• 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

I've been on topic.
If that's the case, you'll adddress post # 172, which, as the court's majority justification for the ruling, IS the the topic of this thread.

If you aren't willing to address that, then YOU are off-topic.
 
Until they get it right.

They got it right. Gay marriage has been drop kicked by the voters. Kicked to the curb. Finally, the will of the people will stand. I'm sure Perez Hilton is quite depressed that democracy held true, but for those of us who support the constitution and respect the voting process it is good news indeed.
 
Actually no, it's because a person who knows how to debate properly provides facts to back up their assertions. I didn't realize you were new to this.

Someone who knows how to debate doesn't constantly ask obtuse questions or expect OTHERS to prove the OBVIOUS either; they actually bring their own opinions and facts to the argument in support of their counter opinion, something I might add you rarely do.

Rather than debate, your method is to constantly ask OTHERS to support their opinions rather than express one of your own or bring a counter point to the argument; its pretty lame.

The only thing more lame is your selective outrage.
 
Once again, relating your personal views on what a majority of religions do believe doesn't make your argument very credible. :roll:

Um...so what? How is my opinion any more or less valid than anyone elses?
 
They got it right. Gay marriage has been drop kicked by the voters. Kicked to the curb. Finally, the will of the people will stand. I'm sure Perez Hilton is quite depressed that democracy held true, but for those of us who support the constitution and respect the voting process it is good news indeed.

The slim margin Prop 8 won by was not a drop kick. And respect for the constitution would involve respect for its most basic principle, that being that all men are equal.

Nice try though.
 
Someone who knows how to debate doesn't constantly ask obtuse questions or expect OTHERS to prove the OBVIOUS either; they actually bring their own opinions and facts to the argument in support of their counter opinion, something I might add you rarely do.

I could care less whether you find my questions obtuse or not. If you don't like them, don't answer them. And don't get all pissy if someone asks you to provide proof of your assertions. It's a simple request and kind of expected if you want your argument to have any credibility.

Rather than debate, your method is to constantly ask OTHERS to support their opinions rather than express one of your own or bring a counter point to the argument; its pretty lame.

The only thing more lame is your selective outrage.

I already have expressed my opinion on the topic, thanks. Do you want to continue to discuss the topic or are you going to throw out more personal attacks?
 
The slim margin Prop 8 won by was not a drop kick. And respect for the constitution would involve respect for its most basic principle, that being that all men are equal.
BUT... in this case, the question before the court had NOTHING to do with gay rights or gay marriage or how you choose who to sleep with -- indeed, it has EVERYTHING to do with the procedure under which the CA constitution was amendment. In that, its is hard to see how the CA court's decision was anything but correct.

And so, any and all coversation regarding gay rights or gay marriage or how you choose who to sleep with is off topic.
 
They got it right. Gay marriage has been drop kicked by the voters. Kicked to the curb. Finally, the will of the people will stand. I'm sure Perez Hilton is quite depressed that democracy held true, but for those of us who support the constitution and respect the voting process it is good news indeed.

Yeah, a 52-48 margin is really the same as being "drop kicked by the voters." :roll:

That's down from a 61-38 margin on a similar measure back in 2000. In other words, it's gone from a 23 point margin to a 4 point margin in a mere eight years. There is a very good chance that it will be reversed in 2010 if it is on the ballot again.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Was trying not to be specific, but going to have to be it seems. If someones badgering you personally, ignore them instead of responding and playing into their bait. If someone is not wanting to address your point, then deal with that instead of constantly hounding them about being off or on topic. I don't care who is more off topic than the other, that isn't the topic. The topic is the courts ruling. Deal with it, or deal with people not responding to your posts, but the next response directly dealing with an individual poster that comes after this warning is getting thread banned and points, no ifs ands or buts.
 
Zyphlin has done an excellent job here.
 
Well....if Constitutional rights are subject to a simple majority vote, then it should be on the ballot every year in order to reflect what the will of the majority is.

Views of gay marriage are changing rapidly. The younger generation overwhelmingly approves of gay marriage. It is inevitable.

Really great point.

The ballot initiative process in CA is broken--IMO--when it empowers the majority to trample the rights of the minority.
 
The slim margin Prop 8 won by was not a drop kick. And respect for the constitution would involve respect for its most basic principle, that being that all men are equal.

Nice try though.

It doesn't matter, the results are the results. The same thing the libs have been saying about Obama's victory. And all men are created equal. Gays can get married and call themselves married. It doesn't mean they are deserving of benefits meant to encourage procreation. Additionally, all men are welcome to marry the woman of his choice. No men are restricted from this. If you choose to be with a man instead, that is your choice.
 
Yeah, a 52-48 margin is really the same as being "drop kicked by the voters." :roll:

That's down from a 61-38 margin on a similar measure back in 2000. In other words, it's gone from a 23 point margin to a 4 point margin in a mere eight years. There is a very good chance that it will be reversed in 2010 if it is on the ballot again.

How funny that liberals haven't sang this same tune when discussing the recent election of Obama. Claims of winning by a large margin and this other baloney. Now all of sudden the margin isn't that big now that the outcome desired is different. How convenient.
 
How funny that liberals haven't sang this same tune when discussing the recent election of Obama. Claims of winning by a large margin and this other baloney. Now all of sudden the margin isn't that big now that the outcome desired is different. How convenient.

What you imagine "liberals" believe about Obama's margin of victory is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
In other words, Obama once again attempts to take BOTH sides in an issue and his loyal fans (that would be YOU) willingly swallow the swill he dishes out for no other reason than of him being a Liberal Democrat.

Not at all...its called respect for others views. It is possible, believe it or not, to have your own personal views but not feel the need to subject everyone else to them (something that many cannot grasp).

What a fascinating argument coming from someone who so obviously doesn't respect a majorities views which were voted on several times that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

For instance, you can personally believe that Abortion, for example, is wrong and still be pro-choice because you do not believe that you have the right to force others to accept your viewpoint.
You can be anti-gay marriage, but nevertheless be against prop 8 because despite your views, you understand that it is wrong to force that view upon others.

This is called equivocation. It is the easy way out for a politician whose entire political ideology is based on equivocating.

If Obama thinks that his views should not be forced upon others, then why even express a position?

If Obama believes that his views should not be forced on others, then why have a “green” initiative or demand that car manufacturers adhere to higher gas mileage standards?

If Obama believes that his views should not be forced on others, why then sign spending bills that will force me and my children to pay higher taxes in the future to pay for them when I do not agree with them?

Your arguments, as usual, are on a very slippery slope.

Obama simply understands that his right to his views end when it infringes upon the rights of others. That is a concept that you probably cannot understand.

Once more, the notion that one can be against something, but yet condone it requires some level of absurd logic I just cannot comprehend.

That is similar to saying you are against terrorism, but think people have the right to support it.
 
yea, that's what I meant.

But either way, will this fight ever end?

10 years from now, people will look back in dismay that there even was a 'fight'.

IMO--it's a sad day in CA history. But the reality is, there are some very densely populated counties in this state that are far removed, literally and figuratively, from the great UC campuses.
 
Wow, bro if you think marriage is about being free....man you don't understand the issue at all.

Although I may disagree with you view on this issue, I am going to have to be honest and say... Well said, sir.
:applaud
 
10 years from now, people will look back in dismay that there even was a 'fight'.

IMO--it's a sad day in CA history. But the reality is, there are some very densely populated counties in this state that are far removed, literally and figuratively, from the great UC campuses.

Since when was marriage a "right”; does the constitution refer to it?

I always thought of marriage as a formal commitment between a man and a woman who wished to start a family, usually conducted by a minister under the eyes of God and witnesses. When did it become a "right?"

Oh yeah, when gay rights activists wallowing in emotional hysterics and hyperbole decided it should be and determined ALL society should now accept THEIR definition of marriage! :rofl
 
10 years from now, people will look back in dismay that there even was a 'fight'.

IMO--it's a sad day in CA history. But the reality is, there are some very densely populated counties in this state that are far removed, literally and figuratively, from the great UC campuses.
So true, everything north of Humbolt County on the coast is redneck country...might as well be northern Idaho. The whole Central and San Joaquin Valley regions are redneck country too. Might as well be the midwest.
 
Since when was marriage a "right”; does the constitution refer to it?

I always thought of marriage as a formal commitment between a man and a woman who wished to start a family, usually conducted by a minister under the eyes of God and witnesses. When did it become a "right?"

When the government started giving out goodies for doing it. Also, as has been stated, when Loving v Virginia pretty much confirmed it.

Oh yeah, when gay rights activists wallowing in emotional hysterics and hyperbole decided it should be and determined ALL society should now accept THEIR definition of marriage! :rofl

Your definition was even wrong when it comes to the legal definition. So how the hell are you going to sit there chortling to yourself with undeserved smug satisfaction when you couldn't even get it right?
 
Since when was marriage a "right”; does the constitution refer to it?

The Constitution refers to equal protection under the law. As long as marriage is a legal institution instead of just a religious one, then yes, the Constitution does refer to it.

Truth Detector said:
I always thought of marriage as a formal commitment between a man and a woman who wished to start a family, usually conducted by a minister under the eyes of God and witnesses. When did it become a "right?"

No one is advocating forcing your minister to perform a marriage for anyone he doesn't want to.

Truth Detector said:
Oh yeah, when gay rights activists wallowing in emotional hysterics and hyperbole decided it should be and determined ALL society should now accept THEIR definition of marriage! :rofl

Yeah, equal rights are really a matter of "emotional hysterics and hyperbole." :doh

You don't have to accept their definition of marriage. You don't even have to talk to them if you don't want to. All they're asking is for you to leave them the **** alone and give them the same rights that everyone else has.
 
There is no constitutional right specifically to gay marriage. The only court cases heard by the Supreme Court that signifies a constitutional right to marriage refers to that of a traditional male and female marriage. The Supreme Court has turned down any case thus far to my knowledge dealing with same sex marriage. As such, until its either:

1) In the constitution
2) Decided so by the Supreme Court

Same Sex Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is your opinion that it is, but it is not a fact it is. The only FACT is that marriage as defined between a man and a woman is a constitutional fact. This remains the case until such time as one of the above two things happen. Until then, its just your OPINION that it is a constitutional right.

Not exactly.

This is what they court found in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases"]In re Marriage Cases[/ame]

In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], is a California Supreme Court case with the dual holding that "statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny" and the existing "California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."

On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22). The Court's ruling also established that any law discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is constitutionally suspect, making California the first state in the United States to set such a strict standard.

I am waiting to get a summary of today's ruling to see how they seemed to come full circle. They made it an equal protection issue last year, but then the constitutional amendment gets around that... I guess.:roll:

Thanks LDS church--but from now on, can we just let California's decide what's best for us w/o a media blitz of fear ads.... please, and thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom