• 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!

After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overturn

Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Honestly, what's unconstitutional about defining marriage?

Uh... the fact that it is purposely defined to exclude a specific type of marriages?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

His being gay isn't why he's going to overturn Prop 8. Funny how you fixate on that.

Hey, when that's all ya got, ya go with it. :shrug:

Unfortunately, I really wish I could say you were wrong, but I think this is the likely scenario. SCOTUS has a 5-4 conservative slant right now. Swing votes are possible, but it's a tough one. If Prop 8's supporters are as inept in the SCOTUS trial as they were in this one, there's a better chance, but if I were betting my life savings it would be on the bible thumpers.

This is gonna be a good baptism by fire for Sonya. I'm hoping she can provide the fire to help Kennedy to stand up against those right wingers.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I predicted in the beginning that this gay judge will overturn prop 8 as well as the radical 9th circuit......It will then go to the SCOTUS where they will uphold prop 8 by a 5 to 4 decision with justice Kennedy writing the opinion......

Book it !!!!!

How is the orientation of the judge relevant?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Uh... the fact that it is purposely defined to exclude a specific type of marriages?
Other types of things are not marriage though. You can exclude a man to animal marriage. What this does is officially defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state of California, thus stating that all other unions are not marriages.
States have their rights, and many other states (including mine) have passed very similar amendments that have not been found to be illegal.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Other types of things are not marriage though. You can exclude a man to animal marriage. What this does is officially defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the state of California, thus stating that all other unions are not marriages.
States have their rights, and many other states (including mine) have passed very similar amendments that have not been found to be illegal.

right you are but I am still waiting to hear a valid reason to limit marriage to male to female
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

His being gay isn't why he's going to overturn Prop 8. Funny how you fixate on that.

Unfortunately, I really wish I could say you were wrong, but I think this is the likely scenario. SCOTUS has a 5-4 conservative slant right now. Swing votes are possible, but it's a tough one. If Prop 8's supporters are as inept in the SCOTUS trial as they were in this one, there's a better chance, but if I were betting my life savings it would be on the bible thumpers.

I am not a bible thumper, very seldom read it but I am a realist.........
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

How is the orientation of the judge relevant?

He may just be a click bias since he would like to get married himself DUH
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

right you are but I am still waiting to hear a valid reason to limit marriage to male to female

For people like myself, we have religious convictions that state marriage is between a man and woman. Plus the traditional definition of marriage outside of religion is still a union between a man and woman. A marriage is a special type of relationship that is distinct from a homosexual union. Homosexual unions are not equal to nor are they a marriage.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Hey, when that's all ya got, ya go with it. :shrug:



This is gonna be a good baptism by fire for Sonya. I'm hoping she can provide the fire to help Kennedy to stand up against those right wingers.

She won't matter at all. a liberal replacing a liberal will be a wash...............
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

For people like myself, we have religious convictions that state marriage is between a man and woman. Plus the traditional definition of marriage outside of religion is still a union between a man and woman. A marriage is a special type of relationship that is distinct from a homosexual union. Homosexual unions are not equal to nor are they a marriage.

in other words nothing that really matters. its like people who used to argue that hunting on sunday should be banned. not being religious appeals to "the sabbath" mean nothing to me.

I am just one of those people who don't think stuff ought to be banned unless someone can meet a high burden of proof and establish that a ban really does help society

so far i see nothing
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

He may just be a click bias since he would like to get married himself DUH

Would a strait judge not be equally as likely to be biased? If orientation makes for an unfair ruling, how do we have any judge?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

in other words nothing that really matters. its like people who used to argue that hunting on sunday should be banned. not being religious appeals to "the sabbath" mean nothing to me.

I am just one of those people who don't think stuff ought to be banned unless someone can meet a high burden of proof and establish that a ban really does help society

so far i see nothing

It may mean nothing to you, but to millions what the Bible says is important for what they believe and how they live their lives. Other's would rather hold to the traditional definition of marriage. Both are valid reasons for not supporting gay marriage. Personally, I am fine with allow gays to have some form of legal union, just as long as it isn't equal to marriage or called a marriage. I have no problem with their partners visiting them in the hospital and receiving their benefits or whatever if one of them dies. I am not ok with the state recognizing a homosexual union as something equal to a man and wife union. Marriage has been between a man and his wife. To change that to include a wife and a wife or a husband and a husband would be to socially and fundamentally change and alter what marriage really is and what it has been for thousands of years.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It may mean nothing to you, but to millions what the Bible says is important for what they believe and how they live their lives. Other's would rather hold to the traditional definition of marriage. Both are valid reasons for not supporting gay marriage. Personally, I am fine with allow gays to have some form of legal union, just as long as it isn't equal to marriage or called a marriage. I have no problem with their partners visiting them in the hospital and receiving their benefits or whatever if one of them dies. I am not ok with the state recognizing a homosexual union as something equal to a man and wife union. Marriage has been between a man and his wife. To change that to include a wife and a wife or a husband and a husband would be to socially and fundamentally change and alter what marriage really is and what it has been for thousands of years.

I see your point but can you tell me how you are objectively affected or harmed by letting Bill and Dave get married or for Suzie to call Darlene her wife?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I see your point but can you tell me how you are objectively affected or harmed by letting Bill and Dave get married or for Suzie to call Darlene her wife?

It affects my society and it means that the state I live and vote in recognizes that Bill and Dave are married and have an equal status as me and my future wife. Their union may not directly affect me just like my neighbors being gay doesn't affect me, but it does affect my state and society if the state chose to recognize and give marital rights to a unions that I don't believe is a marriage.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

It affects my society and it means that the state I live and vote in recognizes that Bill and Dave are married and have an equal status as me and my future wife. Their union may not directly affect me just like my neighbors being gay doesn't affect me, but it does affect my state and society if the state chose to recognize and give marital rights to a unions that I don't believe is a marriage.

I don't see how. Please explain.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I don't see how. Please explain.

Again, it affects my society and the state that I live in. As a voting resident of my state, it affects me if the government I elect choses to extend marital rights and a marital status to a homosexual union. It would essentially be the government doing the opposite of what I believe, and as a voter I have the right to make my voice and opinion heard. How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Again, it affects my society and the state that I live in. As a voting resident of my state, it affects me if the government I elect choses to extend marital rights and a marital status to a homosexual union. It would essentially be the government doing the opposite of what I believe, and as a voter I have the right to make my voice and opinion heard. How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?

That's not an explination. You're talking in circles, it does because it does because it does. I want to know HOW it effects you? What is your real life tangiable effect to you and your marriage?

ONce you answer me, I'll gladly answer you.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

She won't matter at all. a liberal replacing a liberal will be a wash...............

No, but as was stated before, Kennedy seems to be more likely to go with the side of gay marriage, especially with the arguments coming from the anti-gm side being so weak. The biggest argument the side has is that the voters voted for it. The arguments against that vote are good however, so it would come down to a decision of whether it is more important to allow voters to vote for anything they see might harm some of them without actual proof or that another group of people be allowed the same privileges because it is an equal treatment under the law issue, but against the voters wishes.

Deciding that voters can vote to limit who can be involved and/or receive privileges from the government, without any proof that the group being excluded would cause some harm, leads to a slippery slope itself. Anti-gay marriage side likes to argue that allowing gay marriage will lead to other less legal couples wanting their chance at marriage. Yet, few realize the possibility that if voters are allowed to define marriage as between a man and a woman, what then would keep them from being able to define it as between a man and a woman of the same religion or that are only religious? What keeps them from defining marriage as only legal between a man and a woman who can procreate? I can think of at least one state where making a rule that only people of the same religion can marry might not be hard to get passed for that state. Even a fight to ensure that all marriages were between religious or procreating people might not be too hard in some states.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?

It affects me because there are people that cannot have the same rights as me. If a gay couple wants to get married it is their right to do so.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

That's not an explination. You're talking in circles, it does because it does because it does. I want to know HOW it effects you? What is your real life tangiable effect to you and your marriage?

ONce you answer me, I'll gladly answer you.

I'll ask an even better one. What is the real life affect to society? To that state? What exactly will be negative about allowing gays to marry? Provide proof.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I'll ask an even better one. What is the real life affect to society? To that state? What exactly will be negative about allowing gays to marry? Provide proof.

I would be interested in hearing an answer.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Again, it affects my society and the state that I live in. As a voting resident of my state, it affects me if the government I elect choses to extend marital rights and a marital status to a homosexual union. It would essentially be the government doing the opposite of what I believe, and as a voter I have the right to make my voice and opinion heard. How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?

I don't understand that at all/ YOu suffer no objective harm. You see when blacks or women or those between ages 18 and 21 were given say the right to vote, those who already could vote could claim that their voting power was DILUTED or DIMINISHED by extending the franchise to those who previously could not vote. That isn't EVEN THE CASE here. You suffer no DILUTION IN YOUR RIGHTS as a married couple by allowing Dave and Bob to call themselves a married couple. So what you are telling me is that you FEEL That your marriage to Mrs Digsbe is somehow CHEAPENED because Guido and Julious can call themselves Husband and Husband or whatever.

NOw that is not an objectively sound reason to stop them, Now I realize you might claim that this is not a case of active interference or denial but merely a REFUSAL of the government to RECOGNIZE Anna and Mary as a married couple but that is a specious argument. There is no reason to deny equal treatment of gays because you cannot even claim a diluation in your benefits as a married couple.

Sorry I couldn't give a flying F if it upsets some religions.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

I don't understand that at all/ YOu suffer no objective harm. You see when blacks or women or those between ages 18 and 21 were given say the right to vote, those who already could vote could claim that their voting power was DILUTED or DIMINISHED by extending the franchise to those who previously could not vote. That isn't EVEN THE CASE here. You suffer no DILUTION IN YOUR RIGHTS as a married couple by allowing Dave and Bob to call themselves a married couple. So what you are telling me is that you FEEL That your marriage to Mrs Digsbe is somehow CHEAPENED because Guido and Julious can call themselves Husband and Husband or whatever.

NOw that is not an objectively sound reason to stop them, Now I realize you might claim that this is not a case of active interference or denial but merely a REFUSAL of the government to RECOGNIZE Anna and Mary as a married couple but that is a specious argument. There is no reason to deny equal treatment of gays because you cannot even claim a diluation in your benefits as a married couple.

Sorry I couldn't give a flying F if it upsets some religions.

And we're free to have differnet religious beliefs. There are those who hold Christian beliefs who would marry homosexuals. To deny them is to say their version is better, preferenced.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

And we're free to have differnet religious beliefs. There are those who hold Christian beliefs who would marry homosexuals. To deny them is to say their version is better, preferenced.

Which is exactly what these people believe. It makes talking to them pretty difficult. And then they go and have the audacity to play the victim card every time same-sex marriage comes up.
 
Re: After Final Arguments in Prop. 8 Trial, Maggie Gallagher Expects Judge will Overt

Again, it affects my society and the state that I live in. As a voting resident of my state, it affects me if the government I elect choses to extend marital rights and a marital status to a homosexual union. It would essentially be the government doing the opposite of what I believe, and as a voter I have the right to make my voice and opinion heard. How does it affect you if homosexual unions aren't recognized as marriages?

It affects me because there are people in my free society, the USA, that aren't being treated as equals. They are being denied the same rights as me because some people consider their relationship a sin or icky eventhough, such relationships have been deemed legal by the SCOTUS and normal, healthy relationships by every major medical institution in this country. The side that is for continuing to keep the people who aren't allowed to marry who they are attracted from making such commitments can't provide any solid proof for their reasons to keep their institution just for a certain group of people. Instead, their arguments hold with the "it's tradition" or "I consider it a sin/icky/unnatural, and my vote/opinion should be the only thing that matters, since I'm in the majority".

It also affects me in a more indirect way, because since my state is one that doesn't allow or recognize same-sex marriage, my state is also missing out on the revenues that could come from gay weddings taking place in this state. Since it has been shown that many gay men and women, especially ones that want to get married, are generally in the middle to upper class income levels, then they will be very likely to spend more on a commitment ceremony that will bring legal benefits. This could lead to more weddings and possibly more jobs in the wedding/party industries in those states that have gay marriage.Gay marriage can serve as boost to economy Thomas Kostigen's Ethics Monitor - MarketWatch
 
Back
Top Bottom