• 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.
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.

So you were prevented from voting? If so, then I shall agree. And you're not allowed to speak your mind? If so, then I shall agree.

You can vote for something all you want, but if what you are voting for violates the rights of others, then it cannot be accepted as valid law. So according to you, if the majority of the people in a State voted for slavery to be reinstated, then the federal government and the courts should have no say in the matter and slavery should once again be legal in that State. But it's a pretty stupid line of thought, especially considering that we are not a direct democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Your rights end at the rights of others.
 
Your right to vote isn't being infringed. You should never be able to vote against someone else's rights.

I'm having a real hard time figuring out how some people cannot understand this point. I don't know how many times it has to be explained, it's an entirely simple concept. We are a Constitutional Republic built upon the rights and liberties of the individual. We have installed checks and balances into the system to ensure that the rights and liberties of the individual are upheld. Seriously, I think some people need to retake an American Politics course.
 
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.

But when the populous is wrong or misinformed, the checks and balances kick in and protect the minority from being trampled on by the majority....

It's call A REPUBLIC!! Welcome!
 
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.

And that vote does not negate Constitutionally appointed liberties like the equal protection clause. And regardless of whether you maintain this cowardly, half assed defense that this is about persecuting poor wittle Chwistians or not, you haven't had your rights stripped and been demoted to a second class citizen. You are not being told you have to or cannot do something. I am being told I cannot do what you can do. That's where the attack comes from.

Why can't the homosexual movement leave the churches alone?

Can you show me where homosexuals are trying to make churches gay marry them?

Why do they have to have "gay pride" parades and trounce around in thongs and diapers?

Why do heterosexuals have to have Mardi Gras where they walk around in drunken stupors ****ing in the streets and flashing their tits, hanging beads off their cocks?

Why can't they sit at home and keep their sexuality private?

Why can't you keep your sexuality private instead of using it to sell merchandise to little kids and announcing your unions in the paper, etc? Why can't you just sit at home out of the public eye instead of holding hands and kissing in public?

I know it just burns your ass that we don't act like good little house niggers and stay silent in the kitchen until massa' tells us we can speak. But you're gonna have to get the **** over it, pal. Cuz it ain't never gonna happen, capiche? I don't care how much communion wine you guzzle and how many times Jeebus tells you, it ain't coming to pass.

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.

No one is telling you your beliefs are illegal. You can have whatever sorry medieval beliefs you want to have, pal. I don't give a **** and neither does the law. What you cannot do is leverage those dark age beliefs through your vote to impose your beliefs on others, denying them rights that you enjoy (which you incidentally thnk you enjoy because of your beliefs to start with).

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.

Except when your definition also include a severe limitation of rights. :shrug:

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?

OK, so you can vote on it. And then I can take it straight to the court and point out where your mob tried to curb my individuality. And guess what...today the court sided against your vote. Learn to love it because its gonna happen more and more. :shrug:

So you don't care about my rights, yet we all need to bow down to what you believe are rights. :roll:

If your rights were being curbed, I would be fighting right along side you to help you get them back or keep them. What I said is that I don't care about your pitiful angst that you didn't get to strip me of mine.

Cut the persecution crap. Just come on down off that cross and hand over your little crown of plastic thorns. No one is buying that you are the victim here.
 
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.

Your right to vote wasn't infringed, which was why Prop 8 initially passed via popular vote. What you fail to understand is that your country is a Democratic Republic. You have three branches of government: the legislature, the courts, and the executive. The people weighed in, but the vote itself violated Equal Protection. Now the court has weighed in. What you call activism is actually just due process. You also forget that it was the people who brought this case to the State Supreme Court's attention. The people represent both sides, the plaintiff and the defense.

So you had the right to vote. You just lost.

What part of this is not sinking in? Your rights have not been infringed upon. Your Church is not obligated to perform marriage ceremonies if it doesn't want to. You aren't being forced to accept gays or be put in jail. You aren't being forced to watch gay pride parades.

You're just upset that your morality can no longer override everyone else's, and you're clinging to flimsy excuses to justify your outrage. Gays are going to have the right to marry, and probably at the Federal level soon too. You can choose to live your life in constant anxiety about this, or you can move on. There is going to be no visible difference in how your life has changed. You are free to go to church and hate gay people. You can even attend hate rallies if you want. No one is stopping you.

No right has been infringed. Equal protection has been served. Get over it.
 
Digsbe, I see what you are saying, but the right to vote has certain limits, just as everything does. You cannot, for example, vote to make the Catholic church the national church. Ballot issues still must conform to the constitution.
 
Your right to vote isn't being infringed. You should never be able to vote against someone else's rights.
I already did in Tennessee. People don't have an inerrant rite to have their choices and lifestyles accepted as legal and moral at the state level. My right to vote was infringed when what I support and what passed as law was ruled to be illegal. As I said before, I would have no objection or problem if Prop 8 was voted against and homosexual marriage was defined as law.
So you were prevented from voting? If so, then I shall agree. And you're not allowed to speak your mind? If so, then I shall agree.

You can vote for something all you want, but if what you are voting for violates the rights of others, then it cannot be accepted as valid law. So according to you, if the majority of the people in a State voted for slavery to be reinstated, then the federal government and the courts should have no say in the matter and slavery should once again be legal in that State. But it's a pretty stupid line of thought, especially considering that we are not a direct democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. Your rights end at the rights of others.

No, my views and beliefs were prevented from being represented. My right to my sovereign vote was infringed upon. My beliefs were ruled to be illegal, and it was also ruled illegal for me to legally voice my beliefs. If the majority of people voted to legalize contractual slavery (where someone sells themselves as a slave in a contract) then why not? Personally I don't agree with it. By the way, the civil rights movement and the 14th amendment is a stawman in regards to homosexual unions. Isn't the Libertarian position that the government has no right to enforce morality? Would you have a problem with the state enforcing the moral opinion that homosexuality is equal with heterosexual unions? If the government shouldn't legislate morals, then why should they have any right to pass a position on marriage at all (as marriage is a moral and societal issue and construct).
 
And that vote does not negate Constitutionally appointed liberties like the equal protection clause. And regardless of whether you maintain this cowardly, half assed defense that this is about persecuting poor wittle Chwistians or not, you haven't had your rights stripped and been demoted to a second class citizen. You are not being told you have to or cannot do something. I am being told I cannot do what you can do. That's where the attack comes from.

I hope this felt as good to write as it did to read. And, I'm happy for y'all.
 
Digsbe, I see what you are saying, but the right to vote has certain limits, just as everything does. You cannot, for example, vote to make the Catholic church the national church. Ballot issues still must conform to the constitution.

I can't vote to make the Catholic church a state religion because the Constitution clearly says it can't, and neither would that proposition be placed on a ballot. I agree that ballot issues should conform to the constitution, but as a ballot and within the proposition of putting Prop 8 on the ballot, it was not ruled unconstitutional. I would have no problem if California had a proposition 10 or something that legally defined marriage to include homosexuality. My issue is that it was an issue that was voted on, many states have voted on this. And a gay judge in California said it was unconstitutional. Not only do federal judges disagree with him (In the fact that other state's propositions were found to be legal), but the voters also had their beliefs ruled unconstitutional and illegal to have the government recognize them. Thank you for understanding my position though. I understand the homosexual rights position as well, I just don't agree with it. My beef though in this case is with the court ruling the legal opinions of others to be illegal. Not just that, but I feel there was activist judging that took place in order to trample on the rights of voters to have their opinions and votes put into law. Where was the legal outcry when the Proposition was placed on the ballot?
 
Last edited:
I can't vote to make the Catholic church a state religion because the Constitution clearly says it can't, and neither would that proposition be placed on a ballot. I agree that ballot issues should conform to the constitution, but as a ballot and within the proposition of putting Prop 8 on the ballot, it was not ruled unconstitutional. I would have no problem if California had a proposition 10 or something that legally defined marriage to include homosexuality. My issue is that it was an issue that was voted on, many states have voted on this. And a gay judge in California said it was unconstitutional. Not only do federal judges disagree with him (In the fact that other state's propositions were found to be legal), but the voters also had their beliefs ruled unconstitutional and illegal to have the government recognize them.

Prop 8 was not found to be illegal when it was a ballot measure, but it's legality was not, then tested at this level. It's the process, as laid out in the law of the land.
 
Where was the legal outcry when the Proposition was placed on the ballot?

That's not how our constitutional republic works. Just because a state votes on something doesn't mean it will be found to be legal. Read up on segregation and miscegenation laws sometime. They were passed by a majority of voters in several states, challenged in court, and eventually overturned in the supreme court. That's how the checks and balances of our system work. If a law is passed, it must adhere to the constitution, or the judicial branch can step in and overturn it.
 
I can't vote to make the Catholic church a state religion because the Constitution clearly says it can't, and neither would that proposition be placed on a ballot. I agree that ballot issues should conform to the constitution, but as a ballot and within the proposition of putting Prop 8 on the ballot, it was not ruled unconstitutional. I would have no problem if California had a proposition 10 or something that legally defined marriage to include homosexuality. My issue is that it was an issue that was voted on, many states have voted on this. And a gay judge in California said it was unconstitutional. Not only do federal judges disagree with him (In the fact that other state's propositions were found to be legal), but the voters also had their beliefs ruled unconstitutional and illegal to have the government recognize them. Thank you for understanding my position though. I understand the homosexual rights position as well, I just don't agree with it. My beef though in this case is with the court ruling the legal opinions of others to be illegal. Not just that, but I feel there was activist judging that took place in order to trample on the rights of voters to have their opinions and votes put into law. Where was the legal outcry when the Proposition was placed on the ballot?

You can't vote for a state constitutional amendment that violates the federal constitution. (Or, rather, you can, but expect them to be overturned.) The only people qualified to rule on whether that is the case are judges. A judge has ruled that Prop 8 does, in fact, violate the federal constitution. He did so based on the evidence provided, the law, and the consitution.

Prop 8 was ruled to be procedurally correct, but until now a ruling hadn't been made on its constitutional merits.
 
If the government shouldn't legislate morals, then why should they have any right to pass a position on marriage at all (as marriage is a moral and societal issue and construct).

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because I am sure others here will tear it apart. In terms of your question above.."Marriage" is a binding legal contract. In terms of this contract the State has a specific legal description of "Marriage". Your specific moral or societal descipriton can and most likely will be different. For example, my cousin is not recognized as married by his previous church because he was not married by the church, he was married by a judge at the court house. The State recognizes his marriage but the Church does not.

You have every right to not morally accept someones homosexual marriage. The state however will recognize it and thus in terms of legal proceedings we all must.
 
No, my views and beliefs were prevented from being represented.

That's because your views and beliefs violate the rights of others.

My right to my sovereign vote was infringed upon.

No it wasn't, you got to vote. You just can't make law that which infringes upon the rights of others.

My beliefs were ruled to be illegal,

That's because your beliefs were illegal. You cannot infringe upon the rights of others. You were free to vote for it, and you did. But since we are not a direct democracy (for the love of all that is holy, how is this a hard concept to understand?), we have system of checks and balances to ensure the rights of the minority are upheld.

and it was also ruled illegal for me to legally voice my beliefs.

For the love of ****, no it was not. Go out onto the street corner and start preaching against same sex marriage. Dollars to donuts says you don't get arrested.

If the majority of people voted to legalize contractual slavery (where someone sells themselves as a slave in a contract) then why not?

Because WE ARE NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick. We are a Constitutional Republic built upon the rights and liberties of the individual. We protect those rights, we ensure those rights. Majority rules within minority rights. That's how it is. And not contractual slavery, nice attempt to try to deflect there. Forced slavery is also not outside your "logic" here. If the majority of the people in a State said "Black people suck and we should make them slaves again!" Do you really think they should be allowed to? Well according to EVERYTHING you've said in this thread, yes. But it's an insane position to take.

Personally I don't agree with it. By the way, the civil rights movement and the 14th amendment is a stawman in regards to homosexual unions.

But the 9th amendment isn't. And by your actions you're trying to infringe upon an individual's right to contract since marriage is a State issued and recognized contract.

Isn't the Libertarian position that the government has no right to enforce morality?

Government is inherently amoral. And nothing that the court did here "enforces morality". The enforcement of morality comes from the other side. The side trying to infringe upon the rights of others to enter into contract. That's where morality is being enforced. Now, if the law said you can only get gay married, then you'd have a point. But since it didn't, you don't.

Would you have a problem with the state enforcing the moral opinion that homosexuality is equal with heterosexual unions?

WTF are you even talking about now? All people have right to contract, that's that. Marriage is a contract. That's the end all be all of this argument. One side (yours) wishes to infringe upon that right. The other side wishes to acknowledge that right.

If the government shouldn't legislate morals, then why should they have any right to pass a position on marriage at all (as marriage is a moral and societal issue and construct).

Because marriage is a contract. The Marriage License is a State issued and recognized contract. The government isn't legislating morals. That's is a dumb, retarded, and tired argument. The courts here are merely looking to acknowledge the EQUAL right. No where are your rights infringed upon. No where does it say you have to like it. No where does it say you can't condemn it. But so long as the marriage license exists as a contract, you cannot infringe upon other's right to contract.
 
It's reserved by the People as per the 9th amendment.

Marriage is a matter of law, not individual rights. It cannot be reserved to the people. All that this concerns is legal recognition of a relationship as a marriage for purposes of the government. I think gay marriage should be recognized by state laws and federal laws under certain circumstances, but this to me is not a matter of the U.S. Constitution.
 
I already did in Tennessee. People don't have an inerrant rite to have their choices and lifestyles accepted as legal and moral at the state level. My right to vote was infringed when what I support and what passed as law was ruled to be illegal. As I said before, I would have no objection or problem if Prop 8 was voted against and homosexual marriage was defined as law.

No, my views and beliefs were prevented from being represented. My right to my sovereign vote was infringed upon.
Lol your views and beliefs were NOT prevented from being represented. You were prevented from forcing your beliefs on other people. If you value being allowed to have your own beliefs, you should be happy about this decision.
My beliefs were ruled to be illegal, and it was also ruled illegal for me to legally voice my beliefs. If the majority of people voted to legalize contractual slavery (where someone sells themselves as a slave in a contract) then why not? Personally I don't agree with it. By the way, the civil rights movement and the 14th amendment is a stawman in regards to homosexual unions. Isn't the Libertarian position that the government has no right to enforce morality? Would you have a problem with the state enforcing the moral opinion that homosexuality is equal with heterosexual unions? If the government shouldn't legislate morals, then why should they have any right to pass a position on marriage at all (as marriage is a moral and societal issue and construct).

You hit the nail dead on the head in the 2nd paragraph. You are exactly correct, the government should NOT legislate morals, which is exactly what Prop 8 does, it legislates morality - it forces an individual to live by another individual's belief system. Passing a law which defines the morals others must live by is illegal, which is why this judge correctly struck it down. Incidentally, the slavery example is another wonderful argument against your position. if the populous votes to pass a law which specifically violates a person's civil rights, the law they voted for is illegal, period, just like Prop 8.
 
Marriage is a matter of law, not individual rights. It cannot be reserved to the people. All that this concerns is legal recognition of a relationship as a marriage for purposes of the government. I think gay marriage should be recognized by state laws and federal laws under certain circumstances, but this to me is not a matter of the U.S. Constitution.

Since marriage is a contract, and the individual has the right to contract, it is most certainly reserved to the people through the 9th and is alos an issue of individual rights.
 
That's because your views and beliefs violate the rights of others

views and beliefs are capable of violating another sovereign person's rights?

i wonder what that civics-for-kids teacher would say about that
 
And that vote does not negate Constitutionally appointed liberties like the equal protection clause. And regardless of whether you maintain this cowardly, half assed defense that this is about persecuting poor wittle Chwistians or not, you haven't had your rights stripped and been demoted to a second class citizen. You are not being told you have to or cannot do something. I am being told I cannot do what you can do. That's where the attack comes from.
Does the equal protection clause extend to sexual orientation and to force everyone to accept any orientation as legal? What about the rights of pansexuals? Why can't someone marry their kitchen stove? Among all the traditionally immoral sexualities, why does homosexuality have a special privilege? And yes, deny it all you want, but my right to vote and have my beliefs as law have been stripped from me in California when it comes to defining marriage. Don't be blind to it.
Can you show me where homosexuals are trying to make churches gay marry them?
Strawman duly noted. Ignoring now. There are people who want to regulate speech in churches where they can't call homosexuality a sin.
Why do heterosexuals have to have Mardi Gras where they walk around in drunken stupors ****ing in the streets and flashing their tits, hanging beads off their cocks?
I see that you find these displays to be disgusting too. My point is that homosexuals do flaunt their "pride" and force people to accept them by trouncing around in whatever they wear and calling everyone "haters" who don't support them.

Why can't you keep your sexuality private instead of using it to sell merchandise to little kids and announcing your unions in the paper, etc? Why can't you just sit at home out of the public eye instead of holding hands and kissing in public?
I don't care if gays kiss in public or state in the paper that they are "married."
I know it just burns your ass that we don't act like good little house niggers and stay silent in the kitchen until massa' tells us we can speak. But you're gonna have to get the **** over it, pal. Cuz it ain't never gonna happen, capiche? I don't care how much communion wine you guzzle and how many times Jeebus tells you, it ain't coming to pass.
I'm actually fine with homosexuals voicing their beliefs and voting, along with those who support the homosexual union. I think it's great that they can voice their opinions and make them law. Just like it's great to have people of the opposing view standing up for what they believe and voting... oh wait, in California only pro-gay people have a right to any say on the issue. To be honest, my ass is quite happy that people can democratically vote. You can stop making fun of my religion if you want to. It's irrelevant to the debate to make fun of Christians.
No one is telling you your beliefs are illegal. You can have whatever sorry medieval beliefs you want to have, pal. I don't give a **** and neither does the law. What you cannot do is leverage those dark age beliefs through your vote to impose your beliefs on others, denying them rights that you enjoy (which you incidentally thnk you enjoy because of your beliefs to start with).
Um, yes they are. The judge just ruled that it's illegal for people to vote against gay marriage, and that it's illegal to have that view represented in the state. You're to smart and logical to be blind to this fact. Why can social liberals impose their beliefs upon others? Why is that ok? Why can they force their definition of marriage upon the majority who legally and democratically voted against it?
Except when your definition also include a severe limitation of rights. :shrug:
Homosexual unions aren't a right though. What right is being limited? The only right limited is people's right to vote and have their opinions put into law.
OK, so you can vote on it. And then I can take it straight to the court and point out where your mob tried to curb my individuality. And guess what...today the court sided against your vote. Learn to love it because its gonna happen more and more. :shrug:
They did that in TN too, and the judge correctly ruled that my state has the right to define marriage. We voted, and passed Amendment 1 to legally define marriage.
If your rights were being curbed, I would be fighting right along side you to help you get them back or keep them. What I said is that I don't care about your pitiful angst that you didn't get to strip me of mine.
My rights are being curbed, in that my right to vote has been infringed upon by the judge who ruled the very voicing of my opinion on a ballot to be illegal. California stripped me of my rights and the right to vote on an issue that was presented before Californians. What is the logic behind the judge making prop 8 illegal?
Cut the persecution crap. Just come on down off that cross and hand over your little crown of plastic thorns. No one is buying that you are the victim here.
[/quote]
I was merely exposing you to the truth that yes, Christians are persecuted and those of us who believe homosexuality is wrong get a damn beating for it. Again, attack my religion all you want.
 
Since marriage is a contract, and the individual has the right to contract, it is most certainly reserved to the people through the 9th and is alos an issue of individual rights.

It is a contract with the force of law. An individual cannot decide what has the force of law over another person. Whether a contract has the force of law is up to the government. Your legal argument would allow polygamy and the chaos that would result.
 
views and beliefs are capable of violating another sovereign person's rights?

i wonder what that civics-for-kids teacher would say about that

They are once one tries to use government force to enforce them. Such as creation of laws, which is what this thread is about. So please, stay on target.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom