• 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.
Christians MAY be a majority, but fundies are not.

Navy Pride said:
That is your opinion....The majority of the people in this country (Christians) disagree with you on that statement......
Click to expand...
 
hazlnut said:
Polygamists don't qualify for a marriage license based on their CURRENT MARITAL STATUS. Have you ever applied for a marriage license? If you had, then you would know that people who were previously married must supply proof the previous marriage was annulled or dissolved.

**also most polygamists are looking to marry girls under the age of consent.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the equal protection clause. Once again you jump into a conversation with half the knowledge you need to sustain an argument. This is about who gets to marry and why. The argument being used here is the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th ammendment.

Children are not adults--they can not consent to marriage. They are getting equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Epic fail The equal protection clause does not mention an age limit.

Once again you fail miserably to read the required documentation.

Gaping hold indeed....
Click to expand...

Yes. Your inability to read the facts of the case and understanding it is quite a hole.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
There are a few ways. One is on rights issues. Polygamy rarely works out in a non-oppressive manner.
Click to expand...

Thats an opinion not a fact.

We even still have modern day examples of this in the US. If this were done in a way that completely abides by the rights of the individual, you can try to work around that. But the polygamist communities such as in Arizona, that's not how it works in practice. So you can always go that route.
Click to expand...

You can't deny a right under the 14th ammendment by what "might" happen.

Another way is to site precedent. Which would be Utah. It was not even allowed into the Republic unless it made polygamy illegal.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just as gay marriage is outlawed in over 25 states.
 
Navy Pride said:
The fact is no one knows if gays are born that way or not....There are arguments on both sides of the issue........
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to this case. Whether homosexuality is innate or a choice has no relevance to Walker's ruling. Walker didn't rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the 14th amendment by discriminating against sexual orientation. He overturned it on the basis that it discriminated again gender. Things like gender, race, age, etc. are protected classes by federal law, and things like polygamy, pedophilia, and sexual orientation are not. Walker argued the state had no rational or legitimate interest in mandating gender roles in marriage, and therefore could not lawfully discriminate against a man choosing to marry a man or a woman choosing to marry a woman. Whether or not they were homosexual couples is irrelevant, he overturned Prop 8 on the basis of gender discrimination, not sexual orientation discrimination.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Thats an opinion not a fact.



You can't deny a right under the 14th ammendment by what "might" happen.



Exactly. Just as gay marriage is outlawed in over 25 states.
Click to expand...

Find me a decision or a quote in the Constitution that says "size of group" is a protected class.

Find it for me, otherwise you're the only one dealing in "what might happen". There is NO - ZERO - ZILCH evidence that this can or will lead to polygamy. You're the one making things up and getting all worried about them.

It won't happen. Now, calm down and go about whatever it is you do instead of creating imaginary boogie men for you to freak out over.
 
Navy Pride said:
That is your opinion....The majority of the people in this country (Christians) disagree with you on that statement......
Click to expand...

Once again, I am going to ask you to prove a claim, that most people in this country actually do think gays are deviant. Once again, you are almost certainly not going to do this.
 
nor does it matter what they want if a judge finds it unconstitutional
nor does it make it right, ill post again for example

in n 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

and then not until 1967(19 years later), about 72% were opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court was legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

and then not until 1991 (24 years later), those adults opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time

now that not this matters at all but were they right in 1948? should we not have done that? of course it was the right decision to allow it so majority doesnt mean much if it goes against the constitution and something simply should be voted on.

The judge was simply fulfilling their constitutional mandated roll of safeguarding the peoples liberty
 
CriticalThought said:
Actually, only 47% of Americans think that being gay is a choice.
Click to expand...

hard to believe that theres that many, shocking actually but this country does have a lot of sheep in it
 
texmaster said:
Thats an opinion not a fact.
Click to expand...

It is consistent with observation

texmaster said:
You can't deny a right under the 14th ammendment by what "might" happen.
Click to expand...

That's true, but we've seen this play out several times. So it's not so much what "might" happen; but a practical expectation from the practice itself.

texmaster said:
Exactly. Just as gay marriage is outlawed in over 25 states.
Click to expand...

You'd have a stronger case if entrance into the Republic required making same sex marriage illegal.
 
Centrist77 said:
hard to believe that theres that many, shocking actually but this country does have a lot of sheep in it
Click to expand...

I retracted the comment, since I realized it was irrelvant to his argument of gay being percieved as deviant.
 
texmaster said:
Go back and read the equal protection clause. Once again you jump into a conversation with half the knowledge you need to sustain an argument. This is about who gets to marry and why. The argument being used here is the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th ammendment.



Epic fail The equal protection clause does not mention an age limit.

Once again you fail miserably to read the required documentation.



Yes. Your inability to read the facts of the case and understanding it is quite a hole.
Click to expand...

Tex, YOU are the one who doesn't understand the 14th Amendment equal protection clause + precedent. You're making things up. Children have very few rights according to law. Most rights are bestowed upon parents. They have a right to not be abused and molested. They have a right to be educated. Their right to privacy is limited vs. an adults based on SCOTUS decisions. And they cannot enter into a contract until 18 (younger in some states).

You're still just making things up and hoping that they'll stick. Your concern gets more and more disingenuous as this argument goes on.
 
CriticalThought said:
I retracted the comment, since I realized it was irrelevance to his argument of gay being percieved as deviant.
Click to expand...

well i agree and so does history it is irrelevant hard sometimes not to debate things that have no bearing on the real issue :)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I already showed that you misrepresented the CDC study.
Click to expand...

No you didn't because you can't disprove its findings.

You never got out of the starting block with this debate, but we all know you'll never admit that you don't have clue. Even though anyone who understands this debate can see it.
Click to expand...

Out of the starting block? I lapped you 2 days ago :)
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Tex, YOU are the one who doesn't understand the 14th Amendment equal protection clause + precedent. You're making things up. Children have very few rights according to law. Most rights are bestowed upon parents. They have a right to not be abused and molested. They have a right to be educated. Their right to privacy is limited vs. an adults based on SCOTUS decisions. And they cannot enter into a contract until 18 (younger in some states).
Click to expand...

I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit. How is that so hard for you to understand?

You're still just making things up and hoping that they'll stick. Your concern gets more and more disingenuous as this argument goes on.
Click to expand...

What have I made up? Produce it.
 
Ikari said:
It is consistent with observation
Click to expand...

Your observation. Again not a fact.

That's true, but we've seen this play out several times. So it's not so much what "might" happen; but a practical expectation from the practice itself.
Click to expand...

What decesion are you referring to?

You'd have a stronger case if entrance into the Republic required making same sex marriage illegal.
Click to expand...

And the other side's case would be stronger if same sex marriage was legal but there is no law and no decesion before this one citing the 14th ammendment as justification for gay marriage. That is why other groups can use it the exact same way.
 
CriticalThought said:
Don't you dare bring up that HIV bull**** again. It's over. Risky behaviors, not sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Actually it was over when the findings found a greater risk factor for gay men than any other group. How you continue to miss this is really quite strange.
 
texmaster said:
Your observation. Again not a fact.
Click to expand...

General observation actually.

texmaster said:
And the other side's case would be stronger if same sex marriage was legal but there is no law and no decesion before this one citing the 14th ammendment as justification for gay marriage. That is why other groups can use it the exact same way.
Click to expand...

There was no necessity for that since at the beginning, marriage wasn't a government contract. It was left to the churches. And if it were still that way, I'd probably be agreeing with you.
 
texmaster said:
I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit. How is that so hard for you to understand?



What have I made up? Produce it.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that pedophiles and polygamists are now able to get married. Find me the legal proof that those restrictions were overturned, because it is presently against the law to tell a woman she can't marry a woman based on the 14th Amendment clause protecting the rights of people based on gender?

And you'll note that AGE isn't a part of it; which means it's Constitutional to discriminate based on age (in certain cases).

That's the point that you fail to get.

You are making up that polygamists and pedohpiles can now marry. It's not true and the overturning of Prop. 8 doesn't suddenly mean they can win if they challenge. You're making a leap of logic and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're doing it.

Nothing you've been saying here makes any sense whatsoever.

And as to the answer of your last question: just about everything.
 
texmaster said:
I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit. How is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

Since you aren't going to cut this bull, I guess I'll have to give you a history lesson.

In Craig versus Boren (1976) the Supreme Court established the perameters of the Equal Protection Clause called, "scrutiny".

Wikipedia said:
The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.[20]
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.
Click to expand...

Now how would polygamy fall within the test of scrutiny?
 
texmaster said:
Actually it was over when the findings found a greater risk factor for gay men than any other group. How you continue to miss this is really quite strange.
Click to expand...

It's a greater risk factor for anyone who practices unprotected anal sex with multiple partners. Gays simply engage in that risky behavior more than any other population.
 
texmaster said:
I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need one.

How are children not getting equal protection? Every child is protected by the state from being forced into an adult relationship and/or contract. = Equal protection for every minor.

You don't understand the legal definition of class. Children (minors) are not in the same age "class" as adults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom