• 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.
Catz Part Deux said:
You don't understand that all laws are subject to a constitutional litmus test, and that the supreme court is a check on the legislative branch? Didn't you learn this in elementary school?

watch
Click to expand...

Yes, I do understand that. Which is why in my state it was challenged and found to be in line with the Constitution just like the Prop 8 in California is constitutional. A gay judge ruled it to be unconstitutional in my opinion because he is biased and legislating from the bench. Many other states and judges have ruled that it is constitutional. This ruling is being challenged and brought before the appeals court as well. The judge is wrong in his ruling.

Your Star said:
The vote should of never happened. You aren't allowed to vote peoples rights away, which is what that vote was doing. Gay marriage shouldn't be up to a vote, it should be legalized nationwide, just like heterosexual marriage. I still have no idea how your rights are being violated? Will this law someone change the way you live? No it won't, it won't effect you adversely, or take away your right to marriage, so your not making a point. Your just re-framing arguments that were used by the opposition of the civil rights movement. Nothing more than bigotry.
Click to expand...

You can't vote a right away that never existed. As I said, they voted to define the right of marriage and what the contract's boundaries are. No right was taken away, rather a non existent right was defined and put into existence. There is nothing that specifically states that that homosexuals have the right to fit their union into the definition of marriage.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Guess what? If the people voted that in, it would be thrown out by the courts due ti it being illegal. I wonder if you can relate that back to today's ruling...
Click to expand...

Indeed, such an action by government would violate the First Amendment.
 
Your Star said:
The vote should of never happened. You aren't allowed to vote peoples rights away, which is what that vote was doing. Gay marriage shouldn't be up to a vote, it should be legalized nationwide, just like heterosexual marriage. I still have no idea how your rights are being violated? Will this law someone change the way you live? No it won't, it won't effect you adversely, or take away your right to marriage, so your not making a point. Your just re-framing arguments that were used by the opposition of the civil rights movement. Nothing more than bigotry.
Click to expand...

You have to have rights for them to be voted away. This just confirmed the law on the books. No rights were lost
 
digsbe said:
Yes, I do understand that. Which is why in my state it was challenged and found to be in line with the Constitution just like the Prop 8 in California is constitutional. A gay judge ruled it to be unconstitutional in my opinion because he is biased and legislating from the bench. Many other states and judges have ruled that it is constitutional. This ruling is being challenged and brought before the appeals court as well. The judge is wrong in his ruling.
Click to expand...

Okay. Which is why the losing side will appeal this decision to a higher court, and this will ultimately be heard by the Supreme Court, which will determine the constitutionality of the law. That's how the process works, Digsbe. That's how it has ALWAYS worked.
 
Redress said:
Guess what? If the people voted that in, it would be thrown out by the courts due ti it being illegal. I wonder if you can relate that back to today's ruling...
Click to expand...

And rightfully so. People have the right to religion and religious expression. If a private church does not recognize gay marriage, they do not have to extend their services to homosexual couples. It is their right to refuse it. And I personally believe that many on the pro-gay marriage front would also support a Church's right to not have to marry same sex couples.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, I do understand that. Which is why in my state it was challenged and found to be in line with the Constitution just like the Prop 8 in California is constitutional. A gay judge ruled it to be unconstitutional in my opinion because he is biased and legislating from the bench. Many other states and judges have ruled that it is constitutional. This ruling is being challenged and brought before the appeals court as well. The judge is wrong in his ruling.
Click to expand...

And what in the language of his ruling do you disagree with? Since you think his ruling is wrong, you have to have something based on the actual ruling itself you find inappropriate, beyond the fact the judge is gay.

The gay charge is especially amusing since, as pointed out in this thread, the judges confirmation was held up by some liberals due to his being seen as unfriendly towards gays based on an other ruling.
 
Your Star said:
No it won't. That would be illegal, and I would be against that. Church, and State are two different and separate things. Or did you not get that memo?
Click to expand...

You mean like 40 years ago people saying it is illegal for gays to marry so it will never happen?
 
digsbe said:
Yes, I do understand that. Which is why in my state it was challenged and found to be in line with the Constitution just like the Prop 8 in California is constitutional. A gay judge ruled it to be unconstitutional in my opinion because he is biased and legislating from the bench. Many other states and judges have ruled that it is constitutional. This ruling is being challenged and brought before the appeals court as well. The judge is wrong in his ruling.
Click to expand...

So the other cases in which heterosexual judges ruled, they couldn't have make that judgement because they are biased against same sex marriage and thus legislating from the bench?
 
CompSciGuy said:
Hopefully, some churches would see the error of their ways and accept them, but of course they won't be forced. Our country protects the rights of bigots too (the Klan isn't forced to take non-whites, so I don't see why churches would be forced to take homosexuals).
Click to expand...

There are churches that do it now
 
digsbe said:
You can't vote a right away that never existed. As I said, they voted to define the right of marriage and what the contract's boundaries are. No right was taken away, rather a non existent right was defined and put into existence. There is nothing that specifically states that that homosexuals have the right to fit their union into the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Right to contract has always existed.
 
Ikari said:
And rightfully so. People have the right to religion and religious expression. If a private church does not recognize gay marriage, they do not have to extend their services to homosexual couples. It is their right to refuse it. And I personally believe that many on the pro-gay marriage front would also support a Church's right to not have to marry same sex couples.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I will not, ever , tell a church how to run church affairs. It ain't none of my business, and they have a perfect right to do as they choose(as long as it does not violate other laws).
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Okay. Which is why the losing side will appeal this decision to a higher court, and this will ultimately be heard by the Supreme Court, which will determine the constitutionality of the law. That's how the process works, Digsbe. That's how it has ALWAYS worked.
Click to expand...

Yes, and for many states the process ruled that it was perfectly Constitutional to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This judge violated the Constitution and spun it in order to impose his personal beliefs into law.

Ikari said:
Right to contract has always existed.
Click to expand...

So why is there a problem with people's right to define a contract that had no legal definition when the state brought the decision to the people?
 
digsbe said:
You can't vote a right away that never existed. As I said, they voted to define the right of marriage and what the contract's boundaries are. No right was taken away, rather a non existent right was defined and put into existence. There is nothing that specifically states that that homosexuals have the right to fit their union into the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment states otherwise.
 
ptif219 said:
There are churches that do it now
Click to expand...

Yes, there are, but the federal government does not recognize those marriages. In the DOMA ruling, the judge pointed out that there are over 1000 legal rights conveyed by federal law for married couples.
 
ptif219 said:
You mean like 40 years ago people saying it is illegal for gays to marry so it will never happen?
Click to expand...

You just don't get separation between Church, and State do you?
 
digsbe said:
So why is there a problem with people's right to define a contract that had no legal definition when the state brought the decision to the people?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what it means to have right to contract. I want to enter into a marriage contract, which has many legal consequences and privileges, with Bob. But I can't because someone else said I cannot enter into that contract with another dude. You have thus infringed upon my right to contract. You don't get to dictate the terms to me, it's my right to contract. If y'all got together and said "Ikari cannot enter into a contract with another man over painting his house", you have infringed upon my right to contract. My right to contract isn't subject to the communities whims. Communities and societies do not have rights; only individuals have rights. The State cannot infringe upon my right to contract either. The one and only limitation to my right to contract is that I cannot infringe upon the rights of others while exercising it.
 
What is this about flaunting? People should just be able to BE who they are, not pretend to be straight so as not to upset the ... well, easily upset.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Most gay people don't but why deny them the ability to marry?
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
I think you misunderstand what it means to have right to contract. I want to enter into a marriage contract, which has many legal consequences and privileges, with Bob. But I can't because someone else said I cannot enter into that contract with another dude. You have thus infringed upon my right to contract. You don't get to dictate the terms to me, it's my right to contract. If y'all got together and said "Ikari cannot enter into a contract with another man over painting his house", you have infringed upon my right to contract. My right to contract isn't subject to the communities whims. Communities and societies do not have rights; only individuals have rights. The State cannot infringe upon my right to contract either. The one and only limitation to my right to contract is that I cannot infringe upon the rights of others while exercising it.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute...you are a dude?!?

Sorry, but some one was going to do it.
 
You alluded to them being immoral by your statement. If your stand is different, say so.

MrVicchio said:
Dear, you haven't a clue where I stand on the LGBT community, don't pre-judge.
Click to expand...
 
The alleged majority needs to get over it.

MrVicchio said:
Cough Cough "No it's not" Cough Cough.

Nice try though.

Different label, doesn't piss the majority off, get's the important stuff done.
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
What is this about flaunting? People should just be able to BE who they are, not pretend to be straight so as not to upset the ... well, easily upset.
Click to expand...

I know right.

I get J. Witnesses knocking on my door all the time.
I'm not a Witness but do respect them as whole, like gay people.

Bunch of cry babies in this world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom