• 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

downthecenter said:
You should probably have read my entire post. I stated that I believe we should come to middle and allow for all people to be happy. It's a very simple process, allow civil unions for those who are "gay" and allow "marriage" for those who are not. We have to afford the same rights for all people in our nation. But that doesn't mean that we have to call it the same. They don't call it the same thing in Spain and everyone there is happy. Civil Unions with full status rights are the perfect solutions. If you would pay attention to what I am saying you would fully grasp what I am hoping for. On a Federal level we need to protect the rights of both homo/hetero union. If the word "marriage" upsets people, then we change that and offer the same rights branded differently.

Why you would compare that to Jim Crowe laws is beyond me. I'm from the South and I would never advocate taking away the rights of any human being. These are two different issues from two different eras.
Click to expand...

I did read your entire post....and I appreciate your sentiment. However, being from the South, then you must understand why the concept of "separate but equal" was not an acceptable alternative.
 
Heretic said:
One is recognition. Marriages are recognized by both the state govenrments and the federal. Civil unions are not, and may be invalidated or ignored depending on which state you move to after getting one.
Click to expand...
so a civil union is a recent thing designed for gay/lesbian marraiges?
 
downthecenter said:
Shawn- I understand why they compare the two. But again it is two very different ideas. Jim Crow laws were separate but equal laws. I'm not talking a definition of separation. I'm not saying that we redefine and reconstitute Jim Crow type laws. I'm saying that we simply affirm that Civil Unions and Marriage are equal institutions and have the same rights and privileges. It is okay to define marriage in many different forms. If the "marriage" word is so divisive, yet many Americans would accept "civil unions" why not push forward with that. Why not allow every person in this nation to have rights as "joint tenants in common" whether they be straight or gay. That is what I am stating. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws that were meant to subjugate a "lesser" people. This idea is both antiquated and does not fit into what we want here.

Give the "right" their marriage and give the "left" their civil unions. It's really quite simple. Every person should have the same privileges. Regardless of what people want to call it.
Click to expand...

There is a stigma attached to "civil unions" that makes them less than "marriage".
The simple solution would be for the government to do away with marriage altogether and leave it to the church. That way people could either choose a religious (marriage) or secular (civil union).
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.

Now I ask you the same question everyone else is desperately avoiding; why is it gays are not content with Civil Unions, why do they HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?

Carry on; your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise are noted.
Click to expand...

Like I have said many times in these marriage debates it has very little to with marriage or civil unions.......It is and attempt by "Feel Good" Liberals and a few militant gays to shove the gay lifestyle down our throats and to make us believe it s a suitable alternative life style and that my left wing friends will never happen..........I have no problem with Civil Unions with the same rights marriage gives but you will not call it marriage......Most gay people could care less and the ones I know tell me the "Feel Good" Liberals and few militant gays don't speak for them...................
 
Navy Pride said:
Like I have said many times in these marriage debates it has very little to with marriage or civil unions.......It is and attempt by "Feel Good" Liberals and a few militant gays to shove the gay lifestyle down our throats and to make us believe it s a suitable alternative life style and that my left wing friends will never happen..........I have no problem with Civil Unions with the same rights marriage gives but you will not call it marriage......Most gay people could care less and the ones I know tell me the "Feel Good" Liberals and few militant gays don't speak for them...................
Click to expand...

It isn't a lifestyle. And isn't this just some hateful conservatives and a few militant religious fanatics attempt to shove a religious agenda down the throat of America?
 
veganshawn said:
It isn't a lifestyle. And isn't this just some hateful conservatives and a few militant religious fanatics attempt to shove a religious agenda down the throat of America?
Click to expand...

Exactly. No one is trying to force a "gay agenda" down anyone's throat. People are still and will always (hopefully) be entitled to their own opinion and own beliefs. It is those who are opposed to gay marriage who are the ones that are trying to force their belief system on everyone else, because they are saying that everyone has to live according to their value system. The same cannot be said of gay rights advocates, because no one is asking those opposed to gay marriage to change their opinion.
 
disneydude said:
There is a stigma attached to "civil unions" that makes them less than "marriage"...
Click to expand...

You've made the Christian argument, thankyou! Something I've stated on this board before as your hidden agenda.

Civil unions ARE not marriage. Just as any same sex marriage would NOT be marriage. Whether Gavin Newsom likes it or not. So what must be the interest in gay advocates needing to declare their unions as marriage? They already have most of the legal benefits in California? What's the hidden agenda?...the beach head for a whole new set of radical gay lawyer legal maneuvers through the courts to eventually force the rest of us to treat your behaviors and lifestyles as equal to heterosexuals...whether we like it or not.

Your side won't be placated regardless of how much we of the vast majority make reasonable concessions for your relative equality as a minority, as we have the last few decades, until some on your side can freely walk down streets and and in public media like tv, acting out your gay behaviors that many of the rest of us find repulsive. Behaviors many especially do not want exposed to their children. If your side continues to act so, I would predict a backlash by Americans is likely to occur.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is the people have spoken and they are against gay marriage.....They also voted it down in Arizona and Florida......As long as this is a Judo/Christian Nation that will happen........Almost every state has a DOMA or and amendment protecting marriage........Activist judges tried to change that in California and were shot down big time............
 
I have a feeling Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be deciding for the whole country just how exactly this issue will be resolved.
 
Heretic said:
One is recognition. Marriages are recognized by both the state govenrments and the federal. Civil unions are not, and may be invalidated or ignored depending on which state you move to after getting one.
Click to expand...

So can marriages.
 
dclxvinoise said:
How is denying marriage to people just because of their sexual orientation not discrimination?
Click to expand...

Because it not denying people marriage based on their sexual orientation.
For two reasons.

#1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.

#2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.

A man can't marry a man.
A woman can't marry a woman.
A man can marry a woman.
A woman can marry a man.

Since no specific group is named, and all people are either man or woman, the law is applied equally and doesn't discriminate.
 
Setting Precedent

"Setting Precedent"
70s_guy said:
Civil unions ARE not marriage. Just as any same sex marriage would NOT be marriage.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, a marriage is a general term for a civil union (contract), where the civil contract unites the community property interests of two or more entities, for future endeavor, whether those entities are individuals or corporations.

Registration of certain civil unions (marriages) with the public government for the purpose of receiving some benefit entitlement, some positive obligation from the public government, some positive right, may not be equally endowed.

The public government does not prohibit the formation of civil unions -- marriages, it simply is not required to equally endow positive obligations for benefit entitlements based on civil union contract discriminants.

An amendment which would seek to establish the term "marriage" as distinct from "civil union" lacks justification; whereas an amendment which would seek to establish a distinction between forms of civil union, and thus a distinction between forms of marriage, is legitimate.

An amendment which would set to a vote the option for homosexual marriages to receive certain positive rights is legitimate.

Likewise, distinctions or discrimination between marriages (civil unions) which are homosexual, heterosexual, corporate, commune, polygamist, or polyandry, can exist and the positive rights provided for each may not be equally endowed.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix said:
Because it not denying people marriage based on their sexual orientation.
For two reasons.

#1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.
Click to expand...

Which basically degrades it to pretending to marry.

#2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence! That just happens to discriminate against one sexual orientation: gay.

A man can't marry a man.
A woman can't marry a woman.
A man can marry a woman.
A woman can marry a man.

Since no specific group is named, and all people are either man or woman, the law is applied equally and doesn't discriminate.
Click to expand...

Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
 
Last edited:
veganshawn said:
Technically smoking infringes on another persons right to happiness where as gay couples being married doesn't hurt anyone.
And if government gets out of marriage what would happen to marriages like mine where my wife and I are both agnostic and wouldn't want to get married in a church.
Click to expand...

Your views on smoking really have nothing to do with the examples I posted.

To your other point. If you felt you needed your relationship to be solidified on paper you could go to an attorney and have him draw up the papers.
 
StoneCrow said:
Which basically degrades it to pretending to marry.



What a coincidence! That just happens to discriminate against one sexual orientation: gay.



Except homosexuals just happen to have a tendency toward their own sex in a way that heterosexuals do not. It's so flagrantly obvious.
Seriously, this is synonymous to: the law won't recognize gay love. Only straight love is recognized by law.
Click to expand...

I'll use my earlier example here:

If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
No. These two people are both smokers, one just prefers a different substance. The law is applied equally. All may smoke tobacco, None may smoke pot.

To apply this to marriage all persons may marry anyone of the opposite sex, No one may marry someone of the same sex.

The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.
 
Phoenix said:
The fact that you don't want to do the legal variety of smoking, marriage, whatever, makes no difference as long as the law is applied equally to all persons.
Click to expand...

"Anyone who's skin is black is sentenced to death."

What? I said anyone who's skin is black. That includes white people! If their skin is black, they are hereby sentenced to death! The law is applied equally to all persons!
 
Crude

"Crude"
Phoenix said:
#1 Same sex couples can marry. It just will not be recognized by the government.
Click to expand...
What does that mean, recognized?
The government does not validate or sanction marriage.

Marriage is a civil contract, a civil union between entities, that may be litigated in any civil court; that is recognition.

If the government outlawed the formation of civil contracts between same sex persons, or passed laws which prevented sexual relations between such persons, that would mean that gay marriage was outlawed.

Phoenix said:
#2 The laws deny the marriage recognition based on a person's gender in relation to another's gender not on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
And affirmative action places persons ahead of others based on color and gender.
 
StoneCrow said:
"Anyone who's skin is black is sentenced to death."

What? I said anyone who's skin is black. That includes white people! If their skin is black, they are hereby sentenced to death! The law is applied equally to all persons!
Click to expand...

Not true. You applied the law to a specific group, persons with black skin.

In the case of marriage, EVERYONE is either male or female. The law applies to EVERYONE.
 
Navy Pride said:
The bottom line is the people have spoken and they are against gay marriage.....They also voted it down in Arizona and Florida......As long as this is a Judo/Christian Nation that will happen........
Click to expand...
The bottom line is the people had spoken and they were against minority equality in full support of jim crow laws.
USSC ruled such laws unconstitutional.
I don't know what country you live in NP, but in the United States of America we celebrate freedom of religion as one of the cornerstones of our society. With no religious faith favorable over another. It's written right there in the first amendment - read it.

Navy Pride said:
Almost every state has a DOMA or and amendment protecting marriage........Activist judges tried to change that in California and were shot down big time............
Click to expand...
Activist judges ruled against Jim Crow laws as well.
Amendment to a constitution is not something that a simple majority can make. The US constitution requires 2/3's to pass any amendment - see article V of the constitution.
There is also a requirement by the California state constitution which is that only the legislature can submit a proposal for constitutional amendments - not just anyone.
Prop 8 didn't meet this criteria - hence regardless of the simple majority the amendment is illegitimate.
 
Phoenix said:
Not true. You applied the law to a specific group, persons with black skin.
Click to expand...

No, I already addressed this: I applied it to everyone. in my law, if a white person has black skin, then it's applied to him, too! In prop 8, if a straight person is gay, it's applied to him, too!

In the case of marriage, EVERYONE is either male or female. The law applies to EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

No, the law applies to everyone who is gay similarly to how my satire applied to everyone who is black.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
As long as this is a Judo Nation that will happen.
Click to expand...

judo.gif


Judo nation, man on man combat :) Are you trying to tell us something sailor :lol:
 
Disparity

"Disparity"
Phoenix said:
If smoking is legal in a state one person likes to smoke cigarettes and another likes to smoke pot. Is the person who likes to smoke pot's rights being violated?
Click to expand...
Yes, the government should have a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting victimless crimes (pot smoking).

Similarly, the government has a negative obligation (abstain) from prohibiting civil unions -- marriages, civil contracts, between individuals based on informed consent; and, it does provide those negative rights.

The public government is not obligated to provided positive rights to smokers or certain civil contracts -- civil unions -- marriages.
 
Re: Crude

Monk-Eye said:
"Crude"
What does that mean, recognized?
The government does not validate or sanction marriage.

Marriage is a civil contract, a civil union between entities, that may be litigated in any civil court; that is recognition.

If the government outlawed the formation of civil contracts between same sex persons, or passed laws which prevented sexual relations between such persons, that would mean that gay marriage was outlawed.
Click to expand...
But homosexual acts can't be outlawed nor do I think it should be.
That has already been tested in front of SCOTUS.
Marriage on the other had is a power we have granted the government.
In granting them the power to decide who should marry we defacto grant them the ability to decide who shouldn't be married.
Instead of keep a relationship private, it becomes a public government affair subject to the whims of politicians and people.
The solution is to take away the power if the government to acknowledge marriage for anyone. Otherwise someone is always going to have their idea who should and shouldn't marry.


Monk-Eye said:
And affirmative action places persons ahead of others based on color and gender.
Click to expand...

What is your point?
 
This is Anthony Kennedy's record as regards homosexuality - anybody want to weigh in on how he might rule on this? I've bolded what I think may give a clue:

Gay rights and homosexuality

Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. He wrote the Court's opinion in the controversial 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he authored the Court's opinion Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal prohibitions against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous contrary ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In doing so, however, he was very careful to limit the extent of the opinion, declaring that the case did not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. Lawrence also controversially referred to foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights, in justifying its result. Kennedy voted, with 4 other Justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in 2000.
Click to expand...

Anthony Kennedy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom