• 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

Goobieman said:
Wow.
Can you -show- that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion, or do you simply assume that if you're against same-sex marriage, it is because of religion?

If it is 'apparent', then I suggest you -can- show that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a religious institution. This Prop is a religious matter.

California populace has supported the idea of domestic partnerships/civil unions for homosexual couples, which gives all the same rights without the marriage label. What they have voted against is not stripping the right but stripping the marriage label.

Let me ask you. What motives would someone have other then religion to support civil unions but not marriage of homosexuals? Civil unions have all the same rights, just not the same label.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
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:
Click to expand...
Look back a few posts... I said the same thing.
 
Gibberish said:
Marriage is a religious institution. This Prop is a religious matter.

California populace has supported the idea of domestic partnerships/civil unions for homosexual couples, which gives all the same rights with the marriage label. What they have voted against is not stripping the right but stripping the marriage label.

Let me ask you. What motives would someone have other then religion to support civil unions but not marriage of homosexuals? Civil unions have all the same rights, just not the same label.
Click to expand...


Speaking of the "religious" aspect. I was not married in a church or by a priest, reverend, or minister. Yet funny enough, I am still considered married by the goverment and people and not just a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, it's just a scapegoat bigots use!
 
Gibberish said:
Marriage is a religious institution. This Prop is a religious matter.
Click to expand...
So, you -cannot- show that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion. Thanks.
 
americanwoman said:
Speaking of the "religious" aspect. I was not married in a church or by a priest, reverend, or minister. Yet funny enough, I am still considered married by the goverment and people and not just a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with marriage, it's just a scapegoat bigots use!
Click to expand...

Religion has everything to do with marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with being legally recognized by the state as being a "spouse".

My opinion is all couples should be seen only as "civil unions/domestic partnerships" legally by the state/country and the label of "marriage" is left to one's religion to decide. This would make the term marriage solely a religious label, as it should be, and have no relevance to our laws.
 
Goobieman said:
Look back a few posts... I said the same thing.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I do think it's because of religion.

Latinos, who are 1st and 2nd generation, have parents or grandparents that have lingering cultural attitudes. Those attitudes tend to be conservative to their own culture (not to be confused with American Conservatism). This is a huge deal with Catholicism.

African Americans also reject the gay lifestyle. Some of the gay black men cannot even accept it as "gay", they have to give it another name. Look up D-Low culture. The black church community is even more religious than white communities because it serves as a community base.

The Asian, particularly the Chinese, are the most conservative out of these 3 minorities. We cling to our native culture for dear life. No church here, but the collective cultural and spiritual sentiments are majoritively against the gay lifestyle.
 
Here is an interactive California county map showing how the state voted by county:

California propositions county-by-county map, margin of victory - Los Angeles Times

Using the Filters menu (demographic) also shows interesting perspectives. Pretty much was supported by an overwhelming majority of the AREA of the state while the heavily populated urban coastal areas were near even or against it. In fact the main core of support came from outraged people, often Christians, in the inland areas, that provided an incredible grass roots effort despite the overwhelming media campaign against the measure.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Religion has everything to do with marriage. .
Click to expand...



I have to disagree with this. I am not religious and I do considered myself married and I do not need religion to validate it. I am not going to use the term civil union because I do not subscribe to a religion to enforce it.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you -cannot- show that the 70-30 black opposition to same-sex marriage is based on religion. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The only way to provide such information would be to provide a poll, which I don't care to spend my time looking for as your question is pointless towards the topic.
 
Gibberish said:
The only way to provide such information would be to provide a poll, which I don't care to spend my time looking for as your question is pointless towards the topic.
Click to expand...
And, admittedly absent that information, you made your claim anyway.
Hmm.
 
americanwoman said:
I have to disagree with this. I am not religious and I do considered myself married and I do not need religion to validate it. I am not going to use the term civil union because I do not subscribe to a religion to enforce it.
Click to expand...

Marriage itself is founded on religious beliefs and has always been a religious institution. What you are merely doing is taking a religious tradition and applying it as just a tradition of couples. That is fine but to alleviate confusion and ridiculous propositions as Prop 8 the government should legally recognize all "married couples" as something else entirely.

That doesn't mean everyone can't call themselves married. It just means the government doesn't care. It only cares that you filed the proper legal documentation. Having legal documentation and legal title eliminates the interpretation of the legal term based on religious ideals.

Religious interpretations of phrases should not be dictating our laws.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Alright, I retract my claim then. Can we get back on topic?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your honesty!

What's the topic?

Oh, right -- the people of CA chosing to override their Supreme Court.
 
Goobieman said:
Thanks for your honesty!

What's the topic?

Oh, right -- the people of CA chosing to override their Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

You have an incredible propensity for getting facts wrong.

The Supreme Court ignored the LAW the PEOPLE passed, not the other way around.

The people of California now have been FORCED to pass a State Constitutional amendment so that a radical and most overruled State Supreme Court in the country cannot MAKE UP their own legislation.

For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.

It's unfortunate that people like you who should know better continue to wallow in willful denial, but those are the FACTS.

Now it begs the question to Liberals like you; do you think that you only have to obey the laws you agree with? Or should you obey ALL laws?

Be careful, because like most liberals, you walk on a slippery slope here.
 
Truth Detector said:
For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.
Click to expand...

And I always thought enforcing laws was up to the executive branch:roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
You have an incredible propensity for getting facts wrong.

The Supreme Court ignored the LAW the PEOPLE passed, not the other way around.

The people of California now have been FORCED to pass a State Constitutional amendment so that a radical and most overruled State Supreme Court in the country cannot MAKE UP their own legislation.

For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.

It's unfortunate that people like you who should know better continue to wallow in willful denial, but those are the FACTS.

Now it begs the question to Liberals like you; do you think that you only have to obey the laws you agree with? Or should you obey ALL laws?

Be careful, because like most liberals, you walk on a slippery slope here.
Click to expand...
You really arent paying attantion, are you...?
 
Eventually I think it'll become a federal issue and taken out of the states hands. I think that sorta has to happen. It's just unreasonable to have marriages recognized in some states and not others.
 
Yep, it looks like this is going to pass. Those of you who supported it, I hope you feel good about yourselves.

Some people just wanted the right to marry the person they love, just like everyone else. And you took that away from them. I hope it feels good.

Some people already got legally married, and now their marriages appear to be in legal limbo. I hope it feels good.

You just wanted to screw over gay people (don't even bother to deny it), but you couldn't come out and say that, so you brayed about the "sanctity of marriage" instead. And it worked. I hope it feels good.

Hopefully the people of California will repeal this next time around. And hopefully they'll invalidate YOUR marriages while they're at it.
 
Truth Detector said:
You have an incredible propensity for getting facts wrong.
Click to expand...

Funny. Everyone says that about you.

The Supreme Court ignored the LAW the PEOPLE passed, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

That is what the Courts are suppose to do, at least under Judicial Review. If a law passed by the people is unconstitutional, is it there duty to remove it. In school, children are taught that the three branches of government are meant to act as checks and balances on each other.

The people of California now have been FORCED to pass a State Constitutional amendment so that a radical and most overruled State Supreme Court in the country cannot MAKE UP their own legislation.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. They changed the Constitution to prevent Judges ruling that such bans are Unconstitutional based on that Constitution.

For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It's called Common Law and it is created by judicial rulings.

And both liberals and conservatives do it. Bush's pick of Janice Brown was particularly controversial since she herself legislated from the bench more then a few times.

It's unfortunate that people like you who should know better continue to wallow in willful denial, but those are the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you aren't correct in your statements...is your local grocery store having a sale on eggs?

Now it begs the question to Liberals like you; do you think that you only have to obey the laws you agree with? Or should you obey ALL laws?
Click to expand...

If the judicial branch deems that according to the Constitution, a law is unconstitutional, no, we don't have to obey it.

Be careful, because like most liberals, you walk on a slippery slope here.
Click to expand...

OH THIS IS GOOD. You just called Goobie a liberal. :spin:
 
Kandahar said:
Yep, it looks like this is going to pass. Those of you who supported it, I hope you feel good about yourselves.

Some people just wanted the right to marry the person they love, just like everyone else. And you took that away from them. I hope it feels good.

Some people already got legally married, and now their marriages appear to be in legal limbo. I hope it feels good.

You just wanted to screw over gay people (don't even bother to deny it), but you couldn't come out and say that, so you brayed about the "sanctity of marriage" instead. And it worked. I hope it feels good.

Hopefully the people of California will repeal this next time around. And hopefully they'll invalidate YOUR marriages while they're at it.
Click to expand...
Boy... somone doesnt behave the way you think they should and you get -all- pissy.

You need to blame the minorities -- specifically the blacks, hispanics and Asians - who supported this FAR more than the whites.

You also need to blame those that worked so hard to get out the minoirity vote.
 
Goobieman said:
Boy... somone doesnt behave the way you think they should and you get -all- pissy.

You need to blame the minorities -- specifically the blacks, hispanics and Asians - who supported this FAR more than the whites.

You also need to blame those that worked so hard to get out the minoirity vote.
Click to expand...

It's a catch 22.

But, I think that'll be far different after a generation from now. The minority generation gap will definitely widen between conservative cultural values and liberal CA values.
 
obvious Child said:
Funny. Everyone says that about you.
Click to expand...

Everyone; as being you and your cabal of uninformed ranters?


obvious Child said:
That is what the Courts are suppose to do, at least under Judicial Review. If a law passed by the people is unconstitutional, is it there duty to remove it. In school, children are taught that the three branches of government are meant to act as checks and balances on each other.
Click to expand...

Roe vs. Wade was a similar adjudication where the right to an abortion was "divined" by a radical court.

How has that worked for the nation as a whole?

You can pretend that it was an honest "interpretation of "rights", but that is your OPINION and it doesn't wash with the FACTS.

There is not inferred "constitutional" right for same sex marriages in the State of California. Therefore, as I stated, it took an activist State Supreme Court, one of the most OVERULLED in the country that decided to legislate from the bench.

"
obvious Child said:
Incorrect. They changed the Constitution to prevent Judges ruling that such bans are Unconstitutional based on that Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, they changed the Constitution to prevent activist’s judges from going against the will of the citizens.


obvious Child said:
Incorrect. It's called Common Law and it is created by judicial rulings.
Click to expand...

What does "common law" have to do with this case? I think you need to review the law:

The term "common law" is also used to mean the traditional, precedent-based element in the law of any common-law jurisdiction, as opposed to its statutory law or legislation.

This is about statutory law or legislation; there is nothing common law about it.

The judges chose to throw out legislation based on their activist interpretations of the States Constitution.

obvious Child said:
And both liberals and conservatives do it. Bush's pick of Janice Brown was particularly controversial since she herself legislated from the bench more then a few times.
Click to expand...

Another of your typical off topic rants.


obvious Child said:
Seeing as you aren't correct in your statements...is your local grocery store having a sale on eggs?
Click to expand...

The notion that your arguments above are correct is only for those who willingly suspend their disbelief; particularly when you cannot distinguish between “common law” and legislation.


obvious Child said:
If the judicial branch deems that according to the Constitution, a law is unconstitutional, no, we don't have to obey it.
Click to expand...

That wasn’t the question; Gavin Newsom and gay activists chose to IGNORE/FLAUNT the existing laws and marry gay couples. Do you think they only have to obey laws they agree with, or should they obey all the laws?

The Supreme Court has forced Californians to modify their Constitution; do you obey only laws you agree with, or do you obey all the laws?


obvious Child said:
OH THIS IS GOOD. You just called Goobie a liberal. :spin:
Click to expand...

I mistook Goobie for Gibberish…..the names merge in these threads sometimes …. So sue me for making a mistake.

Good lord you can’t get more petty than this.
 
talloulou said:
Eventually I think it'll become a federal issue and taken out of the states hands. I think that sorta has to happen. It's just unreasonable to have marriages recognized in some states and not others.
Click to expand...
I agree that it will become a federal issue, but not for that reason. I believe it is discrimination against a minority. It is just a matter of time, IMHO. Eventually, the Defense of Marriage law will be found unconstitutional. It won't be soon enough for those who are ready for it now and want it yesterday, but I firmly believe it will happen.

Regarding those who want to insist that giving gay couples "civil unions" that are the "same as marriage" is the solution: Separate is not equal. If it is the same as marriage, then it IS marriage. Anything less is, well, less than equal.

The propositions against gay marriage and gay couples adopting children show the dark underbelly of our country. It shows me that bigotry is alive and well, unfortunately. While we pat ourselves on the back for electing a black president, we haven't come as far as we think we have. :(

On a more positive note, now that NY has a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in the Senate and Assembly, maybe there will be enough political will to pass a law allowing gay marriage here. I am hearing some talk about it....
 
Ignorance Corrupting Entitlement Societies

"Ignorance Corrupting Entitlement Societies"
Truth Detector said:
Granting sexual orientation the same status as race is an absurd argument of extremists.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.

Any civil union of assets is a marriage, whether that union is between two or more corporations, or people.
The right to form civil unions is a negative right which may be equally protected.

Registration of civil unions (marriages) with the state has the purpose of seeking benefits of entitlement, which are known as positive rights.
Positive rights may not be equally endowed.

To address your assertion, affirmative action is a positive right with positive obligations, which is not equally endowed.
The beneficiary must be a minority and the benefactor is the government which provides the benefit.

Thus, as a petition for registration of marriage seeks a positive right, it is possible for the public to decide that only specific civil unions (marriages), which fit certain racial profiles may be accepted by the state to receive benefits.
That is, as the state is in the business of deciding policy based on race.

As formation of civil unions is a negative right, a law requiring racial profiles for registration would not prevent miscegenation civil unions (marriages).

Also, the law would not represent public sanction or advocacy for anti-miscegenation unions, it would simply not allow miscegenation unions to be registered for benefit.

It would be equivalent to excluding registration of a civil union (marriage) between corporations for a benefit provided to a civil union (marriage) between two heterosexual, same race individuals.

Truth Detector said:
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.
Click to expand...
Verily, both sides lack any semblence of political principle.
An understanding of positive and negative rights is certainly beneficial for a candid evaluation of marriage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom