• 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.
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am tired of people throwing out claims and refusing to back up their statements
 
CriticalThought said:
Please, for Gawd sakes, don't invite him back to this thread! The last 5 pages have been him blaming other people for the fact that he was uninformed.
Click to expand...

No it was about people who will not show proof of their statements
 
ptif219 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's even funnier watching you bolt from a discussion that's over your head.

You obviously lack a basic understanding of how state and fed courts function. These are not difficult concepts, the path is mostly linear in an upward direction -- hence the term, 'higher court'. Once a case or issue reaches the end of the road at the state level (state supreme court) AND if there is a legitimate civil rights or interstate commerce issue, then a plaintiff can seek remedy in a higher court -- the federal courts.

Hope this helps.
 
ptif219 said:
No it was about people who will not show proof of their statements
Click to expand...

Dude, no offense, but you were the one who came into this thread and claimed that the issue hadn't gone before states courts before it was overturned by the federal court. You were the one making unsupported claims and then you demanded that people disprove your unsupported claims. The worst part is, common sense and a basic understanding of civics should have lead you to understand that this could not even be a federal case if it hadn't gone through the state courts. The reason you have been getting hammered in this thread is because you came in here uninformed on the issue of discussion and clearly uneducated on the structure of the court system.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

If it shows no benefits to society, or the consequences outweigh the benefits, the government has no reason to sanction it. That's why.
 
texmaster said:
Because if you are creating a new "right" specifcally for sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any other sexual orientation which includes polygamy.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. This is why I do not buy into the whole discrimination argument. It's a stalemate. The "what's good for both society and individuals inside the society" argument is far cleaner. With this, it is easy to allow things that benefit society, and prevent things that do not. This is why the polygamy argument is easily refuted and is irrelevant.
 
disneydude said:
That is completely wrong. It is not sufficient that a state comply with due process. They have to meet all of the Constitutional protections, including equal protection.
Click to expand...

Why? The US Supreme Court can do the same thing. The 14th doesn't say that equal protection must always be the order of the day. In fact it sets out exactly that, in order to alter any perception of equal protection, one must follow the "process".

I know you know, but it reads like this:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

Show me where the due process clause was not met in Prop 8? Two kinds of due process are used these days, substantive, and procedural. In CA, the procedural, and substantive burdens were met. How can the SCOTUS strike it down?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Why? The US Supreme Court can do the same thing. The 14th doesn't say that equal protection must always be the order of the day. In fact it sets out exactly that, in order to alter any perception of equal protection, one must follow the "process".

I know you know, but it reads like this:



Show me where the due process clause was not met in Prop 8? Two kinds of due process are used these days, substantive, and procedural. In CA, the procedural, and substantive burdens were met. How can the SCOTUS strike it down?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you on the due process claim. I'm going to have to carefully read the decision because I can't see a due process issue myself. I haven't read the entire decision so I don't know what the judge hung his hat on.

However, you are dead wrong on the equal protection issue. The court will have to address the issue if the case is brought before them, unless they strike down prop 8 on due process claims. If they don't find a due process challenge, they have no choice but to address the equal protection challenge.
 
Taylor said:
Really? I would argue otherise - that people are naturally oriented toward polygamy (men, more so) and that monogamy is the "unnatural" orientation. Hence the need for a social institution promoting monogamy.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is enduring and also refers to a person's sense of "personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Nothing about the number of partners. Sexual orienation is about the gender one is attracted to. You are wrong on this.
 
CriticalThought said:
How incredibly naive. This is a culture war. The fact of the matter is that the extremists on both sides base their careers on the perpetuation of this culture war.
Click to expand...

Thus why I said "I wish" not "I think will happen"
 
I didn't read the thread but have a question, what benefits/rights do gay couples now have that they didn't have before the ruling?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure you can. This is why I do not buy into the whole discrimination argument. It's a stalemate. The "what's good for both society and individuals inside the society" argument is far cleaner. With this, it is easy to allow things that benefit society, and prevent things that do not. This is why the polygamy argument is easily refuted and is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You realize (I hope) that what you just said is contradictory? Are you not "discriminating" when "allowing" things that you deem good, and disallowing things you deem bad? LOL

Tim-


Tim-
 
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...

This has been my position and is the best position to manage this issue.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not disagreeing with you on the due process claim. I'm going to have to carefully read the decision because I can't see a due process issue myself. I haven't read the entire decision so I don't know what the judge hung his hat on.

However, you are dead wrong on the equal protection issue. The court will have to address the issue if the case is brought before them, unless they strike down prop 8 on due process claims. If they don't find a due process challenge, they have no choice but to address the equal protection challenge.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but due process will come first. That's all I was saying.

Tim-
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I didn't read the thread but have a question, what benefits/rights do gay couples now have that they didn't have before the ruling?
Click to expand...

Hopefully the right to marry the person they love and want to establish a monogamous relationship with.
 
Hicup said:
Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Do they have the intellectual capacity to reconcile opposite sex marriage, if taught in the public schools as perfectly normal?


Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I didn't read the thread but have a question, what benefits/rights do gay couples now have that they didn't have before the ruling?
Click to expand...
All the ones that opposite sex, legally married couples get simply by signing a single contract. (though, same sex marriages can't be performed there until the stay is lifted)
 
Hicup said:
You realize (I hope) that what you just said is contradictory? Are you not "discriminating" when "allowing" things that you deem good, and disallowing things you deem bad? LOL

Tim-


Tim-
Click to expand...

I am completely ignoring the discrimination argument altogether. What I am saying is that it does not apply. The government and the people often make laws that allow some things and prevent others.
 
Hicup said:
Show me where the due process clause was not met in Prop 8? Two kinds of due process are used these days, substantive, and procedural. In CA, the procedural, and substantive burdens were met. How can the SCOTUS strike it down?
Click to expand...

Simple. it has been the precedent of the federal government that marriage is a fundamental civil right. As such, for California to intrude and deny that right to same sex couples, it must provide stict scrutiny for why it has done so. California failed to provide decent rational as to why same sex couples should be denied the right to marry, and thus the judge found that same sex couples were denied due process of law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom