• 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!

Gay Marriage Fails to get on California Ballot

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
(Reuters) - A challenge to California's gay marriage ban failed on Monday to qualify for the 2010 ballot, leaving gay activists mulling a 2012 push and hoping a federal court will overturn the measure before then...

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

California voters in November 2008 ended a summer of court-allowed gay marriage by enacting a ban on same-sex unions by a 52 to 48 percent vote. The move by the trend-setting state enthused social conservatives and stunned lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters nationwide..


Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot | Reuters

Sad they have to try and get the court system to override the 32nd time in a row gay marriage failed to pass a popular vote instead of accepting the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
(Reuters) - A challenge to California's gay marriage ban failed on Monday to qualify for the 2010 ballot, leaving gay activists mulling a 2012 push and hoping a federal court will overturn the measure before then...

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

California voters in November 2008 ended a summer of court-allowed gay marriage by enacting a ban on same-sex unions by a 52 to 48 percent vote. The move by the trend-setting state enthused social conservatives and stunned lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters nationwide..


Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot | Reuters

Sad they have to try and get the court system to override the 32nd time in a row gay marriage failed to pass a popular vote instead of accepting the will of the people.

I could really give a rats ass about what the majority thinks about the civil rights of a minority.
 
I could really give a rats ass about what the majority thinks about the civil rights of a minority.

You should care very much about what people think of the definition of a word.

Eventually people will come around to accepting our definition. Until then, the "civil rights trumps democracy" argument only holds weight if you believe that gay marriage is actually in the Constitution, which no court will uphold at this point.

Of course, you realize that every civil rights law ever, plus ever civil rights Constitutional Amendment, was passed by a majority vote (or in the latter case, a supermajority). So I really don't get where that argument is going; I mean, if it's a civil right, who enforces it? It's either the Constitution, or a separate law.
 
I'll never understand this. If that's what two people wanna do, let em. Not as if they're forcing you to be gay.
 
Sad they have to try and get the court system to override the 32nd time in a row gay marriage failed to pass a popular vote instead of accepting the will of the people.
Should blacks have accepted the rulings of votes and courts pre-Civil Rights era? I mean, the will of the people was against them....
 
You should care very much about what people think of the definition of a word.

Eventually people will come around to accepting our definition. Until then, the "civil rights trumps democracy" argument only holds weight if you believe that gay marriage is actually in the Constitution, which no court will uphold at this point.

Of course, you realize that every civil rights law ever, plus ever civil rights Constitutional Amendment, was passed by a majority vote (or in the latter case, a supermajority). So I really don't get where that argument is going; I mean, if it's a civil right, who enforces it? It's either the Constitution, or a separate law.

Civil rights are not defined by the Constitution, but rather logically derived. Denying consenting adults equal access to the legal contract of marriage is unambiguously denying their right to equal treatment under the law without just cause. Coincidentally that is in the Constitution, but it's not a civil right because it is there.

You should care very much about what people think of the definition of a word.

Eventually people will come around to accepting our definition. Until then, the "civil rights trumps democracy" argument only holds weight if you believe that gay marriage is actually in the Constitution, which no court will uphold at this point.

Of course, you realize that every civil rights law ever, plus ever civil rights Constitutional Amendment, was passed by a majority vote (or in the latter case, a supermajority). So I really don't get where that argument is going; I mean, if it's a civil right, who enforces it? It's either the Constitution, or a separate law.

Well anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when approval for interracial marriage was less than 20%.

And popular opinion was not in favor of it until after 1994:


pr070816i.gif


You can't rely upon the opinion of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.
 
Last edited:
I think the pro-GM movement will have to wait a while before re-initiating this dialogue. The fact that a public vote was so narrow shows that minds are changing. I think if they try again in 5-10 years they will succeed. Right now they are just annoying people with the political hoopla and blatant disregard for due process.
 
I think the pro-GM movement will have to wait a while before re-initiating this dialogue. The fact that a public vote was so narrow shows that minds are changing. I think if they try again in 5-10 years they will succeed. Right now they are just annoying people with the political hoopla and blatant disregard for due process.

Due process at this point would be getting the SCOTUS to declare it as a matter of equal protection, but that may require the balance of power on the SCOTUS to shift and public opinion may be in favor of GM before then.
 
Due process at this point would be getting the SCOTUS to declare it as a matter of equal protection, but that may require the balance of power on the SCOTUS to shift and public opinion may be in favor of GM before then.

I don't know. I am against DOMA and I don't think SCOTUS ruling on GM would be much better. I really want to see gay marriage or at least civil unions recognized across the board, but it has to be brought in properly. For now I think it is better to let the states decide.

That said, this is obviously going to arrive on the desk of SCOTUS sooner than later. I just think it has the potential to backfire. Five states allowing GM is still a victory, I wouldn't want that to get tossed out at the Federal level.
 
Civil rights are not defined by the Constitution, but rather logically derived.

No. If it's not a law, and it's not in the Constitution, then there's nothing there. God isn't going to come down and force people to hand out gay marriages.

Denying consenting adults equal access to the legal contract of marriage is unambiguously denying their right to equal treatment under the law without just cause. Coincidentally that is in the Constitution, but it's not a civil right because it is there.

It's a recognized civil right because it's there, yes. It only got there with a 2/3 vote in Congress. Otherwise, you couldn't even claim that gay marriage is a legally protected right.

You can't rely upon the opinion of the majority to protect the rights of the minority.

You don't have a choice. Especially in this case, when it's not a "right" being denied but rather a word being defined.

You obviously don't care whether it's in the Constitution or not, so let's say for a sec that the 14th Amendment doesn't exist. If states must recognize gay marriages, who's going to force them to? Nobody can. You can't rely on the Magical Rights Fairy to enforce rights.
 
Last edited:
I think we should make abolish all marriages and instead use private contracts between people with regards to property ownership and rights. Get government out of people's relationships. It doesn't deserve to be there.
 
I could really give a rats ass about what the majority thinks about the civil rights of a minority.
Except that marriage isn't a right, civil or otherwise.
 
I could really give a rats ass about what the majority thinks about the civil rights of a minority.

It has nothing to do with civil rights.
 
I'll never understand this. If that's what two people wanna do, let em. Not as if they're forcing you to be gay.

That kind of argument could be aimed at any alternative lifestyle. Think I could find one you wouldn't approve of even if they aren't forcing you?
 
Should blacks have accepted the rulings of votes and courts pre-Civil Rights era? I mean, the will of the people was against them....

You cannot equate race with homosexuality.

Its incredibly insulting to even pretend they are equal.
 
You cannot equate race with homosexuality.

Its incredibly insulting to even pretend they are equal.

And why is that exactly? It's not like you get to chose either one.
 
And why is that exactly? It's not like you get to chose either one.

There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim.

There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.

Haven't seen one person go from white to black.


And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.
 
Last edited:
There is no basis in genetics or any boilogical evidence to support your claim..

The evidence suggests there is.

There are people who have gone from being heterosexual to homosexual and vise versa.

Can't say I blame people who come out of the closet late it life. And short of some brainwashed Christians that attended a straight camp, people don't turn hetero, unless they were bi in the first place.

Haven't seen one person go from white to black.

Michael Jackson.

And the sexual biological reaction to stimulus always results in the same outcome. The body prepares for procreation, a purely heterosexual act and the only way to pass genetic material from one generation to another naturally. Homosexuality has no basis in either genetics or biological sexual reaction which is why you cannot equate it to either race or heterosexuality as being equal.

I don't really see how being black is a biological activity. People are gay because of who they are attracted to, not what they do. A celibate gay is still gay.
 
Haven't seen YOU in a while.

I know. Good to be back. Though I have to say after conversing solely in the real world, it's amusing to see the amount of keyboard courage that's present online!
 
I'll never understand this. If that's what two people wanna do, let em. Not as if they're forcing you to be gay.

no one's stopping them. they're just saying you can't make us support it.
 
no one's stopping them. they're just saying you can't make us support it.

You don't have to support it! You can go on marrying people of the opposite gender and disliking gay marriage all you want. I also don't have to approve of interacial marriage. Doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

Oh yes texmaster. I went there. ;)
 
The evidence suggests there is.

No, it doesn't. Feel free to post it.

Can't say I blame people who come out of the closet late it life. And short of some brainwashed Christians that attended a straight camp, people don't turn hetero, unless they were bi in the first place.

Thats all theory and no fact behind it.

Blaming Christianity is a very weak argument unless you want to conclude all people who "come out" are Christians. :roll:

Michael Jackson.

A funny joke but thats all it is and you know it.

And I said White to Black not Black to White specifically to avoid that ridiculous notion.

I don't really see how being black is a biological activity.

It isn't. Its genetic as I said.

People are gay because of who they are attracted to, not what they do. A celibate gay is still gay.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. Should we grant them marriage privileges as well?

The attracted to argument is not a basis for designing new law when you can't even prove its not a choice.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to support it! You can go on marrying people of the opposite gender and disliking gay marriage all you want. I also don't have to approve of interacial marriage. Doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

Oh yes texmaster. I went there. ;)

You can go there as much as you like. It still has no basis in fact :)
 
You don't have to support it!

hmmmm, except that we live in a society ruled by a representative government. what that government does, WE are doing; and what the government supports, WE are supporting. now everyone's not going to come to an agreement (IE; you might personally not support the war in Iraq even as your taxes go to 'actually' support it) about what we want to do, which is why we vote. What i am pointing out is that the American people have the right to choose not to support the institution of homosexual marriage via their government.
 
Back
Top Bottom