• 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!

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

The inequality is apparent when I can't visit Joshua in the hospital without paying for legal aid in drawing up contracts and jumping through hoops that you don't have to jump through. The inequality is evident when almost half my holdings are taken by the government when I pass them on to Joshua and yours are not when passing them on to your family. The inequality is exhibited when you may make the choices you wish for your life and I am left having to make the choices heteros want me to make so their sensibilities are not offended by something they shouldn't even be involved in to start with.

**** that. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever make apology for the underlying hatred and bigotry inherent in the argument against freedom and liberty when it comes to gays. I will be goddamned if I ever accept that I am a second class citizen and that my relationship is of any less value than yours or Jerry's or anyone else's.

As a citizen of CA, you already have the right to visit and make medical decisions per existing Domestic Partnership law.

You already have what you want. There's nothing left to fight for.
 
As a citizen of CA, you already have the right to visit and make medical decisions per existing Domestic Partnership law.

You already have what you want. There's nothing left to fight for.

Then what are you fighting against if its all the same?
 
As a citizen of CA, you already have the right to visit and make medical decisions per existing Domestic Partnership law.

You already have what you want. There's nothing left to fight for.

Until I step out of California and Nevada decides not to allow me. You can keep playing your typical obtuse game, Jerry, but you know full well that we do not have what we want nor what is fair and equal. Though I am loathe to say it, I actually agree with TheNextEra. I believe you take a certain pleasure in ridiculing the struggles of others and I am finding it irreparably offensive.
 
The inequality is apparent when I can't visit Joshua in the hospital without paying for legal aid in drawing up contracts and jumping through hoops that you don't have to jump through. The inequality is evident when almost half my holdings are taken by the government when I pass them on to Joshua and yours are not when passing them on to your family. The inequality is exhibited when you may make the choices you wish for your life and I am left having to make the choices heteros want me to make so their sensibilities are not offended by something they shouldn't even be involved in to start with.

**** that. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever make apology for the underlying hatred and bigotry inherent in the argument against freedom and liberty when it comes to gays. I will be goddamned if I ever accept that I am a second class citizen and that my relationship is of any less value than yours or Jerry's or anyone else's.

You know I agree with you. I'm only playing devil's advocate.

But again, from a legal standpoint there is no inequality. The standard is applied evenly across the board. All of the arguments you make could be used by a 42 year old man who wants to marry a 15 year old bride.
 
Why would I want to go anywhere or have a drink with anyone who believes that a legitimate argument against my liberty and privacy is that I can make the same choices he can and the problem is instantly solved? :confused:

You're not making the same choices as I am. That's the point.

Take sex out of it for a moment: I don't condone adultery among hetero couples even when it's consensual, yet you and Josh are adulterers to each other. You don't live in the same place, so it can't be said that you're living an equivalent life.

Hell Inferno is a far, far better poster child for gay-marriage than you are, so let her represent next time.
 
You know I agree with you. I'm only playing devil's advocate.

But again, from a legal standpoint there is no inequality. The standard is applied evenly across the board. All of the arguments you make could be used by a 42 year old man who wants to marry a 15 year old bride.

Save that a 15 year old bride is not of an age to enter into a marriage contract. And that is the same argument that stopped interracial marriage...every white can marry a white and every black can marry a black. Everyone has the same standard applied. :roll:
 
You know I agree with you. I'm only playing devil's advocate.

But again, from a legal standpoint there is no inequality. The standard is applied evenly across the board. All of the arguments you make could be used by a 42 year old man who wants to marry a 15 year old bride.

Again, all those rights already exist. Prop8 did nothing to abolish them.
 
You're not making the same choices as I am. That's the point.

Take sex out of it for a moment: I don't condone adultery among hetero couples even when it's consensual, yet you and Josh are adulterers to each other. You don't live in the same place, so it can't be said that you're living an equivalent life.

Hell Inferno is a far, far better poster child for gay-marriage than you are, so let her represent next time.

We are done. You and I have absolutely nothing left to say to each other anymore Jerry. You have crossed a line.
 
Save that a 15 year old bride is not of an age to enter into a marriage contract. And that is the same argument that stopped interracial marriage...every white can marry a white and every black can marry a black. Everyone has the same standard applied. :roll:

Even your own CA court rulings agreed with that principal.
 
The problem is you have to show how inequality is an issue when the standard of one man married to one woman is applied evenly across the board.

If a state declares that men are allowed to drive cars, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to buy houses, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to marry women, but women are not, why would the same standard not apply?
 
No the problem is you have to show why it is the business of the the government that they should have a problem with two gays getting married.

Are you saying two gay married people can't raise children when two non-married gay people can?

No. But as long as the government is restricting marriage, involved in marriage we are going to have this issue of how or why they restrict certain things. If there's a standard applied evenly which dictates one man & one woman of legal age then what we're asking for is something extra. It's not a civil rights issue as no group is being unduly infringed upon while another group has rights they do not. Every argument that is made for same sex marriage could be made for marriages involving more than two parties, marriages involving child brides, etc. They would all be a request for a wider definition of marriage.

So I think ultimately it will come down to swaying the public opinion so that people want to change their constitutions to widen the definition of marriage. But it would take activism from the bench in order to force change as this is not a civil rights issue.
 
Then what are you fighting against if its all the same?

As I keep saying, the fight is sociological, not legal.

This is not the right place to fight for social acceptance since that is not something a court can grant.
 
We are done. You and I have absolutely nothing left to say to each other anymore Jerry. You have crossed a line.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is exactly why I try to avoid using myself as an example of anything.
 
If a state declares that men are allowed to drive cars, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to buy houses, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to marry women, but women are not, why would the same standard not apply?

How is this post any different that anti-gm bringing up marrying animals or incest or polygamy....
 
As I keep saying, the fight is sociological, not legal.

This is not the right place to fight for social acceptance since that is not something a court can grant.

The government CAN grant them equality under the law. Social acceptance is completely different. It is the gay marriage OPPONENTS who are attempting to equate the two.
 
If a state declares that men are allowed to drive cars, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to buy houses, but women are not, it would rightly be struck down as discrimination.

If a state declares that men are allowed to marry women, but women are not, why would the same standard not apply?

The state is allowed to treat men and women differently in regards to a wide variety of matters. You do not have a right to use a woman's bathroom in a public facility. Women are not allowed to go topless on all beaches, while men are. There is not now, nor has there ever been any federal mandate that women and men are to always be treated the same, or have the same rights.

In the case of marriage all peoples are allowed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
 
As I keep saying, the fight is sociological, not legal.
Then you won't mind if gay couples get all the same legal rights and benefits as married hetero couples. Problems solved.

This is not the right place to fight for social acceptance since that is not something a court can grant.
They are fighting to legislate equal rights. You can't legislate social acceptance in any way I'm aware of so that argument is a non sequitur.
 
Last edited:
The government CAN grant them equality under the law. Social acceptance is completely different. It is the gay marriage OPPONENTS who are attempting to equate the two.

The government can through judicial activism or the finding of rights that aren't in the constitution but I'd prefer it be done via the swaying of public opinion so that they want to amend their constitution.
 
The state is allowed to treat men and women differently in regards to a wide variety of matters. You do not have a right to use a woman's bathroom in a public facility. Women are not allowed to go topless on all beaches, while men are. There is not now, nor has there ever been any federal mandate that women and men are to always be treated the same, or have the same rights.

In the case of marriage all peoples are allowed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Yet not all peoples are allowed to name the person of their choice as "irreplaceable" in the eyes of the law. Therein lies the issue. It most certainly is an issue of equality.
 
The government CAN grant them equality under the law.

They have it.

Right now, this very instant, they have it.

Social acceptance is completely different. It is the gay marriage OPPONENTS who are attempting to equate the two.

Then I stand out among them as I keep separating the two on this thread.
 
How is this post any different that anti-gm bringing up marrying animals or incest or polygamy....

Are those laws applied unequally from one group or individual to another? If so, then I completely agree. If men are legally allowed to marry horses in your state, then women should be granted the same right. :lol:
 
Yet not all peoples are allowed to name the person of their choice as "irreplaceable" in the eyes of the law. Therein lies the issue. It most certainly is an issue of equality.

Your own case-law contradicts this.
 
The state is allowed to treat men and women differently in regards to a wide variety of matters. You do not have a right to use a woman's bathroom in a public facility.

I'm not sure there are any laws against doing so, in most places. It's just frowned upon. Even if there are, I doubt they're enforced.

talloulou said:
Women are not allowed to go topless on all beaches, while men are.

Yep, that would be unconstitutional.

talloulou said:
There is not now, nor has there ever been any federal mandate that women and men are to always be treated the same, or have the same rights.

The 14th amendment grants equal protection under the law.

talloulou said:
In the case of marriage all peoples are allowed the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And blacks and whites were each allowed to marry a member of their own race. Perfectly constitutional, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom