Page 56 of 189 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866106156 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #551
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What part of our Constitution makes it possible for a majority to vote away the benefits or rights of a section of the population?
    The Sixteenth Amendment

  2. #552
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    What "equal protection"? What due process? Should we as a society protect everything?
    The rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are what need to be protected. Those include equal protection under the law and due process.

    Look, Constitution or not.. When the clear will of the people is so blatantly disregarded, you have trouble on your hands. Like it or not, the vote is important! When a single person so willfully denies the vote, without a compelling enough argument, as to why, you have the potential for trouble.
    Like it or not, the US Constitution is the will of the people. The people can vote to amend it. If the people vote for a federal amendment to the US constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman, then you can argue that the will of the people is traditional marriage. Amendments to state constitutions are not the will of the people, they are the will of majorities in those respective states. The will of the people is the US constitution, which via the courts can overturn any state amendment if it is in violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

    Most people don't understand the law, but there was nothing, inandofitself that this law nullified. I think it not hard to present an argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable, and or innate. One of the two qualifiers previous, is required to prove a class of people.
    I too am interested in whether gays and lesbians will constitute a class of people under the federal law. It is clear from a scientific standpoint that homosexuality is not something that is chosen, nor something that is entirely learned. There are biological components to it that are outside an individual's control, but not so much that a person's sexuality isn't influenced by other factors like environment. And of course choice is a major factor in dictating sexual behavior, if not sexual attractions and feelings. Whatever the case may be, the complexity of sexual orientation will provide a great deal of difficulty for both sides if they are compelled to argue whether or not gays and lesbians are entitled to be classified as a class of people.

    However, the arguments I am looking forward to are why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry. I have yet to hear a rational one.

  3. #553
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Wine is much better with cheese.

  4. #554
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court sees this case. Will it be based on equal protection? Will it be based on nullification of voters? I can see strengths and weaknesses of both sides of this argument. Ultimately, the Supreme Court should be looking at this case from two points: 1) Does the Constitution allow the majority to suppress the minority, and 2) Do the benefits of gay marriage overrule the negatives. As to the first point, it is irrelevant as to whether or not homosexuality is biological or environmental. The question is, a minority group, wants benefits that are offered to a majority group. Can that majority group prevent that? Now, when discussing this question, there are a few points that are irrelevant:

    1) Homosexuals marrying those of the opposite sex is an irrelevant point. One must ask why heteros marry. Compatibility, love, raising children. These would be the points to examine. Gays do NOT want to marry someone of the opposite sex for these reasons, therefore presenting this as an issue does not apply.
    2) Procreation. Gays can procreate, as long as the "parts" work... same as straights. Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, this point, too, does not apply.
    3) The rights of the minority. The Constitution does give rights to everyone... not just those in the majority. I do not adhere to the "discrimination" argument, but I could see it being used in this case. Truthfully, I see it as less as there is a strong argument FOR it, and more that there is NOT a strong argument AGAINST it. This is why, based on discrimination alone, the GM debate is a stalemate. Which leads us to the 2nd part.

    Do the benefits of GM overrule the negatives:
    1) Does it affect the state of straight marriages? Not at all... or at least on in how certain people may feel offended by GM. No one has the right to not be offended, so those feelings are irrelevant.
    2) How does marriage benefit society/the government, and does GM yield those same benefits? This is where the strength of the GM arguments lays. Government has a vested interest in supporting marriage because of it's positive affect on the health of the individual, the health of communities, society, and the positive rearing of children. Studies indicate that GM yields the exact same results as straight marriage in all of these areas.
    3) Will GM lead to other "alternative" marriages, such as polygamy? No, simply because these types of unions do not reap the same benefits to society.

    In order for SCOTUS to properly attend to this issue, both Constitutional and societal issues must be looked at and addressed. If so, with the points above, I believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of GM. However, if SCOTUS looks solely at whether or not a voter referendum can be overturned, and does not consider the above points, I would imagine that SCOTUS will rule against GM. IMO, this was not the correct way to go in presenting GM to SCOTUS. Nullifying a vote by the people is reasonable if the referendum violated the Constitution, however, in this case, interpretation of the Constitution can be a bit murky. That's why I never argue the discrimination position. I think it is too early to tell whether or not this will be a winner or not.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #555
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

    Sheesh..


    Tim-
    Tim:

    7 million voters are not capable of reviewing the amendment to CA constitution and its potential violation of the U.S. constitution. That's all the judge did. HIS JOB.

    The Judge did not overturn their votes. The CA supreme court upheld their votes. Their votes were legal and the CA constitution was amended accordingly. But at the first test of the amended CA constitution, it was found to be in violation 14th Amendment.

    We live in a republic not a direct democracy -- that's one problem with CA's very broad ballot initiative system -- it gives the people the impression they can decide anything... They can't. The majority of the people lack the legal background or understanding of the complexities of economics and public policy to make the big decisions; that's why we elect representatives to do that for us who are (hopefully) capable of making decisions that represent our best interests.

  6. #556
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.
    Here is the way I look at it. The will of the people was essential in creating the US Constitution, the california constitution, and other such documents. However, laws also have to be internally consistent (to a degree) with one another and in respect to their heirarchy (constitution trumps other laws for example). But given that it is in conflict with other laws that were created by the will of the people, whether through election or other means of expressions of that will, than either the will of the people was preserved or not preserved, depending on how you look at it.

    However, if you go with the idea of it not being preserved, than there are cases all over the place where the will of the people are not preserved whenever any law is struck down.

    So I guess you can argue either way and still be correct.

  7. #557
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,133

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    The very same that says you can't smoke dope.. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.

    The deviants have won this battle from a queer judge... Go figure?

    The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman. This judge is a queer fella that voted what one would expect a queer fellla to vote.


    It ain't over!

    By the way, those claiming that bigots lost, are themselves bigots. Or, they clearly do not know what a bigot, is!


    Tim-
    A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

    I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  8. #558
    Advisor Rightwingnutjob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    09-05-10 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    420

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

    I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
    Sorry I wasn't going to go through 50 pages of arguing ridiculous points, flaming, mod warnings etc. before posting. So while, this may or may not have been said already. Why should the government have ANYTHING to do with marriage gay or straight?

    I personally don't want the government to have anything to do with my marriage in a few years. The government does nothing but screw everything up.

    That said, if straight are able to marry, then gays should be to.

  9. #559
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    A question for everyone in here....

    For the liberals ---> Why have some of you, or in general many liberals, decried the rulings of judges in other states as wrong, unconstitutional, and erronious when they've ruled that such things ARE constitutional. Why did liberals by and large degrade such rulings, while simultaneously continually pointing to this going "See, see, a judge said so!" as some kind of proof that it is constitutional and that people should automatically accept it. More precisely, why do you think people should be held to a standard that liberals have not been holding to time, and time, and time again?

    For the conservatives ---> Conservatives generally pointed towards judges in the past making a ruling on the constitutionality of this as being "proof" that their position is right constitutionally. However, if you're basing the argument off a judges decision then how is this one different in its legitimacy. The statement "he's gay, he's biased" is no more reasonable than "the other judges were straight, and biased". Indeed, on what ground or basis do conservatives by and large deny their hypocrisy of going "see, see, a judge said it was constitutional so it is" to turn around and say "It doesn't matter what a judge says".

    Would it not be more appropriate, more apt, and less hypocritical on both sides to simply state that this result simply means its a step closer to the Surpreme Court and actually being decided rather than attempting every time one of these come out to say "SEE! This proves it! MY side is RIGHT because a JUDGE said so."?

    This judges ruling is no more important nationally or constitutionally than any of the judges before him, and theirs no more important than his. This proves nothing other than that THIS particular judge feels its unconstitutional. All this does, along with the others, is provide the possability of this making it to the Surpeme Court.

    As to the ruling, I'm unsure of my feelings in regards to due process though agree with it under equal protection but for reasons outside of what the gay movement pushes.

    With that said, I don't think this will help anyone and I think it getting pushed to the Supreme Court is going to continue this schism in the country and cause the isue to not die down anytime in the near future. I think this is the shoe horned approach, primarily because both sides have reached a point where they've entrenched themself so much that reasonable, rational, discussion and attempts at compromise in an intelligent way is almost beyond possible.

  10. #560
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    A "bigot" is someone who believes that THEY are entitled to certain rights and privileges while believing tha others are not entitled to those same rights and privileges.

    I think its pretty clear who the Bigots are in this battle.
    Yep.

    Those that think married people deserve those rights and privileges not available to single individuals.

Posting Permissions

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