• 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.
So if people voted to take away voting rights from certain people you'd be okay with that right?

After all the people voted on it right.....

This vote did not take away rights it agreed with laws on the books
 
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.

My legal argument could indeed be extended to polygamy, so long as the polygamy is enacted along the rights and liberties of the individual. In almost all cases of socialized polygamy, however, that has not been the case. I would also doubt that chaos would result. But as for the polygamy route, you could cite precedent in that Utah was not admitted to the Union until it made polygamy illegal.
 
That's because your beliefs were illegal

whoa!

curiouser and curiouser becomes the barrister

so much jargon, so tossed off, cavalier, self satisfied...

leading to?

YOUR BELIEFS ARE ILLEGAL!

LOL!

unbelievable
 
Last edited:
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?
I cut out all of the other stuff because it's getting tit-for-tatty. Quite simply, explain this please. When straights prevent gays from being able to marry, they are standing up for their own rights, rather than forcing their beliefs on gays. When the court determines they aren't allowed to prevent the gays from marrying, the liberals are forcing their beliefs on others, not standing up for their own rights. This is so twisted I don't see how you can even say it.
 
Amendments to state constitutions hav to be voted on by the people

And typically won through a super majority, not simple majority. They also must abide by the rights and liberties of the Constitution such as those in the BoR (including the 9th amendment). So while the people of a State can amend their constitution, the State constitution must be inline with the rights and liberties of the individual. Even State amendments can be struck down as unconstitutional.
 
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.


So 7% of the people have authority over the rest of the country?
 
whoa!

curiouser and curiouser becomes the barrister

so much jargon, so tossed off, cavalier, self satisified...

leading to?

YOUR BELIEFS ARE ILLEGAL!

LOL!

unbelievable

I already responded to this. Don't be a dumbass; keep the context intact.
 
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.

It extends to any contract between two adults.

Strawman duly noted. Ignoring now. There are people who want to regulate speech in churches where they can't call homosexuality a sin.

He asked a legit question. You're the one making up a straw man. Free speech in churches is another issue entirely. Stop diverting.

No one is forcing churches to marry gay people. They can refuse ceremony. The licensing has always been an issue of state, regardless if the church is marrying gay or straight people. You still need government consent. The ceremony is about religious tradition, not legalities.

Gay and straight couples can go have a wedding in a tree for all I care.

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.

For the last time: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO ACCEPT GAYS OR WATCH THEIR PRIDE PARADES. Your outrage is your own and has nothing to do with the law.

I don't care if gays kiss in public or state in the paper that they are "married."

It relates to their ability to raise their families and have all the rights that heteros enjoy. If heteros can get married then gays can too.

You so far have not presented ANY rational reason for denying them this right.

oh wait, in California only pro-gay people have a right to any say on the issue.

Anyone can hold a vote on any issue as long as it doesn't violate constitution. Prop 8 did and you need to arrive at this fact instead of continuing to flail with irrelevant information.

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.

The judge did no such thing. If the vote were illegal then it wouldn't have been added to the ballot in the first place. The vote ended up being non-binding because it violated the constitution.

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?

No one is opposing their beliefs on you. You can say this over and over again all you want but it will never be true. You just don't want gays to have equal access to marriage because you think marriage belongs to you and the church. It never has and never will just belong to you.

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.

No marriage is a "right" in the constitution. State licensing is a privilege that can be denied to anyone for any reason. But as long as straights are getting married so can gays. Thanks.

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.

Well that's great for your state, but once SCOTUS rules it will be shot down because it violates equal protection.

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?

Blah blah blah... you need to learn what DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC means before you write another post.

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.

This ruling has ZERO to do with Christianity.
 
That's because your views and beliefs violate the rights of others.
They also violate the "rights" of bestiality and pedophiles. I don't think the right to marry a horse or marry a child is right either.
No it wasn't, you got to vote. You just can't make law that which infringes upon the rights of others.
They were voting to define a right though. Your opinion that homosexual unions is a right is just as valid as mine, which believes that it isn't marriage and thus doesn't have the right to be called such.
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.
They are legal, my state has defined marriage, and they were found to be illegal when brought to court by the ACLU. My beliefs are legal. We aren't a direct democracy at the federal level. At the state level things are different, and the rules for voting on Prop 8 was that the majority vote would be put into law.
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.
It soon will be if "hate speech" legislation is passed just like Canada. My voicing my beliefs I was talking about voicing them through my vote.
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.
See above. As a Constitutional Republic the state's have rights. Please tell me about the voting rules in California and how being a Constitutional Republic means that in Porp 8's case, that the majority vote should not become law. The voting rules were that the majority vote would be put into place. It wasn't to be represented by districts in California with electoral votes that would determine things. Again, if the majority of people in the state wanted slavery, they would have to amend the constitution or secede from the US. The Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal. In order to re-instate it they would have to repeal that amendment. However, there is no amendment that says gay marriage should be legalized, and many other states have defined marriage without it being ruled unconstitutional.

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.
Do you realize what you just said? Marriage is a state issued and recognized contract. And the state of California asked the citizens of the state to define the boundaries of that contract.
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.
The other side wants to define homosexual unions of marriage yet not include child marriages, bestiality, and pansexual marriages. It is an enforcement of morality in that it equates homosexuality with heterosexuality yet puts other sexualities as immoral and not legally marriage.
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.
No, we wish to define the legal boundaries of that contract just as the other side desires to do. Two moral stances are butting heads when it comes to defining the contract of marriage.
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.

The court here wants to trample on people's votes and force a moral stance that homosexual unions are the same legally as heterosexual unions. Why can they infringe upon someone's "right" to marry a cat, or a spoon, or a child? Why aren't those things rights? What would your position be if people wanted to marry their loyal dogs and pets and states no one has the right to tell them their union is illegal or wrong?
 
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.

beliefs are illegal once one tries to use the force of govt to enforce them, such as the creation of laws?

illegal?

because of the creation of laws?

to enforce all those indecent, illegal beliefs?

ah, i see...

LOL!
 
Digsbe, you say your beliefs aren't being treated equally under the law. And they aren't, you know why? Because they infringe upon the rights of others, thats why. It's not that hard to understand, stop thinking with your religion, and start thinking with your brain. White supremacy isn't equal under the law, neither is ant-semitism, nor any other believe system that infringes upon the rights of others. Deal with, it's called living in America, don't like then move.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
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.

Man I have Christians come to my home, regularly, waking me up (I work at night) in an attempt to convert me.

I do not have gay people doing the same.
 
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.

Strawman duly noted. Ignoring now. There are people who want to regulate speech in churches where they can't call homosexuality a sin.

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.


I don't care if gays kiss in public or state in the paper that they are "married."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?
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.[/QUOTE]

No, you aren't being persecuted. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. If you whine and cry when another group might get the same legal privilege as your group and you haven't lost a God damn thing in the process, then yes, you probably deserve the beating. It's selfish and bigoted. Your right to vote has not been infringed upon, the legal process worked exactly as it should. If you vote for a proposition that is contrary to the constitution or in contradictory to other laws, it is your own fault for failing to understand that what you were voting for should not have made the ballot. According to the judge, you did not have the right to deny another group of people a legal privilege you freely enjoy. You did not have the right to make that decision in the first place, so no rights were infringed upon.
 
beliefs are illegal once one tries to use the force of govt to enforce them, such as the creation of laws?

illegal?

because of the creation of laws?

to enforce all those indecent, illegal beliefs?

ah, i see...

LOL!

Come on guy, try to be reasonable here. It wasn't the best worded sentence, but context tells you everything you need to know. Beliefs which act against the rights and liberties of the individual cannot be put into law because of the effect that they have on the free practice of an individual's rights. When those beliefs are pushed towards laws, the laws are illegal as they violate the rights and liberties of others and can be challenged in court; as was the case here. You cannot use government force to enforce your personal beliefs if through the enforcement of those beliefs you infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual.

Seriously, I'm not asking much here; just try to be reasonable and consider the context.
 
And typically won through a super majority, not simple majority. They also must abide by the rights and liberties of the Constitution such as those in the BoR (including the 9th amendment). So while the people of a State can amend their constitution, the State constitution must be inline with the rights and liberties of the individual. Even State amendments can be struck down as unconstitutional.

You mean the State constitution because we found out last week AZ can not enforce federal law only feds can
 
Man I have Christians come to my home, regularly, waking me up (I work at night) in an attempt to convert me.

I do not have gay people doing the same.

Show up naked and they stop coming.

As for the issue itself, I understand the fact the voters voted for the amendment, but in my opinion they were wrong to do so. The will of the majority cannot be enforced on the minority. I just don't see why straight people don't want gays to be equally as miserable in marriage.
 
They also violate the "rights" of bestiality and pedophiles. I don't think the right to marry a horse or marry a child is right either.

The court here wants to trample on people's votes and force a moral stance that homosexual unions are the same legally as heterosexual unions. Why can they infringe upon someone's "right" to marry a cat, or a spoon, or a child? Why aren't those things rights? What would your position be if people wanted to marry their loyal dogs and pets and states no one has the right to tell them their union is illegal or wrong?

Let's skip the part where you compare homosexuals to pedophiles or inanimate objects. It's a common theme among Christians, but there is no real way to debate insanity.
I'll ask you AGAIN, why do you feel that forcing others to live by your standards is standing up for your rights, but when you are not allowed to do this, they are forcing their beliefs upon you?
 
Man I have Christians come to my home, regularly, waking me up (I work at night) in an attempt to convert me.

I do not have gay people doing the same.
Gays try to convert me sometimes, but hey, who can blame them? I'm one hell of a good looking guy!
 
Digsbe, you say your beliefs aren't being treated equally under the law. And they aren't, you know why? Because they infringe upon the rights of others, thats why. It's not that hard to understand, stop thinking with your religion, and start thinking with your brain. White supremacy isn't equal under the law, neither is ant-semitism, nor any other believe system that infringes upon the rights of others. Deal with, it's called living in America, don't like then move.
Let's turn it around then. Why do others have the right to infringe upon my beliefs that homosexual unions are not marriage? Why do they have the right to infringe upon my rights as a person with a vote? Why do they have the right to infringe upon my beliefs and prevent them from ever becoming legal? There is no "right" to homosexual unions in the constitution. Homosexuals don't have the right to amend the definition of marriage to include the union. It's a self proclaimed "right."

To all others who quote me. It's hard to respond to like 5 people who literally quote everything I say. I can't respond to every single post and it's a tad overwhelming.
 
They also violate the "rights" of bestiality and pedophiles. I don't think the right to marry a horse or marry a child is right either.

You just lost all credibility, not that you had much to begin with.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting ADULTS. Can a horse consent? No. Can a child consent? No.

I think you are stuck on the idea that marriage = church, which is not true. Church = ceremony. STATE LAW = marriage.

It's why churches can't marry a person to a horse, or to a child, even if they wanted to.

Debating with you is a waste of time. Go to your corner and cry it out, and then move on with your life. I'm going back to the 21st century now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom