• 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!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

kinda like how civil rights spread their lies and deciet? "Gay marriage is an inalienable right!". That's the biggest lie in the books right now.

Marriage is a right according to the SCOTUS.
 
Sorry DW....Courts have never addressed equal protection in such a ridiculous simple fashion. Nice try though.
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate? What do you think my boss is going to tell me when I say "My wife, the stool, broke a leg and is in the hospital, so I can't come to work today!"?
 
It was meant specifically for those(OKgrannie, to name one) who always use the supreme court as if it's some "flawless entity" where all opinions stem from and are all correct. not necessarily you.

But you gotta admit...it was a pretty funny way to point it out. :2wave:
 
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate?

I dunno...is the stool of the age of majority and does it have the mental faculties to consent to a marriage contract?
 
Marriage is a right according to the SCOTUS.
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.
 
thing is though, what's marriage got to do with equal protection? If I decide to have a civil union with a stool, does that mean I can get a marriage certificate? What do you think my boss is going to tell me when I say "My wife, the stool, broke a leg and is in the hospital, so I can't come to work today!"?

Are you trying to be serious?
 
This is a minor setback, but I'm honestly not worried. This issue is not going to go away anytime soon. Homosexuals in this country will continue to fight tooth and nail until they get the rights that they want. Just like any other civil rights issue it is going to take time.
 
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.

marriage spurs reproduction? serious? How are all those unmarried teenagers getting pregnant then?
 
But you gotta admit...it was a pretty funny way to point it out. :2wave:

My strawman **** can **** the hell out of you!

wait....oh....hmm....:doh
 
marriage spurs reproduction? serious? How are all those unmarried teenagers getting pregnant then?
spurs reproduction, not REQUIRED for reproduction, geez.
 
This is a minor setback, but I'm honestly not worried. This issue is not going to go away anytime soon. Homosexuals in this country will continue to fight tooth and nail until they get the rights that they want. Just like any other civil rights issue it is going to take time.

....if not tomorrow....then the day after that...or the day after that....

Gay marriage is inevitable...but the last bastions of discrimination will cling on to the bitter end.
 
And I guess we'll be getting it right, also, in 2010.

Shoting down gay marriage again? I sure hope so.

Jerry, this is not the right decision...

Legally, yeah, it is. Courts MUST comply with the constitution.

devaluing a class of citizens based on the moral disapproval of their private lives is so far from a conservative principle I am surprised you aren't gnashing your teeth over it.

Time and time again, in thread after thread, I'm told to stay out of it because gay marriage does not directly affect my marriage. So, fine, since this ruling doesn't directly affect me in any way, you're on your own :2wave:
 
Sorry Zyph....but that is exactly what Prop 8 was about. The California Supreme Court specifically ruled that bans on gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing it as a Constitutional right.
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment in response to that. Unfortunately, in California, Constitutional Amendments do not require a 2/3's majority and require only a simple 50%+1 vote. Thus, in California, Constitutional rights can be eliminated by a simple majority.

My fault, I keep forgetting your routine in trying to obfuscate and confuse people by talking about "Constitutional" rights with the Big C implying the actual United States Constitution when in reality you're talking about California's state constitution, which is only a right within the state of California and is not what the vast majority of people, of which I'm sure you know and is why you use it, think of when you talk about "Constitutional Rights".
 
....if not tomorrow....then the day after that...or the day after that....

Gay marriage is inevitable...but the last bastions of discrimination will cling on to the bitter end.

It will cling on, but it will diminish over time just as racism continues to.
 
Further, the right to marry someone of one's choice is a right under california law. Sharp v Perez.

The issue you face is that it's very easy to prove that a black man doesn't have the same rights as a white man if a black man is only allowed to marry certain women.

But with same sex marriage all gay men have the exact same marital rights and choices as all heterosexual men.

It's asking for additional rights or choices in regards to marriage. So it's gonna ultimately take either activist judges (the wrong way IMO) or lots of public support (the right way IMO).

Unfortunately it's a tough complicated issue, legally. It's not nearly as easy to prove wrongdoing on the side of the law as it would be with racial cases.
 
Until they get it right.

You mean until they get it THIER way? It's hardly a "right" or "wrong" issue but more one of interpretation.

The idea of marriage has never really been an issue until GAY activists decided they wanted to re-define it and force their views on the majority.
 
You mean until they get it THIER way? It's hardly a "right" or "wrong" issue but more one of interpretation.

The idea of marriage has never really been an issue until GAY activists decided they wanted to re-define it and force their views on the majority.

I'm sorry, but who defined marriage as ONLY between a man and woman in the first place? I don't see anyone re-defining anything. I do, however, see people trying to give it a far more specific definition so that it excludes certain people.
 
nono, interracial and heterosexual marriages are a right. Know why? Because, under their opinions, marriage spurs reproduction. "Gay marriage" involves no reproduction, therefore the state has no interest in those marriages.

Really? So what separates that from senior citizens getting married or the infertile? What interest does the state have in giving goodies to people who can't reproduce even if they are heterosexual?
 
But with same sex marriage all gay men have the exact same marital rights and choices as all heterosexual men.

But do hetrosexual woman have the same right as heterosexual men to marry a woman?

Oh wait never mind it is a gender based issue and we. All know the sexes are not equal.
 
Oh and now we're headed down the 'purpose-of-marriage' road...well, have fun new people, I hope you learn a thing or two regardless of which side of the issue you're on :2wave:

And Welcome to DP for those I haven't met yet :)
 
My fault, I keep forgetting your routine in trying to obfuscate and confuse people by talking about "Constitutional" rights with the Big C implying the actual United States Constitution when in reality you're talking about California's state constitution, which is only a right within the state of California and is not what the vast majority of people, of which I'm sure you know and is why you use it, think of when you talk about "Constitutional Rights".

I'm not trying to "obfuscate/confuse". Are you trying to say that a Capital C means the United States Constitution? If so....I'm so sorry, I've always been taught that Constitution is always capitalized whether it is state or federal when referencing it as a noun.
 
And I guess we'll be getting it right, also, in 2010.

Jerry, this is not the right decision...devaluing a class of citizens based on the moral disapproval of their private lives is so far from a conservative principle I am surprised you aren't gnashing your teeth over it.

The idea of marriage "devaluing" gays is absurd and can only be defined as such by gays acting absurd. It's as asinine as suggesting that gay marriage is about love; REALLY? You cannot LIVE with or LOVE someone without a little piece of paper stating such?

No one ever looked at a gay person and suggested they were less of a citizen simply because they couldn't marry; that is the asinine hysterics of a minority trying to force their views on a vast majority who never felt it was an issue until the gay community started such hysterics.
 
I'm sorry, but who defined marriage as ONLY between a man and woman in the first place? I don't see anyone re-defining anything. I do, however, see people trying to give it a far more specific definition so that it excludes certain people.

Basically, the DOMA acts have been the first time in our history that amendments were passed specifically to ban rights from being given from specific people rather than granting rights. It shows just how ugly a segment of America still is.
 
Back
Top Bottom