• 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 gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
jallman said:
No they are not. They just want to be left alone by religious zealots and their dark age fantasies of imposing Teh Almighteh GAWD!!! upon their private lives. You are having nothing imposed on you as long as you stay the hell out of a gay wedding and don't marry a gay.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. They want to impose their definition of marriage upon everyone at the legal level. They are left alone by zealots. It isn't illegal to be gay. And if I was in California I would absolutely have this imposed on me. I would have voted for Prop 8, my vote would contribute to it's passing. Having a judge rule my beliefs to be unconstitutional and repeal a proposition that the majority of people legally voted for is absolutely an imposition of morals and a violation of my rights as a voter.
As for the rest of your appeal to nature...its a fallacy. Until you add the requirement of procreation to the marriage license, you have no point with that little rant.
Click to expand...
I was asked one non religious valid opinion to oppose gay marriage. The fact that homosexual unions are obviously and biologically different from hetero unions is enough to prevent them from being considered the same union at the legal level. The issue is that there really wasn't a legal definition for marriage until Prop 8 came along and asked the voters to decide what marriage is. However, those people had their rights as voters revoked and their beliefs ruled to be illegal because some judge wanted to ram his beliefs down everyone's throat. This case is being brought to the appeals court, and I hope to the supreme court, where the voters will have their rights re-instated and the constitutionality of state's rights being properly put back in place.
FilmFestGuy said:
And that makes you a legal scholar, how?
Click to expand...

I was responding to someone saying I had no idea what I was talking about when I stated homosexuality was unnatural. Legally speaking, the gay marriage bans across the country have been challenged and found to be perfectly in line with the Constitution. I'm just saying either the majority of judges who ruled it was ok to define marriage are legally stupid, or this judge in California is being an activist judge (and the facts would add up to support that position).
 
Last edited:
Who cares if being gay isn't "natural"? Are they people, Mr. Biologist? Does the 14th amendment not guarantee equality for all "people"? Being handicapped is not natural either, so should we prevent handicapped people from getting married too?
 
It doesn't matter biologically since legally you can't infringe upon the rights of others; which includes the right to contract. There is no restriction on marriage that it be biologically viable. So we can just quit being stupid about that line.
 
digsbe said:
But do you think someone with openly far right anti-gay views could unbiasedly rule on a gay marriage issue? Would you want a right wing partisan judge to rule on the Patriot Act if that was brought to court?


So then why is it ok for homosexuals and those who support it to force their beliefs that homosexual unions equate with hetero marriage down everyone's throats? An inclusive definition does not mean that the definition itself is not imposing beliefs. All laws impose beliefs upon others. Marriage is a social thing that is put into law by society. So, California asked society to define marriage. They didn't hear what they wanted, so plan B was to make it illegal to have an opinion against gay marriage anyway. Please, don't be blind to the obvious bias and bigotry that is being purported by the homosexual agenda in California.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, he didn't say I'm gay I oppose it. He used constitutional law.

Also it doesn't matter if the majority don't agree with it. The majority didn't agree with the civil rights movement, but you wouldn't say that was a bad thing would you? It was stupid to put it up to a vote anyway, it was unconstitutional, and wrong. The fact is that the government has no right to deny gays the right to marry. You have nothing but a religious argument to stand on, and that will get laughed out of court. Procreation isn't a prerequisite for marriage, and gay people can have children anyway. It may be harder but it can happen. Your trying to impose your beliefs on people, not the other way around. You could use the same argument against integration, " well I don't wanna be around black people, so we should keep Jim Crow in tact. They might think we should integrate, but they shouldn't impose their beliefs on me" The opposition to gay marriage hasn't a leg to stand on, and hopefully the courts will recognize that.
 
Redress said:
I was hoping you would stop by for this thread. What is your thinking on the ruling. I really value your opinion.
Click to expand...

I think the reasoning for the ruling is the best we have yet. The judge stated same-sex marriage bans put gay parents, and gay couples, at a disadvantage compared to their heterosexual counterparts. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects all citizens from things like that.

Can anyone deny that these bans put heterosexuals at an advantage over homosexuals? Some opponents of same-sex marriage claim it is about families, well homosexuals have children. So do homosexual couples have the right to raise their children as a unit just like heterosexuals? Do homosexuals have the right to family incentives just like heterosexuals? The Equal Protection Clause says, "Yes".
 
Groucho said:
Who cares if being gay isn't "natural"? Are they people, Mr. Biologist? Does the 14th amendment not guarantee equality for all "people"? Being handicapped is not natural either, so should we prevent handicapped people from getting married too?
Click to expand...
Yes they are people, but the Constitution gives people the right to vote. A gay person's vote is equal with a straight person's vote. Are those who voted for Prop 8 not people? Do they deserve to have their rights trampled on?
Ikari said:
It doesn't matter biologically since legally you can't infringe upon the rights of others; which includes the right to contract. There is no restriction on marriage that it be biologically viable. So we can just quit being stupid about that line.
Click to expand...
You can't infringe upon people's right to vote. Should we repeal child consent ages? Because you infringe upon a 13 year old's right to have sex with grannies/grandpa's if he finds them attractive. Laws are enforced morality that are deemed to be moral by society. Anything could be claimed as a "right."
 
digsbe said:
Yes they are people, but the Constitution gives people the right to vote. A gay person's vote is equal with a straight person's vote. Are those who voted for Prop 8 not people? Do they deserve to have their rights trampled on?
Click to expand...
What so-called rights of theirs are being trampled on?
 
The Prof said:
no thanks to barry

his doj in the central district in 2009 compared gay marriage to pedophilia and incest

ugly

Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage? - TIME
Click to expand...

Um, can we stay on topic? If we agree that Obama is not the best friend we could have on this issue, can we possible talk about the law and not turn this into just another thread where you guys bash Obama even when it isn't relevant to the thread?
 
Redress said:
I think we are having a good one. Not even your rants about Obama can derail the good mood we have.
Click to expand...

good, moody people are precious

adults, more serious, prefer links
 
digsbe said:
Yes they are people, but the Constitution gives people the right to vote. A gay person's vote is equal with a straight person's vote. Are those who voted for Prop 8 not people? Do they deserve to have their rights trampled on?

You can't infringe upon people's right to vote. Should we repeal child consent ages? Because you infringe upon a 13 year old's right to have sex with grannies/grandpa's if he finds them attractive. Laws are enforced morality that are deemed to be moral by society. Anything could be claimed as a "right."
Click to expand...

Their right to vote was not infringed. They voted and nobody prevented them from doing so.
Explain what rights are being taken away? I'm straight, if I go to California, is there some right that I've lost?
 
Alex said:
I think the reasoning for the ruling is the best we have yet. The judge stated same-sex marriage bans put gay parents, and gay couples, at a disadvantage compared to their heterosexual counterparts. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects all citizens from things like that.

Can anyone deny that these bans put heterosexuals at an advantage over homosexuals? Some opponents of same-sex marriage claim it is about families, well homosexuals have children. So do homosexual couples have the right to raise their children as a unit just like heterosexuals? Do homosexuals have the right to family incentives just like heterosexuals? The Equal Protection Clause says, "Yes".
Click to expand...

Amen! I seriously am glad society is more accepting of gays for the children of gay people. Growing up with a gay parent in the 70's and 80's was seriously ****ing surreal at times.
 
Groucho said:
Um, can we stay on topic? If we agree that Obama is not the best friend we could have on this issue, can we possible talk about the law and not turn this into just another thread where you guys bash Obama even when it isn't relevant to the thread?
Click to expand...

you talk about law

i do politics

this is just another loser

once more, elites know best, voters be damned

live it, you lucky

it's YOURS!
 
The Prof said:
good, moody people are precious

adults, more serious, prefer links
Click to expand...

Close. Adults, more serious, prefer relevant links. Get back to us when you have those.
 
digsbe said:
Yes they are people, but the Constitution gives people the right to vote.
Click to expand...

Either you misunderstand what is going on here or are purposely trying to avoid the issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people vote to deprive others of their rights, then there's nothing that can be done about it? If, say, the majority passed a law that made it illegal to be a Christian, that you would be fine with that since the majority rules? That if they voted to take away the right of women to hold jobs, you wouldn't mind?

Do you think the majority is ever wrong legally?
 
Your Star said:
But the thing is, he didn't say I'm gay I oppose it. He used constitutional law.
Click to expand...
He spun the Constitution to fit a belief that was comfortable for him. Many federal judges have disagreed in that other states who passed similar things had their propositions put into law and opposition was struck down in court. You can spin the Constitution to mean just about anything if you want.
Also it doesn't matter if the majority don't agree with it. The majority didn't agree with the civil rights movement, but you wouldn't say that was a bad thing would you? It was stupid to put it up to a vote anyway, it was unconstitutional, and wrong. The fact is that the government has no right to deny gays the right to marry. You have nothing but a religious argument to stand on, and that will get laughed out of court. Procreation isn't a prerequisite for marriage, and gay people can have children anyway. It may be harder but it can happen. Your trying to impose your beliefs on people, not the other way around. You could use the same argument against integration, " well I don't wanna be around black people, so we should keep Jim Crow in tact. They might think we should integrate, but they shouldn't impose their beliefs on me" The opposition to gay marriage hasn't a leg to stand on, and hopefully the courts will recognize that.
Click to expand...

I would like to see proof that the majority didn't agree with the civil rights movement. And the civil rights movement is not equal with the homosexual movement. Marriage is largely a social construct, why is it wrong to ask society to legally define it when there is confusion among the state? Why does the government have no rights to deny gays the right to marry? If I remember correctly Clinton signed into law DOMA, which federally defines marriage as traditional. However, the federal government doesn't infringe upon the rights of state's to define marriage for themselves. I would have no objection if the majority of California voted against proposition 8 and later voted to legally define marriage as a union between anyone of any sexual orientation. My issue is that the voters voted and the proposition was not found to be unconstitutional. California Dems were surprised when they saw that Prop 8 passed, so they went to plan B and had a gay judge wrongfully rule that it is unconstitutional for people to have a voice.
 
digsbe said:
Yes they are people, but the Constitution gives people the right to vote. A gay person's vote is equal with a straight person's vote. Are those who voted for Prop 8 not people? Do they deserve to have their rights trampled on?
Click to expand...

The people are not allowed to make laws the contradict the Constitution.

digsbe said:
You can't infringe upon people's right to vote. Should we repeal child consent ages? Because you infringe upon a 13 year old's right to have sex with grannies/grandpa's if he finds them attractive. Laws are enforced morality that are deemed to be moral by society. Anything could be claimed as a "right."
Click to expand...

Yes you can, at least at the federal level, with the states it can vary.

Your religious morality is not the same for everyone else.
Laws are about equity and reason.
 
The Prof said:
you talk about law

i do politics

this is just another loser

once more, elites know best, voters be damned

live it, you lucky

it's YOURS!
Click to expand...

Once more, I am amused by your apparent glee when losing. Are you actually Bizarro Prof?
 
digsbe said:
Yes they are. They want to impose their definition of marriage upon everyone at the legal level. They are left alone by zealots. It isn't illegal to be gay. And if I was in California I would absolutely have this imposed on me. I would have voted for Prop 8, my vote would contribute to it's passing. Having a judge rule my beliefs to be unconstitutional and repeal a proposition that the majority of people legally voted for is absolutely an imposition of morals and a violation of my rights as a voter.
Click to expand...

And having the mormon church whip up a bunch of jesus freaks into a frenzy by telling them I am going ban the words mommy and daddy so they can come out and use their votes to tell me I am less a citizen than they are is a violation of MY rights. And all I want is the right to be left the **** alone by your churches and have the same freedom to enjoy the same rights of inheritance and power of attorney between my partner and myself that you do with your partner.

How about this one? I don't care what you and "fish market" do in the privacy of your own home, but stop running ads in papers to announce your marriages, stop plastering your hypersexual advertisements all over television and sit down and STFU while the rest of us get on with our happy lives together. And when she gets sick with chick cancer, well you can just hope the hospital lets you in to see her or that you shelled out the money for a power of attorney. And when "Melons" ups and croaks, well you can give a huge chunk of what you worked your entire lives together for to the government. But I don't have to because well...I'm not dating a tuna can, which I find morally appalling because its...icky.

How ****in well do you think that would go over with you if you were in that situation, pal?

I was asked one non religious valid opinion to oppose gay marriage. The fact that homosexual unions are obviously and biologically different from hetero unions is enough to prevent them from being considered the same union at the legal level.
Click to expand...

And what does the biology have to do with it for homos that is so special that it can't be applied to heteros?

The issue is that there really wasn't a legal definition for marriage until Prop 8 came along and asked the voters to decide what marriage is. However, those people had their rights as voters revoked and their beliefs ruled to be illegal because some judge wanted to ram his beliefs down everyone's throat.
Click to expand...

First of all, you have no rights as a voter to use that vote to make other voters second class citizens. Secondly, unless he added an addendum that requires you, legally, to go meet and greet every new gay married couple, you haven't had jack **** shoved down your throat. All your whining and complaining is because you didn't get your way and have the chance to elevate yourself above your fellow citizen.

Go ahead...ask me if I have the first ounce of sympathy for your pitiful plight?

This case is being brought to the appeals court, and I hope to the supreme court, where the voters will have their rights re-instated and the constitutionality of state's rights being properly put back in place.
Click to expand...

You have no rights to vote away rights of other people. We are a Democratic Republic, not an inquisition mob.
 
Deuce said:
Their right to vote was not infringed. They voted and nobody prevented them from doing so.
Explain what rights are being taken away? I'm straight, if I go to California, is there some right that I've lost?
Click to expand...

Um yes, their right to their votes was infringed upon. They voted, it passed, and then the court ruled that people actually don't have the right to vote on marriage and that it's illegal to say and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
 
digsbe said:
I was asked one non religious valid opinion to oppose gay marriage. The fact that homosexual unions are obviously and biologically different from hetero unions is enough to prevent them from being considered the same union at the legal level.
Click to expand...
How are they "obviously and biologically different"? Surely you're not suggesting that marriages should be allowed/disallowed based on how the two people involved have sex and whether or not the state thinks that's "natural", are you?


I was responding to someone saying I had no idea what I was talking about when I stated homosexuality was unnatural.
Click to expand...
It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural. Hence why your crazy comment was called into question.
 
Some fun quotes from the ruling:

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be
secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in
enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an
accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558,
571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing
Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).
Click to expand...

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was
“not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” Id at 23.
Click to expand...

Even Prop 8's lawyers couldn't come up with a reason why same-sex marriage impedes procreation.

At trial, however, proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that the provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

Still reading through the ruling, but it's a pretty solid legal decision. Claims of "activist judge" are just sour grapes, this is good case law.
 
digsbe said:
Um yes, their right to their votes was infringed upon. They voted, it passed, and then the court ruled that people actually don't have the right to vote on marriage and that it's illegal to say and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

So if people voted to take away voting rights from certain people you'd be okay with that right?

After all the people voted on it right.....
 
Just thought I would mention this: we are averaging over 100 posts an hour just in this thread right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom