• 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 agree with all that however I think the unconstitutionality comes in when one group is treated with a different standard than another. That goes against equal protection and equal rights.

Basically the government is handing goodies to one group of people while simultaneously devaluing another.

But doesn't our government already do this all the time?
 
That's a sick vicious statement to make.

What's with the hostility?

I just thought that would be a ****ed up thing to say to someone :2wave:

ahem...er..I mean..."oh so now a woman's right to choose is 'offensive' to you? Wow how misogamist." ;)
 
Last edited:
In my opinion...

As a both a liberal and a strong proponent of gay marriage, I think it's time to admit that we lost this battle fairly. We put up a good fight, but now it's time to focus on the next battle, the changing of hearts and minds. I know that the best of us can get a little heated on this issue, but I think it's time we look at the will of the majority and ask ourselves what we can do to turn majority opinion to see the issue our way. I want to see gay marriage a reality in our country, but more than that, I want to see the vast majority agree with marriage equality for homosexual couples. I think this can eventually be accomplished, but not if we start blasting court decisions or the will of the majority, even if we think it isn't right.

I read an advice column in the local Raleigh paper about a lesbian couple who decided to get married. Everyone showered them with congratulations, save for one of the women's co-workers who claimed that she did not support gay marriage, so she couldn't congratulate her even though they were friends. The bride-to-be was pretty upset at this, but held her tongue and continued to be as nice to the woman as she had always been. So imagine her surprise when she discovered that the woman who had made those anti-gay marriage remarks bought the newleyweds an extremely expensive gift listed on their wedding registry. According to the article, both she and her husband now regularly get together with the lesbian couple for dinner. I imagine her opinion has changed quite a bit, now that she has seen for herself that gay marriage is no big deal at all.

My hope is that things like this begin happening everywhere, and eventually majority opinion swings our way. Until then, though, i'll respect the opinion of the court, even if I disagree with it.
 
Except that you can pass your holdings to each other tax free upon death. It's a HUGE inequality...something to the tune of 50% worth of inequality.

What? No.

I'm checking that out.
 
What? No.

I'm checking that out.

Yes. If you die, your wife gains all your holdings without penalty upon your death unless specified in a will.

If I die, Josh gets taxed at close to 50% of the value of anything he inherits from me.
 
Yes. If you die, your wife gains all your holdings without penalty upon your death unless specified in a will.

If I die, Josh gets taxed at close to 50% of the value of anything he inherits from me.

Help me out here, do you know of a link right to that statute? I mean, I can get to the Civil Union stuff but if you already know where this is I'd like to know. If not that's cool I'll share what I find.
 
Yes. If you die, your wife gains all your holdings without penalty upon your death unless specified in a will.

If I die, Josh gets taxed at close to 50% of the value of anything he inherits from me.

Which given the Republicans focus on the Estate Tax, you'd think they'd support gay marriage. :lol:
 
Help me out here, do you know of a link right to that statute? I mean, I can get to the Civil Union stuff but if you already know where this is I'd like to know. If not that's cool I'll share what I find.

No, actually I don't. I didn't find this out until I was filling out my life insurance paperwork and was told that anything I intended to be left for Josh, I may as well double the amount since we weren't married because close to 50% would be taken from him in taxes. My 150K life insurance policy became a 300K life insurance policy because of that exact problem.
 
And it's not ok when it gets done in those other instances either.

Absolutely, I agree. Which brings me to my point: Many gay marriage proponents actively advocate discriminatory government institutions yet they cite the equal protection clause when it comes to gay marriage. To me, this entire issue highlights the hypocrisy of leftists whose economic policy is predicated entirely upon unequal treatment under the law. They cite the Constitution only when it serves their agenda. They have no consistent philosophy or legal theory with which to approach any issue, so they rely on sophistry and appeals to emotion. I’m sick of this faux-love for our Constitution and their brazen misapplication of the law.

P.S. - I’m not referring to you. I know you’re a fiscal conservative.
 
Absolutely, I agree. Which brings me to my point: Many gay marriage proponents actively advocate discriminatory government institutions yet they cite the equal protection clause when it comes to gay marriage. To me, this entire issue highlights the hypocrisy of leftists whose economic policy is predicated entirely upon unequal treatment under the law. They cite the Constitution only when it serves their agenda. They have no consistent philosophy or legal theory with which to approach any issue, so they rely on sophistry and appeals to emotion. I’m sick of this faux-love for our Constitution and their brazen misapplication of the law.

P.S. - I’m not referring to you. I know you’re a fiscal conservative.

I am pretty socially conservative, too. But I don't find it ok to do things like give an institution to one group but deny another group access to the same, setting up bailouts determined by the race of the business owner, carrying out affirmative action policies, etc, etc. So in that regard, I see your point.

But both sides of the aisle have their own faux love for the constitution. It's just different amendments they slobber all over in their attempt to promote their own agenda.
 
I am pretty socially conservative, too. But I don't find it ok to do things like give an institution to one group but deny another group access to the same, setting up bailouts determined by the race of the business owner, carrying out affirmative action policies, etc, etc. So in that regard, I see your point.

But both sides of the aisle have their own faux love for the constitution. It's just different amendments they slobber all over in their attempt to promote their own agenda.

It just irks me when I see all these economic authoritarians talking about "rights" as if they gave a sh*t.
 
Absolutely, I agree. Which brings me to my point: Many gay marriage proponents actively advocate discriminatory government institutions yet they cite the equal protection clause when it comes to gay marriage. To me, this entire issue highlights the hypocrisy of leftists whose economic policy is predicated entirely upon unequal treatment under the law. They cite the Constitution only when it serves their agenda. They have no consistent philosophy or legal theory with which to approach any issue, so they rely on sophistry and appeals to emotion. I’m sick of this faux-love for our Constitution and their brazen misapplication of the law.

P.S. - I’m not referring to you. I know you’re a fiscal conservative.

Banning gay marriage is a gratuitous attack on a political minority which clearly violates the equal protection clause.

Progressive taxation does not. Bill Gates pays the same base percentage on his first $10,000 of income as I do. Bill Gates pays the same base percentage on his second $10,000 of income as I do. And if Bill Gates and I each make $20 billion next year, we'll have to pay the same base percentage on that as well.
 
52% to 48% is still a huge majority in one of the most liberal states in this country....

Down from 28% 8 years earlier.....the times are a changin my friend....you will see gay marriage across the country even in your lifetime.
 
4% is pretty big my friend............

I haven't changed my stance on gay marriage......I am dead set against it for the reasons I have mentioned many times but am still for Civil Unions with equal right.......I think most Americans will buy that burt many are getting tired of the argument and are now even turning against Civil Unions........Its to bad that a few like DD might be screwing it up for the majority......

Sorry Champ. People such as yourself were against civil unions until the "Sacred" institution of marriage has been raised. All of sudden you guys are all for "Separate but equal". Sorry....not good enough.
 
Banning gay marriage is a gratuitous attack on a political minority which clearly violates the equal protection clause.

The equal protection clause makes no mention of "minorities"; it applies to everyone equally, hence it is the "equal" protection clause. Almost every single government program is in violation of this clause yet welfare statists completely ignore it or justify it using legal sophistry and intellectual dishonesty.

Progressive taxation does not. Bill Gates pays the same base percentage on his first $10,000 of income as I do. Bill Gates pays the same base percentage on his second $10,000 of income as I do. And if Bill Gates and I each make $20 billion next year, we'll have to pay the same base percentage on that as well.

I never made mention of "progressive" taxation, although I do take issue with its legitimacy under the Constitution. Mainly, what I take issue with is welfare programs that confer benefits upon a specifically defined demographic at the expense of others. These institutions are discriminatory by their very nature and in blatant contradiction with the equal protection clause.
 
Down from 28% 8 years earlier.....the times are a changin my friend....you will see gay marriage across the country even in your lifetime.

If the people of a state vote to legalize Gay Marriage so be it.....Why won't "Feel Good" liberals like you accept the will of the people? Why do you always have to bring activist judges and the courts to decide the issue? And you call us the intolerant one.........ROTFLMAO.:rofl
 
Sorry Champ. People such as yourself were against civil unions until the "Sacred" institution of marriage has been raised. All of sudden you guys are all for "Separate but equal". Sorry....not good enough.

ong before you were a member of DP I stated my opinion on Gay Marriage and it has not changed........You can ask jallman if you don't believe me...
 
No, actually I don't. I didn't find this out until I was filling out my life insurance paperwork and was told that anything I intended to be left for Josh, I may as well double the amount since we weren't married because close to 50% would be taken from him in taxes. My 150K life insurance policy became a 300K life insurance policy because of that exact problem.

Then since I'm sole inheritor of my mother's estate, we'd better get started on legalizing incest.
 
This really has been a great test case for the insanely broad scope of the California ballot initiative process.

What's next? In 2010, the California majority, drunk with power, will vote on the following initiatives:

Prop 15 - Changes the State name to Surf City, U.S.A.

Prop 26 - Ban vegans from marrying. (It's an unnatural lifestyle choice)

Prop 33 - Prohibit the sale of cannabis not grown in Humbolt County.

Prop 41 - Legalize Medical Meth in Riverside County.

Prop 666 - Make Creationism part of the Orange County School curriculum.

Prop 99 - Make film acting career a mandatory qualification for Governor.

Prop 101 - Give every CA resident a seat in the State Assembly.
 
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.

According to the California Secretary of State website there are two initiatives (#1356 & #1357) in the circulation stage in California to overturn Proposition 8. Both initiatives need to obtain 694,354 signatures of registered California voters by mid-August in order to be on the next ballot.

Here's some ballot numbers you might find interesting --

  • On a stand-alone question, 47% were in favor of same-sex marriage, 48% were opposed and 5% were unsure.
  • 85% of voters identifying themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians voted "yes".
  • Of non-evangelical Christians polled, 42% voted yes.
  • 77% of Republicans in the poll voted yes.
  • 65% of Democrats voted no.
  • 85% of John McCain supporters voted yes.
  • 30% of Barack Obama voters voted yes.
  • 61% of Latinos voted yes.
  • 57% of Latinos, Asians, and blacks combined voted yes.
  • 62% of those without a college degree voted yes.

IMHO - Considering the societal makeup of California, it seems to me that the key for the pro-gay marriage initiative to pass in California is the Latino/Asian/black demographic.

BTW -- Re your post #291 above: I'll bet that Paul and Ringo will ask me to join them in reforming The Beatles before gay marriage becomes state law here in The Magnolia State...
 
Last edited:
No, actually I don't. I didn't find this out until I was filling out my life insurance paperwork and was told that anything I intended to be left for Josh, I may as well double the amount since we weren't married because close to 50% would be taken from him in taxes. My 150K life insurance policy became a 300K life insurance policy because of that exact problem.

How do you know that's a matter of your rights under the law and not a corporate policy?

WAIS Document Retrieval

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses
.

Bro I think yo have a genuine lawsuit on your hands.

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership Statutes

California

California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005.

CA Codes (fam:)
 
I want to pick on gays with a good natured spirit here for sec...

WAIS Document Retrieval

297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one anther's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.

(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:

(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.

(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.


(They're gay...that means no one in the partnership will be having the other's children...)

(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under
Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section
402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social
Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged
individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership
unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62
.


(Uh-oh, look who's discriminating now)

(6) Both persons are capable of consenting to the domestic
partnership.

(c) "Have a common residence" means that both domestic partners
share the same residence. It is not necessary that the legal right
to possess the common residence be in both of their names. Two
people have a common residence even if one or both have additional
residences. Domestic partners do not cease to have a common
residence if one leaves the common residence but intends to return.


(Jallman, you live alone...right? That might explain your problems with the insurance company.?)
 
Back
Top Bottom