• 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

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

The "sanctity of marriage" arguments sound pretty close to me.

But regardless, the rationale behind the law is not as important as the actual impact of them. Those interracial marriage laws are unconstitutional REGARDLESS of what the rationale is, since not everyone had the same rationale for them. Similarly, anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional regardless of what the rationale is.
 
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...

I'm pretty good at keeping your secrets for someone so ignorant.
 
Jerry said:
Yes I cited this earlier in the thread to support my position...your point?
Click to expand...

The point is that you CANNOT create two parallel institutions even if you make them equal under the law (which they aren't). "Separate but equal" institutions are unconstitutional.
 
Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't find solutions for some of the problems presented with Domestic Partnership. However it is my firm belief that the easiest, fastest and best way to fix those problems is by addressing them one by one with existing CA law.
 
Kandahar said:
The "sanctity of marriage" arguments sound pretty close to me.

But regardless, the rationale behind the law is not as important as the actual impact of them. Those interracial marriage laws are unconstitutional REGARDLESS of what the rationale is, since not everyone had the same rationale for them. Similarly, anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional regardless of what the rationale is.
Click to expand...

They're only unconstitutional if gays are denied civil rights.

Gays are not denied civil rights as they have access to all of them under existing Domestic Partnership law.

Therefore it's perfectly constitutional.
 
Kandahar said:
The "sanctity of marriage" arguments sound pretty close to me.

But regardless, the rationale behind the law is not as important as the actual impact of them. Those interracial marriage laws are unconstitutional REGARDLESS of what the rationale is, since not everyone had the same rationale for them. Similarly, anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional regardless of what the rationale is.
Click to expand...


But I would think with interracial marriage you would argue that all men are equal regardless of skin color thus it's wrong to argue one man is more or less equal than another.

With same sex marriage you are forced into the argument that gender is interchangeable.

In other words it becomes an argument of a black man and a white man are the same vs a man and a woman are the same. One is a much easier argument than the other.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
But it was a racial discrimination where skin color dictated who you could or couldn't marry.
Click to expand...
And now its sexual orientation discrimination.

talloulou said:
This is gender discrimination which is rampant. :2razz:
Click to expand...
Actually its sexual orientation. Not simply gender.

talloulou said:
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.
Click to expand...
The slippery slope defense is hardly convincing. But if you'd like to discuss the nuances between the issues we can.

talloulou said:
However gender discrimination is allowed and supported in a variety of arenas.
Click to expand...
And for legitimate reasons. For example, men can't have babies or become pregnant so men arguing for male breastfeeding laws or maternity leave is silly (though maternity leave is provided to males by some employers).
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The point is that you CANNOT create two parallel institutions even if you make them equal under the law (which they aren't). "Separate but equal" institutions are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Then you have to disolve the states.

Brown, in no way, tossed out "separate but equal" stations.

Brown simply decided....

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

Again, if you toss out "separate but equal", you have to dissolve the very states themselves.
 
Sexual orientation isn't concrete though. What if someone is bisexual and their only means of being completely happy is building a family that consists of two men and a woman and they want legal recognition of a three way marriage?
 
The question of equality in this instance doesn't mean much. It cannot be specified, gays have equal rights today and yet they want equal rights, both situations are equal, they include different circumstances but to say which is more equal is a rather meaningless activity. It has to be something more than generalised calls for equality that the argument for GM rests on.

Then of course when invoking equality one has to consider exactly the value of equality is. Sure there is a degree needed in certain areas but then again extreme egalitarianism itself can be very dangerous, as old conservative wisdom can tell you, distinctions between groups and individuals are vital in maintaining liberty, so a simple call for equality, even if one could meaningfully say one situation was the true one of equality, itself must be looked at in detail and analysised to some degree with caution.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
The question of equality in this instance doesn't mean much. It cannot be specified, gay have equal rights today and yet they want equal rights, both situations are equal, they include different circumstances but to say which is more equal is a rather meaningless activity. It has to be something more than generalised calls for equality that the argument for GM rests on.

Then of course when invoking equality one has to consider exactly the value of equality is. Sure there is a degree needed in certain areas but then again extreme egalitarianism itself can be very dangerous, as old conservative wisdom can tell you, distinctions between groups and individuals are vital in maintaining liberty, so a simple call for equality, even if one could meaningfully say one situation was the true one of equality, itself must be looked at in detail and analysised to some degree with caution.
Click to expand...

I didn't follow this, I'm sorry to say.
 
talloulou said:
No. But as long as the government is restricting marriage, involved in marriage we are going to have this issue of how or why they restrict certain things.
Click to expand...

Oh so you are for government involvment as long as it agrees to what you want.

Thank you for noting that you are for big government.

You are about as conservative as a liberal.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Sexual orientation isn't concrete though. What if someone is bisexual and their only means of being completely happy is building a family that consists of two men and a woman and they want legal recognition of a three way marriage?
Click to expand...

Then he needs to name one or the other irreplaceable to himself and then work out the goings on of his own household in private.
 
scourge99 said:
And for legitimate reasons. For example, men can't have babies or become pregnant so men arguing for male breastfeeding laws or maternity leave is silly (though maternity leave is provided to males by some employers).
Click to expand...

And disingenuous reasons as well such as women not being allowed to run around topless while males are free to.
 
talloulou said:
I didn't follow this, I'm sorry to say.
Click to expand...

Gays have equal rights, they want equal rights. So to say they simply need equality is meaningless. What is actually being said is they need equal rights to marry who they want of any sex as long as they are a consenting adult. This however has less of an emotional appeal as simply stating: Homosexuals need equality.

Also I was commenting on the value of equality itself in response to its seeming ubiquitous worship by some and recalling the old conservative idea of a tension between equality and liberty beyond a certain point. The idea of equality above all is not a good one in my view. I'm not necessarily linking that to the current end of these arguments, as in whether I'm for or against GM, simply talking about the general attitudes.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Then he needs to name one or the other irreplaceable to himself and then work out the goings on of his own household in private.
Click to expand...

But you need better legalese to support that. You can't just say, "well he needs to get with the program," otherwise the same may be said to you.

What would separate that man from you? What judicial reason would be given for supporting your request while denying recognition of his if he feels both partners are equal and further feels it is wrong for him to be forced into having one of his spouses be legally legit while the other is deemed superfluous from a legal and societal recognition standpoint?
 
talloulou said:
But you need better legalese to support that. You can't just say, "well he needs to get with the program," otherwise the same may be said to you.

What would separate that man from you? What judicial reason would be given for supporting your request while denying recognition of his if he feels both partners are equal and further feels it is wrong for him to be forced into having one of his spouses be legally legit while the other is deemed superfluous from a legal and societal recognition standpoint?
Click to expand...

That is pretty accurate legalese. It directly calls Sharp v Perez and the principles in that ruling. It makes use of the existing marriage contract. Any addition to the marriage contract in terms of number of partners needs to be argued from a corporate law standpoint and not a marriage law.
 
TheNextEra said:
Oh so you are for government involvment as long as it agrees to what you want.

Thank you for noting that you are for big government.

You are about as conservative as a liberal.
Click to expand...

:rofl Actually in this case, with prop 8, it's not what I want. I'm trying to frame what I want from a legal standpoint. Having a discussion, you know?

If I got the chance to vote for same sex marriage I'd vote in favor of it every single time.
 
talloulou said:
And disingenuous reasons as well such as women not being allowed to run around topless while males are free to.
Click to expand...

I think you would find broad bipartisan support for allowing you to run around topless all you want.
 
Oh so you are for government involvment as long as it agrees to what you want.

Thank you for noting that you are for big government.

You are about as conservative as a liberal.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about involvement? The only involvement is to recognise the marriage in some circumstances as an irreducible unit and deal with it as such rather than with the atomised individuals. That is hardly a more involved gov't, in fact I'd say it is less involvement than when the state does not recognise such units of society and tries to deal with individuals cut off from them. As this is to a degree an invasion of their necessary autonomy and function.

There are few ways of thinking that are so conservative.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good. It is a cultural war and at this point barring some federal judges coming along and pulling a rabbit out of a hat like they did with abortion this fight won't be won except by having the public demand it which means keeping the topic alive constantly so that you win more and more votes with each generation coming of age; some because they're sympathetic and others because they are so sick to death of it they will vote for it simply to be done with hearing about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom