• 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 just got back from one of the national protests against the proposition 8 ruling. About 150 people showed up in Portland, OR.

Did anyone else go?
 
Jerry said:
As a citizen of CA, you already have the right to visit and make medical decisions per existing Domestic Partnership law.

You already have what you want. There's nothing left to fight for.
Click to expand...

Jerry:

You keep representing yourself as someone who understands the complicated and convoluted domestic partnership laws when you obviously don't have a clue or are deliberately trying to misreprent the complicated legal issues in false support of your point.

They're not even in the same ballpark. I'm married and the day we got the lisense certified, rights and priviliges were given to us without having to explain my relationship, filling out more papers, hiringing a lawyer, or going back to court.

Stop and think about it. I filled out 1 single piece of paper and once it was signed and witnessed I instantly got over a thousand rights without question.

If you want to continue in this thread then I suggest you get better informed about the CA domestic partnership laws and stop asking people to do your homework for you.

Here's your homework: Domestic partnership in California

BTW--you own me an apology for that sick abortion comment earlier.

I await your apology.

Regards,

Your son.;)

Seriously. Do your homework, then rejoin the discussion.
 
FallingPianos said:
I just got back from one of the national protests against the proposition 8 ruling. About 150 people showed up in Portland, OR.

Did anyone else go?
Click to expand...

For the first time in my life, I stopped at a rally on my way home. I have to confess that I have been painfully removed from doing what is right in my effort to maintain a balance which simply does not exist.

I will not continue to make the same mistake with the remainder of my life.
 
Kandahar said:
And blacks and whites were each allowed to marry a member of their own race. Perfectly constitutional, right?
Click to expand...

No, blacks could marry any other race...Asian, Latino, etc...and whites could marry any other race...Asian, Latino...etc...the ban was very spicific in that only blacks and whites could not marry.

No such equivalent ban exists today.
 
jallman said:
well you thought wrong. but hey...if they really got it right the first three times, then there shouldn't be enough support to get it back on the ballot, huh? :doh
Click to expand...

support schmort. All you need is money and media.
 
FallingPianos said:
I just got back from one of the national protests against the proposition 8 ruling. About 150 people showed up in Portland, OR.

Did anyone else go?
Click to expand...

They should have had free pizza.
 
Jerry said:
They have it.

Right now, this very instant, they have it.
Click to expand...

Jallman has already explained some of the inequalities in this thread.

Jerry said:
Then I stand out among them as I keep separating the two on this thread.
Click to expand...

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't oppose legal gay marriage. Your church can still do whatever it wants, and you'll still be free to tell your kids how immoral and disgusting gay people are. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
No, blacks could marry any other race...Asian, Latino, etc...and whites could marry any other race...Asian, Latino...etc...the ban was very spicific in that only blacks and whites could not marry.

No such equivalent ban exists today.
Click to expand...

The particular subset of races that each race was allowed to marry is irrelevant. The point is that they did not have the same rights regarding marriage. A white man could marry a white woman, but a black man could not. Unconstitutional. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot. Unconstitutional.
 
hazlnut said:
Jerry:

You keep representing yourself as someone who understands the complicated and convoluted domestic partnership laws when you obviously don't have a clue or are deliberately trying to misreprent the complicated legal issues in false support of your point.

They're not even in the same ballpark. I'm married and the day we got the lisense certified, rights and priviliges were given to us without having to explain my relationship, filling out more papers, hiringing a lawyer, or going back to court.

Stop and think about it. I filled out 1 single piece of paper and once it was signed and witnessed I instantly got over a thousand rights without question.

If you want to continue in this thread then I suggest you get better informed about the CA domestic partnership laws and stop asking people to do your homework for you.

Here's your homework: Domestic partnership in California
Click to expand...

The only legal difference is the title of the license application.

Gays don't have to higher lawyers, etc.

hazlnut said:
BTW--you own me an apology for that sick abortion comment earlier.
Click to expand...

I apologize for not including your sister, but she turned out to be one sweet piece of ass, so I forgive her ;)
 
Jerry said:
Agreed. Now that that's settled, want to ride to hell with Capt'n and myself?

We stole full size van from Trump's personal fleet and it has a well stocked wet bar.



Hey, if you don't want me to have a say, get it the **** off my ballot.
Click to expand...

Y'know Jer, sometimes methinks that it is the GOP who wants to put the gay stuff on the ballots, alongside the candidates up for election. That brings more voters out to their side on election day. A subtle form of voter manipulation. The Libs do it too, only they use pot as their magnet issue.

It really shouldn't be up for a vote. It's only right to do what's right and let them have equality in all things. It should be a mandate. But it ain't the governments job to tell them no in the first place. It ain't the church's either. Getting married to somebody of the same sex OR the opposite sex should be THEIR choice. But the church has every right to NOT sanction it if they so desire. Big deal. :roll:

"Sure, you can get married IF..... " Who has the right to put an "if" in there? To me, that is beyond arrogant. I just don't understand why some people get their panty's in a bunch when gays ask for equality. Who's it gonna hurt? You? Me? I highly doubt it. Much adoo over nothing.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Jallman has already explained some of the inequalities in this thread.



No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't oppose legal gay marriage. Your church can still do whatever it wants, and you'll still be free to tell your kids how immoral and disgusting gay people are. :roll:
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am going to say this...I recognize where all the Uncle Tom comments come from when directed toward me for defending both sides of this issue. I won't be doing it anymore. Whether I get to be a field nigger or a house nigger, at the end of the day, I am still nothing but a nigger to the anti-gm crowd. I refuse to accept that mantle anymore after this prop 8 thing.
 
Are people really taking Jerry seriously?

I mean, sometimes I'll debate him when I'm feeling squirrely, but for the most part I don't bother with people who are willfully ignorant.
 
Jerry;

I went back and read the California Domestic Partnership law and it's subsequent amendments/additions, and it appears that California is, in fact, doing away with many of the inequalities. So many of the differences outlined in my post are currently being dealt with, or have been dealt with recently, by the California legislature.

I would love to see homosexual marriage become a reality and accepted by most people. I'm not sure you see it the way I do, but in any case, thanks for your updates on California law. I think it would be awesome if somehow those of us in favor of homosexual marriage could make you see it our way, but if we can't, your opinion is your own and I respect it, even if I disagree with it.

Take care and thanks again.
 
Kandahar said:
Jallman has already explained some of the inequalities in this thread.
Click to expand...

And I've shot them down with credible sources.

Kandahar said:
No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't oppose legal gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Separating the sociological fight from the legal fight requires that I separate them.

The only difference between the 2 is a name, the only reason anyone gives a **** about that name is because of what it means within the culture, NOT what it means under law.

Using a different name is how you give gays the legal rights without having to win the sociological battle at the same time.

Kandahar said:
Your church can still do whatever it wants, and you'll still be free to tell your kids how immoral and disgusting gay people are. :roll:
Click to expand...

My church does what it wants because it denounces 501c3 status and opened a small business to pay the bills :2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
And blacks and whites were each allowed to marry a member of their own race. Perfectly constitutional, right?
Click to expand...

But it was a racial discrimination where skin color dictated who you could or couldn't marry.

This is gender discrimination which is rampant. :2razz:

So for arguments sake I suppose the courts could step in and declare there could be no gender discrimination in regards to marital pacts. They could then defend age discrimination in marital restrictions by arguing minors can't be legally bound by contracts. And those who wanted multiple marital partners would be grasping at straws in trying to find the label for the discrimination they were suffering.

The only issue I see with this is that racial discrimination is never allowed anymore unless it's reverse racism and comes in the form of favoring ethnic groups.

However gender discrimination is allowed and supported in a variety of arenas.
 
jallman said:
Exactly. I am going to say this...I recognize where all the Uncle Tom comments come from when directed toward me for defending both sides of this issue. I won't be doing it anymore. Whether I get to be a field nigger or a house nigger, at the end of the day, I am still nothing but a nigger to the anti-gm crowd. I refuse to accept that mantle anymore after this prop 8 thing.
Click to expand...

Didn't a big majority of African Americans vote against gm?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Please stay on topic and refrain from posting your innermost thoughts on specific posters.
 
jallman said:
Exactly. I am going to say this...I recognize where all the Uncle Tom comments come from when directed toward me for defending both sides of this issue. I won't be doing it anymore. Whether I get to be a field nigger or a house nigger, at the end of the day, I am still nothing but a nigger to the anti-gm crowd. I refuse to accept that mantle anymore after this prop 8 thing.
Click to expand...

A nigger with 10 acres and a mule ;)
 
talloulou said:
However gender discrimination is allowed and supported in a variety of arenas.
Click to expand...

That needs to be fixed too.

However, gender is usually considered a protected class, whether that actually happens in practice or not.
 
FallingPianos said:
Are people really taking Jerry seriously?

I mean, sometimes I'll debate him when I'm feeling squirrely, but for the most part I don't bother with people who are willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

And you think your personal insults score you any points? :confused:
 
Jerry said:
The only difference between the 2 is a name, the only reason anyone gives a **** about that name is because of what it means within the culture, NOT what it means under law.

Using a different name is how you give gays the legal rights without having to win the sociological battle at the same time.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v_board]Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Captain America said:
Y'know Jer, sometimes methinks that it is the GOP who wants to put the gay stuff on the ballots, alongside the candidates up for election. That brings more voters out to their side on election day. A subtle form of voter manipulation. The Libs do it too, only they use pot as their magnet issue.

It really shouldn't be up for a vote. It's only right to do what's right and let them have equality in all things. It should be a mandate. But it ain't the governments job to tell them no in the first place. It ain't the church's either. Getting married to somebody of the same sex OR the opposite sex should be THEIR choice. But the church has every right to NOT sanction it if they so desire. Big deal. :roll:

"Sure, you can get married IF..... " Who has the right to put an "if" in there? To me, that is beyond arrogant. I just don't understand why some people get their panty's in a bunch when gays ask for equality. Who's it gonna hurt? You? Me? I highly doubt it. Much adoo over nothing.
Click to expand...

And this is something I support in theory and wouldn't mind in regards to judicial activism however I'm very hesitant to just agree with judicial activism and judges ruling based on, "how they feel things should be," just because it's a topic I happen to support.

If there's a right to marry whoever you want they need to find it. They can't pull it out of a magic happy hat. Barring that, the fight just needs to continue till people want and support same sex marriage.
 
Kandahar said:
The particular subset of races that each race was allowed to marry is irrelevant. The point is that they did not have the same rights regarding marriage. A white man could marry a white woman, but a black man could not. Unconstitutional. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot. Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It was unconstitutional for very different and unapplicable reasons.

For example, the rational behind said racism was the expressed purpose to preserve racial purity.

No such equivalent argument of hetero purity exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom