• 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.
Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?

Tim-

Again, you are using a slippery slope fallacy here.

Something being legal does not equate to something being normal.

It is legal to dye ones hair pitch black, put spikes through ones ears, get surgically implanted horns in ones forehead, wear blood stained black garb, while hissing to show your surgically created fangs.

That does not mean its legal.

The argument that "Marriage between two people of the same sex should be legal" and "Marriage between two people of the same sex should be taught and socially forced to be viewed as 'normal'" are two entirely different things. While they do relate, and even if we assume the second statement is "wrong", the wrongness of the second statement doesn't in and of itself negate the first statement if the first statement is right.

Whether or not homosexuality, or even gay marriage, is taught as "normal" or "correct" or is presented as such societally is a seperate issue. One does not necessarily mean the other MUST happen, nor does supporting one necessarily mean one must support the other.
 
Sexual orientation states who we are attracted too, polygamy doesn't do that. People can be straight, gay, or bi polygamist. It isn't an orientation so much as a lifestyle.
Both are hypothetical constructs used to describe behavioral intentions, desires or preferences.
 
There are three levels of scrutiny that fall upon Equal Protection Claims.

The first is reserved for Suspect Classifications. These are things like Race, Religion, etc. This classification requires that the government show a compelling state interest that shows that the inequality is necessary to serve said interest.

The second is reserved for Quasi-suspect Classifications and requires middle-tier scrutiny. This is the standard for Gender. It requires that the government show an important state interest and that the inequality is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

The third tier, which is the lowest, is known as Rational Basis Scrutiny. In this the government needs to only show that the inequality is rationally related to serving a legitimate state itnerest. This is reserved for any status not generally outlined, which is actually where homosexuality would currently fit into.

In this particular instance none of the things the state presented were deemed to be an "important" state interest and/or that said interests would not be "substantially" benefited from said inequality.

I understand this, my comment was for a few psots up, to whcih I thought you were responding. In family court the preponderance burden is all that is required in most cases. Sorry the thread is moving fast and I got lost. :)


Tim-
 
Explain why a federal judge is ruling over a state issue

It's a check to ensure that State law is in compliance with the Federal Constitution.
 
Huh? The key word is mght, clearly, but it carries a heavy weight in your analysis. We choose to do things everyday based on what "might" happen in the future, don't we? Don't you?

Tim-

We do choose things every day on what MIGHT happen in the future. However we do not base immediete actions on SOLELY what may happen in the future without any thought about the present.

I know I need to eat food. Now, there's a possability that when I go and make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich that the nuts MIGHT be affected by some kind of bacterial infrection that could cause me severe illness, or the shrimp I have in the fridge may've been in there too long and spoiled and MIGHT also cause me harm. However, that does not necessarily mean I simply should not eat because these are possabilities that MIGHT happen.

Let us take something from recent times, the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act provided a much needed upgrade to our intelligence laws, but it also expanded the power of the government. Lets assume however that you felt such a thing was "needed" and "correct".

Lets say however you also agreed with the notion others had that by giving the government more power than inevitably that could be used to give them more power and after that inevitably for a President to declare a state of emergency and become essentially a king.

Does that mean you should not support the Patriot Act, which you strongly and principely felt was a needed and good measure, simply because of something that MIGHT happen in the future if people acted wrongly and twisted it to proportions that it doesn't actually allow?

Not in the least.

That is similar to here.

Many of us feel that marriage between two individuals regardless of sex is correct, right, and constitutional. As such, we support that.

However, the fact that the standard for Equal Protection could maybe somehow possibly be manipulated and wrongly used for abortion doesn't mean I should not support it. It means that if someone tries that I should fight against it.

You should not NOT do something that you firmly believing is right simply because there's some kind of change that someone at some point will try to do something that is not right by manipulating that which you agreed with.

If that is the case, we should never do anything, at any time, because there is ALWAYS a way to create a doomsday scenario where taking any action could cause a bad reaction.
 
Because it violates the federal Constitution.

Prop 8 is a state issue. This the federal government is abusing power and not letting States have their rights. What about the states rights to govern its people. Marriage is not a federal issue
 
Simple. State laws have to comply with the requirements of the United States Constitution.

The state should have been given the first appeal not the feds. The state supreme court should have ruled the feds as usual are taking away the states rights
 
Prop 8 is a state issue. This the federal government is abusing power and not letting States have their rights. What about the states rights to govern its people. Marriage is not a federal issue

States can not violate the Constitution.
 
Bull it is the feds not letting the state govern its people

No it's not. It's the feds telling the majority they can't lord their morals over a minority and they are out of line with the Constitution.

That's the way it is with everything that happens.
 
I understand this, my comment was for a few psots up, to whcih I thought you were responding. In family court the preponderance burden is all that is required in most cases. Sorry the thread is moving fast and I got lost. :)

Tim-

You're not kidding. Its actually why this entire thing disappoints me that its even at the court level.

I personally wish both sides would back down and attempt to have some reasonable, honest, discussion.

I maintain that by far, the best way to address the majority of concerns of both sides is to eliminate the word "marriage" from law and the government entirely, completely striking it from the strange duality it serves now as existing in two different spheres both religious and governmental.

This would retain the "sanctity" or "marriage" as at that point only individual churches could actually "marry" someone under the auspices of their church and no one could claim that the government is somehow demeaning their "marriage" by allowing people they don't think should enter into it to be technically "married" because the term would be out of the governments hands entirely.

Meanwhile pro-gay marriage advocates should be happy because the government now has only one term, civil union, that applies to any two legal aged individuals that wish to enter into said contract. There is no "seperate but equal" status, there is but one.

This retains the "sanctity" of marriage while maintaining the "equality" of government.
 
The state should have been given the first appeal not the feds. The state supreme court should have ruled the feds as usual are taking away the states rights

plaintiffs case was not regarding any conflicts with state law or the state constitution, it was charging conflict with the US constitution. State courts do not have jurisdiction with the complaint.
 
Last edited:
Prop 8 is a state issue. This the federal government is abusing power and not letting States have their rights. What about the states rights to govern its people. Marriage is not a federal issue

Isn't the DOMA a federal issue?
 
Bull it is the feds not letting the state govern its people

Actually, incorrect.

This is a contested issue under the 14th amendment that claims equal protection under the law.

The constitution has something known as the Surpemacy Clause that states that the constitutional protections also apply to the states.

Therefore it is not constitutional for states to use laws to discriminate against people, which was being argued here. Because its a FEDERAL constitutional matter its a federal matter.

If we are to go by the rationale you're suggesting, which essentially throws out the supremacy clause, then the recent advancements for the strength of the 2nd amendment could've never happened. In both cases the laws being challenged were local laws, not federal laws, but due to the supremacy clauses they still fell into the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL court system.
 
Prop 8 is a state issue. This the federal government is abusing power and not letting States have their rights. What about the states rights to govern its people. Marriage is not a federal issue

State rights are not absolute....they cannot run afoul of Constitutional protections. For instance, would you agree that a State would not be allowed to say that marriage is only for white couples?
 
No it's not. It's the feds telling the majority they can't lord their morals over a minority and they are out of line with the Constitution.

That's the way it is with everything that happens.

It should go to state court first to let the state address it and explain it
 
Well, was fun all but I gotta actually go do work away from the computer. I'm sure it'll be 10 pages longer by the time I get back ;)
 
This is a state issue it should have went to state court first

It already did. The California Supreme Court said that since prop 8 amended the California Constitution there was nothing for them to rule on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom