• 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!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

The -purpose- of a Constitution is to define the powers/limits of a Government and provide protections for the rights of the people that live under it.

The method(s) specified to change the terms of a Constution do not defeat that purpose.


There is no protection for the rights of the people that live under it, if those rights are subject to a simple majority vote.

Seriously...not that they would pass, but whats to stop measures being placed on a ballot subject only to a majority vote to do things like

- define marriage as only between whites

- take away the right of minorities to vote

- take away the right of women to vote

etc.
 
Last edited:
There is no protection for the rights of the people that live under it, if those rights are subject to a simple majority vote.
Sanme can be said for a constitution that requires 2/3 majority -- after all, with a 2/3 majority, slavery can be reinstated and women/minotiries be disnenfranchised.
 
Sanme can be said for a constitution that requires 2/3 majority -- after all, with a 2/3 majority, slavery can be reinstated and women/minotiries be disnenfranchised.

However, at least there is some protection there, because the rights of the minority cannot be curtailed by a simple majority.
 
However, at least there is some protection there, because the rights of the minority cannot be curtailed by a simple majority.
Theres also 'some' protection in a 50%+1 system.
 
Theres also 'some' protection in a 50%+1 system.

I would disagree. Such a system provides no protection to the rights of the minority, because everything becomes subject to the will of the majority.

Latinos will be the majority in California in a decade. What's to stop a proposition to be placed on the ballot that says "Only latino's can marry and vote". If all the latinos voted for it....they could take away the rights of everyone else.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree.[ Such a system provides no protection to the rights of the minority, because everything becomes subject to the will of the majority.
You can disagree all you want - that doesnt mean you're right.
You used the term "some". Its impossible to argue that a 50%+1 system doesnt provide "some" protection.
 
You can disagree all you want - that doesnt mean you're right.
You used the term "some". Its impossible to argue that a 50%+1 system doesnt provide "some" protection.

Explain how you believe it provides any protection at all for the Constitutional rights of those in the minority.
 
Anyone who looks at their ballot and votes yes on a proposition that begins with the heading "eliminates the right..." ought to be ashamed of themselves.
 
THen what does it mean when you speak five? :mrgreen:

that you are seriously conflicted, yea even constipated, mentally, and need a virtual laxative....:lol:
 
Anyone who looks at their ballot and votes yes on a proposition that begins with the heading "eliminates the right..." ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Even more ironic, is that Democrats in California are the ones responsible for the passage of the Amendment.

Minorities, with a history of discrimination, voted in large numbers to write discrimination into the Constitution. That is truly sad.
 
Last edited:
There are many Christians that wouldn't mind living in a theocracy, as long as it was Christianity calling the shots.

you mean their version of christianity...right?
 
Explain how you believe it provides any protection at all for the Constitutional rights of those in the minority.
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.
45% of the people...
49% of the people...
50% of the people...

You;re using terms like "any" and "some".
This means your position isnt tenable.
 
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.
45% of the people...
49% of the people...
50% of the people...

You;re using terms like "any" and "some".
This means your position isnt tenable.

You still didn't answer the question. The question is, how does a system that simply requires a 50% +1 vote provide any protection to those who are in the 50%-1 minority?

The point being, a Constitution is suppose to protect rights that are determined to be fundamental. A Constitution is useless if fundamental rights are subject to the whim or tyranny of the majority.
 
Last edited:
40% of the people are not sufficient to change the constitution.
45% of the people...
49% of the people...
50% of the people...

You;re using terms like "any" and "some".
This means your position isnt tenable.

I agree with you about the 50+1
 
A Constitution is useless if fundamental rights are subject to the whim or tyranny of the majority.
Please apply this statement to a 2/3 majority systen.
 
Although I support it not passing, my gut tells me it will. And this makes me 'le panda of sadness', as the French say (yes, I can speak two languages. And speaking two languages means I am bisexual. Wait...that's what bisexual means, right?)

what does that mean??
 
This election produced conflicting results.

The Presidential Election showed how far we have come as a country.

The passage of prop 8 showed that California, although we have come a long way, still has a ways to grow.

What is strange to me is that the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Consistent with this, the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. However, California only requires a simple majority, which is inconsistent with this ideal.

Ironically, on the Los Angeles Ballot there was a tax measure to fund additional subway construction. Its passage required a 2/3 majority.:doh

Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.

The message here is that radical judges and mayors like Gavin Newsome who wanted to shove this issue down the throats of the voters shot themselves in the foot with this one.

The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.

Sexual orientation is NOTHING like race and has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.

Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.
 
Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.

The message here is that radical judges and mayors like Gavin Newsome who wanted to shove this issue down the throats of the voters shot themselves in the foot with this one.

The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.

Sexual orientation is NOTHING like race and has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.

Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.

Eh.....it will be on the ballot again in a year or two and will eventually pass. Gavin Newsome is absolutely correct....gay marriage is going to happen whether you like it or not, its just a matter of time, just like every other instance of discrimination be it race or gender.
California will pass gay marriage within a couple of years and the rest of the country will follow....slowly, but they will follow....its just a matter of time.
 
Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.

The message here is that radical judges and mayors like Gavin Newsome who wanted to shove this issue down the throats of the voters shot themselves in the foot with this one.

The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.

Sexual orientation is NOTHING like race and has NOTHING to do with our Constitution.

Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.
I love it when people use the phrase "shove it down our throats" with anything regarding gay rights.
 
A colleague of mine told me this morning that the increased voter turn out this year could have increased the chances of prop 8 passing. Her reasoning was that minority voters have skyrocketed in CA. The large majority of Latinos and African Americans (or at least the elder portion of them) do not approve of the gay lifestyle, and therefore gay marriage.

The fact that these minority voters came out to vote for Obama, was voting for prop 8 as well. It's contradictory, yeah. But it seems to make sense to me.

What do you guys think? :confused:
 
I quite recall earlier this year how you gay advocates on this board after our California supreme court voted to go against the 2000 voting will people of the state and then our courts forcing our state workers to sanction gay marriages often against their will, that you were certain it was a done deal and all over.

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Well some of us noted an initiative drive was certain and so that began. And after it qualified, you gay advocates were again so certain even if it did get on the ballot that the tide of public opinion had changed so there was little chance the judicial decision would be overturned, especially since it required a constitutional ammendment. All you did was angrily continue to name call, playing your hollow shame game that had always been the favorite ploy. Then the bogus Field Poll came out this summer showing a huge 17% point advantage by the No's. In the mean time virtually all the local tv and print media, Hollywood celebrites, and politicians kept celebrating how the initiative was doomed and that the rest of us ought stop discriminating blah blah blah...shame ploy.

Then in the end of September our pro 8 ads began and just one week later a huge change began to occur. After another week a few minor polls showed Prop 8 actually ahead. But the much more authoritative Field Poll again showed the No's ahead in contradiction though the gap had mysteriously narrowed to 6% points. And that continued to be the level in the last poll just before the election. Well guess what? The Field Poll was bogus from the get go. Stupid data in, bogus results out.

I would like to thank all the impatient gay advocates who couldn't wait forcing this on the rest of us and now have sealed their own fate. Premature lack of execution. And especially Gavin Newsom, whether he likes it or not!

PS. Way to go Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas!
 
Last edited:
Eh.....it will be on the ballot again in a year or two and will eventually pass.

This is what pisses me off! It just makes us Californians seem so fickle.

Like Gray Davis. We didn't like how he was running things, we recalled him. Arnold is doing the same ****, and it looks like we're gonna recall his ass too.
 
The California voters have made it painfully clear and now, as a Constitutional amendment, the issue will be settled. Thank the Gay radicals who, instead of working with those of us who felt strongly about this issue, attempted to shove it down our throats and now have gotten exactly what they deserved.

I wouldn't call a difference of 300k votes from a state of 36 million "painfully clear". What is "painfully clear" is that the support and non-support is split.

Expect the radicals to file lawsuit after lawsuit to prevent the will of the people from being heard and further polarize those of us who may have been in support gay issues.

No doubt. I believe there are already calls of lawsuits by the first few married couples wanting to be seen as equal citizens. In any case it will also be on the ballot next time and will eventually be passed.

Also expect the radicals on the right to file lawsuit after lawsuit for the failure of Prop 4.
 
Last edited:
"Marriage is between a man and a woman," said 67-year-old Marie Barbagelata from Linden, a farming town about 100 miles inland from San Francisco. She voted in favor of Proposition 8, but added she's not opposed to same-sex civil unions.



GRRRRR... this is what upsets me the most about the anti-gay marriage side. Like it's okay for them to grant gays a lower status of "civil union" but add the word marriage to it and it's suddenly hell on earth. WTF is wrong with allowing two people in love to get married? Why should this 67 year old woman be included to be able to decide the rights of others? The banning of gay marriage is a disgrace and I am ashamed my state has an amendment doing so.
 
Back
Top Bottom