• 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.
Again, we are not a pure democracy, we are a Republic. And built upon the adherence to the rights and liberties of the individual. The ban on gay marriage infringes upon right to contract of the individual. It doesn't matter if elected officials, or the majority of Americans do not like it. They have no just position to argue against it from. Not so long as marriage remains a government issued and recognized contract.

and the supreme court is likely to find otherwise

so there ya go

meanwhile, all the americans who don't share your particular idealism are gonna have their say, too

via ballot box

congrats, once again!

it's a happy moment, no?
 
and the supreme court is likely to find otherwise

And you base this on what evidence?

meanwhile, all the americans who don't share your particular idealism are gonna have their say, too

via ballot box

So people should put away their idealism in favor of getting votes? Nice to know...

it's a happy moment, no?

Damn right it is.
 
and the supreme court is likely to find otherwise

so there ya go

meanwhile, all the americans who don't share your particular idealism are gonna have their say, too

via ballot box

congrats, once again!

it's a happy moment, no?

It doesn't matter who they vote in. The government is bound by the Constitution and is required to adhere to the rights and liberties of the individual. You cannot vote in bigotry, you cannot make laws which discriminate against certain populations. It would be like saying 58% of New Yorkers believe that slavery should be brought back, and thus it should be brought back. Of course it's a retarded position, we know it doesn't matter what the majority at that point wants or who is in office. Majority rules so long as they do not infringe upon the minority's rights. That's that. That is the reality of the system we live under. We'll see how the SCOTUS votes; but as it stands marriage is a government issued and recognized contract, and so long as that remains true you have no just means by which you can infringe uopn an indivudual's right to contract.
 
and the supreme court is likely to find otherwise

so there ya go

meanwhile, all the americans who don't share your particular idealism are gonna have their say, too

via ballot box

congrats, once again!

it's a happy moment, no?

Decent Americans around the nation applaud the expansion of freedom and liberty instead of making vague threats of stealing away fellow citizen's rights.
 
Who would have thought a gay judge would rule for gays. No bias on the judges part.
JC-hysterical.gif
 
I wonder what this will mean for the other states that have banned GM.

I could be wrong, but I think nothing, yet. This was a state supreme court, so it won't directly affect other states until it hits the fed Supreme Court. Again, I could be wrong, but that's my impression.

BTW, I'm quite disappointed, I came here to argue with religious zealots, and instead I find a quite reasonable discussion about voter's rights. Just to weigh in on that, I think slavery is a fine (albeit extreme) example of the need to value civil rights over the will of the people.
 
Decent Americans around the nation applaud the expansion of freedom and liberty instead of making vague threats of stealing away fellow citizen's rights.

then the majorities of 31 of 31 states are, by your enlightened definition, indecent

how tolerant, how civil

do you know anthony wiener?
 
Well obviously it's much harder to be bigoted against yourself than it is to be bigoted about a group of people you don't understand. Cool pup btw
 
Who would have thought a gay judge would rule for gays. No bias on the judges part.
JC-hysterical.gif

So if it had been a strait judge, and ruled the other way, would that have been bias?
 
ok, but the majorities of 31 states out of 31 states are, by your enlightened definition, indecent

deal with THAT

seeya in november

Those who inhibits the rights of others for no good reason - I'd say it's pretty indecent. It's definitely petty.

They're no different than those who restricted the rights of women and other minorities before them who are now frowned upon by history and whose shame our nation carries.

Two generations from now, those who voted to ban gay marriage will be looked upon as burdensome at best - hateful at worst.

You can be a part of ushering in equality or you can be the person your great-grandchildren will be ashamed of.

It's your choice.
 
then the majorities of 31 of 31 states are, by your enlightened definition, indecent

how tolerant, how civil

do you know anthony wiener?

Tolerance takes a back seat to the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
then the majorities of 31 of 31 states are, by your enlightened definition, indecent

how tolerant, how civil

do you know anthony wiener?

Hint: not all the people in those 31 states voted against gay marriage.
 
Our constitution is the law, and it was decided by the will of the people.
 
Calling out the ruling as being biased because the judge is gay just shows the level of discrimination that still exists in people's minds. If it were a straight judge ruling against GM, proponents of the ban would not remark on his sexuality.

Judges get their job because they have sworn to uphold state constitutions and balance reason. The slanderous accusation the judge ruled in favor of striking down the ban because he is gay are baseless and only demonstrates the myopia of the right.
 
Posible but having gay judge shows bias from the get go

If he were straight it could be biased.

That's why these things shouldn't be politicized so much.
Just legalize it and get past it.

We have bigger fish to fry, than bickering over gay people.
They deserve to be treated like everyone else.
 
Posible but having gay judge shows bias from the get go

Really? Why is a gay judge guaranteed biased, but a strait judge is not?
 
Last edited:
the legalisms surrounding this question are one thing, they go this way, they go that

but the politics aren't, they're overwhelmingly one sided

deal with THAT
 
I had no doubt that this would happen. Unfortunately, it seems that the proponents of prop 8 already filed a stay of verdict.

They have to, otherwise their movement will lose solvency nation wide. They have to save face no matter how stupid they look right now.
 
I had no doubt that this would happen. Unfortunately, it seems that the proponents of prop 8 already filed a stay of verdict.

They were working on it well before the release.
 
then the majorities of 31 of 31 states are, by your enlightened definition, indecent

how tolerant, how civil

do you know anthony wiener?

I tolerate your thoughts and defend your right to believe that gays are 2nd class citizens. You can, if you wish, drop the f-bomb all you like. It's your right. What I don't tolerate is the use of the ballot box to legalize discrimination against a class of people. Your rights are not restricted in any way, shape, or fashion should two men or two women get married. No one - even the pro-Prop 8 types before a judge - have found a single harm that has occurred as the result of gay people getting married. Massachusetts still has the one of the highest marriage rates and one of the lowest divorce rates in the nation. It didn't drop into the ocean. Iowa is still Iowa. New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, etc.

If you cannot legally prove the harm, then you have no right to restrict the rights of your fellow, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.

I am for freedom. You are not. Call it what you will, but I find the celebration of and the threat of taking rights away from fellow Americans to be indecent at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom