• 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

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.


Indeed we are celebrating! I'l make this simple.

Not about scwewing over gay people. Its about my Christian religion and morals. I actually believe in an almighty entity called God. Not something many in your camp understandably seem to relate to. It requires faith and with it, I hope for salvation in eternity instead suffering the fate of mortal death. Despite the fact scientific reality makes that seem unbelievable. I relie on laws my God has provided we followers in his Bible to reach that goal. It is absolutely clear about homosexuality in the Bible being an abomination he hates. A fact most in your camp tend to regularly twist into modern interpretations the vast majority of Christians do not buy into. Nothing you people will argue can change that with Christians that actually bother to read that holy book.

On the other hand, our God makes considerable input about marriage between men and women that is held in sacred importance. Thus we absolutely hate such a prominent traditional human ceremony being associated with a lifestyle we think is clearly sinful. Not that we dislike the person's involved but rather the choice of lifestyle and behavior. And we do not in the context of modern society demand that you gays not be able to make your own choices on that matter but rather that your lifestyle not be forced into ours. Much like those people who choose to pursue pornography, prostitution, drugs and other personal behaviors that don't tend to hurt others beyond possibly the individual. As many of us see it, your attempt at forcing this on us isn't really about marriage but rather a waypoint of the gay agenda towards making the gay lifestyle as acceptable as that of heterosexuals. Thus "don't ask don't tell" for military service, and keeping yourself out of conflict with our culture is a wiser path if you wish to coexist with we of the majority. Thus we have blocked your path to that end. That is why our media tv campaign went beyond simply the marriage issue. That was quite successful because recent history rang true with those who recall what your lawyers and politicians have been up to the last couple decades. Your impatient advocates brought this on themselves.
 
Last edited:
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.

Where in his post does he blame whites?:confused:
 
Indeed we are celebrating! I'l make this simple.

Not about scwewing over gay people. Its about my Christian religion and morals.

So, let me get this straight. You can't have your personal Christian religion and morals without discriminating against others?

Why do you want to impose your Christian religion and morals on others? Seems to me everyone should have the right to their own.
 
It is absolutely clear about homosexuality in the Bible being an abomination he hates.

Really? Where.

First off, let me remind you that you can't use the old testament quotes (Leviticus) unless you're planning to say that seafood is still a sin. Christ didn't differentiate when he proclaimed to be the new religion and dismiss the previous items so you don't get to cherry pick from that.

Second, and on to the NT, please give me an exact translation of the following two words: arsenokoites and malakos. Any person proclaiming the inerrent word of God must have read it in its original languages, including the Greek passages where these terms occur.

Third, and an obvious point not to overlook, but the term "homosexuality" didn't come into any sort of parlance until the late 1800s. Please tell me when your Bible was written.
 
For your edification; courts do not LEGISLATE, they enforce the LAWS that are passed by the LEGISLATURE.

You do know that the California state LEGISLATURE pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage, right? And that bill was vetoed by the governor who stated it should be up to the COURTS. All the discriminatory folks applauded. Then, the CA Supreme court passed the same thing and all the discriminatory folks cried and said it shouldn't be up to the courts after all.

You guys really need to make up your minds.
 
It seems strange to me, however, that a simple majority can pass a Constitutional Amendment. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a Constitution, doesn't it?

Actually, this is not uncommon, either in the States or around the world. The U.S. Federal Constitution has an unusually high threshhold for passing amendments.
 
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.

They can't violate rights granted in the Federal Constitution. THAT is the protection.
 
Thanks for your honesty!

What's the topic?

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

THe Supreme Court overrode the voters in the first place.

It is the job of the SC to interpret the COnstitution. Thus, the people are goin above the Supreme Court. What is wrong with that?
 
They can't violate rights granted in the Federal Constitution. THAT is the protection.


Then why have a State Constitution at all?


Where in the Federal Constitution does it say that whites, blacks, asians have a right to marry?

Seems to me, if you can ban gay marriage by enacting a state constitutional amendment, you could pass an amendment that says only latinos have the right to marry in the state of California.
 
Then why have a State Constitution at all?


Where in the Federal Constitution does it say that whites, blacks, asians have a right to marry?

Seems to me, if you can ban gay marriage by enacting a state constitutional amendment, you could pass an amendment that says only latinos have the right to marry in the state of California.

If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Federal Constitution gives all people the equal protection of the laws meaning that regardless of race, a man can marry a woman.
 
If you define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Federal Constitution gives all people the equal protection of the laws meaning that regardless of race, a man can marry a woman.

There is nothing in the Federal Constitution that defines marriage as "between a man and a woman". GWB tried unsuccessfully to amend the Constitution to add that. So if that is not in the Federal Constitution, a simple majority in the state of California could ban whites, blacks, asians and any other group from marriage.
 
There is nothing in the Federal Constitution that defines marriage as "between a man and a woman". GWB tried unsuccessfully to amend the Constitution to add that. So if that is not in the Federal Constitution, a simple majority in the state of California could ban whites, blacks, asians and any other group from marriage.

Notice I said "If". The definition doesn't have to be in the Constitution. By design, the Federal COnstitution is general and outlines general rights. The definition of marriage is made by society, not by the Federal COnstitution. It seems like the voters of California (as well as other states) have let their voice be heard that they believe that in fact marriage is between a man and a woman.
 
Notice I said "If". The definition doesn't have to be in the Constitution. By design, the Federal COnstitution is general and outlines general rights. The definition of marriage is made by society, not by the Federal COnstitution. It seems like the voters of California (as well as other states) have let their voice be heard that they believe that in fact marriage is between a man and a woman.

But that argument is nothing more than circular reasoning.

If the people of the State of California amended the Constitution to say that "marriage is only between heterosexual or homosexual latinos" that would change the IF in your equation.

It will all be moot anyway, because two years from now or 4 years from now the issue will be on the ballot again andI suspect with the movement from the 2000 referendum, it will most likely pass and gay marriage will once again be legal in California. Its only a matter of time.
 
"This is one issue that is not ethnic minority vs majority. It's those that believe we should live under a theocracy and those that don't."

Odd that someone would argue against a theoocracy while seemingly demanding to use a religious term in a manner that does not fit,

Historically speaking, the term marriage stands for the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God.

Why not use a non-religious term for a non-religious union?
 
"This is one issue that is not ethnic minority vs majority. It's those that believe we should live under a theocracy and those that don't."

Odd that someone would argue against a theoocracy while seemingly demanding to use a religious term in a manner that does not fit,

Historically speaking, the term marriage stands for the joining of a man and a woman in the eyes of God.

Why not use a non-religious term for a non-religious union?


If you want to limit marriage to religion, fine, then the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
However, when the state elects to engage in the marriage business, there's a little something in the Constitution called "equal protection", which is why the California Supreme Court ruled the way it did.
Unfortunately, a simple majority of people in California believed that discrimination should be written into our state Constitution. Sad. I am ashamed of my state today.
 
Everyone; as being you and your cabal of uninformed ranters?

Says the person who called Goobieman a liberal....

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?

So you'd be willing to say that everything the courts have done is wrong? :2wave:

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

The facts are not what you use. Furthermore, the Constitution does not cover a wide variety of today's subject.

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.

What about non-discrimination do you not understand? Or is it not discrimination when it attacks the people you don't like?

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

Incorrect again. The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Constitution that a law passed was unconstitutional. That is a fact. What prop 8 did was amend the Constitution.

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.

Under that argument, common law isn't applicable to anything. Good lucking arguing that in court. Common law is just as much of law as statutory law or legislation. Lawyer you are not.

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

Oh that term again. An activist judge is someone who makes a ruling you disagree with. Not exactly the strongest argument.

Another of your typical off topic rants.

Your batting average is about on par with Navy's.

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.

I wasn't aware that common law wasn't actually law, and that we can ignore the laws set by court precedents.

The fact of the matter is that common law is still law and that law is set by the judicial branch. You are wrong. Get over it.

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?

See above. Or do you not understand what Unconstitutional means? Not that I'd be surprised....

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.

That just shows that you call anyone who disagrees with you a liberal.
 
I agree that the state should stay out of "the Marriage business". At best, they should recognize them and move on.

As for a civil union, where people address the state to give them sanctity of their union, completely outside the realm of religion, that is where state can have a say in what they are willing to accept as a "couple".
 
I find it so sad in 2008 we are still legalizing hate and discrimination. I think all the churches that donated money to get it passed should have their tax exempt status revoked and anyone who voted for this asinine amendment should be ashamed of themselves!
 
The people of California have spoken.........I said that if the people of California voted for gay marriage so be it.........This is the second time they have voted against it.........Lets see if activist judges again try and make law instead of interpreting it and over throw the will of the people...........


I also might add that 2 more states Arizona and Florida adopted amendments outlawing gay marriage..........

Amanda Carpenter : Pro-Marriage Ballot Measures Succeed - Townhall.com
 
Last edited:
The people of California have spoken.........I said that if the people of California voted for gay marriage so be it.........This is the second time they have voted against it.........Lets see if activist judges again try and make law instead of interpreting it and over throw the will of the people...........

I don't think the courts will step in on this one. However, I do expect it will be back on the ballot in two years.
The State of California has shown a lot of progress since Prop 22 in 2000. Just like the civil rights movement of the 50's/60's, bigotry dies hard, but its just a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the courts will step in on this one. However, I do expect it will be back on the ballot in two years.
The State of California has shown a lot of progress since Prop 22 in 2000. Just like the civil rights movement of the 50's/60's, bigotry dies hard, but its just a matter of time.


Its got nothing to do with bigotry for most people......Like I said if the people of California vote to let gays, polygamists or any other group identified by their class get married so be it but not activist judges ...........
 
Its got nothing to do with bigotry for most people......Like I said if the people of California vote to let gays, polygamists or any other group identified by their class get married so be it but not activist judges ...........

As marriage is NOT a constitutional issue; I find the outright modification of such a document to be highly inapropriate. The far right neo-nazi assholes responsible for this should lose the right to participate in politics.
 
As marriage is NOT a constitutional issue; I find the outright modification of such a document to be highly inapropriate. The far right neo-nazi assholes responsible for this should lose the right to participate in politics.


You lost, get use to it....All you lefties can do is bitch and call names when you lose..........
 
Next Year I call for proposition 8A - a ban on hetero sexual marriages.
The state of California shall no longer recognize the marriage of heterosexual marriages regardless of state.
 
Back
Top Bottom