• 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.
With what? Are you, or are you not tolerant of everyone and everything? This should be interesting?

Tim-

I am tolerant of everyone and everything until the point that it personally infringes on the rights of another person.
 
You know, Ive always believed in underpromising and over delivering.

Since you have such a superiority complex, I find no reason to have a civilized debate with you.

As far as tolerance in regards to gays.

Its not about that for me. They should be allowed to do what they want.

**** I encourage it. We got a population crisis...

Then tuck tail. It's fine with me.. :)


Tim-
 
"In other words, this “liberal San Francisco judge” was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice."

Reagan-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban | Cato @ Liberty
 
Oh please educate me..


Tim-

That's not my job and it would take too long. However, it is obvious from your post that you do not understand the difference. The easy answer is that State Courts resolve State issues interpreting the state Constitution. Federal Courts deal with issues interpreting the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can differ substantially from the Federal Constitution. That's a pretty basic lesson.
 
Sorry....legal jurisprudence disagrees with you. Regardless, the equal protection clause does not require that you be a "suspect class".

Dude, you keep saying things, like "you're wrong" But when I ask you why, you're response is tantamount to, "just because"..

Come on, show me the money... Oh brilliant one. :)


Tim-
 
"Feel Good Liberals" and some gays can celebrate now but this is far from a done deal.......What really bothers me is the will of the people has been thrown out over and over again when it comes to this issue.......The 9th circuit covers 9 states, some of which have their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.....

It should be real interesting to see how this plays out.............

People's personal rights shouldn't be up for vote by the majority.
 
"In other words, this “liberal San Francisco judge” was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It’s a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice."

Reagan-Appointed Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban | Cato @ Liberty

He should have reclused himself on this case because he is biased and definitely has a dog in this fight..........
 
"Feel Good Liberals" and some gays can celebrate now but this is far from a done deal.......What really bothers me is the will of the people has been thrown out over and over again when it comes to this issue.......The 9th circuit covers 9 states, some of which have their own constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.....

It should be real interesting to see how this plays out.............

The celebration will continue Navy. You are on the losing end of this battle. You lose time and again in the Constitution and you are slowly losing the battle in the public forum. 10 years ago, gay marriage was widely rejected by public opinion....today its about even. Your old ideas and prejudism are dying out with your generation Navy. ITs a new morning in America. Wake up.
 
That's not my job and it would take too long. However, it is obvious from your post that you do not understand the difference. The easy answer is that State Courts resolve State issues interpreting the state Constitution. Federal Courts deal with issues interpreting the Federal Constitution. State Constitutions can differ substantially from the Federal Constitution. That's a pretty basic lesson.

hehe.. Yep that's what I thought. Dude I said nothing that conflicts with this.. LOL


Tim-
 
Dude, you keep saying things, like "you're wrong" But when I ask you why, you're response is tantamount to, "just because"..

Come on, show me the money... Oh brilliant one. :)


Tim-

I already explained.....DOH!

The equal protection clause does not require you to be a suspect class. Do you understand Equal protection analysis and the various levels of scrutiny that the court uses?
 
rights are one thing, privileges are another...............

Homosexuals being afforded the same rights of marriage like heterosexuals is hardly a privelege. Why should people be discriminated against simply because they have a different sexual orientation? Just because you and your ilk find it icky and immoral?
 
The celebration will continue Navy. You are on the losing end of this battle. You lose time and again in the Constitution and you are slowly losing the battle in the public forum. 10 years ago, gay marriage was widely rejected by public opinion....today its about even. Your old ideas and prejudism are dying out with your generation Navy. ITs a new morning in America. Wake up.

That is what you said about DADT and Hussein has put that on the back burner.............
 
You can enter a marriage contract with a dude whenever you want. The question is whether or not the government will recognize it.

No, I could go through some ceremony called marriage, I could say I'm married. But the contract in question, the Marriage License; I could not have.
 
Homosexuals being afforded the same rights of marriage like heterosexuals is hardly a privelege. Why should people be discriminated against simply because they have a different sexual orientation? Just because you and your ilk find it icky and immoral?

You already have the same rights. you want a special right...............Hell I can't have 4 wives, why should you be allowed to marry your boyfriend............
 
That is what you said about DADT and Hussein has put that on the back burner.............

When did I say that about DADT? I have been all over Obama for not having the backbone to move it forward. That said, it is progressing...and it will end as well. Just a matter of time.
 
Why not? If due process is followed, why not?


Tim-

Because our society wouldn't progress. Would you seriously be okay with slavery, women's rights being torn to shreds, etc. if the majority thought it was okay?
 
I already explained.....DOH!

The equal protection clause does not require you to be a suspect class. Do you understand Equal protection analysis and the various levels of scrutiny that the court uses?

Yes I do, and that's why I'm challenging you on it. You still keep talking but you're not really saying anything that has substance?

Provide some substance or I'm done wasting my finger strength on you. :)


Tim-
 
Why should people be discriminated against simply because they have a different sexual orientation? Just because you and your ilk find it icky and immoral?

him and his ilk?

LOL!
 
If you think sovereignty rests with the people, its the only real way.

Not really. Because it's mob rule and under mob rule the rights and liberties of the individual cannot be guaranteed. The seat of all power may be the People, but there is understanding of the collective breakdown of certain aggregated government types. The founders also thought that the sovereignty rests with the People. However, what we constructed was not a pure democracy because they also knew the trapping of strict democracy. Thus they constructed a system which required the input of the people, but also had checks and balances to ensure the protection of the rights and liberties of the People.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom