• 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!

Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

I'm understandably curious what this has to do with the topic at hand and what your ORIGINAL question had to do with the topic at hand.

You can figure that much out can't you.....why not ask one of your liberal friends OK
 
So you are saying gays should not be allowed to marry because it costs money?

We are not just talking about gays redress are we, or do you want to discriminate against anyone who wants to marry? shame on you young lady.............
 
The silence is deafening...........Where are you my left wing friends>\?:confused:
 
Will you pay all the taxes for me to provide the extra benefits if we allowed anyone to marry that wanted to......If you liberals would pay all the millions it will take I am sure no conservative would care...............

We might as well, I mean taxes are gonna sky rocket anyway after Obama's done with us.
 
I'm asking YOU

OK now pay attention there might be a test my left wing friend..........I want you to check out the 14th amendment to the constitution, the equal protection clause and get back to me.............

Here is another hint for you............you can Google on it to get the constitution....do you know how to do that?

Now the next time come to class prepared............
 
OK now pay attention there might be a test my left wing friend..........I want you to check out the 14th amendment to the constitution, the equal protection clause and get back to me.............

Here is another hint for you............you can Google on it to get the constitution....do you know how to do that?

Now the next time come to class prepared............

You must love dodgeball.
 
We might as well, I mean taxes are gonna sky rocket anyway after Obama's done with us.

Hush now, you can't say anything bad about Obama...If you do your a racist......You don't believe me ask Sharpton or Jackson..........
 
Hush now, you can't say anything bad about Obama...If you do your a racist......You don't believe me ask Sharpton or Jackson..........

That makes no sense. You're making this pointless.

You wanna lock yourself in the room alone, shooting ugly looks at everyone passing by on the street, that's fine with me. I'm done here.
 
We are not just talking about gays redress are we, or do you want to discriminate against anyone who wants to marry? shame on you young lady.............

Yes we are. Look at the title of the thread. Gay Marriage. Says it right there.
 
That makes no sense. You're making this pointless.

You wanna lock yourself in the room alone, shooting ugly looks at everyone passing by on the street, that's fine with me. I'm done here.

This is not about me my left wing friend, Oh and you were done long ago....Have a nice evening.............:2wave:
 
And I am trying to teach you why gay marriage won't work..........

Well, your teaching is not very good. So far you have shown no reason why gay marriage won't work.
 
I've been lost for about two pages now. Anyone else?
 
1. I am saying if gays can do it so should daughter and father and gays always say they want to marry for the benefits they receive.........

Most of the benefits are those that would make the person's spouse a legal part of their family. A father and daughter are already considered legal family members. Visitation rights, medical rights/decisions, certain employment decisions, and some estate planning benefits. Many of the others wouldn't be necessary for a father and daughter, but would with an actual spouse, such as many of the family benefits concerning adoption, stepparent status, and divorce.

And it must also be asked why two family members would even want to bother trying to be married, when most of the benefits of marriage are directly related to making a person another loves, who is not already a part of the family, a part of the family. I'm not exactly sure why some of those other benefits are given to spouses but not immediate blood relatives.

Some of them are given to immediate blood relations though with certain circumstances. For instance, a single person can claim head-of-household on their taxes with a qualifying dependent that is not their spouse or child. I know this because I did it the year before I got married, with my sister. She lived with me for the year, I paid all the bills, and she made below the limit for me to claim her on my taxes. I was able to claim head-of-household and get an extra tax deduction. I believe that it is to encourage people to actually take in their relatives that can't work or can't find a job or who might be going to school. This exemption is only available for blood relations, in-laws, step-family, or foster/adopted children. It is not available for a significant other who isn't a federally recognized spouse.
 
OK now pay attention there might be a test my left wing friend..........I want you to check out the 14th amendment to the constitution, the equal protection clause and get back to me.............

Here is another hint for you............you can Google on it to get the constitution....do you know how to do that?

Now the next time come to class prepared............
Your attitude problem aside, I'm familiar with the 14th amendment. What's the point?
 
Why is that DD?

I JUST explained it to you Navy. The vast majority of the backers of gay marriage want to wait until 2012 to put it on the ballot. There was a small group that wanted to put it on this election. Personally, I think it would have been smart to put it on this ballot, but I am in the minority.

The big financial backers are waiting until 2012. It won't have any difficulty getting on the ballot then.

What I was commenting on was that this is in no way reflective of the voters of California not want gay marriage, which is how you are trying to spin it.
The reality, it is simply about a small grass roots effort not having the financial backing during this election cycle. Nothing more.
 
Most of the benefits are those that would make the person's spouse a legal part of their family. A father and daughter are already considered legal family members. Visitation rights, medical rights/decisions, certain employment decisions, and some estate planning benefits. Many of the others wouldn't be necessary for a father and daughter, but would with an actual spouse, such as many of the family benefits concerning adoption, stepparent status, and divorce.

And it must also be asked why two family members would even want to bother trying to be married, when most of the benefits of marriage are directly related to making a person another loves, who is not already a part of the family, a part of the family. I'm not exactly sure why some of those other benefits are given to spouses but not immediate blood relatives.

Some of them are given to immediate blood relations though with certain circumstances. For instance, a single person can claim head-of-household on their taxes with a qualifying dependent that is not their spouse or child. I know this because I did it the year before I got married, with my sister. She lived with me for the year, I paid all the bills, and she made below the limit for me to claim her on my taxes. I was able to claim head-of-household and get an extra tax deduction. I believe that it is to encourage people to actually take in their relatives that can't work or can't find a job or who might be going to school. This exemption is only available for blood relations, in-laws, step-family, or foster/adopted children. It is not available for a significant other who isn't a federally recognized spouse.

In the state of Washington we Domestic PartnerRelationship law and it covers gays and older straight relatives who want be a part of it for the benefits it provvides......
 
Will you pay all the taxes for me to provide the extra benefits if we allowed anyone to marry that wanted to......If you liberals would pay all the millions it will take I am sure no conservative would care...............

If Civil unions are the exact same thing as marriage...I thought you were already willing to pay for it....aren't you Navy...or in actuality, when you were saying "it is the same thing",you were lying. You can't play it both ways.
 
OK now pay attention there might be a test my left wing friend..........I want you to check out the 14th amendment to the constitution, the equal protection clause and get back to me.............

Here is another hint for you............you can Google on it to get the constitution....do you know how to do that?

Now the next time come to class prepared............

LOL....Navy trying to educate someone about the equal protection clause. Now THAT's funny.

OK...Navy....since you now believe that you've studied up on it:

Please explain the different levels of scrutiny and why gay marriage would be analyzed differently then polygamy under the equal protection clause.

This should be good.
 
I JUST explained it to you Navy. The vast majority of the backers of gay marriage want to wait until 2012 to put it on the ballot. There was a small group that wanted to put it on this election. Personally, I think it would have been smart to put it on this ballot, but I am in the minority.

The big financial backers are waiting until 2012. It won't have any difficulty getting on the ballot then.

What I was commenting on was that this is in no way reflective of the voters of California not want gay marriage, which is how you are trying to spin it.
The reality, it is simply about a small grass roots effort not having the financial backing during this election cycle. Nothing more.



Sounds like a real cop out to me.Like they might be starting to face reality that they can not pull this off in the 21st century..........

I still think you should go after the DOMA..........
 
.......If you liberals would pay all the millions it will take I am sure no conservative would care...............

Sure, just as long as YOU pay for things that I don't like such as the funding personnel for the Patriot Act and HLS as well as funding the Iraq War. When you STEP UP to do THAT, let us know.

Until then, deal with the REALITY that you will have to pay for things you either don't approve or or use yourself and that will include marriages.
 
LOL....Navy trying to educate someone about the equal protection clause. Now THAT's funny.

OK...Navy....since you now believe that you've studied up on it:

Please explain the different levels of scrutiny and why gay marriage would be analyzed differently then polygamy under the equal protection clause.

This should be good.

I am not the only one doing it DD.........Scholars are.........
 
Sounds like a real cop out to me.Like they might be starting to face reality that they can not pull this off in the 21st century..........

I still think you should go after the DOMA..........

Oh...don't worry Navy. You will see it across the country in your lifetime.
DOMA will be irrelevant.
 
Back
Top Bottom