• 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.
Zyphlin said:
We do choose things every day on what MIGHT happen in the future. However we do not base immediete actions on SOLELY what may happen in the future without any thought about the present.

I know I need to eat food. Now, there's a possability that when I go and make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich that the nuts MIGHT be affected by some kind of bacterial infrection that could cause me severe illness, or the shrimp I have in the fridge may've been in there too long and spoiled and MIGHT also cause me harm. However, that does not necessarily mean I simply should not eat because these are possabilities that MIGHT happen.

Let us take something from recent times, the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act provided a much needed upgrade to our intelligence laws, but it also expanded the power of the government. Lets assume however that you felt such a thing was "needed" and "correct".

Lets say however you also agreed with the notion others had that by giving the government more power than inevitably that could be used to give them more power and after that inevitably for a President to declare a state of emergency and become essentially a king.

Does that mean you should not support the Patriot Act, which you strongly and principely felt was a needed and good measure, simply because of something that MIGHT happen in the future if people acted wrongly and twisted it to proportions that it doesn't actually allow?

Not in the least.

That is similar to here.

Many of us feel that marriage between two individuals regardless of sex is correct, right, and constitutional. As such, we support that.

However, the fact that the standard for Equal Protection could maybe somehow possibly be manipulated and wrongly used for abortion doesn't mean I should not support it. It means that if someone tries that I should fight against it.

You should not NOT do something that you firmly believing is right simply because there's some kind of change that someone at some point will try to do something that is not right by manipulating that which you agreed with.

If that is the case, we should never do anything, at any time, because there is ALWAYS a way to create a doomsday scenario where taking any action could cause a bad reaction.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle. That said, in this case, what might happen, is a reasonable, and necessary qualifier, for the long-term societal structure of the nation. In the case concerning the Partriot Act, creating a King is unreasonable.


Tim-
 
ptif219 said:
Bull it is the feds not letting the state govern its people
Click to expand...

No, the whole of our system from State to Federal level has been filled with checks and balances. You don't like it because in this case the checks caught something you supported. But the checks and balances are necessary. Not even State government can be left to do as it likes. All government is restricted.
 
Zyphlin said:
You're not kidding. Its actually why this entire thing disappoints me that its even at the court level.

I personally wish both sides would back down and attempt to have some reasonable, honest, discussion.

I maintain that by far, the best way to address the majority of concerns of both sides is to eliminate the word "marriage" from law and the government entirely, completely striking it from the strange duality it serves now as existing in two different spheres both religious and governmental.

This would retain the "sanctity" or "marriage" as at that point only individual churches could actually "marry" someone under the auspices of their church and no one could claim that the government is somehow demeaning their "marriage" by allowing people they don't think should enter into it to be technically "married" because the term would be out of the governments hands entirely.

Meanwhile pro-gay marriage advocates should be happy because the government now has only one term, civil union, that applies to any two legal aged individuals that wish to enter into said contract. There is no "seperate but equal" status, there is but one.

This retains the "sanctity" of marriage while maintaining the "equality" of government.
Click to expand...

Exactly. States should issue civil unions and churches should be free to marry whomever their religion dictates. I have a feeling that the anti-gay marriage crowd would not be comfortable with this though because some churches would allow gays to marry.
 
disneydude said:
Exactly. States should issue civil unions and churches should be free to marry whomever their religion dictates. I have a feeling that the anti-gay marriage crowd would not be comfortable with this though because some churches would allow gays to marry.
Click to expand...

I could live with that compromise personally.


Tim-
 
marduc said:
plaintiffs case was not regarding any conflicts with state law or the state constitution, it was charging conflict with the US constitution. State courts do not have jurisdiction with the complaint.
Click to expand...

It is a state law they most certanly do have the right to see if it is legal
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, incorrect.

This is a contested issue under the 14th amendment that claims equal protection under the law.

The constitution has something known as the Surpemacy Clause that states that the constitutional protections also apply to the states.

Therefore it is not constitutional for states to use laws to discriminate against people, which was being argued here. Because its a FEDERAL constitutional matter its a federal matter.

If we are to go by the rationale you're suggesting, which essentially throws out the supremacy clause, then the recent advancements for the strength of the 2nd amendment could've never happened. In both cases the laws being challenged were local laws, not federal laws, but due to the supremacy clauses they still fell into the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL court system.
Click to expand...

So the state is not responsible to make sure their laws meet federal standards?
 
Ikari said:
No, the whole of our system from State to Federal level has been filled with checks and balances. You don't like it because in this case the checks caught something you supported. But the checks and balances are necessary. Not even State government can be left to do as it likes. All government is restricted.
Click to expand...

The state has an obligation to meet federal law. The state should have done this not the feds
 
Ikari said:
My legal argument could indeed be extended to polygamy, so long as the polygamy is enacted along the rights and liberties of the individual. In almost all cases of socialized polygamy, however, that has not been the case. I would also doubt that chaos would result. But as for the polygamy route, you could cite precedent in that Utah was not admitted to the Union until it made polygamy illegal.
Click to expand...

Chaos would definitely result if polygamy were made legal. Imagine if a man is married to five women and he dies without having a will. How does everything get divided? If someone was married much longer than the others she would expect more than an equal share. There would be all sorts of disputes. It would be utter chaos!

Also, you haven't respond to my comment about contracts having the force of law. No individual can declare something has the force of law because an individual cannot use that force. Only government can give something the force of law, which means marriage as a legal institution is not a matter of individual rights. It is something entirely within the scope of state's rights. As such the federal government has no place in deciding what should be legally recognized as a marriage by a state and what shouldn't.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
This is not about DOMA it is about a state constitutional amendment
Click to expand...

You said marriage is not a federal issue yet with DOMA it seems to be a federal issue.
 
ptif219 said:
When? since the vote passed?
Click to expand...

Yes - CA supreme court upheld Prop 8 as legal ballot process that amended the state constitution.

The CA state constitution was legally amended. Unfortunately, the amended version violates the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the Federal court case...

Next step is the Fed appellate court, then SCOTUS.
 
ptif219 said:
So the state is not responsible to make sure their laws meet federal standards?
Click to expand...

Yes, they should. THAT is exactly why the proposition process is so flawed. Laws are written and put on the ballot by people who are not educated enough to understand this. Time and again laws have been put on the ballot that are clearly unconstitutional (prop 187 in California is another great example). The State must then spend millions of dollars fighting the lawsuits.

There is a reason why we have a legislature that hopefully is trained enough to do this. The initiative ballot process should be outlawed precisely because of what you illustrate in your post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom