• 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.
So did you read the post I quoted and responded to or are you just in knee-jerk response mode no matter how foolish your replies are?

I stated facts you want it to appear as something else.
 
I know, you've told us that numerous times Navy. Just a search of the archieves for Polls, Bush, and Iraq shows us that.








As we can see Navy, when Bush was in office you were a huge advocate for ignoring polls and "the will of the people". Indeed, when a person wouldn't take action based on polls you stated things like this.







Saying how much you like it that people don't govern based on polls. And yet, it seems now that you're advocating polls DO matter and that a judge should judge based on polls.

That reminds me of something else you had said.



Just flip the liberal thing.

What I'm getting at Navy is simply appealing to polls is hollow. Its doubly hollow when its done by someone who previously continually discounted polls. Can polls be useful tools? Yep, they could back in 2005 with Iraq and they can today as well, you know, like the one some time ago that you discounted where people felt DADT should end. But polls in and of themselves should never be the only, or even primary, justification for something done by a government official because public opinion is continually swaying and at times simply unconstitutional or wrong.

I am talking about the polls here in DP...The count can bew jury rigged......
 
You just don't want to be reasonable about it because you don't want gay people marrying for whatever reason.

dang!

a mind reader!

can you do celebrities?

what's lindsay lohan thinking right now?

LOL!
 
Just pointing out marriage may not make gays happy.They keep talking about what they gain and avoid looking at what they lose

All well and good, just because they may regret it doesn't mean the constitution shouldn't be upheld.
 
You really know how to twist what people say

You were the one who brought up immoral behaviors and normal. No twisting, it is normal for humans to have a sex drive, and it is normal for them to fulfill this drive with a partner that is attractive to them

<shrug>
 
If it is so bad, then why get in their way?

Because marriage is not about the state saying you can marry it is about a covenant with God. You can say it can be done without a religious ceremony but then why not just live together.
 
If the fedgov does not recognize gay marriage, what does the state who calls it such matter?

Well, for one thing, that issue is still up in the air. When I get caught up in this thread, I actually have a related question on this general topic though.
 
Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.

Whatever..Its still a group of people who want the same rights that gays are trying to get..............Why are you so intolerant to that?
 
Thanks..... I really didn't know. You know me, I don't care if someone wants to "marry a goat", it's none of my business.... Personally I think the government should be out of the marriage business.

The judge who rules in the DOMA case from Mass claimed over 1000 references in federal law to privileges under marriage.
 
Because marriage is not about the state saying you can marry it is about a covenant with God. You can say it can be done without a religious ceremony but then why not just live together.

Marriage is a contract connected to hundreds of privileges between the two who forge said contract. Your god has nothing to do with it, nor can it be invoked in proper, legal discussion. Gods have no place in the laws of man.
 
Nope, you just don't provide anything worth while to "address" cause you're not making an argument, you're making an ignorant statment.

Yes, and Redress and others are also giving REASONS why it should be thrown out. Unlike you who....

Just make statements that assert what people must do without giving any reasons, any argument, whatsoever. For your above statement to be true you must actually take Redresses stated reasonings and show why they apply to children. You can not, which is why you don't, you just throw this **** out there and then bitch when its disregarded like the baseless trash it is.

its the idiocy of those pushing this counter that are using a fallacy

equal parts sanctimony and pissiness

a recipe plain folks can gag on
 
Last edited:
Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........

So what about my particular argument in regards to males and females.

Can men change the fact they're men in your opinion?

Can women change the fact they're women in your opinion?

Then how is telling a man he can only marry women and women can only marry men any different than telling a black person they can only marry a white person and white people they could only marry black people?
 
Just like there were laws against black people marrying white people. Just like there were Jim Crow laws. This process has been repeated numerous times in American history, this is just the next time another minority group gets a right that has been denied them because they were different.

Please don't insult blacks by comparing their plight to gays......There is no comparison and its and insult to blacks..........Thanks
 
I am talking about the polls here in DP...The count can bew jury rigged......

Ah, it seemed you were speaking about polls as in the whole over turning the peoples will, california people support it, etc. My mistake and apologizes.
 
Nothing about the number of partners. Sexual orienation is about the gender one is attracted to. You are wrong on this.
No... I never claimed that "number of partners" should be included in the "sexual orientation" construct.
 
Because marriage is not about the state saying you can marry it is about a covenant with God. You can say it can be done without a religious ceremony but then why not just live together.

Then by that definition it is unquestionably unconstitutional as a violation of church and state.
 
You were the one who brought up immoral behaviors and normal. No twisting, it is normal for humans to have a sex drive, and it is normal for them to fulfill this drive with a partner that is attractive to them

<shrug>

It is you made it about sex I never mentioned sex
 
It does not say marriage

No it doesn't. As explained earlier, it doesn't mention anything specific. It says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You understand, yes?
 
You have evidence its always 1%? Because I know that isn't true.

That was poor wording on my part. There should have been an "if" in there. I do not know the margin of victory in any of them, though the Cali one was close, and polling suggests it might not pass if it was voted on today.
 
The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "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."

Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.
 
Marriage is a contract connected to hundreds of privileges between the two who forge said contract. Your god has nothing to do with it, nor can it be invoked in proper, legal discussion. Gods have no place in the laws of man.

If that is what you believe why no do your own contract and avoid the government taxes and interference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom