• 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!

Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

So far the courts have disagreed with this assessment, and with very good reason. Further, the question becomes what happens when DOMA is struck down? Can a state refuse to accept another states marraige? The potential problems with that are huge.


Redress, how are you? I wonder if you were aware that 31 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When and amendment was on the ballot it has never been defeated except in Arizona who also included civil unions. Oh and there will be more states with amendments on their ballots in Nov.
 
Overthrowing, hi-jacking, filibustering the will of the people has become modern day politics. It's only cool to do that when it's done for something one approves of. After that, it's activist.

Navy is right I think. I seem to recall that court is often in hot water and challenged. Moreso than any other court I can recall. i wouldn't start actually counting chickens just yet but it is time to round the chickens up and get them ready to count. The ideological opinion in cross-section America is just about to tip in the favor of SSM and judging by the tolerance trend, it should be happening any day now. Won't be long now.
 
Proof once again that activist judge = one who rules in a way you don't like. Come on NP, like last time, I dare you to show me where in the ruling you disagree with the judges reasoning. Will you accept the challenge this time, or will you avoid it again.

and I dare uou to show me where the issue was put on the ballot of any state the gay marriage people won.
 
Redress, how are you? I wonder if you were aware that 31 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When and amendment was on the ballot it has never been defeated except in Arizona who also included civil unions. Oh and there will be more states with amendments on their ballots in Nov.

I am aware of that. However, the times, they are a changing. It is quite possible that SSM will be legal across the country within 5 years. Are you ready? I am.
 
Overthrowing, hi-jacking, filibustering the will of the people has become modern day politics. It's only cool to do that when it's done for something one approves of. After that, it's activist.

Navy is right I think. I seem to recall that court is often in hot water and challenged. Moreso than any other court I can recall. i wouldn't start actually counting chickens just yet but it is time to round the chickens up and get them ready to count. The ideological opinion in cross-section America is just about to tip in the favor of SSM and judging by the tolerance trend, it should be happening any day now. Won't be long now.

Thanks CA, that is all I am saying....I think the SCOTUS will settle the issue one way or the other.
 
So far the courts have disagreed with this assessment, and with very good reason. Further, the question becomes what happens when DOMA is struck down? Can a state refuse to accept another states marraige? The potential problems with that are huge.


That is the big day, which will come within the decade IMO.
 
and I dare uou to show me where the issue was put on the ballot of any state the gay marriage people won.

This addresses my comments and question how? Hint: it does not, it is another evasion. You called the judge activist. For that to be true you need to show that his ruling is flawed.
 
and I dare uou to show me where the issue was put on the ballot of any state the gay marriage people won.

You're right. How dare we let people decide for themselves what marriage is and who they can marry!!! The majority always knows better.

:coffeepap
 
Proof once again that activist judge = one who rules in a way you don't like. Come on NP, like last time, I dare you to show me where in the ruling you disagree with the judges reasoning. Will you accept the challenge this time, or will you avoid it again.

Can you give me and example where I sided with activist juges..........surely not on abortion or gay marriage.
 
Overthrowing, hi-jacking, filibustering the will of the people has become modern day politics. It's only cool to do that when it's done for something one approves of. After that, it's activist.

Navy is right I think. I seem to recall that court is often in hot water and challenged. Moreso than any other court I can recall. i wouldn't start actually counting chickens just yet but it is time to round the chickens up and get them ready to count. The ideological opinion in cross-section America is just about to tip in the favor of SSM and judging by the tolerance trend, it should be happening any day now. Won't be long now.

The court is challenged and overturned more on a numberical basis. It is also the business court in the country. By percentages, it is pretty close to normal.
 
Can you give me and example where I sided with activist juges..........surely not on abortion or gay marriage.

Again you evade the challenge. You called the judge in this case activist. Surely you can show where his ruling is flawed.
 
You're right. How dare we let people decide for themselves what marriage is and who they can marry!!! The majority always knows better.

:coffeepap

Why have referdums or elections if activist judges are just going yo over rule the outcome. (Confused)
 
That's partially because we are not a strict democracy, but rather a democratic republic. There will always be challenges of this nature and need to be, the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of the minority and we review cases as such. Perchance the SCOTUS will reverse it, but that is the process we have. The majority is not king.

Yes, exactly. :thumbs:
 
Why have referdums or elections if activist judges are just going yo over rule the outcome. (Confused)

Yes, damn activist judges, who gave them the right to take away our right to all white schools!!!
 
Why have referdums or elections if activist judges are just going yo over rule the outcome. (Confused)

As pointed out to you earlier, because this is our process. We have laws, and judges rule on law. And they have bene properly doing this, which is why the issue keeps winning in court. The discrimination is against the LAW. I know, judges shouldn't be concern with the law, but whatcha gonna do?
 
Navy, why do you only ever come back to DP when Gay Marriage involved?
 
For those who oppose this, may I ask why? How does it effect you? Why do you care what two people do?

What people will say-Because the sanctity of marriage is at stake, the integrity of the American family, and we must keep the values that has made America great.

What they really mean- Gays are icky, and disgusting, except lesbians are okay in my porn.
 
So glad you asked, Angel.
Just looking for something to sink my teeth into. ;)


Banning same sex marriage violates the constitution because, as has been discussed in this thread, it applies the protections of marriage to some couples and not others, solely on the basis of discriminating against homosexuals. If there is going to be a law that affects the liberties of some people and not others, especially ones directly involving the government, there must be some compelling external reason. This is how the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works. The law, both federal and state, is not allowed to arbitrarily discriminate. If it wishes to discriminate, it must prove that it has a good reason. No such reason has ever surfaced.
Regarding "it applies the protections of marriage to some couples and not others", I can see where that is indeed a significant matter.

If there is no other recourse for such necessary protections than to marry, then that's a concern.

It seems that the human nature formation of "a couple" is key here.

I don't believe anyone would rationally argue that gay couples aren't couples as there are simply too many observations that support the inclusion of gays in coupling.

So really it all starts with the decision to couple or not.

Those who choose to be "single", well, they do without some of those protections that marriage affords. But, they made their choice with regard to the calibrated issue of "coupling", and they chose not to couple.

That seems to be the pivot here, whether people choose to couple, and by coupling I mean, obviously, with a commitment that supports the reasoning for said protections.

What Prop 8 supporters are arguing, however, is that gays have those protections via civil unions .. and if all the marriage protections are not included in civil unions then civil union laws need to be changed to include them.

Prop 8 supporters are saying that would allow gays to "couple" in commitment with equal protection.

Prop 8 supporters are asking for their cultural tradition of marriage to be left alone, to remain defined as "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", and for constitutional equal protection to be afforded in an equal but different manner.

Would that not be sufficient?

Prop 8 would be supported by the SCOTUS and states would immediately begin hammering out changes to civil union statutes to provide equal protection.

My question then is would that solve the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
 
I am aware of that. However, the times, they are a changing. It is quite possible that SSM will be legal across the country within 5 years. Are you ready? I am.

Well more states are opting for and amendment defining gay marraige as a union between a man and a woman. Nope as a practicing Catholic I will never be ready to say that the blessed sacrament of marraige should include 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, a brother and sister in a non sexual union for the benefits, same for a father and daughter or a mother and son al in non sexual relationships..........That is just me though Redress and don't come back and tell me that can't happen because it can.
 
What people will say-Because the sanctity of marriage is at stake, the integrity of the American family, and we must keep the values that has made America great.

What they really mean- Gays are icky, and disgusting, except lesbians are okay in my porn.

No offense, but i want someone who opposes it to respond.

And if I do get those responses I would ask how 2 men or women marrying does anything to devalue the sanctity of marriage, or the american family or the american values.
 
Well more states are opting for and amendment defining gay marraige as a union between a man and a woman. Nope as a practicing Catholic I will never be ready to say that the blessed sacrament of marraige should include 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 2 women, a brother and sister in a non sexual union for the benefits, same for a father and daughter or a mother and son al in non sexual relationships..........That is just me though Redress and don't come back and tell me that can't happen because it can.

When was the last one to do it NP? How many last year? The year before?

And when are you going to show the legal flaws with this ruling, or will you retract your activist judge comment?
 
The court is challenged and overturned more on a numberical basis. It is also the business court in the country. By percentages, it is pretty close to normal.

I'm sho' you right. It does get a lot of air play though.
 
Again you evade the challenge. You called the judge in this case activist. Surely you can show where his ruling is flawed.

It was a 2-1 verdict. 8 Judges were not involved.........Let the SCOTUS decide this....If they vote for gay marriage you won't here me complain again on the issue, can you and your left wing friends say the same?
 
It was a 2-1 verdict. 8 Judges were not involved.........Let the SCOTUS decide this....If they vote for gay marriage you won't here me complain again on the issue, can you and your left wing friends say the same?

SCOTUS will decide the case. However, 3 judges have rules that prop 8 is illegal, plus rulings that DOMA is illegal. SSM bans are not fairing well in the courts. Now, can you show what part of the ruling you think is flawed that you can accuse those ruling to overturn the law are activist, or will you withdraw the claim?
 
Back
Top Bottom