• 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!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

yeah, but the voice of the people is supreme

The rights and liberties of the individual are supreme, and the majority can be damned if they desire to infringe upon that.
 
Prop 8 was democratically passed.

This is just another example of how anti-democratic progressives actually are.

Pure democracy is stupid and nothing more than mob rule. The demands of the majority must be tempered by the rights and liberties of the minority. I'm sure that as a libertarian, you understand this concept.
 
no it proves the point that over a few thousands of years of civilized history you can only find two examples of gay marriage, and the two examples you give were lunatic maniacs. How does that make anyone want to jump on board as far as historical precedence goes

When did anyone ask me to post the entire history of same sex marriage?

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity has had it out for same sex marriage for thousands of years.
 
No they weren't. They were both struck down after decades of fighting them under the 14th Amendment, put in place right after the Civil War. Those laws weren't struck down until the 1960s.

You do understand "Jim Crow laws" preexisted the Equal Protection Clause - the same clause that was used to justify your examples?

Understand?
 
You do understand "Jim Crow laws" preexisted the Equal Protection Clause - the same clause that was used to justify your examples?

Understand?

Which means what exactly? Jim Crow laws, segregation, and bans on interracial marriage all survived constitutional challenges at least once each after the EPC/14th Amendment was ratified.
 
And you know what?

Those laws were changed because the constitution was amended or addendums were added to preexisting amendments.

No it wasn't. The SCOTUS ruled that interracial couples could not be prohibited from marriage. Kinda of like what's going on now.
 
And you know what?

Those laws were changed because the constitution was amended or addendums were added to preexisting amendments.

False. Anti-miscegenation laws were ended by Loving v Virginia. Segregation in schools was ended by Brown v Board of Education. Two of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country.


Furthermore if Prop 8 was so damn illegal then how the hell did it even make it on the ballot? got an answer for that?

People put unconstitutional legislation on the ballot all the time. I'm guessing mostly by people who don't understand the constitution any better than you do.

Why not amend the constitution??

Because the current constitution comports to the interests of people who didn't like prop 8. Changing it would be redundant.

oh yeah because gay marriage would NEVER pass

Um... it already has passed in Vermont, New Hampshire, DC, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota. :shrug:
 
Pure democracy is stupid and nothing more than mob rule. The demands of the majority must be tempered by the rights and liberties of the minority. I'm sure that as a libertarian, you understand this concept.

I'd rather have direct democracy than a democratic republic......

Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.
 
I'd rather have direct democracy than a democratic republic......

Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.

I wonder if anyone who favors a direct democracy would be fine with their judge being selected by a lottery.
 
I'd rather have direct democracy than a democratic republic......

Wow....don't know what to say about that. There is no protection of rights and liberties in a direct democracy.

Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.

It's exactly mob rule. 50% + epsilon gets your way. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is meaningless in a direct democracy which can be empowered with a simple majority. In a democratic Republic, the government is restricted in what it can and cannot do, so even if the majority wishes to subject the rest to slavery; the government cannot do it.

Marriage in and of itself is not a right, but contract is. And when government usurped marriage, they turned it into government issued and recognized contract.
 
I wonder if anyone who favors a direct democracy would be fine with their judge being selected by a lottery.

I would say that many who favor direct democracy don't really understand what they are calling for and typically are just emotionally lashing out because something didn't go their way.
 
False. Anti-miscegenation laws were ended by Loving v Virginia. Segregation in schools was ended by Brown v Board of Education. Two of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country.




People put unconstitutional legislation on the ballot all the time. I'm guessing mostly by people who don't understand the constitution any better than you do.



Because the current constitution comports to the interests of people who didn't like prop 8. Changing it would be redundant.



Um... it already has passed in Vermont, New Hampshire, DC, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota. :shrug:

Do you not understand that "Jim Crow Laws" preexist the Equal protection clause??? do you know what that means???

Also, the NE is extremely progressive and their population(s) amount to nothing. The NE is a horrible example - especially when attempting to use it as a template for the United States.
 
Sorry but prop 8 was exactly that - a proposition passed via direct democracy....

If prop 8 violated the constitution then why the **** was it on the ballot?

Prop 8 DOES NOT violate the constitution because marriage is NOT a right or civil liberty - it never was in the United States and it never will be.

way to dodge the question LOL
thats what i thought
 
Also, the NE is extremely progressive and their population(s) amount to nothing. The NE is a horrible example - especially when attempting to use it as a template for the United States.

The Northeast is a progressive pinko black hole of personal responsibility and conservative values. I think we should sell California to France and give New England to Canada and seal off the borders around the rest of the country to try to keep the spread of liberalism from poisoning the whole thing.
 
Wow....don't know what to say about that. There is no protection of rights and liberties in a direct democracy.

Yes there is we call it the Bill of Rights and the constitution.



It's exactly mob rule. 50% + epsilon gets your way. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution is meaningless in a direct democracy which can be empowered with a simple majority. In a democratic Republic, the government is restricted in what it can and cannot do, so even if the majority wishes to subject the rest to slavery; the government cannot do it.

Marriage in and of itself is not a right, but contract is. And when government usurped marriage, they turned it into government issued and recognized contract.

In what universe is a democratic republic not "mob rule?"

Like the House or Senate can pass legislation without "mob rule" within their own ranks?

Yes of course contract is a right - so why don't gays start righting their own civil contracts instead of bitching???
 
I don't give a **** how poor of a law you think prop 8 is - the fact is that the law was democratically passed...Your opinion is moot....Why not amend the constitution?? oh yeah because gay marriage would NEVER pass -- even at the federal level.
Irrevelent. I didn't comment in my post to you regarding my views of prop 8. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether something is democratically passed if it is unconstitutional. The popular vote is moot. No Constitutional amendment required. Pay attention.
 
way to dodge the question LOL
thats what i thought

I didn't dodge anything - you just don't understand what I said and how it relates to your "inquiry."
 
I didn't dodge anything - you just don't understand what I said and how it relates to your "inquiry."

riiiiiight did you think anyboyd honest would fall for that?
translation: you dodged it
 
Irrevelent. I didn't comment in my post to you regarding my views of prop 8. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter whether something is democratically passed if it is unconstitutional. The popular vote is moot. No Constitutional amendment required. Pay attention.

Man you're a hoot.....

You want the truth? you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Your argument makes absolutely no ****ing sense. On one hand you claim opinion don't matter then you ****ing claim it does (only when it's your opinion)...
 
riiiiiight did you think anyboyd honest would fall for that?
translation: you dodged it

Translation you're trying to change the subject like every progressive does when they're put in a corner...
 
Yes there is we call it the Bill of Rights and the constitution.

That only hold water in a Republic wherein the government is constructed on a series of laws, regulations, and restrictions. The Bill of Rights means nothing when a 50% + epsilon vote overrides it.

Maybe you don't actually understand what direct democracy entails.

In what universe is a democratic republic not "mob rule?"

Like the House or Senate can pass legislation without "mob rule" within their own ranks?

Different mob. The reason why it's not "mob rule" is because in the Republic, house and senate (along with all other branches of government) is restricted and even if they wanted to, they cannot enact law on simple majority alone. It must also abide the rights and liberties of the individual.

Never heard a libertarian rally so hard against the rights and liberties of the individual...odd.

Yes of course contract is a right - so why don't gays start righting their own civil contracts instead of bitching???

Because contract is a right and there's already a contract for this exact thing. You have no proper reason to restrict them, to infringe upon their rights. You have not properly argued for government force against the free exercise of right, and without that then there is no reason for them to start their own "civil contracts" when there is perfectly good and valid contract that you have no argument to bar them from.

I'm getting a sense that perhaps you don't understand what a right is either.
 
Translation you're trying to change the subject like every progressive does when they're put in a corner...

HUH???? we are still on subject, could you be any more dishonest. I asked you a question, you dodged it and now i am talking about you dodging that question. No subject has been changed.

you are STILL dodging it, nobody buys it, now if you will man up and answer it.
 
Do you not understand that "Jim Crow Laws" preexist the Equal protection clause??? do you know what that means???

Also, the NE is extremely progressive and their population(s) amount to nothing. The NE is a horrible example - especially when attempting to use it as a template for the United States.

1) Whether or not Jim Crow laws predates the 14th amendment is irrelevant to the fact that both anti miscegenation laws and school segregation were ended by Supreme Court decisions.

2) Maryland and Washington are in the North East? Okay. Doesn't change the fact that you just said that gay marriage would never pass, which is a demonstrably false statement.
 
Furthermore all democracy is nothing more than "mob rule" - that's why we have a Bill of Rights and constitution. Presently marriage is not a ****ing right - therefore marriage can be defined by the state via the Tenth Amendment.

Apparently you missed the memo. The Supreme Court identified marriage as a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. So, whether you like it or not, marriage is a civil right.
 
Back
Top Bottom