• 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.
digsbe said:
You can't infringe upon people's right to vote. Should we repeal child consent ages? Because you infringe upon a 13 year old's right to have sex with grannies/grandpa's if he finds them attractive. Laws are enforced morality that are deemed to be moral by society. Anything could be claimed as a "right."
Click to expand...

I'm not infringing upon people's right to vote, nor calling for such a thing. Please stay on target. However, we are not a pure democracy, and as such the will of the majority is tempered by the rights of the minority. Thus even if the majority votes for something, if it violates the rights of the individual it is not allowed to be proper law.

And BTW, age of consent laws are not in place to protect certain societal morality, but rather to protect right to contract.
 
rivrrat said:
It occurs in nature, therefore, it is natural
Click to expand...

obama's doj would be quick to point out---so does incest, so does pedophilia

hey, i didn't say it

LOL!

HOLDER did
 
digsbe said:
Um yes, their right to their votes was infringed upon. They voted, it passed, and then the court ruled that people actually don't have the right to vote on marriage and that it's illegal to say and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

We're a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy. Time to learn the difference.
 
Blankenhorn thus sets up a dichotomy for the definition
of marriage: either marriage is defined as a socially approved
sexual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of
bearing and raising children biologically related to both spouses,
or marriage is a private relationship between two consenting
adults. Blankenhorn did not address the definition of marriage
proposed by plaintiffs’ expert Cott, which subsumes Blankenhorn’s
dichotomy. Cott testified that marriage is “a couple’s choice to
live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to
form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and
their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one
another in terms of the material needs of life.”
Click to expand...

Prop 8 proponents' only witness gives nothing but opinion and even manages to contradict himself.
 
digsbe said:
He spun the Constitution to fit a belief that was comfortable for him. Many federal judges have disagreed in that other states who passed similar things had their propositions put into law and opposition was struck down in court. You can spin the Constitution to mean just about anything if you want.


I would like to see proof that the majority didn't agree with the civil rights movement. And the civil rights movement is not equal with the homosexual movement. Marriage is largely a social construct, why is it wrong to ask society to legally define it when there is confusion among the state? Why does the government have no rights to deny gays the right to marry? If I remember correctly Clinton signed into law DOMA, which federally defines marriage as traditional. However, the federal government doesn't infringe upon the rights of state's to define marriage for themselves. I would have no objection if the majority of California voted against proposition 8 and later voted to legally define marriage as a union between anyone of any sexual orientation. My issue is that the voters voted and the proposition was not found to be unconstitutional. California Dems were surprised when they saw that Prop 8 passed, so they went to plan B and had a gay judge wrongfully rule that it is unconstitutional for people to have a voice.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. Unless you don't like equal rights.

And yes it is. If you believe that the government can allow people rights, and deny other people rights based solely on sexuality, then the government can also deny rights based on skin color, religion, etc. And don't tell me that in the 1950's if there was a vote in the southern states to repeal Jim Crow they would of done it. If you believe so then crack open a history textbook because you've got alot to learn. Rights should not be voted on, they are guaranteed by the Constitution, and no majority should be able to vote them away. DOMA was wrong, I don't care who signed it. And saying marriage is a social construct doesn't give you any backing either. Gay people are apart of society too, and their rights shouldn't be infringed upon just because the majority of society wants it too. If the majority of society wanted to take away a right of yours would you be okay to allow that up to a vote?
 
The Prof said:
obama's doj would be quick to point out---so does incest, so does pedophilia

hey, i didn't say it

LOL!

HOLDER did
Click to expand...

obamagolfmv2.jpg


Hey bro, I got him to wave at ya.

Now can we get past your obsession with him.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You know not everything is about your beloved Obama.
Click to expand...

news to him

but i can sure understand your wish to avoid looking at it, looking at him

i mean, right here and now
 
jallman said:
And having the mormon church whip up a bunch of jesus freaks into a frenzy by telling them I am going ban the words mommy and daddy so they can come out and use their votes to tell me I am less a citizen than they are is a violation of MY rights. And all I want is the right to be left the **** alone by your churches and have the same freedom to enjoy the same rights of inheritance and power of attorney between my partner and myself that you do with your partner.
Click to expand...
You can be left the **** alone. It is illegal for the Mormons to force you and your boyfriend apart. It's illegal for them to harass you or stop you from being gay. What churches are attacking your personal life? What churches are telling you and forcing you to not be gay? They have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin, but they can't stop people from being gay. However, they do that the right to vote. A Christian's beliefs are equal to a homosexual's beliefs. Each person gets 1 equally valuable vote.
How about this one? I don't care what you and "fish market" do in the privacy of your own home, but stop running ads in papers to announce your marriages, stop plastering your hypersexual advertisements all over television and sit down and STFU while the rest of us get on with our happy lives together. And when she gets sick with chick cancer, well you can just hope the hospital lets you in to see her or that you shelled out the money for a power of attorney. And when "Melons" ups and croaks, well you can give a huge chunk of what you worked your entire lives together for to the government. But I don't have to because well...I'm not dating a tuna can, which I find morally appalling because its...icky.

How ****in well do you think that would go over with you if you were in that situation, pal?
Click to expand...
Why can't the homosexual movement leave the churches alone? Why do they have to have "gay pride" parades and trounce around in thongs and diapers? Why can't they sit at home and keep their sexuality private? Why do they have to call everyone who opposes them "bigots" and force their beliefs on others? I'm so tired of people judging me as a homosexual hater because I believe homosexuality is wrong. I'm tired of being called a bigot and being harassed for simply holding my beliefs. Why can't the social liberals leave me alone and allow me to vote like everyone else? Things go both ways. I am in that position too, and I've been harrased for holding my views. Now I have an entire state saying that my views are illegal in the first place.
And what does the biology have to do with it for homos that is so special that it can't be applied to heteros?
Click to expand...
The fact that the two unions are biologically and socially different. An apple and an orange are both fruit, but they aren't the same thing. A homosexual union and marriage are both unions, but neither are the same. It's not wrong to define something that is different differently.
First of all, you have no rights as a voter to use that vote to make other voters second class citizens. Secondly, unless he added an addendum that requires you, legally, to go meet and greet every new gay married couple, you haven't had jack **** shoved down your throat. All your whining and complaining is because you didn't get your way and have the chance to elevate yourself above your fellow citizen.
Click to expand...
If it's on the ballot then I do have that right. Homosexuals are not second class citizens. How are they? Homosexuality is not like race or religion. It's a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality, bestiality, pansexuality, asexuality, etc. Why is homosexuality superior to bestiality? And I would have a liberal definition of marriage shoved down my throat. So, with the overturn of Prop 8 those who voted for it don't have their rights trampled on for supporting something that is widely regarded by the majority of the nation to be constitutional? Why didn't they decide if it was constitutional before they allowed voters to vote on it?
Go ahead...ask me if I have the first ounce of sympathy for your pitiful plight?
Click to expand...
So you don't care about my rights, yet we all need to bow down to what you believe are rights. :roll:
You have no rights to vote away rights of other people. We are a Democratic Republic, not an inquisition mob.
Click to expand...
So, as a Democratic Republic we don't have the right to vote? What rights were taken away? It was never a right in California to legalize homosexual marriages. All that happened was a definition for legal marriage being establish by the citizens within the Democrat Republic.
 
We are not a nation of "majority rules". Laws that infringe on the rights of people shouldn't stay just because 51% of the people have the personal belief that it should.

Glad to hear this was overturned.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, while I am all for gay rights and legal same-sex marriage I am still annoyed about this ruling because I do not think this is a matter for the Supreme Court. Marriage as a matter of law is not about the relationship itself, but the stance of a government on that relationship. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is marriage or anything similar put under the authority of the federal government, save D.C. As such I would say this reserves the matter of legal marriage to the states.

There are many constitutional issues with regards to gay marriage, especially when it concerns states where it is legal, but this is not one of them.

jallman said:
Not anymore. Not in California. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Click to expand...

Technically this currently only applies in the court's district.
 
you see, boys and girls, all your little gripes against the vast majority of your neighbors for not thinking on this exactly the way you do, well, you can direct most of those complaints against that dude in the golf cart just as appropriately

it's cuz the POLITICS of this LEGAL ruling are a LOSER

ask barry (but i don't think you'll get a straight answer)
 
digsbe said:
So you don't care about my rights, yet we all need to bow down to what you believe are rights. :roll:
Click to expand...

None of your rights are being violated.
 
The Prof said:
you see, boys and girls, all your little gripes against the vast majority of your neighbors for not thinking on this exactly the way you do, well, you can direct most of those complaints against that dude in the golf cart just as appropriately

it's cuz the POLITICS of this LEGAL ruling are a LOSER

ask barry (but i don't think you'll get a straight answer)
Click to expand...

The majority of voters in California are anti-gay marriage because of Obama?
 
The Prof said:
you see, boys and girls, all your little gripes against the vast majority of your neighbors for not thinking on this exactly the way you do, well, you can direct most of those complaints against that dude in the golf cart just as appropriately

it's cuz the POLITICS of this LEGAL ruling are a LOSER

ask barry (but i don't think you'll get a straight answer)
Click to expand...

redress-albums-stuffz-picture67112136-strawman.jpg
 
Demon of Light said:
Honestly, while I am all for gay rights and legal same-sex marriage I am still annoyed about this ruling because I do not think this is a matter for the Supreme Court. Marriage as a matter of law is not about the relationship itself, but the stance of a government on that relationship. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is marriage or anything similar put under the authority of the federal government, save D.C. As such I would say this reserves the matter of legal marriage to the states.
Click to expand...

It's reserved by the People as per the 9th amendment.
 
Ikari said:
None of your rights are being violated.
Click to expand...

My right to vote and voice my opinion. My right to have my beliefs put into law when it is presented as a vote to the populous.
 
Glad the judge made the correct decision :)
 
digsbe said:
My right to vote and voice my opinion. My right to have my beliefs put into law when it is presented as a vote to the populous.
Click to expand...

You still have the right to vote. You still have the right to voice your opinon. Can you please point out your right to "my beliefs put into law when it is presented as a vote to the populous" in the Constitution?
 
digsbe said:
My right to vote and voice my opinion. My right to have my beliefs put into law when it is presented as a vote to the populous.
Click to expand...

Your right to vote isn't being infringed. You should never be able to vote against someone else's rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom