• 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.
don't talk about liberal elitism on a thread about a CA judge overturning a proposition

unbelievable
 
Nice sidestepping the question

Ah, so now you are just trolling. Nice. It's nobody's fault that you didn't get a good lesson in basic civics. Why should they have to hold your hand just because you don't understand the issues?
 
But if a State does not meet those requirements, then the Federal government will have to step in to make sure that it does. Does that even make sense to you? You seem horrifically caught up on that one point.

Should it not be addressed on the state level first?
 
don't talk about liberal elitism on a thread about a CA judge overturning a proposition

unbelievable

What does liberal elitism (specifically your perceptions of it) have to do with Prop 8 being overturned?
 
there is an easily, readily demonstrated case (see above) for seeing this thread as entirely about liberal elitism

hello

but only if one is free to make it

The lawyer leading the charge for gay marriage was the conservative attorney who represented George W. Bush and the federal judge who overturned Prop 8 was appointed by Ronald Reagan and later by George Bush Senior. So tell us a bit more about this "liberal" elitism in this case.
 
So the state had no responsibility to meet federal standards. If they did it would be a state issue

no, the state had a responsibility to meet federal standards, according to the challenge (and the ruling) they did not, which makes it a federal issue, and also which brings you up to speed (again?) as to why the appropriate court made this ruling yesterday.

Are you ready to move on now? or are you still failing to grasp this simple concept?
 
Last edited:
It's not about my research. It's about you getting into a thread without knowing all the facts.

If you're really interested in knowing the history of Prop 8 and how it got to the fed courts, then do your homework and come back when you better understand everything that led up to yesterday's decision.

Start with Prop 22.

If you will not show proof I take it it is false
 
Dude, you are seriously making yourself look silly by trying to debate something that you are not educated on. The way this works - if you want to participate you have to come prepared. You cannot come into a debate and then tell everyone "Hey....I don't know anything that you are talking about, someone please educate me."

Come PREPARED next time you want to participate, otherwise, please don't come at all because you are not able to intelligently participate.

You are the one not prepared if you can not back up your claims
 
Last edited:
No people need to prove their claims with facts

They aren't claims. It's called basic civics. Just because you can't grasp these concepts doesn't mean that people here should have to hold your hand. It means that you should do research on an issue before you go into a debate.
 
Even with GWB's right-wing activist judges....it is unlikely the Supreme Court is going to have any argument to ban gay marriage.
Argument? They don't have the authority to "ban" it.
 
What part of "California Supreme Court" aren't you clearn on here? It was a STATE court where this ruling came from.

No, it was the federal court that overturned Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8.
 
Oh for pete sake. Prop 8 was upheld by the State Supreme Court in May of 2009.

California high court upholds Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times

It was then appealed to federal Court.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20090522perrycomp.pdf

And it was then overturned by the federal court.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20090522perrycomp.pdf

Prop 8 came about because of the supreme court ruling before that. The state court may have not wanted to continue the fight so this was their way to give it to the feds.

It is funny watching people spend more energy making excuses not to show proof then if they had actually showed the proof. Thanks for taking the time.
 
Prop 8 came about because of the supreme court ruling before that. The state court may have not wanted to continue the fight so this was their way to give it to the feds.

I is funny watching people spend more energy making excuses not to show proof then if they had actually showed the proof. Thanks for taking the time.

Why did you need them to show proof? There is virtually no way that the issue could have gotten to federal court had it not gone through the state courts first.
 
I'm trying to find a polite way to say I think it's a control issue.

Oh look; I said it.

Why did you need them to show proof? There is virtually no way that the issue could have gotten to federal court had it not gone through the state courts first.
 
Read em again? Don't make me laugh. I called an entire culture of people deviants, which they are by all measures.


Tim-

Moderator's Warning:
Read Rule 18. Here... I'll post it:

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.

So, no, you may NOT call those of a particular sexual orientation deviants. Do so again, and you will receive consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom