• 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 gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Navy Pride said:
I think most of us who are against allowing any class of people defined by their sexual preference would go along with Civil Unions with full benefits but sadly this is not really about Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.........Its about "Feel Good Liberals" and a few militant Gays shoving gay rights down out throats and trying to get acceptance of the gay lifestyle the same as the straight lifestyle and that will never happen.............
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why the margin between people who support gay marriage and people who are against it is so narrow. You really are an optimist. :lol:
 
Hicup said:
Well since you're not providing me with anything to argue with, how else can I respond? You said you tolerate eveyone and everything so loing as someones else personal rights are not violated. I don't believe you, but I can't prove you wrong, thus the debate stops there. If you tolerate everyone and everything, then I have no argument, if however, you are like.. Oh everyone else, then surely you have some prejudices yourself, wehtehr it be actions, behaviors, or jay walking. Like everyone else, we tolerate everything up until it reaches a point where we ourselves feel closed in. I think that's what you really meant to say, but I don't know for sure, and as a result, unless you have something more honest to discuss, I bid you a farwell on the matter.


Tim-
Click to expand...

You can't argue because you tried to engage in a "Gotcha" game that doesn't apply. So much for trying to make me look silly....it is in fact you that is running away with your tail between your legs.

Hey...I may not like a lot of things. I don't like right-wing bigots, although they have a right to voice their opinion.
I used to work for the ACLU and we represented a lot of people who's views I disagreed with, but absolutely supported their right to say and live them.

However, the rights of an individual end when they begin to infringe on the rights of another.
 
Navy Pride said:
I think most of us who are against allowing any class of people defined by their sexual preference would go along with Civil Unions with full benefits but sadly this is not really about Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.........Its about "Feel Good Liberals" and a few militant Gays shoving gay rights down out throats and trying to get acceptance of the gay lifestyle the same as the straight lifestyle and that will never happen.............
Click to expand...

Sorry....but you can take your "I can't believe its not butter" and shove it.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Yeah, which is why the margin between people who support gay marriage and people who are against it is so narrow. You really are an optimist. :lol:
Click to expand...

There is nothing narrow about an 0-31 record of popular vote.
 
disneydude said:
I'd be happy to engage you in an equal protection debate, but I suspect that you have no clue what you are talking about based on the glaring evidence of it in your earlier posts.

List the three levels of equal protection analysis to show me you know what you are talking about and then I would happily debate you. But I'm not wasting my time unless you can show that you meet the minimum educational level to debate the issue.
Click to expand...

Spoken, like not only a true lawyer, but a liberal one at that. :)

You started it, now provide your argument and I will respond. If you choose not to use your power of intellectualism over this poor soul, then I'm fine with that as well. I have no ego to bruise. But I will refuse to debate people that say, ok, well "prove me right". I've dealt with a few of your kind before.

Put up or shut up is a term you should be familar with. :)

Tim-
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Well, at least you are laughing at your own jokes. Don't you have better things to do like take lyrics from classic songs and re-word them to bash Obama and then post them in the entertainment forum so you can get a kick out of your own gut-busting humor?
Click to expand...

would that make me a person of ILK?

cuz i do so want to ADVANCE the discussion

gotta ADVANCE the discussion, y'know
 
Captain America said:
I'm wondering why the hell the gubberment has it's nose in it in the first place. Marriage, and issues as such, should be left up to the churches, and in the secular arena, two consenting adults.

Today's whackos might think it's a liberal victory but I think Goldwater is probably doing handstands as true conservatism has risen again. Government has no place mandating in matters of the heart and morals of the masses.
Click to expand...

I would 100% agree with you. To be honest, I think the real solution is to get rid of the marriage license. The "benefits" which you get through the marriage license can be offered in separate contracts. Cause after all things like hospital visitation or guardianship or kids or any of the stuff that comes with the marriage license, an individual should be able to freely assign. But good luck getting the government to give up the marriage license. And so long as the marriage license exists as a state granted and recognized contract; you can't exclude the gays.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I know I have the same rights, because I'm already married. If you are all consenting, why shouldn't you be allowed to have 4 wives?
Click to expand...

well we will see what happens to your gay marrriage if this is overturned...........
 
Last edited:
zero to thirty one means nothing...

LOL!
 
texmaster said:
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.
Click to expand...

9th amendment and right to contract
 
disneydude said:
Some people continue to cling to their bigoted views. Prejudism unfortunately will always exist amongst the intolerant.
Click to expand...

Isn't it kind of the defintion? LOL

Come on, I'm going to piss you off enough to force you show off your intellectual prowes..


Tim-
 
I'm guessing we'll find out pretty quick here, since I put up a poll.

Navy Pride said:
I think most of us who are against allowing any class of people defined by their sexual preference would go along with Civil Unions with full benefits but sadly this is not really about Gay Marriage or Civil Unions.........Its about "Feel Good Liberals" and a few militant Gays shoving gay rights down out throats and trying to get acceptance of the gay lifestyle the same as the straight lifestyle and that will never happen.............
Click to expand...
 
Navy Pride said:
He should have reclused himself on this case because he is biased and definitely has a dog in this fight..........
Click to expand...

By that reasoning so does every straight judge.

Unless you think Homosexuality somehow forces all homosexuals to think alike but you don't believe that's the case with straigth people.
 
The Prof said:
would that make me a person of ILK?

cuz i do so want to ADVANCE the discussion

gotta ADVANCE the discussion, y'know
Click to expand...

It's good that you are still cracking yourself up. Have fun with yourself.
 
Hicup said:
Spoken, like not only a true lawyer, but a liberal one at that. :)

You started it, now provide your argument and I will respond. If you choose not to use your power of intellectualism over this poor soul, then I'm fine with that as well. I have no ego to bruise. But I will refuse to debate people that say, ok, well "prove me right". I've dealt with a few of your kind before.

Put up or shut up is a term you should be familar with. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

You just proved my point. If you don't have even the most basic knowledge of equal protection....there is no point in wasting my time. Show me you have the minimal education and I will be happy to debate the issue with you. Its not that hard....just the basic three levels of scrutiny that the court uses in address equal protection challenges.
 
are you people, so many of whom seem so completely unaware of our president's disposition to this in-the-heart issue, aware of the characters and personalities of our 9 sitting supremes?

they're pretty famous, their sentiments are pretty well known

congrats on your legal victory in CA

it's not real hard to see what's coming next

don't worry, obama can't see 2 moves ahead, either
 
Navy Pride said:
You already have the same rights. you want a special right...............Hell I can't have 4 wives, why should you be allowed to marry your boyfriend............
Click to expand...

Navy, True or False....You, a man, can marry a woman?

Navy, True or False....Rivvrat, a woman, can marry a woman?

Please exactly show me after answering that how there is equal protection under the law between men and women in regards to marriage?
 
texmaster said:
Of course its crap because it doesn't support your side

How transparent :)
Click to expand...

Thats not it, something that goes against the Constitution shouldn't be up for a vote. If Prop 8 was about eliminating gun rights in California, and it passed I doubt you would have the same view. This vote basically told the 14 amendment to go f itself. And now the courts are rightfully stepping in.
 
Zyphlin said:
Navy, True or False....You, a man, can marry a woman?

Navy, True or False....Rivvrat, a woman, can marry a woman?

Please exactly show me after answering that how there is equal protection under the law between men and women in regards to marriage?
Click to expand...

Zyphlin, equal protection prevails after due process. Due process, is the key here. It is the same as "reasonable" in legal circles. This ruling is due process, but my beef is in the Judges ruling, and the language of it. She cites a lack of due process, but that's not true? Equal protection can be legislated for, "provided" the due process test is met. That's it and that's all.


Tim-
 
Navy Pride said:
I would not count my chickens before they hatch my left wing friend.........
Click to expand...

Counted, sorted, and off to the Tyson packaging plant. I'm sorry, it may not even happen this go around; but gay marriage will eventually be allowed. It's a dumb thing for us to get upset about, it's a dumb thing for us to sidetrack ourselves on. When there are so many other things going on that needs our attention more. Just acknowledge the individual's right to contract and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom