• 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.
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant. My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual. GM has been shown to do the same. Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple. This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.

Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Whether polygamy benefits society or not, it is not the government's business. I have one wife, and that's cool with me. However, if another man wants to have multiple wives, or a woman multiple husbands, then I see nothing wrong with it, as long as all are consenting adults. That goes for polygamous gay marriages too.

The polygamy argument is just another straw man.
 
Last edited:
Those who oppose the ruling, please stop bringing up polygamy -_- It's an illogical comparison and has no bearing on why the ruling was ruled the way it was. The issue I have is if you can't define marriage that does not include homosexuality because of the equal protection clause, then why is it ok to ban other sexualities? Why are they unequal? Again to those claiming homosexuals have a "right" to marriage. Where does the Constitution specifically touch on the topic of marriage? Where does it specifically say homosexuals have that right? The very issue with Proposition 8 was to define marriage, and define the contract of marriage. They were voting on if gay unions are marriage, and if they have a right to redefine and enter into that contract. Also, other rulings state that it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage. Just because a homosexual judge believes homosexuality as a sexual orientation is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean he is right, especially when the majority of judges have disagreed with him.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Moderator's Warning:
Either address the topic as people have been asking, or cease your trolling behavior.
Click to expand...

i did, captain

i pointed out that TWO and medical decisions and tax forms are a pretty flimsy constitutional foundation
 
Hicup said:
It does if marriage is construed to be afundamental right, doesn't it? Surely you see this? That's why I asked you to define what you consider a fundamental right? It helps me get inside your brain.

Tim-
Click to expand...

No, I don't see this. And you, and everyone else, has failed to demonstrate how it is.

I've demonstrated how, regarding how I view the issue, that it falls under equal protection because GENDER is clearly and unquestionably a protected status.

You, and others, have completely and utterly failed to put forth ANY reasoning or ANY argument why "number of people" is somehow protected under the EPC.

Once you figure that out, or find some other way to actually make an argument for polygamists having a right to marry multiple people under the constitution, perhaps I can address it.

So far you, and everyone else, have just gone "Um...but...uh, POLYGAMY! You say marriage is a right, so I'm going to ignore your arguments as to WHY specifically same sex should be legal, and just say that means you HAVE to support polygamy as well".

This threads not about fundamental rights, and god knows there's dozens of threads dedicated to that. Since what is or isn't a fundamental right is irrelevant to my argument I'm not going to bother with it.

I am stating as of now marriage is a constitutional right. I am stating that becuase the courts have found it to be a cosntitutional right, and until such time as that's over turned that is the case.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Those who oppose the ruling, please stop bringing up polygamy -_- It's an illogical comparison and has no bearing on why the ruling was ruled the way it was. The issue I have is if you can't define marriage that does not include homosexuality because of the equal protection clause, then why is it ok to ban other sexualities? Why are they unequal? Again to those claiming homosexuals have a "right" to marriage. Where does the Constitution specifically touch on the topic of marriage? Where does it specifically say homosexuals have that right? The very issue with Proposition 8 was to define marriage, and define the contract of marriage. They were voting on if gay unions are marriage, and if they have a right to redefine and enter into that contract. Also, other rulings state that it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage. Just because a homosexual judge believes homosexuality as a sexual orientation is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean he is right, especially when the majority of judges have disagreed with him.
Click to expand...

The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.

Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.

However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.

If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, what he means is yours and others tired arguments of "You're just choosing who its okay to be bigoted to if you don't allow polygamy too" or "Next its going to be allowing people to marry their horse!" or "Great, and so you're not going to be a hypocrite and say pedophilia is wrong too!" are all idiotic arguments that have been repeatedly debated, and destroyed, time and time and time again here on DP and so posters who have engaged in such conversations in threads that actually focused on them rather than were attempted to use them as derailment attempts basically see no point in rehashing it for some random poster coming into a thread in which that isn't the topic and begins throwing out the same tired BS that's been shot down time and time again.
Click to expand...

We've heard this time and time again and the same question gets asked.

If you claim one alternative lifestyle has a fundamental right to marry how can you deny the same right to other alternative lifestyles without discriminating?
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Those who oppose the ruling, please stop bringing up polygamy -_- It's an illogical comparison and has no bearing on why the ruling was ruled the way it was. The issue I have is if you can't define marriage that does not include homosexuality because of the equal protection clause, then why is it ok to ban other sexualities? Why are they unequal? Again to those claiming homosexuals have a "right" to marriage. Where does the Constitution specifically touch on the topic of marriage? Where does it specifically say homosexuals have that right? The very issue with Proposition 8 was to define marriage, and define the contract of marriage. They were voting on if gay unions are marriage, and if they have a right to redefine and enter into that contract. Also, other rulings state that it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage. Just because a homosexual judge believes homosexuality as a sexual orientation is protected by the Constitution doesn't mean he is right, especially when the majority of judges have disagreed with him.
Click to expand...

The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant. My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual. GM has been shown to do the same. Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple. This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.

Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Boy I LOVE playing with you. I have flawed reasoning eh? Dear lord, here we go again. Lets take it slow.

Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, but the courts claim it is a fundamental right, and that's kind of what we're discussing here isn't it? Did you walk into the wrong thread?

My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual
Click to expand...

In your opinion, maybe. I don't disagree with you, but it is a little off topic.

GM has been shown to do the same
Click to expand...

Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

Not so fast there fella. Says who, you?

This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.
Click to expand...

Yep, still not seeing the "red herring" bud? The two are entirely comparable to my central point. That is, what constitutes a fundamental marriage?

Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant
Click to expand...

Not sure I could "prove" it, anymore than you "proved" the benefits of gay marriage? LOL I do not support polygamy, but that's unimportant to the legal question of what constitutes a fundamental right. Pay attention please. I would say though that if I had to make any argument for polygamy, I would probably say that certain communal benefits can be imparted on polygamist relationships.

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
Medical Decisions is one example of a far more far reaching thing, which is specifically spousal benefits of control. This relates to inheretence, this relates to medical expenses, this relates to what is gained in divorce, and onwards and onwards.

Interjecting mulitple parties into these type of situations creates issues where there is no clear singular individual that gets the benefit, meaning that the benefit becomes disputed. Disputes lead to the courts having to make judgements on this, which can create a significant and unreasonable strain on the court system.

Medical decision was simply one example of the type of benefit that would cause this substantial strain.
Click to expand...

1. i thought you were thru with me

2. these difficulties you bring up do not justify denying a bisexual individual the same self expressions held out as a false promise to gay individuals who aren't gonna get nothin after robert's court gets thru with this

3. and by obama's doj's thinking, if gay individuals ARE ever accorded these rights, pedophiles and the incestuous are equally entitled
 
texmaster said:
We've heard this time and time again and the same question gets asked.

If you claim one alternative lifestyle has a fundamental right to marry how can you deny the same right to other alternative lifestyles without discriminating?
Click to expand...

Tex

Listen to me as I type very....very...slowly.

I've not made the argument, once, anywhere in this thread, that any group at all has a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.

I am arguing that as it stands today MARRIAGE in general is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

I am arguing that the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause protects individual classes of people from discrimination in regards ot the law, including constitutional rights.

I am arguing specific to my stance, that there is gender discrimination in the current marriage system and since gender is a clearly defined unquestionable subset under the equal protection clause, that it is unconstitutional to deny men from marrying men and women from marrying women when men can marry women and women can marry men.

I am also saying that due to the significant amount of evidence supporting the notion that sexual orientation in the large majority of homosexuals can be attributed as "natural" or "born with" that there is a far greater case to be made for that being worthy of EPC on the same level of gender if not race than polygamy which has no evidence of being an orientation or something people are "born" with.

Finally I am stating that "number of people", which is where the inequality comes into play with polygamists as they feel that if they can marry 1 person its discrimination to not allow them to marry 2, is not a recognized protected group under EPC like gender NOR has anyone presented any argument let alone a strong argument as to why it should be covered under EPC similar to the arguments made for sexual orientation.

So if you'd like to actually address what I am ACTUALLY claiming rather than the strawman you're creating, I'd love to have the conversation.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, what he means is yours and others tired arguments of "You're just choosing who its okay to be bigoted to if you don't allow polygamy too" or "Next its going to be allowing people to marry their horse!" or "Great, and so you're not going to be a hypocrite and say pedophilia is wrong too!" are all idiotic arguments that have been repeatedly debated, and destroyed, time and time and time again here on DP and so posters who have engaged in such conversations in threads that actually focused on them rather than were attempted to use them as derailment attempts basically see no point in rehashing it for some random poster coming into a thread in which that isn't the topic and begins throwing out the same tired BS that's been shot down time and time again.
Click to expand...

Boy, you folks are so geared to your own agenda that you're failing to see what I'm saying. I do NOT support polygamy, and I do not equate it to heterosexual marriage in any real sense. However, that said, the argument that marriage is a fundamental right ALSO applies to polygamists does IT not? Stop trying to deflect and answer the damn question? Just coz you say it's been "destoyed" here many times, doesn't mean I was around when it was being "destroyed". With the frmaing of my question I hope that now you understand what it is I am asking of you that support gay marriage. Is it clear now?

No, I don't see this. And you, and everyone else, has failed to demonstrate how it is.
Click to expand...

Boy, you're completely missing the point or avoiding it altogether I can't tell? How can you deny marriage to polygamists if you consider marriage to be a fundamental right? Here once again, I consider a fundamental right to be such rights thus belong without presumption or cost of privilege to all human beings under such jurisdiction.

Do you understand what that means Zyphlin?

Tim-
 
Last edited:
the topic of polygamy is just one that arises NATURALLY in this discussion

the questions occur by matter of course to millions of people who start to examine this tangled can of worms

just look at this thread, just look how the comparisons arise

look at barry's own doj, look at the comparisons they make

you're not gonna be able to keep these questions down, not in america

maybe on dp, tho---all you gotta do is declare polygamy off topic
 
Zyphlin said:
The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.
Click to expand...
Then why can homosexual unions be defined as marriage? Everyone does have the right to marriage, but marriage is a union between a man and woman, not a union between two men or two women. A homosexual still has the right to enter into the marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. In many states marriage has been defined. Most have defined it as a union between only a man and woman, and others have defined it to be a union between two people regardless of gender or sexuality. They all have the right to marriage, but marriage doesn't always mean, nor is it forced by the constitution to mean, a union between heterosexuals or homosexuals of any gender.
Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is yours, and I respect that.
However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.
Click to expand...
Do you agree that the Constitution can be spun to mean what people want it to mean? Many believe it's unchanging law, and others believe it is a "living document." By the very same Constitution others have ruled that states do have the right to define marriage. Judges interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on that interpretation, but like with all interpretations, they can be wrong and subject to bias.
If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.
Click to expand...
I do believe marriage is a Constitutional right. I don't believe that the Constitution says that marriage must be defined as a union that includes homosexuality. Marriage is a union that society and law set the boundaries for. Everyone has the right to marriage in Tennessee, but this state has defined that union as a union between one man and one women (ruling out homosexual unions as marriage and polygamous unions). I believe that activist judges incorrectly spin the Constitution to fit their ideology and feelings. Their ruling is based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
 
danarhea said:
The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
Click to expand...

As long as the government gives benefits to marriages it IS the governments business.

However, its business has to be conducted in a constitutional way.
 
The will of the people is the Constitution of the United States of America, not a ballot measure passed by a slim majority of California voters, nor any other ballot measure passed in any other state. The judge determined that the will of the voters in California violated the rights of a minority guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Those rights were equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the right to Due Process. The law is written, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Supreme Court precedent holds that marriage is a fundamental Constitutional right...

Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

The right of marriage is the right of two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents. If polygamists or any other "alternative lifestyles" wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties or other factors outside this definition, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples. It has been more than adequately demonstrated through evidence in this case that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a stable household and raising children as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence to support that polygamists, pedophiles, etc. are similarly capable.

The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; by overturning Proposition 8, which sought to mandate gender roles and restrict same sex couples to a culturally inferior institution by excluding them from marriage and the cultural dignity, respect, and stature inherent in marriage. The state has no interest in excluding one group from a fundamental right without rational basis and so the judge was obligated to overturn it.
 
digsbe said:
Then why can homosexual unions be defined as marriage? Everyone does have the right to marriage, but marriage is a union between a man and woman, not a union between two men or two women.
Click to expand...

And thus it is discriminatory based on gender by my argument, as a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man and ditto for woman and woman. Gender discrimination is unconstitutional if it doesn't meet a rather high standard of necessity and proof, which it doesn't.

Do you agree that the Constitution can be spun to mean what people want it to mean? Many believe it's unchanging law, and others believe it is a "living document." By the very same Constitution others have ruled that states do have the right to define marriage. Judges interpret the Constitution and make rulings based on that interpretation, but like with all interpretations, they can be wrong and subject to bias.
Click to expand...

I understand all this. However, I am speaking specifically of many of the conservatives on this thread who are simultaneoulsly calling this judge an "activist" while advocating for activist judging by ignoring that constitutionally as of now marriage is a constitutional right.
 
Zyphlin said:
The problem is the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right even if its not written into the constitution.
Click to expand...

The court found it was specifcally for race alone until this judge.

Now, I have no problem with people not agreeing with this. I don't know if I fully agree with it.

However, for all the conservatives that go on and on about "activist" judges...the CONSTITUTION is what gives the judges power to deem what is and isn't constitutional. The courst have found that marriage is a constitutional right. Until that's overturned, basing a court decision on their PERSONAL belief that marriage is not a constitutional right would be an ACTIVIST act.

If those in favor of disallowing gay-marriage wish to push some court cases challenging the notion that marriage is not a constitutional right I fully support their ability to do so. But you can't complain about "activist" judges and then complain that judges aren't judging contrary to what constitutional currently is.
Click to expand...

Of course we can because there is NO basis in the Constutiion that deals with alternative lifestyles. None, zip, zero. Only a bastardization accomplishes that. This is why we have amendments but folks on the gay marriage side don't want to go that route because they don't have the votes which is the same reason they are trying to shoot down every proposition that the people pass because again, they don't have the votes. Now they want to use a judge to make law. That is exactly why it is called judicial activism.
 
danarhea said:
The comparison between gay marriage and polygamy may be just a red herring, but you are missing a point. How people want to marry is not the government's business, whether it is gay marriage or polygamy. The concept that it has to be one man and one woman comes straight from religious teachings. Therefore, the government is violating the First Amendment, with respect to establishment of religion, should it attempt to regulate either gay marriage or polygamy.
Click to expand...

If it's none of the government's business, then why should they be allowed to define marriage at all or offer any legal benefits for it? What religion is established by defining marriage between one man and one woman? Many could say that the Bible support polygamy, so then what religion is being established? The first Amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion and making laws solely based on religion. However, it doesn't mean that people with religious beliefs have no right to vote according to their beliefs simply because they are based on religion. Sense the establishment of this country a church has met within the US Capitol until the Civil War. Many of the founding fathers attended service there, and no one found it to be a violation of church and state to have the nation's capitol house a church. This is because no religion was being established, and no laws were being made due to religion.
 
Hicup said:
How can you deny marriage to polygamists if you consider marriage to be a fundamental right?
Click to expand...

One more time, very slowly

I....View....It...As...A...Constitutional....Right...Not...A...Fundamental...One
 
So Zyphlin, if I am reading you correctly, you don't believe marriage is a fundamental right? Only a constitutional right? Am I missing something?

Oops, sorry posted at the same time. Ok so I was correct. I need to go smoke a cigarette, I'll be back. :)

Tim-
 
megaprogman said:
Like I said, read the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

i have. perhaps you could point out the section where it says oh by the way and you have to give marriage licenses to whomever wants them? or maybe you could point out some relevant debate from the time period that indicates that was the intent?

the 14th amendment does not read "life has to be fair".

Ikari said:
No, if the majority is oppressing the minority, it is not up to the minority to "convince" the majority that their oppression is wrong. That's what we have courts for. And this court ruled in favor of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

:lol:

1. oppressed? that's about as legitimate as the "they're forcing their lifestyle on us" argument :roll: having the state legitimize violence against you is oppression. not being able to force your fellow citizens to give you a liscence is not oppression.

2. and we have courts to enforce the law, as written. not to read "changing standards" or subjective "well i think"'s into it.
 
Zyphlin said:
As long as the government gives benefits to marriages it IS the governments business.

However, its business has to be conducted in a constitutional way.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
One more time, very slowly

I....View....It...As...A...Constitutional....Right...Not...A...Fundamental...One
Click to expand...

the question remains the same. what gives you the voter the right to impose your morality on marriage?
 
texmaster said:
The court found it was specifcally for race alone until this judge.
Click to expand...

Actually no, it simply found that it was a constitutional right alone.

Up until now that constitutional right has only proved to be used to show why denying it against race is wrong.

That doesn't mean it only is limited to race.

This is like saying the 2nd amendment would be only limited to pistols and rifles because that's all the original cases concerning it were about and the only thing that was thought about at the time of its creation.

Of course we can because there is NO basis in the Constutiion that deals with alternative lifestyles.
Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't got to my other posts yet. I'll wait, and then you can come back and see why I'm not making an argument with regards to alternative lifestyles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom