• 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

It would be if men could marry men, but women could not marry women.

As it is, you have described current marriage law as it has always been undestood. Nothing more. Nothing less.

This time you should probably actually read this post.

You have no understanding of the difference between "equal application" and "equal protection". I could make a law that argues that people are only allowed to marry their own race. That law would be considered "equal application" since only whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. However, that law would not be equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using race to apply restrictions to civil rights. Same sex marriage bans are equal application but are not equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using sex to apply restrictions to civil rights.

Nice try though. Pretending that "equal application of the law" is the same as "equal protection of the law" is the same strategy that was used by segregationists for decades. You have certainly fallen quite a bit if that is the playbook you have decided to borrow from in this debate.
 
This time you should probably actually read this post.

You have no understanding of the difference between "equal application" and "equal protection". I could make a law that argues that people are only allowed to marry their own race. That law would be considered "equal application" since only whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. However, that law would not be equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using race to apply restrictions to civil rights. Same sex marriage bans are equal application but are not equal protection since the government is arbitrarily using sex to apply restrictions to civil rights.

Nice try though. Pretending that "equal application of the law" is the same as "equal protection of the law" is the same strategy that was used by segregationists for decades. You have certainly fallen quite a bit if that is the playbook you have decided to borrow from in this debate.

You're repeating yourself.

I've got work tomorrow.

Night.
 
If we allow Prop 8 to overturn, it's only going to lead to other Props getting overturned. :2razz:
 
If gay marriage is legal then you will have a whole bunch of others groups wanting the same right..........will you allow gays and discriminate against them? talk about a hypocrite.

NP, you have been using this slippery slope argument for as long as I've known you at DP. It has been shown to be nothing but bunk many times in the past, and it is STILL nothing but bunk, today.
 
IMO, the August 2010 ruling was strong. What I noted then is relevant today:

Judge Vaughn Walker concluded that the proponents of Proposition 8 failed to meet the standards of demonstrating a “rational basis” for their position and that their position served a “legitimate state interest.” Arguments concerning tradition, caution in implementing social change, promoting opposite-sex parenting, protecting the freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage, treating same-sex couples differently, and a blanket claim of “any other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties…” fell short of serving a legitimate state interest.

Barring the discovery of credible evidence illustrates a legitimate state or public interest related to a restrictive marriage law that was overlooked by Judge Walker (and one would have to deal strictly with the arguments made in the case, which were weak e.g., adoption laws that have been upheld negate the parenting line of argument) or significant legal error by Judge Walker (which seems unlikely given customary interpretations of the 14th Amendment), my guess is that subsequent court decisions will uphold Judge Walker’s ruling.

The Appeals Court's rulling does not surprise me. The initial ruling was strong in substance and the opponent's arguments were weak. Should the U.S. Supreme Court receive the case, I expect a similar outcome probably along 5-4 or perhaps even 6-3 margin.
 
I would put to you that you hold a position that most Conservatives once held, but few do now. From one old Paleocon to another, good post. However, I disagree with you on adoption. Kids adopted by gays turn out quite well.
I'll be honest. My hangup with same sex couples adopting is based upon my being a Christian. I believe being gay is a sin. I also believe that it's none of my business nor is it the gov'ts business. However, like my argument with abortion, there is an innocent "victim" in the case of same sex adoption. A child cannot choose whether they want to go to a same sex or traditional couple any more than they can decide whether they want to die in the case of abortion. God can overcome any obstacle if He chooses a child to be a follower of Him. But it is not my role to place obstacles in front of Him to overcome. I won't debate anyone that says children from same sex marriages turn out just as good as children from traditional marriages. I also believe those studies are based upon our standard as human beings, not God's standard. And its God's standard I worry about on any subject way before man's.
 
I'll be honest. My hangup with same sex couples adopting is based upon my being a Christian. I believe being gay is a sin. I also believe that it's none of my business nor is it the gov'ts business. However, like my argument with abortion, there is an innocent "victim" in the case of same sex adoption. A child cannot choose whether they want to go to a same sex or traditional couple any more than they can decide whether they want to die in the case of abortion. God can overcome any obstacle if He chooses a child to be a follower of Him. But it is not my role to place obstacles in front of Him to overcome. I won't debate anyone that says children from same sex marriages turn out just as good as children from traditional marriages. I also believe those studies are based upon our standard as human beings, not God's standard. And its God's standard I worry about on any subject way before man's.

Appreciate your honesty on the religion thing, but if you are worried about a child growing up without knowing the Christian God, then where is your hangup with atheists adopting? Or Wiccans? or Muslims? Religion isn't a prerequisite for adopting children so why would you have a problem with just gays adopting when there are many "non-Christian God" worshipping parents or atheist parents out there adopting.

This is where I think gays are wrongly being discriminated against by Christians for that reason.
 
NP, you have been using this slippery slope argument for as long as I've known you at DP. It has been shown to be nothing but bunk many times in the past, and it is STILL nothing but bunk, today.
Sister Wives' Polygamist Plans Suit to Challenge Polygamy Law - ABC News
Actually, his argument is gaining traction. The link provided talks about the show "Sister Wives". Apparently the male star of the show is suing the Utah state gov't saying they should not be allowed to prosecute him or any other practicer of polygamy for anything other than crimes such as incest, rape, child abuse, etc. In other words, they shouldn't be prosecuted for their polygamy, just the crimes that may spin off from it. I believe, as I'm sure most do, that this case will get thrown out. However, it will begin to set the precedent on how other polygamist's should go about attacking the legal system. If gay marriage is found to be a right, then things such as polygamy, child molestation, etc will start to pop up. I hate to believe it too, but I think Navy Pride is right.
 
If gay marriage is found to be a right, then things such as polygamy, child molestation, etc will start to pop up. I hate to believe it too, but I think Navy Pride is right.

Sorry but that is ridiculous. To compare child molestation to gay marriage is absurd.

Polygamy you may have a point with and even with polygamy I see it more as an administration problem than a moral one.
 
Sorry but that is ridiculous. To compare child molestation to gay marriage is absurd.

Polygamy you may have a point with and even with polygamy I see it more as an administration problem than a moral one.
Just to be the devil's advocate, who are we to say the children can't be in a relationship with an adult? Why can't a 13 year old girl marry a 30 year old man? She's old enough to know what she's getting into. Its not like she's some 7 year old who will say yes to pretty much anything. She's 13. You see what I'm saying? I don't agree with it at all. But sicko's will say it and eventually soom kook judge will rule in favor of it. It will go to the Supreme Court and then who knows. It won't happen in the next 10 years or anything. But it will.
 
Just to be the devil's advocate, who are we to say the children can't be in a relationship with an adult? Why can't a 13 year old girl marry a 30 year old man? She's old enough to know what she's getting into. Its not like she's some 7 year old who will say yes to pretty much anything. She's 13. You see what I'm saying? I don't agree with it at all. But sicko's will say it and eventually soom kook judge will rule in favor of it. It will go to the Supreme Court and then who knows. It won't happen in the next 10 years or anything. But it will.

You really need to know what a consenting adult is or why a child cannot enter into a contract under 18 typically? That is the difference and why the slippery slope fails with child molestation and beastiality.
 
You really need to know what a consenting adult is or why a child cannot enter into a contract under 18 typically? That is the difference and why the slippery slope fails with child molestation and beastiality.

I'm just arguing what the weirdo's will man lol. These arguments about "who are we judge who can do X or Y" are eventually going to lead to rulings on this stuff. You can use all the legal angles you want. DOMA exists, yet, gay marriage is being challenged. Consenting adult laws exist and they can be challenged.
 
I'm just arguing what the weirdo's will man lol. These arguments about "who are we judge who can do X or Y" are eventually going to lead to rulings on this stuff. You can use all the legal angles you want. DOMA exists, yet, gay marriage is being challenged. Consenting adult laws exist and they can be challenged.


No, gay marriage is not going to lead to all that stuff just as interracial marriage didn't lead to the fall of America.

Unfortunately, if you cannot see the difference between how gay marriage came around and why child molestation cannot, there is no point in discussing this with you further. You have an irrational fear of gay marriage.
 
Just to be the devil's advocate, who are we to say the children can't be in a relationship with an adult? Why can't a 13 year old girl marry a 30 year old man? She's old enough to know what she's getting into. Its not like she's some 7 year old who will say yes to pretty much anything. She's 13. You see what I'm saying? I don't agree with it at all. But sicko's will say it and eventually soom kook judge will rule in favor of it. It will go to the Supreme Court and then who knows. It won't happen in the next 10 years or anything. But it will.

You really dont see the difference between a consenting adult and a 13 year old girl? Something is wrong with you bud.

And reading the above it seems like the only problem most of you anti-gay marriage people have is that you think it will lead to child molestation. So you people really don't have a problem with gay marriage then?
 
Just to be the devil's advocate, who are we to say the children can't be in a relationship with an adult? Why can't a 13 year old girl marry a 30 year old man? She's old enough to know what she's getting into. Its not like she's some 7 year old who will say yes to pretty much anything. She's 13. You see what I'm saying? I don't agree with it at all. But sicko's will say it and eventually soom kook judge will rule in favor of it. It will go to the Supreme Court and then who knows. It won't happen in the next 10 years or anything. But it will.

Children are not capable of consent, thus, not an issue that is in any way equal.

These are really slippery sloppe fallacies that come up far too often.
 
Well, I'm sure that they all appreciate a white guy speaking for them on what they are or aren't offended about as a whole.

And do you think a black man's similar opinion holds more weight, or will you always presume to think the whole has no problem with it?
 
And do you think a black man's similar opinion holds more weight, or will you always presume to think the whole has no problem with it?

I just think it's funny when white people spout off about what is or isn't offensive to other ethnic groups. It implies that they can somehow understand what it's like to be of that ethnic group or know how they perceive stuff. It's arrogance, pure and simple.
 
I just think it's funny when white people spout off about what is or isn't offensive to other ethnic groups. It implies that they can somehow understand what it's like to be of that ethnic group or know how they perceive stuff. It's arrogance, pure and simple.

Is it ok for other ethnic groups to decide what is or isnt offensive to white people?
 
Committed gay couples deserve equal protection under the 14th Amendment. No rational argument denies that, and indeed the Prop 8 people have stated as much.

What the Prop 8 people object to is the method gay couples are employing to obtain equal protection.

Marriage is and always has been in the time-honored cultural tradition a committed union "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage, and that's a given no-brainer, not a matter for rational conjecture. Historical tiny anectdotal occurences of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.

Those who support Prop 8 see things as they truly are and wish to continue to respect the time-honored tradition of marriage as it truly is.

Gays, however, in their defense, have a right to equal protection under the law in union of committed couples, just as married people do.

The problem here is that marriage would have to be redefined to include gays, and that's a ludricrous notion to Prop 8 supporters, as then "marriage" would no longer mean what it always has been to them: a time-honored cultural tradition between a man and a woman as husband and wife which thereby definitively has great meaning to them. The word "marriage" simply can't be redefined to include gays as it would then cease to be marriage by all that is important historically in making marriage meaningful throughout history.

Equal protection is really the issue here, truly the only rational issue.

So what is the solution to give equal protection to committed gay couples?

Simple: expand the definition of civil union contracts to include the same legal protections as marriage contracts.

This solves everyone's problems: 1) gay couples get equal protection, and they can create a separate unique term to describe that special civil union, 2) straight couples retain meaningful value in their time honored tradition of mariage.

So why isn't that the direction being taken?

Because gay people have waited long enough, their leaders say, for such action to occur, and it's not occurring. We're tired of waiting, they say, as it takes too long to do things the correct way.

So gay leaders decided to push the issue by attempting to redefine a long-defined cultural tradition -- marriage -- to remove the foundational "man and a woman as husband and wife", which is, rationally, a ludicrous suggestion.

But where democracy exists, anything is possible .. and gay leaders reasoned this approach was a win-win for them. Either they would incredibly succeed, thereby instantly guaranteeing and equal protection avenue for gay couples, or they would fail but so rally everyone's attention that civil unions would be modified en masse across the country to grant committed gay couples their constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection.

However, gay leaders neglected, in their effort, to be considerate of the great majority -- married couples (straight by definition) -- they would offend. In fact, many gay leaders simply expressed that they could care less about what married couples (straight by definition) thought about the matter. Indeed, gay leaders, so filled with animosity toward those they accused of blocking gay couples' equal protection rights, may not have realized their egregious approach would most certainly be an offense to others .. resulting, understandably in the Prop 8 action.

Those who argue in favor of gays having equal protection under the law by ludicrously redefining the traditionaly protected word "marriage" are too often unethically looking the other way at the very real damage being done to the time-honored tradition of marriage in the eyes of those who respect it for what it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

I find it rather hypocritical that those gays and liberals who rage about injustice are being insensitive to the injustice they themselves are attempting to do to an entire class of people in this matter: married couples (straight by definition).

Married people -- straight by definition -- via the supporters of Prop 8 are simply saying that marriage belongs to us by meaningfully valued definition and that gays, though they have the right to equal protection, have no right to break in and steal from us what we so greatly value: our term "marriage" and its meaning.

That's a most valid complaint, and if the shoe were on the other foot I'm pretty sure gay leaders would more easily incline to agree.

This issue really isn't about whether gays have the right to equal protection, it's about the method they're employing to secure it: invasive thievery of a time-honored institution that is greatly valued as meaningful to those who have participated in it as it truly is: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Gay leaders would do well to realize that the very people they are invading and stealing from here are in favor of supporting their (gay) equal protection rights for committed couples. It just seems really stupid, therefore, for gay leaders to antagonize a great majority like this that supports their goal, as that can't serve them well in the long-run.

It is imporant for gay leaders to understand that gays comprise only about eight to nine percent of the population, and although their very small numbers in no way means their committed couples are not entitled to equal protection under the law, their present approach of invading and stealing a time-honored tradition from those who value its meaning is without a question an act of tyranny of the minority.

Gays may lament that their sexual orientation that exists through no choice of their own rightly prevents them from "marrying" .. and yeah, it is kind of sad, like it's sad that a man with no legs really wants to play pro football .. but can't, obviously. But in no way does such frustration justify the invasive thievery gay leaders are advocating to secure equal protection. Those of us who live with challenges must play the hand that was dealt us, and without selfishly making others miserable because we feel "cheated" by God or fate or whatever.

Liberals, I would argue, not surprisingly support gay leaders in their invasive thievery method of securing equal protection, which they do because their pre-conceived ideology demands that they follow liberal party philosophy even if it means commiting an egregious act against another segment of the population.

Liberals would do well to realize that ignoring the meaningful tradition of others that in no way, by time-honored definition, offends gays or prevents them from securing their equal protection rights through honorable means, only leads to an attitude of war and increased animosity between straights and gays. Liberals would do well, if they really are the "peace lovers" they say they are, not to embrace quick-fix shortcuts that come at the angering expense of an innocent group of people: those who value marriage (straight by definition).

And for liberals to "claim" to not see this real issue as I've presented, or pooh-pooh it as being "less imporant" than securing equal protection for committed gay couples by egregious quick-fix means, are, well, likely not very bright .. or honorable .. and reflects ignorance and insensitivity on the part of liberals.

This invasive thievery method of securing equal protection for gay couples is not progress.

Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.

A word to the wise.
 
Great wars have understandably been faught over matters such as these .. and understandably so.

A word to the wise.

An eloquent post but you forgot something. 19 states have constitutional bans not just on same sex marriage, but on civil unions and domestic partnerships. The reality is that the same sex marriage opponents drew blood first. They have denied same sex couples anything even comparable to marriage across this country. They pushed through the Defense of Marriage Act which established a federal definition of marriage.

And you want to rant and rave about compromise? You want to accuse liberals and gay rights advocates on trampling on a definition when the other side has gone so far as to deny even civil unions to same sex couples? What the hell world are you living in when a traditional definition of a word has more value than basic equal rights?
 
A few points for you, Angel.

First, the claim of "one man and one woman" as a historical context for marriage is simply not accurate. This comes up in just about every thread on SSM. One man and many women is likely the most common historical form of marriage. So, the appeal to history does not hold water.

Second, the supposed "right" of heterosexuals to define marriage how they choose is necessarily unequal protection, since homosexuals are denied that same right. Not that such a right actually exists in the first place, but even if it did, it would not be equal application of the law.

Third, the compromise of civil unions. American law long since holds that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Equal access to marriage for any couple, regardless of gender, is the only way to actually apply the law equally to everyone.

And that's all there is to it, luv.
spike.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom