• 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!

Iowa Court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

The people of California gave a resounding no to gay marriage in California....They are the ones who should decide............It is a dead issue there............

Well I guess at least I can say you are consistent with being inconsistent. In one post you say you agree that the issue should be decided by the Legislature...and in another you say that it shouldn't be decided by the legislature, it should be decided by a popular vote....

(I guess its kinda like your jumping around from candidate to candidate to candidate during the GOP primaries, huh Navy?)...

Consistent inconsistency is your MO.

By the way...Prop 8 was by no means a "resounding" vote. At it is far far FAR from a dead issue here. The California Supreme Court still hasn't announced its ruling and efforts are already underway for it to be back on the ballot in the next election.

The tide is turning...the clouds are clearing...and we will win this battle...if not tomorrow, then the day after that. I'm beginning to see that this is going to occur even within your lifetime.
 
The people of California gave a resounding no to gay marriage in California....They are the ones who should decide............It is a dead issue there............

If the issue of slavery should ever come back to a popular vote, should we accept it if a majority approves?

Some things are too important to be decided by popular mandate.
 
Well I guess at least I can say you are consistent with being inconsistent. In one post you say you agree that the issue should be decided by the Legislature...and in another you say that it shouldn't be decided by the legislature, it should be decided by a popular vote....

(I guess its kinda like your jumping around from candidate to candidate to candidate during the GOP primaries, huh Navy?)...

Consistent inconsistency is your MO.

By the way...Prop 8 was by no means a "resounding" vote. At it is far far FAR from a dead issue here. The California Supreme Court still hasn't announced its ruling and efforts are already underway for it to be back on the ballot in the next election.

The tide is turning...the clouds are clearing...and we will win this battle...if not tomorrow, then the day after that. I'm beginning to see that this is going to occur even within your lifetime.

You read what you want DD but I have constantly said the people should have the final say..........
 
If the issue of slavery should ever come back to a popular vote, should we accept it if a majority approves?

Some things are too important to be decided by popular mandate.

Nice try my left wing friend but this has nothing to do with slavery........Hige difference when you try and compare a race of people against one defined by their sexual preference.............
 
If the issue of slavery should ever come back to a popular vote, should we accept it if a majority approves?
As slavery has been outlawed in the 13th Amendment, slavery would have to be re-authorized by another Constitutional Amendment. A mere popular majority is insufficient for this.

Further, if slavery were re-authorized by Constitutional amendment, then it would be the obligation of judges and justices to interpret subsequent laws regarding slavery strictly in accordance with the particulars of that amendment (reconciling with other parts of the Constitution as appropriate).

Finally, no man should ever accept that which he feels in his heart is unjust, regardless of the size of the majority arrayed against him. Each man should declare for himself and from himself what is and is not justice, and it is to every man's credit that he strive always for justice within his own life, although we must be mindful that, because the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, justice for the jurist is to interpret the law only, never to create law or reformulate the law.

Some things are too important to be decided by popular mandate.
Perhaps, but to whom else do we dare consign our trust?
 
Nice try my left wing friend but this has nothing to do with slavery........Hige difference when you try and compare a race of people against one defined by their sexual preference.............

He is absolutely right on target Navy. Since it is up for the people to decide, shouldn't the issue of slavery be decided by a 50% +1 vote?
What about the rights to own property?
What about the right of women to vote? Should we put that to a 50% +1 vote.
I know, lets let people decide if people should be allowed to own guns. Under your theory that should as well be put to a 50% +1 vote.

Lets let the people decide, huh Navy?

Would you be "OK with it" if the People of Washington passed a law that said "Marriage is only between a black man and a black woman"?
 
Last edited:
He is absolutely right on target Navy. Since it is up for the people to decide, shouldn't the issue of slavery be decided by a 50% +1 vote?
What about the rights to own property?
What about the right of women to vote? Should we put that to a 50% +1 vote.
I know, lets let people decide if people should be allowed to own guns. Under your theory that should as well be put to a 50% +1 vote.

Lets let the people decide, huh Navy?

Would you be "OK with it" if the People of Washington passed a law that said "Marriage is only between a black man and a black woman"?

In women and African Americans you keep naming true minorities and as far as I know gays can and do own a lot of properrty..........
 
In women and African Americans you keep naming true minorities and as far as I know gays can and do own a lot of properrty..........

That's irrelevant.
You either believe or you don't.. that Constitutional rights should be subject to a 50%+1 popular vote.

Which is it Navy?

Should YOUR Constitutional rights be put to the vote of the people?
 
He is absolutely right on target Navy. Since it is up for the people to decide, shouldn't the issue of slavery be decided by a 50% +1 vote?
What about the rights to own property?
What about the right of women to vote? Should we put that to a 50% +1 vote.
I know, lets let people decide if people should be allowed to own guns. Under your theory that should as well be put to a 50% +1 vote.

Lets let the people decide, huh Navy?

Would you be "OK with it" if the People of Washington passed a law that said "Marriage is only between a black man and a black woman"?

Why are you comparing fundamental constitutional rights to state-sanctioned gay marriage?
 
How would a 50% +1 vote have any legal standing on the matter?

Because Navy is advocating that everything should be put to the "Will of the people". Thus, if 50% +1 of the people in this country vote to say "voting shall only be for males" or "marriage is defined as 1 black man and 1 black women"...then so be it. Its the "will of the people" ...."That's how things are done in this country".

I suspect that people are OK with a 50%+1 popular vote on Constitutional rights that don't effect them....but somehow feel a little differently when it is their Constititional rights being decided by a popular vote.
 
Because Navy is advocating that everything should be put to the "Will of the people". Thus, if 50% +1 of the people in this country vote to say "voting shall only be for males" or "marriage is defined as 1 black man and 1 black women"...then so be it. Its the "will of the people" ...."That's how things are done in this country".

I suspect that people are OK with a 50%+1 popular vote on Constitutional rights that don't effect them....but somehow feel a little differently when it is their Constititional rights being decided by a popular vote.

There is no constitutional right to state-sanctioned marriage.... AT ALL. It doesn't even make sense.
 
Why are you comparing fundamental constitutional rights to state-sanctioned gay marriage?

Marriage has been recognized as a fundamental right.
Regardless, Constitutional Equal Protection applies to privileges granted by states as well as those that are considered "fundamental rights"
 
Because Navy is advocating that everything should be put to the "Will of the people". Thus, if 50% +1 of the people in this country vote to say "voting shall only be for males" or "marriage is defined as 1 black man and 1 black women"...then so be it. Its the "will of the people" ...."That's how things are done in this country".

I suspect that people are OK with a 50%+1 popular vote on Constitutional rights that don't effect them....but somehow feel a little differently when it is their Constititional rights being decided by a popular vote.
In all of your ranting, you completely failed to answer my question. Navy's positions are not relevant to my question.

How does a 50% +1 vote have any legal standing on the right of women to vote?
 
There is no constitutional right to state-sanctioned marriage.... AT ALL. It doesn't even make sense.

Sure there is. If a state is issuing contracts, they still have to comply with Constitutional safeguards. Suppose a state said it was only going to issue business licenses to Arab Americans. There is no fundamental right to a state issued business license...so are you suggesting that a black, white, asian etc wouldn't have an equal protection claim against the state in such a case? That would be a ridiculous argument to make.
 
Marriage has been recognized as a fundamental right.
Regardless, Constitutional Equal Protection applies to privileges granted by states as well as those that are considered "fundamental rights"

Sure, gays can get "married" all they want. They just don't have the right it being "legitimized" through the state.
 
In all of your ranting, you completely failed to answer my question. Navy's positions are not relevant to my question.

How does a 50% +1 vote have any legal standing on the right of women to vote?

The same way a 50% +1 vote has any legal standing on the right of a state to deny a contract based on sexual orientation.
 
Sure, gays can get "married" all they want. They just don't have the right it being "legitimized" through the state.

Sure they do. The government should not be involved in denying issuance of contracts based on a person's sexual orientation, any more than they should deny it based on the color of a person's hair.
 
The same way a 50% +1 vote has any legal standing on the right of a state to deny a contract based on sexual orientation.
So you are claiming that a mere 50% +1 vote would legally remove the right of women to vote in this country, correct?
 
He is absolutely right on target Navy. Since it is up for the people to decide, shouldn't the issue of slavery be decided by a 50% +1 vote?
What about the rights to own property?
What about the right of women to vote? Should we put that to a 50% +1 vote.
I know, lets let people decide if people should be allowed to own guns. Under your theory that should as well be put to a 50% +1 vote.

Lets let the people decide, huh Navy?

Would you be "OK with it" if the People of Washington passed a law that said "Marriage is only between a black man and a black woman"?


Yeah the people could pass a laww that up is down and down is up to but that is not going to happen and neither is your ridiculous example.....
 
Yeah the people could pass a laww that up is down and down is up to but that is not going to happen and neither is your ridiculous example.....

So, if the people did pass such a law, would you support it? After all, it is the will of the people right?
 
It shouldn't. But look at Prop 8. That's exactly what it did.
A 50% +1 vote cannot possibly affect the right of women to vote. Not in the United States of America.
 
So, if the people did pass such a law, would you support it? After all, it is the will of the people right?

Of course not but your example is ridiculous........It would never happen.
 
Last edited:
Sure they do. The government should not be involved in denying issuance of contracts based on a person's sexual orientation, any more than they should deny it based on the color of a person's hair.

Therefore making a stong case for civil unions, not gay "marriage."
 
Back
Top Bottom