• 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

Kal'Stang said:
If they were to argue purely on what the definition of the word marriage is then you would still lose. All that it would take to dismiss your definition of marriage is to prove that...

1: Gay marriage has happened in the past. (which it has) Wiki ~ Same-sex marriage ~ in the Ancient section

2: That the definition of the word marriage has changed in the past. (which it has) Marriage between the races was once considered "un-natural" and as such the definition of marriage included that concept.

3: That there are other, different types of marriages. (which there is) Polygamy, monogamy, and polyandry.

4: That the use of marriage has changed. (which it has) Marriage was once used as a way to make Houses stronger and or to settle disputes and love had absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
Click to expand...
No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-28.html#post1060184038
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.
Click to expand...

When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.

Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.

Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.

Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.

back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.

CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.

The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.
 
Ontologuy said:
I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which...

Webster redefines marriage to include gays - UPI.com

back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.
Click to expand...

Why do you make this stuff up? It's hard to take someone seriously when they embarrass themselves by pretending to know what they are talking about and completely fabricate things to support their arguments. Seriously, how weak is your argument that you have to lie?
 
Ontologuy said:
No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-28.html#post1060184038

When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.

Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.

Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.

Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.

back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.

CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.

The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.
Click to expand...


I cannot wait till people like you flip your lids when SSM is legalized across the country. What a joyous day that will be. Hope you don't kill yourself on that day.
 
Ontologuy said:
That defense of Prop 8 is not what Prop 8 is about.
Click to expand...

There is no defense of Prop 8. It is a question in search of an answer. If the Supreme Court does not strike it down on the basis of prejudice, then they will strike it down on the basis of incoherence.

What is the purpose of denying the use of one word — "marriage" — to a class of people deemed by the state itself fully capable of taking on all of the child-raising and other responsibilities associated with the word?

The best you can do is try to change the topic and ignore the reality that nobody on your side can come up with a good answer.
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-28.html#post1060184038

When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.
Click to expand...

Just because something doesn't happen often does not mean that it does not happen or should not happen in the future. Your attempt to discard the past in order to make your point is disengenous at best. It was once aberant behavior for two people of different races to marry or have sexual intercourse. With your arguement a white person and a black person should not beable to marry or have sexual intercourse. See how silly your arguement is?

Ontologuy said:
Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.
Click to expand...

At one point the definition for the term "gay" meant "happy". The definition of the term "faggot" once meant "a bundle of sticks". Now adays the definition in websters for those two words includes homosexuals even though at one time neither one had anything to do with homosexuals. So even if we were to accept your definition of marriage as being the original definition (which its not) there is nothing to say that the definition cannot change or cannot include homosexuals.

Ontologuy said:
Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the priest that married two men.

Ontologuy said:
Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.
Click to expand...

What is considered acceptable human behavior is generally determined by if that behavior harms society in some way shape or form. Gay marriage will not harm anyone. Where as murder does. Just because you personally find GM unacceptable behavior does not mean that it is unacceptable behavior.

Ontologuy said:
back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure that those against inter-racial marriages said the same exact thing. Look how that turned out.

Ontologuy said:
CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Click to expand...

No, Prop 8's function was to deny marriage to gay couples because a bunch of religious folk's bible told them that being gay is against God. Which is really ironic when you're using terms like "brainwashing".

Ontologuy said:
The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.
Click to expand...

No wrong has been committed. There has yet to be any rational or reasonable arguement against gay marriage beyond that of people thinking that "its just wrong!". When you do come up with a rational arguement against gay marriage then you can claim that a wrong has been committed. Until then you're just sol.
 
Navy Pride said:
Sorry but a person that believes in SSM is no Conservative. He might be a RINO though
Click to expand...

Can a conservative not be a free thinker? Must they always be in lockstep with what they are told to think?

I am socially liberal to a degree, I confess. But in all other matters I am a pretty conservative. I am pro-gun, pro-life, anti-government cheese, etc. But I have no problem if Adam marries Steve. Won't turn me queer at all. Won't affect my life, my marriage, my wife, my family. Nothing. No affect on me at all.

So why would I want to deprive someone else of their happiness if it has no affect on me whatsoever? Because a church told me so? Because the guys at the lodge will call me a queer lover if I don't flock with the rest of the sheep?

I don't care who marries who. It's just a bull**** issue meant to deflect us from the REAL issues of the day that need addressed.

I'm cool with you doing your thing here bashing gays at every oppertunity given. That's you. That's who you are.

But I was raised better. Just sayin'.
 
CriticalThought said:
Speaking of which...

Webster redefines marriage to include gays - UPI.com



Why do you make this stuff up? It's hard to take someone seriously when they embarrass themselves by pretending to know what they are talking about and completely fabricate things to support their arguments. Seriously, how weak is your argument that you have to lie?
Click to expand...
That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
 
Ontologuy said:
That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
Click to expand...

Marriage is whatever the culture decides it to be. Marriage used to be defined, and still is in many parts of the world, as the union between a man and as many women as he can afford. Serial monogamy used to be uncommon but now a man or woman can divorce and remarry as many times as they would like. Same sex marriage existed for hundreds of years in some cultures around the world until the Abrahamic religions spread into those regions.

But all that is irrelevant because your argument is nothing but an appeal to tradition fallacy.

It is logically incoherent. The whole "this is right because we've always done it this way" is a poor argument. You know why? Because I can simply argue that same sex marriage is an innovation. Innovations change long standing traditions and are often valuable changes in policy.

Now I'm sure your probably don't care about logic, but it kind of disseminates your argument. For more information look here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
 
Last edited:
Ontologuy said:
That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
Click to expand...

An independent judiciary exists to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of a majority. That is how the founding fathers envisioned it.

The courts are where you actually have to make a decent case. You don't have one, so you have to make up crap and pretend like you have one.
 
It was always destined to be decided by the courts......just proves that majority opinion of ordinary citizenry cannot override the pursuit of happiness of minority groups.
With all the REAL problems we have, it amazes me that some people are still so worried about such things that it becomes the defining facet of their lives.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Some are pushing the envelope of civility here.... let's keep it polite and IMPERSONAL, please. Discuss the topic, not each other, thanks.




5thElemtPolice.jpg
 
Navy Pride said:
At the very least a mother nurtures a child. a man no matter how hard he trys can not do that.
Click to expand...

W-w-w-what? Are you insane? A man cannot nurture a child? Maybe therein lies the problem, you have a backwards view of what being a father is all about. I would argue that the best fathers out there are the ones that take the time to love and nurture their children and I think most people would agree.
 
Goshin said:
Moderator's Warning:
Some are pushing the envelope of civility here.... let's keep it polite and IMPERSONAL, please. Discuss the topic, not each other, thanks.




View attachment 67122369
Click to expand...

I know I'm not supposed to comment on mod posts here, but...

Fifth Element!!!! I love that movie.
 
Ontologuy said:
That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
Click to expand...

You still have NEVER answered whos definition of marriage YOU are using. The question is VERY valid and i believe you dodged my question because you not it shots huge holes in your false logic of post 399
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-ban-unconstitutional-40.html#post1060195434

Why do you dodge the question? fear? deflection because you know you cant back up post 399?
Im curious?
 
TheNextEra said:
I cannot wait till people like you flip your lids when SSM is legalized across the country. What a joyous day that will be. Hope you don't kill yourself on that day.
Click to expand...
See, this is the problem we all face right now -- it's turned into such a war, when it never needed to, as both sides could have gotten want they wanted.

Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Both would be happy -- gays would have equal rights under the law in their contract uniquely named for them, and straights would continue the same under their contract (marriage) uniquely named for them.

There then wouldn't be this .. this war, that will most certainly not end now almost regardless of the outcome of Prop 8.

You see, the wrong approach taken by gay leaders back then -- to invasively steal their way into something, marriage, to which they, by definition, simply do not belong -- guaranteed the war will escalate for sure if Prop 8 falls.

Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?

But by invasively attempting to steal their way into a millenia old highly valued institution of straight people -- marriage -- that's so highly meaningful to straight people as it is rightly defined .. well, all of you taking the liberal side on this, I don't think you realize just how important to straight people -- 91.5% of the population! -- this matter is .. and what the repercussion might likely be if Prop 8 overturns, etc.

It is quite clear that gay leaders are simply doing two things that just isn't right: 1) they are ignoring the real substantive differences between gay and straight couples that render inapplicable the word "marriage" to gay couples, and 2) they are exhibiting huge disrespect for straight people, trying to force their way into somewhere they simply don't belong, creating huge animosity for those scores of millions of straight people who hold marriage dear.

This is simply tyranny of the minority .. and if it succeeds, well, 91.5% of the population can find quite a large segment of people within to escalate this war.

I mean, I'm all for peace, but there are a number of people so angered by the gay leaders' attempted invasive thievery of marriage that, who knows, they might just find out what the genetic cause of same-sex gender attraction is .. and create a pre-natal vitamin to prevent it.

Then, in a few generations, all of this needless warring would be for nothing.

Gay leaders would have done well to be respectful of straights and their long-established meaningfully valued institution: marriage.

Hopefully it's not too late to change the course of likely events into a win-win scenario for both gays and straights.
 
Ontologuy said:
See, this is the problem we all face right now -- it's turned into such a war, when it never needed to, as both sides could have gotten want they wanted.

Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Both would be happy -- gays would have equal rights under the law in their contract uniquely named for them, and straights would continue the same under their contract (marriage) uniquely named for them.

There then wouldn't be this .. this war, that will most certainly not end now almost regardless of the outcome of Prop 8.

You see, the wrong approach taken by gay leaders back then -- to invasively steal their way into something, marriage, to which they, by definition, simply do not belong -- guaranteed the war will escalate for sure if Prop 8 falls.

Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?

But by invasively attempting to steal their way into a millenia old highly valued institution of straight people -- marriage -- that's so highly meaningful to straight people as it is rightly defined .. well, all of you taking the liberal side on this, I don't think you realize just how important to straight people -- 91.5% of the population! -- this matter is .. and what the repercussion might likely be if Prop 8 overturns, etc.

It is quite clear that gay leaders are simply doing two things that just isn't right: 1) they are ignoring the real substantive differences between gay and straight couples that render inapplicable the word "marriage" to gay couples, and 2) they are exhibiting huge disrespect for straight people, trying to force their way into somewhere they simply don't belong, creating huge animosity for those scores of millions of straight people who hold marriage dear.

This is simply tyranny of the minority .. and if it succeeds, well, 91.5% of the population can find quite a large segment of people within to escalate this war.

I mean, I'm all for peace, but there are a number of people so angered by the gay leaders' attempted invasive thievery of marriage that, who knows, they might just find out what the genetic cause of same-sex gender attraction is .. and create a pre-natal vitamin to prevent it.

Then, in a few generations, all of this needless warring would be for nothing.

Gay leaders would have done well to be respectful of straights and their long-established meaningfully valued institution: marriage.

Hopefully it's not too late to change the course of likely events into a win-win scenario for both gays and straights.
Click to expand...

Another long post based on the premise of your OPINION. You state what your OPINION of the definition of marriage is and nothing else everybody objective, logical and intellectual sees this.

Sorry but equal yet separate is not equal history and facts prove this.

Ill keep waiting for what you think the definition of marriage is and how it applies to your post 399. You keep dodging for some reason, its very telling.
 
Ontologuy said:
Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s when this all began, if gay leaders would have pushed for a uniquely named special domestic partnership civil union contract for committed gay couples in every state, they would have long ago achieved 14th amendment equal protection under the law.

And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Click to expand...

And with these two sentences you have just proved (and admitted) that not only are gays not getting thier 14th amendment equal protection under the law but that anything other than marriage would be seperate. And as the saying goes, "seperate but equal is not equal".

As the saying goes...you just screwed the pooch.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And with these two sentences you have just proved (and admitted) that not only are gays not getting thier 14th amendment equal protection under the law but that anything other than marriage would be seperate. And as the saying goes, "seperate but equal is not equal".

As the saying goes...you just screwed the pooch.
Click to expand...
Okay, poochily speaking, your perspective would force dog owners to let cat owners enter their cats in a dog show via appeal to "separate but equal".

And of course, that's ludicrous to allow cats in a dog show .. just as it is ludicrous for gays to have a marriage contract, marriage being between straights by definition.

Before separate but equal is applied jurists first examine the matter to see if it makes sense before determing if there is a valid state interest in the matter.

Since the opposite of Prop 8 is to include gays in marriage, non-politicized jurists would rightly reject challenge to Prop 8 on those grounds, that the opposite violates the very definition of words and would thus be nonsensical to consider.

It's like as if the CA legislature passed a bill that said "Window panes in CA will now be made of cardboard to improve visibility". If the law was tossed by a judge, would analyzing for legitimate state interest be the first thing jurists deciding an appeal attempt? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The first thing jurists would do would be to assess the structure of the law from a common sense perspective .. and they would overturn the law on that basis before they ever got to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test.

The same holds true here. By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife", so proper non-politicized review of Prop 8 by an appellate court would be to reject overturning of Prop 8 by simple appeal to common sense definition of words, as, considering that marriage is, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", there is no equating gay and straight committed couple relationships via the word marriage, and the jurists would rightly never have gotten to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test in the Prop 8 matter.

You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:
Intelligently speaking, it's obvious that two separate contracts in this matter are absolutely required, because the "separate but equal" test simply does not apply in this matter: gay committed couples and straight committed couples simply aren't equal entities, obviously. That's why one (straight couples) is rightly called marriage, and the other (gay couples) is rightly called .. something else, I don't know .. "homarriage"? like there is man and woman respectively?
Click to expand...

Committed gay couples have every 14th Amendment right to have a domestic partnership civil union constract like committed straight couples have .. they just can't call it marriage, by virtue of simple test of definition.

Again, that's a win-win for everyone, gays and straights.

It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.
 
Has anyone from the non-theocratic side of this (anti-Prop 8) been able to successfully explain to the pro-theocracy side that "tradition" (however popular) is completely irrelevant to the *LEGAL* standards of compelling state interest AND rational basis tests?

SSM was one of the rotating essay topics in a lab class I was teaching , and it seems like Pro-8 folks haven't changed their script one bit in the 13 years since. It's like they still don't grasp the basic concept that

"Ew!! Legal equality for gays and lesbians is GROSS! Why? Because Stone Cold Steve Austin Said So...er, I mean, because Stone Cold God said so!"
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
Has anyone from the non-theocratic side of this (anti-Prop 8) been able to successfully explain to the pro-theocracy side that "tradition" (however popular) is completely irrelevant to the *LEGAL* standards of compelling state interest AND rational basis tests?

SSM was one of the rotating essay topics in a lab class I was teaching , and it seems like Pro-8 folks haven't changed their script one bit in the 13 years since. It's like they still don't grasp the basic concept that

"Ew!! Legal equality for gays and lesbians is GROSS! Why? Because Stone Cold Steve Austin Said So...er, I mean, because Stone Cold God said so!"
Click to expand...
That's already been addressed: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/118583-court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-40.html#post1060195300

The reasonable and customary subject applicability test is employed first before anything else.

This matter is simply rightly one of appeal to definition .. and there's no theocratic/non-theocratic element to the matter.
 
Ontologuy said:
Okay, poochily speaking, your perspective would force dog owners to let cat owners enter their cats in a dog show via appeal to "separate but equal".

And of course, that's ludicrous to allow cats in a dog show .. just as it is ludicrous for gays to have a marriage contract, marriage being between straights by definition.

Before separate but equal is applied jurists first examine the matter to see if it makes sense before determing if there is a valid state interest in the matter.

Since the opposite of Prop 8 is to include gays in marriage, non-politicized jurists would rightly reject challenge to Prop 8 on those grounds, that the opposite violates the very definition of words and would thus be nonsensical to consider.

It's like as if the CA legislature passed a bill that said "Window panes in CA will now be made of cardboard to improve visibility". If the law was tossed by a judge, would analyzing for legitimate state interest be the first thing jurists deciding an appeal attempt? Of course not, that would be ridiculous! The first thing jurists would do would be to assess the structure of the law from a common sense perspective .. and they would overturn the law on that basis before they ever got to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test.

The same holds true here. By definition marriage is between "a man and a woman as husband and wife", so proper non-politicized review of Prop 8 by an appellate court would be to reject overturning of Prop 8 by simple appeal to common sense definition of words, as, considering that marriage is, by definition, "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", there is no equating gay and straight committed couple relationships via the word marriage, and the jurists would rightly never have gotten to the legitimate state interest analysis and its separate but equal test in the Prop 8 matter.

You selectively quote from my previous post to meet your ideology, but there was also this in that post:

Committed gay couples have every 14th Amendment right to have a domestic partnership civil union constract like committed straight couples have .. they just can't call it marriage, by virtue of simple test of definition.

Again, that's a win-win for everyone, gays and straights.

It sometimes boggles my mind how those opposing Prop 8 just don't get it.
Click to expand...

Still dodging my question huh. Tell me USING YOUR ABOVE LOGIC (which is total bs), how would blacks become men by law using your example?


Seems to me they would simply look at the definition of what a man was (at that time) and throw the case out because blacks were not defined as men. Wonder what definition they used if not the current one?

Like I said, you refuse to answer the question I asked because LOGICALLY your opinion can not be backed up with anything factual.
 
Let me see:

And, straight couples would still have their marriage contract with the states that corresponded, by definition, to the long-standing sole definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Click to expand...

That's funny, because there's no such thing as "the long-standing sole definition of marriage" in the first place. Forms of marriage have been widely varied almost since the first historical records of them:

Egypt: marriage is between a man and his cousin (Pharaoh)
Bible: marriage is between a man and his cousin/slave/woman taken in battle)
Feudalism: marriage is between a lord's son and the daughter of the lord's business partner (typically another lord, in order to secure a real estate deal)


"Negroes can't be people...because Everyone Knows that The Definition of 'person' is White."
Racism: That's odd, given that so-called "white" people didn't exist until (at the earliest) a few centuries ago, and then only as a political fiction.
U.S. Constitution: for tax and census purposes, "blacks" are 3/5ths of a person (3/5ths is NOT equal to zero)
Damn Near Every Human-Populated place on earth outside of Europe and North America (not only are non-Whites human, they are MOST of the population)
etc.


Hmm...nope, sorry...it just doesn't work in either case (appeal to popular prejudice to define "marriage" OR "person")
 
What I don't understand is why there's such opposition to SSM. Reason being is: what people do behind closed doors is their business. SSM has no effect on straight people whatsoever, other than maybe those with gay family members. So why do people have such an issue with something that doesn't even affect them? Because "the bible says it's wrong"? Ok let's go with that. Lets say all gays go to hell (Which by the way, is not my personal view, I'm just using this as an example for those of you who only see what you want to see). Does it affect the straight people? No?? Then why do you care? "Judge not lest ye be judged" is also in the bible, correct? Get off your holier-than-thou pedestal, and leave these people alone. And for the ones who are just disgusted by gays and don't want to live near them, you can move if you have that big of an issue. You have no right to infringe on someone else's life.

Furthermore, as to the question of it's constitutionality, Americans, by the constitution, have to the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", liberty and happiness being the key component in this statement. If gays wish to get married because it makes them HAPPY, they should have the LIBERTY to do so.

I'm saying this as a Straight man who thinks all this fighting over the subject is just plain stupid. We have other problems in this country without fighting over something this simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom