• 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.
ptif219 said:
The state has an obligation to meet federal law. The state should have done this not the feds
Click to expand...

Are you at all familiar with the history of the civil rights movement?

Brown v board of education etc???

Do you not understand how the state and federal courts function?
 
9th district is most liberal in the land, scotus is scotus

hello

look ahead 2 moves

that's the legalistics

now, look at the politics, if you dare
 
hazlnut said:
Yes - CA supreme court upheld Prop 8 as legal ballot process that amended the state constitution.

The CA state constitution was legally amended. Unfortunately, the amended version violates the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the Federal court case...

Next step is the Fed appellate court, then SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a link proving this
 
ptif219 said:
I am still waiting for proof
Click to expand...

OMG....are you seriously going to play that game. You can look it up yourself...its not that difficult to find. The California Supreme Court took the case a month or so after the election but declined to overturn the law because they said that since it was a Constitutional Amendment there was nothing for them to rule on. They do not address Federal issues.
 
ptif219 said:
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
Click to expand...

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS:

State Constitutional Amendments MUST meet the test of the Federal Constitution. PERIOD.

Romer v. Evans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This has been explained to you so many times that I begin to question your sincerity.

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

You can't amend your state's constitution in a way that is contradictory to the federal constitution.

It really isn't that hard. Dear God, almighty.
 
The Prof said:
9th district is most liberal in the land, scotus is scotus

hello

look ahead 2 moves

that's the legalistics

now, look at the politics, if you dare
Click to expand...

Even with GWB's right-wing activist judges....it is unlikely the Supreme Court is going to have any argument to ban gay marriage.
 
ptif219 said:
You say it happened prove it. I will not do your research
Click to expand...

Seriously Dude....if you want to participate in the debate, please come prepared. It is not our duty to make sure you are educated so that you can play along. Spend 5 minutes and then come back.
 
disneydude said:
Even with GWB's right-wing activist judges....it is unlikely the Supreme Court is going to have any argument to ban gay marriage.
Click to expand...

They don't have to rule on gay marriage, only the process, and whether due proces was met. It was, case closed!

They'll duck it exactly in this manner, watch and see.


Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
I personally wish both sides would back down and attempt to have some reasonable, honest, discussion.
Click to expand...

How incredibly naive. This is a culture war. The fact of the matter is that the extremists on both sides base their careers on the perpetuation of this culture war. Each side relies on conflict with their supposed enemies for the perpetuation of their own existence. They devote themselves to influencing, fund raising, and organizing, based upon real or perceived attacks from the other side. These "threats" are their oxygen, and without them, they would die.

Take the National Organization for Marriage for example and its recent bus tour. The entire purpose is to provoke the most militant gay marriage advocates so that they can capture it on film and then use it in future ads or court trials to argue that the gay marriage side is intolerant, dangerous, and ultimately evil, whereas the traditional marriage side is just the vulnerable minority. Why? So that people like Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown can continue to draw a paycheck as the whole issue is perpetuated. Those people don't really care about preserving traditional marriage. If they did, then they would have sought laws against divorce in order to bring an end to serial monogamy and tried to criminalize infidelity.

There is no room for common ground here because both sides have dehumanized each other. Both sides view the other side as evil.
 
ptif219 said:
You say it happened prove it. I will not do your research
Click to expand...

In other words, you are arguing a topic you know nothing about...leaning on your emotional response to the icky gays to carry you through, dropping buzzwords and soundbytes with no knowledge of why they are important, and refusing to educate yourself on the matter at all.

That's called attention whoring. It also means I am done with it and I suggest everyone else do the same.
 
I expect them to rule on the equal protection claim which is a much stronger argument in my opinion.
 
ptif219 said:
So the state is not responsible to make sure their laws meet federal standards?
Click to expand...

If the state wishes to inact the law, then they better make sure it does meet those standards. The law was challenged at the federal level, and the ruling is that law did not meet federal (constitutional) standards. Federal courts are the ones who rule on conflicts with federal law, or the US constitution, not state courts.

The challenge was against the US Constitution, therefore it is decided by federal courts.
 
ptif219 said:
DOMA protects states rights to make their own marrige laws
Click to expand...

DOMA is circling the drain and will probably get flushed soon after Prop 8.

20 years from now, people who were strongly against gay marriage and adoption will be portrayed in movies similar to Mississippi Burning.

I don't think every person against gay marriage/rights is a bigot, some are just old fashion and don't really know any gay people. Its a generational thing. Today, even young evangelicals are ready to move forward on this and allow gay couples to go to the same window at city hall that straight people do. You can still define your marriage any way you want.
 
hazlnut said:
Are you at all familiar with the history of the civil rights movement?

Brown v board of education etc???

Do you not understand how the state and federal courts function?
Click to expand...

Yes but the state should have to correct it not the feds throw out state laws
 
ptif219 said:
Yes but the state should have to correct it not the feds throw out state laws
Click to expand...

The state should have got it right before it was challenged then, but it was challenged.. at the FEDERAL level.
 
ptif219 said:
The state has an obligation to meet federal law. The state should have done this not the feds
Click to expand...

But if a State does not meet those requirements, then the Federal government will have to step in to make sure that it does. Does that even make sense to you? You seem horrifically caught up on that one point.
 
disneydude said:
OMG....are you seriously going to play that game. You can look it up yourself...its not that difficult to find. The California Supreme Court took the case a month or so after the election but declined to overturn the law because they said that since it was a Constitutional Amendment there was nothing for them to rule on. They do not address Federal issues.
Click to expand...

You need to back up what you claim
 
ptif219 said:
You say it happened prove it. I will not do your research
Click to expand...

It's not about my research. It's about you getting into a thread without knowing all the facts.

If you're really interested in knowing the history of Prop 8 and how it got to the fed courts, then do your homework and come back when you better understand everything that led up to yesterday's decision.

Start with Prop 22.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom