paper" are the same as someone who is mentally ill and would want to marry an inanimate object? Unless of course you are of the mindset that being gay is a mental defect then our conversation will end..
 
"Similarly Situated" means nothing basically.
umm.....okay let me try this.
If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
No. These two people are "Similarly Situated" they are both smoking, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.

My theory is for the government to get out of marriage altogether. The purest way for government to be equal is to do nothing. An empty scale is always balanced.

Technically smoking infringes on another persons right to happiness where as gay couples being married doesn't hurt anyone.
And if government gets out of marriage what would happen to marriages like mine where my wife and I are both agnostic and wouldn't want to get married in a church.
 
Back
Top Bottom