• 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.
Rule of law > "Justice"

Rule of law can only be valid when justice is applied.
Broadly, justice is the equal application of rules, to everyone.

Argumentatum ad populum does not apply to things that are actually related to popular will, such as laws determined by a vote. Saying that it should be determined democratically is not, in itself, ad populum. Saying that it should be decided democratically because that is what most people want would be.

I disagree.
I think democracy is a poor way to decide things.
 
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.

If this is the case, it will be sorted out at the next level. Both sides stated that if they lost, they'd continue the case all the way to the supreme court, which is where it probably should end up, anyway.
 
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.

You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.
 
In this case gay marriage was not allowed so what right was lost?

The right of gay people to marry the partner of their choice. They were being treated like second class citizens because gay marriage wasn't allowed.
 
You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.

And the issue is that the government shouldn't have one standard for one set of Americans, and a separate standard for another set of Americans.
 
Rule of law can only be valid when justice is applied.
Broadly, justice is the equal application of rules, to everyone.

My major gripe is that everyone seems to be saying that it's a good thing because they like the result, without actually providing a legal argument.
Rule of Law means that the law is upheld. If there is nothing in any law that would make Prop 8 unconstitutional, then it is violating the rule of law, in the name of justice, to strike it down as such.
Maybe it is unconstitutional. But people here don't seemed to be concerned about whether it is or not, they just want it struck down in the name of "justice".

I disagree.
I think democracy is a poor way to decide things.

I know, and we've already argued about this. But my point was that you misused the argumentatum ad populum accusation.
 
Maybe it is unconstitutional. But people here don't seemed to be concerned about whether it is or not, they just want it struck down in the name of "justice".

I tend to think that it's about as legal as miscegenation laws. Which is to say, not very.
 
If you think sovereignty rests with the people, its the only real way.

Straight democracy is prone to manipulation by demagogues, which is why I believe that a constitutional republic is a superior form of government.
 
I don't care if gays marry, but it shouldn't be allowed in a Christian church. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Considering that marriage is "holy matrimony" I think it is a complete and utter disrespect to the church for gays to marry there. Get married in a hall, or anywhere, but not a church. To me, that is NOT right.
 
I don't care if gays marry, but it shouldn't be allowed in a Christian church. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Considering that marriage is "holy matrimony" I think it is a complete and utter disrespect to the church for gays to marry there. Get married in a hall, or anywhere, but not a church. To me, that is NOT right.

No one is suggesting that Christian churches be forced to marry gays if they don't want to.
 
My major gripe is that everyone seems to be saying that it's a good thing because they like the result, without actually providing a legal argument.
Rule of Law means that the law is upheld. If there is nothing in any law that would make Prop 8 unconstitutional, then it is violating the rule of law, in the name of justice, to strike it down as such.
Maybe it is unconstitutional. But people here don't seemed to be concerned about whether it is or not, they just want it struck down in the name of "justice".

Well let's get something straight.
I don't use the "fairy" version of justice (like social justice and all that nonsense).

I'm talking about actual equity and harmony of the law.


I know, and we've already argued about this. But my point was that you misused the argumentatum ad populum accusation.

Not really because every time I ask for a reason, as to why it should be banned, the argument trotted out is that "the people" decided it.
Not a good enough reason.
 
I don't care if gays marry, but it shouldn't be allowed in a Christian church. The bible specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Considering that marriage is "holy matrimony" I think it is a complete and utter disrespect to the church for gays to marry there. Get married in a hall, or anywhere, but not a church. To me, that is NOT right.

That decision would be up to the church.
 
Straight democracy is prone to manipulation by demagogues, which is why I believe that a constitutional republic is a superior form of government.

Oh I agree, but the people should always be the ultimate authority.
 
Oh I agree, but the people should always be the ultimate authority.

Actually, I tend to believe that the bill of rights and constitution should be the ultimate authority, but that if the people are truly united, they can amend these documents.
 
Actually, I tend to believe that the bill of rights and constitution should be the ultimate authority, but that if the people are truly united, they can amend these documents.

Thats what I meant. I don't think we should be able to change our primary laws easily, but we should be able to change them if enough of us think it is necessary.
 
You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.

That is a rather key question. Over 1000 rights granted by marriage in federal law.
 
I go more with sovereignty over government.

As long as the people preside over the government with justice in mind, I have no problem.
(Justice being equity and harmony of the law, with fact based reasoning to back it up.)

Prop 8 is precisely why democracy can be incredibly dumb.
There is no factual reason to restrict gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
As long as the people preside over the government with justice in mind, I have no problem.
(Justice being equity and harmony of the law, with fact based reasoning to back it up.)

Prop 8 is precisely why democracy can be incredibly dumb.
There is no factual reason to restrict gay marriage.

I don't really care what people's purposes are, but I think that given enough people, society will balance itself out in regards to these things anyway.
 
Yep. Another activist judge overthrowing the will of the people for a second time based on nothing but their own personal politics.

Sad but predictable.

Of course, you realize that one of the main purposes of our courts is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
 
I bet the people that practice polygamy are following this decision closely or any other group that is defined by their sexual orientation.....

Stay tuned..........
 
I bet the people that practice polygamy are following this decision closely or any other group that is defined by their sexual orientation.....

Stay tuned..........

Prop 69, furry marriage!

Oh wait, that is already legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom