• 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.
Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the "gay marriage as a fundamanetal right's", issue.

You're not fooling anyone..



Tim-

Actually, pal, the argument is clear if you know anything about the case law surrounding marriage. First and foremost, all legal assertions point to the marriage contract being one in which you name "one person irreplaceable" (Perez v Sharp) and to hold a "place of unique and singular value" (Perez v Sharp) to you. A polygamous relationship, by its very definition, precludes this arrangement from ever taking place and, thus, has no relevance to the gay marriage debate.

Now that's all I am going to say about your red herring and I am going to let the rest of your snarky post slide for now because I can see that you are getting your ass handed to you on all fronts and, being the civilized chap that I am, see no reason to further add insult to your injury.
 
I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.

which means that the government can not issue marriage lisences.

which is sacrificing functionality for form.
 
And thus it is discriminatory based on gender by my argument, as a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man and ditto for woman and woman. Gender discrimination is unconstitutional if it doesn't meet a rather high standard of necessity and proof, which it doesn't.
It is discriminatory based on gender, because the definition of marriage is a union between only a man and woman. The definition discriminates against allowing homosexual unions to be put under the same definition. However, this is not wrong. One could also argue that it's discrimination to not include animals into the definition of marriage and say its a union between a human and any consenting organism. Not all discrimination is unjust, we discriminate against the action of murder by making it illegal. I am not morally equating homosexuality, murder, and bestiality. What I am doing is showing how discrimination isn't always a wrong thing and that we discriminate against things all the time. Would it be discrimination to define marriage as a union between a man and woman but then also allow civil unions with equal benefits to be in place for other sexualities?
I understand all this. However, I am speaking specifically of many of the conservatives on this thread who are simultaneoulsly calling this judge an "activist" while advocating for activist judging by ignoring that constitutionally as of now marriage is a constitutional right.
I support being Constitutionally consistent and ruling on the document based on how it is written and original intent. In all honesty, pretty much every judge is an activist judge because they make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution. However, what the case may be is that many interpret the Constitution according to law, others according to political philosophy and wishful thinking.

Edit: I must be off to work not, if anyone responds to me expect a reply later in the evening. Take care all.
 
Last edited:
So Zyphlin, if I am reading you correctly, you don't believe marriage is a fundamental right? Only a constitutional right? Am I missing something?

Oops, sorry posted at the same time. Ok so I was correct. I need to go smoke a cigarette, I'll be back. :)

Tim-

By George, I think he's got it!

;)
 
the question remains the same. what gives you the voter the right to impose your morality on marriage?

Nothing gives me the right to impose my morality on marriage.

However, the constitution gives the right to impose the constitution on the law, of which marriage is.

And the constitution says there is equal protection under the law.

And allowing a man to marry a woman but a woman not to marry a woman, and vise versa, is discrimination under the law based on gender.
 
Tex

Listen to me as I type very....very...slowly.

I've not made the argument, once, anywhere in this thread, that any group at all has a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.

I am arguing that as it stands today MARRIAGE in general is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

And I'll say it again very very slowly. Marriage as a right was NEVER EVER granted based on sexual preference. The ONLY case was based on race.

I am arguing that the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause protects individual classes of people from discrimination in regards ot the law, including constitutional rights.

I am arguing specific to my stance, that there is gender discrimination in the current marriage system and since gender is a clearly defined unquestionable subset under the equal protection clause, that it is unconstitutional to deny men from marrying men and women from marrying women when men can marry women and women can marry men.

Then by your logic you cannot exclude ANYONE no matter what size, age or sexual preference from demanding the same thing. That is the key point you keep missing.

I am also saying that due to the significant amount of evidence supporting the notion that sexual orientation in the large majority of homosexuals can be attributed as "natural" or "born with" that there is a far greater case to be made for that being worthy of EPC on the same level of gender if not race than polygamy which has no evidence of being an orientation or something people are "born" with.

That is where we totally disagree. There is no natural finding in even a majority of homosexuals to characterize it in that way.

Finally I am stating that "number of people", which is where the inequality comes into play with polygamists as they feel that if they can marry 1 person its discrimination to not allow them to marry 2, is not a recognized protected group under EPC like gender NOR has anyone presented any argument let alone a strong argument as to why it should be covered under EPC similar to the arguments made for sexual orientation.

Nowhere in any part of the Constitution does it specify the number of people than can marry. If you are going to claim it is a right you cannot descriminate against the number of people marrying each other.
 
Last edited:
Actually, pal, the argument is clear if you know anything about the case law surrounding marriage. First and foremost, all legal assertions point to the marriage contract being one in which you name "one person irreplaceable" (Perez v Sharp) and to hold a "place of unique and singular value" (Perez v Sharp) to you. A polygamous relationship, by its very definition, precludes this arrangement from ever taking place and, thus, has no relevance to the gay marriage debate.

Now that's all I am going to say about your red herring and I am going to let the rest of your snarky post slide for now because I can see that you are getting your ass handed to you on all fronts and, being the civilized chap that I am, see no reason to further add insult to your injury.

Ah, I see, so you're with Zyphlin on this. Marriage is not fundamental, but it is constitutional? You realize that rights not enumerated are considered fundamental, right?

Thanks for handing me me one.. Right back atcha.. :)

Tim-
 
Just another sign that gays want their immoral behavior to be seen as normal
morality has nothing to do with it since it is subjective. Equality under the law has everything to do with it since that is objective. I don't give a flying **** what people consider normal or abnormal.

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..........
And for the 1000th time, we're talking about gender. Sexuality really has nothing to do with it.

Same SEX marriage. Sex = Gender. The issue is gender. You can marry a woman and I cannot.
 
And allowing a man to marry a woman but a woman not to marry a woman, and vise versa, is discrimination under the law based on gender.

44 of our states find differently
 
In the middle of a repsonse do Dana when T-Storm knocked out power. On my pre now. Will have to respond to all at some point later. Thanks to most for some very engaging convo and debate
 
I grow weary of this thread............I think there is one thing we all can agree on.......This issue will go to the SCOTUS to be decided........In the end I am willing to abide by their decision............To all you "Feel good Libs" and gays out there are you willing to do the same????????????????????

Well I posted this 6 pages ago trying to get a commitment from you lefties to abide by the decision of the SCOTUS on this issue and let it die in peace........Why am I not surprised that not one of you took me up on my offer? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites......
 
Ah, I see, so you're with Zyphlin on this. Marriage is not fundamental, but it is constitutional? You realize that rights not enumerated are considered fundamental, right?

Thanks for handing me me one.. Right back atcha.. :)

Tim-

I would love for you to demonstrate the somersaults and contortions in comprehension and logic that led you to believe that I voiced an agreement with Zyphlin...
 
The reason I'm pressing the fundamental issue should be clear now to everyone. Based on the definition I provided, which no one has disputed "yet", of what constitutes a fundamental right, one might argue that if marriage was a fundamental right, where such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction, then one cannot deny that marriage historically belonged to one group. That of a man, and a woman. If marriage is fundamental to all humans, then surely, notwithstanding some minor exceptions, we would have seen it in other cultures, and along many different types of marriage. Yet, we have not, not ever. So how fundamental can marriage really be, if all humans, have not realized it as such, and just got married any old way they choose? Why have we not seen it? So, with this logic, one can only conclude that if marriage is fundamental at all, it must be findamental to bonds where there exists only one man, and one woman.

Lacking a fundamental defintion, the Supreme Court of the US, must reject the case at bar, as moot, since no violation fo the 14th Amendment exists, and the States are free to legislate as they see fit, based on any criteria that does not violate the constitutional meaning, and understanding of what constitutes a fundamental right. Only fundamental rights are protected, all others are open season.


Tim-
 
Well I posted this 6 pages ago trying to get a commitment from you lefties to abide by the decision of the SCOTUS on this issue and let it die in peace........Why am I not surprised that not one of you took me up on my offer? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites......

The only way to not abide by a SCOTUS decision is to amend the constitution, which is unlikely to pass either way. So it's kinda a nonquestion.
 
Actually, pal, the argument is clear if you know anything about the case law surrounding marriage. First and foremost, all legal assertions point to the marriage contract being one in which you name "one person irreplaceable" (Perez v Sharp) and to hold a "place of unique and singular value" (Perez v Sharp) to you. A polygamous relationship, by its very definition, precludes this arrangement from ever taking place and, thus, has no relevance to the gay marriage debate.

what were perez' and sharp's genders?
 
which means that the government can not issue marriage lisences.

which is sacrificing functionality for form.

Our forefathers never got marriage licenses. They just got married. The only reason the government got involved, and started requiring licenses, was due to Jim Crow in the South, and eugenics in the North.
 
Because we're all thinking adults who don't take orders or requests from internet strangers?

Well I posted this 6 pages ago trying to get a commitment from you lefties to abide by the decision of the SCOTUS on this issue and let it die in peace........Why am I not surprised that not one of you took me up on my offer? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites......
 
I would love for you to demonstrate the somersaults and contortions in comprehension and logic that led you to believe that I voiced an agreement with Zyphlin...

Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..

Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?


Tim-
 
This is seriously beginning to look like baiting.

Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..

Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?


Tim-
 
Irrelevant........

you surprise me, friend

the one person irreplaceable CA defined was as a matter of law of opposite sex

the point---things change

if the standard, one person (of opposite sex) irreplaceable, can be morphed down the road to gender neutrality, so can other things...

and for substantially the same reasons

think about it
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.

Actually, that's not entirely true, dana. The marriage contract, as it stands today, is a contract between two individual parties granting them joint power of attorney with one another. That contract can work between two people, reasonably, because there is an expected mutual designation of one another as THE spokesperson for the other in their absence (be that medical reasons, disappearance, or even death).

The polygamous relationship guarantees that this mutual power of attorney benefit and designation of "most important person", so to speak, cannot happen. The closest thing we have to a workable contract for polygamists is a corporation contract. I am not opposed to letting them have this if they want. And no, I dont care if they call it a marriage either.
 
Actually, that's not entirely true, dana. The marriage contract, as it stands today, is a contract between two individual parties granting them joint power of attorney with one another. That contract can work between two people, reasonably, because there is an expected mutual designation of one another as THE spokesperson for the other in their absence (be that medical reasons, disappearance, or even death).

And that is stripping it down to the absolute bare essentials right there. :applaud
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom