Page 171 of 189 FirstFirst ... 71121161169170171172173181 ... LastLast
Results 1,701 to 1,710 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1701
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Uh oh. You done it now kid. Not a good idea to try to argue the science of homosexuality with Captain.
    lol so you agree with CC that you can judge whether or not a group of people or lifestyle can marry based on positive and negative contributions to a society? yes or no?
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  2. #1702
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Except, Walker didn't base his ruling on sexual orientation. He based his ruling on the fact that the state had no interest in denying men the right to marry men and women the right to marry women. In other words, he based his ruling on that Prop 8 discrimianted against sex, not sexual orientation. He argued that the state had no interest in mandating gender roles.
    Then you cannot stop Polygamists. They have every right to the 14th amendment. No where does it say the 14th ammendment doesn't apply to groups of more than 2 people or stops at a certain age. No could you stop children and adults from marrying. Again, the 14th ammendment applies. That is the gaping hole in the ruling.
    Last edited by texmaster; 08-09-10 at 03:34 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #1703
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You keep trying to make this about morality. It has nothing to do with morality. We live in a Consitutional Republic. That means the law of the land and the ulimate will of the people is the Federal Constitution. A state is perfectly entitled to legistlate morality. However, a state cannot legistlate morality in a way that violates the Federal Consitution. The judge found that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the Federal Consitution. Therefore he overturned Prop 8.
    And it has been Constitutionally upheld that states have the right to define marriage. That the Constitution protects that right. The judge who ruled on Prop 8 gave an incorrect and inconsistent interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't touch on marriage and sexuality, there is no explicit wording that would protect homosexuality or even heterosexuality. Within our Constitutional Republic there is a process to amend the Constitution. If the states amended the Constitution to specifically say that homosexuality is protected and must be defined within marriage, than there would be a specific argument. A federal judge in MA just ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional in MA because the federal government has no right to dictate to the states how to run marriage (and rightly so). The ruling was passed because the state has the Constitutional right to define marriage.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #1704
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Then you cannot stop Pologmaists. They have every right to teh 14th ammendment. No could you stop children and adults from marrying. Again, the 14th ammendment applies. That is the gaping hole in the ruling.
    What do polygamists have to do with the state mandating gender roles?

    Walker said it was discriminatory to men to deny them the right to marry other men and discriminatory to women to deny them the right to marry other women. He based his ruling on sex discriminatiion not sexual orientation discrimination. He didn't say that gays and lesbians deserved the right marry because they are homosexual.

  5. #1705
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    What do polygamists have to do with the state mandating gender roles?
    This is about marriage.

    Walker said it was discriminatory to men to deny them the right to marry other men and discriminatory to women to deny them the right to marry other women. He based his ruling on sex discriminatiion not sexual orientation discrimination. He didn't say that gays and lesbians deserved the right marry because they are homosexual.
    Then its descrimatory to limit it to 2 people or by how old they are. See? Once you throw out disciminatory and equal protection under the law, anyone can use it.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  6. #1706
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    And it has been Constitutionally upheld that states have the right to define marriage. That the Constitution protects that right. The judge who ruled on Prop 8 gave an incorrect and inconsistent interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't touch on marriage and sexuality, there is no explicit wording that would protect homosexuality or even heterosexuality. Within our Constitutional Republic there is a process to amend the Constitution. If the states amended the Constitution to specifically say that homosexuality is protected and must be defined within marriage, than there would be a specific argument. A federal judge in MA just ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional in MA because the federal government has no right to dictate to the states how to run marriage (and rightly so). The ruling was passed because the state has the Constitutional right to define marriage.
    The DOMA decision only ruled that a state has the right to regulate marriage. It does not give a state the right to regulate marriage in a way that violates the Constitutional rights of American citizens or violates the Federal Constitution.

    Once again, you are missing vital facts in this case...

    The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority, same sex couples, guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

    Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

    Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

    Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

    Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

    The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.

  7. #1707
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Tell that to PETA and many atheists who believe all life is equal with human life. Again, that is a moral stance. Many believe that animals can consent. And many believe there is no difference or worth between human and animal life.
    Then there should be no issue with them proving that in a court of law. You're saying they BELIEVE. I'm saying, they need to PROVE. Currently, only adult humans can enter into legal contracts. If we want to change that, then we'd need to show how other creatures can also consent to and understand the legal implications of said contracts.

    It has to do with the fact that zoophilia is considered immoral by most.
    No, it doesn't. It has to do with horses not being consider persons

    So, should the mentally ill be banned from marriage?
    Some of them, absolutely. If they are found to be unable to understand and consent, then of course they should not be allowed to enter into a contract. That is the way it is currently.

    Should everyone be forced to read the marriage contract and take a comprehension test on it?
    We cover that with the officiate and two witnesses.

    My point is that if sexuality is protected by the equal protection clause, than why not other sexualities? I think your argument is logically consistent though, and I agree about consent. My point is why can't animals even enter into a civil union with someone? Why can't a man legally leave his belongings to his pet dog under some form of contract? Why is it ok to discriminate on other sexualities but homosexuality gets a pass?
    I don't see any discrimination, hon. If and when you can prove in a court of law that dogs can understand and consent to contracts, then this would be resolved. No one has been able to do so yet, though.

    I stated before, if it's about consent I agree with you.
    It IS about consent.

    However, is it wrong to discriminate against other sexualities and not give them some form of union that is on par with that sexualities union?
    There is no discrimination since dogs and blow up dolls cannot consent to contracts.

    I concede that you are right in the consent issue. And it's foolish of me to argue otherwise
    Good, then stop trying to! LOL

    The roles of marriage is husband and wife. Those are gender specific roles. It's not wrong to say a woman can't be a husband, because she cannot be. It's not wrong to say a man can be a wife, because he cannot be. On a straight marriage license, a man cannot register for the position of wife, nor can a woman register for the position of husband. The terms husband and wife are gender specific, and they have gender specific roles (such as childbirth, impregnation, etc).
    Which is exactly why it's gender discrimination.

  8. #1708
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Tell that to PETA and many atheists who believe all life is equal with human life. Again, that is a moral stance. Many believe that animals can consent. And many believe there is no difference or worth between human and animal life. It has to do with the fact that zoophilia is considered immoral by most.

    So, should the mentally ill be banned from marriage? Should everyone be forced to read the marriage contract and take a comprehension test on it? My point is that if sexuality is protected by the equal protection clause, than why not other sexualities? I think your argument is logically consistent though, and I agree about consent. My point is why can't animals even enter into a civil union with someone? Why can't a man legally leave his belongings to his pet dog under some form of contract? Why is it ok to discriminate on other sexualities but homosexuality gets a pass?

    I stated before, if it's about consent I agree with you. However, is it wrong to discriminate against other sexualities and not give them some form of union that is on par with that sexualities union? I concede that you are right in the consent issue. And it's foolish of me to argue otherwise


    The roles of marriage is husband and wife. Those are gender specific roles. It's not wrong to say a woman can't be a husband, because she cannot be. It's not wrong to say a man can be a wife, because he cannot be. On a straight marriage license, a man cannot register for the position of wife, nor can a woman register for the position of husband. The terms husband and wife are gender specific, and they have gender specific roles (such as childbirth, impregnation, etc).
    Marriage in legal terms is nothing more than a contract. If you'd like, you can leave your belongings to your dog. It's been done before and can be done. You have to define who cares for the dog who - for some reason - owns your home. But you can't marry your dog or have sex with it. Nor can you claim it as a dependent because you own it.

    PETA doesn't argue for animals to enter into contracts. They argue for animal life to be treated with dignity and respect.

    The only legal role for a husband and a wife is to care for one another. They don't have to even love one another. They don't have to have sex. They don't have to have children. Thus a husband can stay home, cook dinner, clean. The wife can work and make all the money. If they have children, the father can stay home and care for the child (which is happening a lot more in this recession).

    Same-sex couple can and do raise children. As of last census estimate, 22% of male-male households were raising children and 34% of female-female households were raising children. Same-Sex Households with Children in the United States

    For God's sake, think of the children!

    But seriously, your concerns and fears are utterly unwarranted. Please.

  9. #1709
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Which is exactly why it's gender discrimination.
    Is it gender discrimination for federal buildings to have male and female restrooms? Is it gender discrimination because men can't get pregnant? Nature is a ***** ain't she?
    The roles in marriage have been defined. Female partner=wife, male partner=husband. Marriage is a union between a wife and husband. If people don't like it, they can define a new union and have the state recognize that.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #1710
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Then its descrimatory to limit it to 2 people or by how old they are. See? Once you throw out disciminatory and equal protection under the law, anyone can use it.
    Of COURSE it's discrimination! It's discrimination that we don't allow toddlers to drive tractor trailers too. But some discrimination is necessary, other discrimination is forbidden by our constitution. A man being able to enter into a contract with a woman that I, a woman, cannot enter into with a woman is gender discrimination that is unconstitutional.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 08-09-10 at 03:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •