• 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.
texmaster said:
My apologies. I meant on terms other than race.



Do children have gender? Do more than 2 people have gender? Gender is a factor in any alternative lifestyle. How can you descriminate against that?
Click to expand...

The judge talked about gender roles in marriage. He did not talk about age restrictions or restrictions on the number of people in the marriage. You cannot rationally say that because gender roles are protected, every single role is equally protected. There is zero basis in law for that.
 
Redress said:
Which does not address your claim that "most people" consider it deviant.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that every time it comes to a vote even in liberal states Gay Marriage is soundly defeated?
 
Navy Pride said:
It must really stick in the craw of you lefties that uour hero Hussien Obama won't say he is for Gay Marriage......
Click to expand...

1) Obama is not mine, nor most of the liberals on this boards hero. This is a lie you keep trying to spread.

2) He is perfectly capable of being wrong, just as you and I are. I think he is wrong on gay marriage. I am no more upset about it than I am that you are wrong on gay marriage.
 
Redress said:
The judge talked about gender roles in marriage. He did not talk about age restrictions or restrictions on the number of people in the marriage.
Click to expand...

Of course he didn't because he had a singular goal in mind.

You cannot rationally say that because gender roles are protected, every single role is equally protected. There is zero basis in law for that.
Click to expand...

I can not rationally say? Are you not injecting your own opinion of what is rational? Why? Where are there age limits under the equal protection clause?
 
Navy Pride said:
Why do you think that every time it comes to a vote even in liberal states Gay Marriage is soundly defeated?
Click to expand...

You can be against gay marriage and not consider homosexuality deviant. Try again. Links with numbers would work.
 
Redress said:
You can be against gay marriage and not consider homosexuality deviant. Try again. Links with numbers would work.
Click to expand...

Again its not being homosexual, its the sin or sex act they participate in...Christians are taught to hate the act or the sin and love the sinner.............
 
Navy Pride said:
It must really stick in the craw of you lefties that uour hero Hussien Obama won't say he is for Gay Marriage......
Click to expand...

What does Obama The President of the United States have to do with this ruling?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
1) Obama is not mine, nor most of the liberals on this boards hero. This is a lie you keep trying to spread.

2) He is perfectly capable of being wrong, just as you and I are. I think he is wrong on gay marriage. I am no more upset about it than I am that you are wrong on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen "Most Feel Good Liberals" believe is the second coming and can do no wrong........
 
texmaster said:
Of course he didn't because he had a singular goal in mind.
Click to expand...

You are making an assumption based on zero facts. His singular goal might have been to rule properly.

I can not rationally say? Are you not injecting your own opinion of what is rational? Why? Where are there age limits under the equal protection clause?
Click to expand...

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Learn how the EPC works. Tell me where age and numbers fit on the list. Gender is under middle tier scrutiny. Further ask if restricting age in marriage might, like many other restrictions on age, meet some of those levels of scrutiny.
 
texmaster said:
No substantial or rational interest in allowing them? LOL Since when was your personal opinion of what is ration or substantial count as law? This is what is so pathetic in your argument. You can't discriminate against other lifestyles without injecting what you think is substantial or rational

Nowhere in the equal protection clause states that a finding my CT or any other poster can exclude other alternative lifestyles based on their own feelings on what is substantial or rational interest :lamo
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Scrutiny is based on Supreme Court precedent, not on the Constitution. It sets the parameters of the Equal Protection Clause. In other words...

"Legislation frequently involves making classifications that either advantage or disadvantage one group of persons, but not another. States allow 20-year-olds to drive, but don't let 12-year-olds drive. Indigent single parents receive government financial aid that is denied to millionaires. Obviously, the Equal Protection Clause cannot mean that government is obligated to treat all persons exactly the same--only, at most, that it is obligated to treat people the same if they are "similarly circumstanced."

Over recent decades, the Supreme Court has developed a three-tiered approach to analysis under the Equal Protection Clause."

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

As I said before, for laws to be deemed unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause they have to pass scrutiny. Scrutiny requires that evidence be presented, showing that there is a compelling state interest. In order for polygamists, pedophiles, and zoophiles to have marriage that fits their situations, they need to demonstrate with evidence to the courts that the laws that prohibit them from such do not serve a compelling state interest and are not substantial or rational.

Now if you want to argue that the government is obligated to treat all persons exactly the same under the Equal Protections Clause and that polygamy should be accepted even though you present no evidence that it supports a state interest, as you are required to do under Supreme Court precedent, then feel free. If you make that argument, then it is not supported by precedent, law, evidence, or even reason. It is only your personal opinion and willful ignorance of the limitations of scrutiny that the Supreme Court has placed on the Equal Protection Clause so that the government is, at most, only obligated to treat people the same if they are "similarly circumstanced."
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Again its not being homosexual, its the sin or sex act they participate in...Christians are taught to hate the act or the sin and love the sinner.............
Click to expand...

This post has a complete lack of links or numbers to prove your claim Navy. Are you going to duck out on proving yet another claim?
 
Navy Pride said:
From what I have seen "Most Feel Good Liberals" believe is the second coming and can do no wrong........
Click to expand...

So when in doubt go off topic and spout Obama rhetoric.

BTW I don't exactly see Obama appointing anti gay judges to the SCOTUS.
 
They are Christians. I'm not talking about snake handlers (although they call themselves the same). Not radicals, just the usual Moral Majority suspects.

Navy Pride said:
I said Christians...
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Which does not address your claim that "most people" consider it deviant.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you don't believe that but if you took a poll of Christians you would find that is the case........
 
Redress said:
You can be against gay marriage and not consider homosexuality deviant. Try again. Links with numbers would work.
Click to expand...

I think the two go hand in hand and believe most people of faith believe the same..........Read your bible about men laying with men and women laying with women....
 
Navy Pride said:
I am sorry you don't believe that but if you took a poll of Christians you would find that is the case........
Click to expand...

Hate bringing Christian values to the table in this debate. Just frosts me. Do Christians honestly think that god creates junk? Do they honestly believe that God would condemn one of his beloved children to go through life feeling alone, unloved, abandoned? Not my god, that's for sure.
 
Redress said:
This post has a complete lack of links or numbers to prove your claim Navy. Are you going to duck out on proving yet another claim?
Click to expand...

The Bible is a good link..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom