• 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.
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. So you think the public opinion of a slim majority in California should override the rights guranteed by the federal Constituion?

Its lost every single time it was up to a popular vote. 0-31. Those of us against gay marriage are in the clear majority.
 
Its lost every single time it was up to a popular vote. 0-31. Those of us against gay marriage are in the clear majority.

So? Be in the majority all you want. The majority cannot vote away equal protection of minority groups. :shrug:
 
I don't know of anyone making that claim. Pity for you and FFG! :)

It appeared to me that was what you were arguing. I'm happy we can agree that the Constituion of the United States should take precedence over a majority of California voters. I imagine you enjoy your freedom of religion, assembly, speech, to bear arms, etc. and I would hate to imagine that you would be pleased to see them taken away simply because a majority of people in your state decided it was better off not to have them. It's a good thing those freedoms have been the will of the people of the United States since the Constitution was ratified and up until now. At any time, the people could have amended the United States Constitution to remove those rights, but they have not. And I am quite happy that it was the will of the people of the United States to amend the Constitution to include the Equal Protection Clause so that we could all be equally protected under the law, whether state or federal, and that up to this day it has been the will of the people not to amend the Constitution and repeal that amendment.
 
Last edited:
I could give a ****, either way, if gays get married. But, at what point can't a judge over-rule the will of the people?

When it doesn't violate the Constitution. That was an easy question.
 
One unelected judge can overturn the will of the people. A flaw in our system? I think so.

It isn't "the judge" overturning the will of the people....it is our Constitution. Big difference.
 
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.

What part of our Constitution makes it possible for a majority to vote away the benefits or rights of a section of the population?
 
Last edited:
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.

Neither did inter-racial marriage when the bigots were opposing that on the same grounds.
 
Its lost every single time it was up to a popular vote. 0-31. Those of us against gay marriage are in the clear majority.

Dwindling quickly.....very quickly. Just look at the numbers over the last 10 years. You are losing in both forums.
 
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.

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. You are right that "alternative lifestyles" and "marriage" are not discussed in the Constitution. The Constitution also doesn't say anything about race, so your point is moot. 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." Are gays and lesbians considered persons and citizens of the United States of America? Then by the Constitution, they are entitled to equal protection of the law. The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; he did not overturn it.
 
Last edited:
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.

The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.

Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.

First, the judge is a man. Also a man who was nominated to the position by both Ronald Reagan and George Bush I.
 
I'm happy that you're happy!

I imagine you enjoy your freedom of religion, assembly, speech, to bear arms, etc. and I would hate to imagine that you would be pleased to see them taken away simply because a majority of people in your state decided it was better off not to have them.
... or simply because a lone judge in my district decided it was better not to have them.

No, not pleased at all to have them taken away no matter who is doing the taking.

We've all got our own ideas of what freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution. The opinion of the judge who decided the case this morning is worth maybe a smidge more than yours or mine, but not by much. We'll never as a nation come to an agreement on "what the Constitution says" :lol: -- but at least with the SC decision, we will know how it's going to be enforced, for better or for worse.
 
Last edited:
Re: I'm happy that you're happy!

... or simply because a lone judge in my district decided it was better not to have them.

No, not pleased at all to have them taken away no matter who is doing the taking.

We've all got our own ideas of what freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution. The opinion of the judge who decided the case this morning is worth maybe a smidge more than yours or mine, but not by much. We'll never as a nation come to an agreement on "what the Constitution says" :lol: -- but at least with the SC decision, we will know how it's going to be enforced, for better or for worse.

As a nation of laws we need a single legal interpretation of the law, including the Constitution. That is the point of our judicial system.
 
Re: I'm happy that you're happy!

... or simply because a lone judge in my district decided it was better not to have them.

No, not pleased at all to have them taken away no matter who is doing the taking.

We've all got our own ideas of what freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution. The opinion of the judge who decided the case this morning is worth maybe a smidge more than yours or mine, but not by much. We'll never as a nation come to an agreement on "what the Constitution says" :lol: -- but at least with the SC decision, we will know how it's going to be enforced, for better or for worse.

Ah, for once we agree. The Supreme Court will indeed ultimately decide whether same sex couples, as citizens and persons of the United States are entitled to equal protection under the law and due process when it comes to marriage.
 
What part of our Constitution makes it possible for a majority to vote away the benefits or rights of a section of the population?

The very same that says you can't smoke dope.. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Those that equate homosexuality with that of gender, and slavery are so off base, it make my stomach boil. There is no evidence of that at all.

The deviants have won this battle from a queer judge... Go figure?

The fact is that the ballot initiative was approved as "CONSTITUTIONALY" valid. Hence the constitution was made crystal clear. It is not unconstitutional to define marriage between one man, ,and one woman. This judge is a queer fella that voted what one would expect a queer fellla to vote.


It ain't over!

By the way, those claiming that bigots lost, are themselves bigots. Or, they clearly do not know what a bigot, is!


Tim-
 
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. You are right that "alternative lifestyles" and "marriage" are not discussed in the Constitution. The Constitution also doesn't say anything about race, so your point is moot. 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." Are gays and lesbians considered persons and citizens of the United States of America? Then by the Constitution, they are entitled to equal protection of the law. The judge defended the will of the people, the federal Constitution; he did not overturn it.

Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

Sheesh..


Tim-
 
Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

Sheesh..


Tim-

The constitution overruled the will of less than 3% of America's population.
 
Ok smart guy, how many other "groups" can fit this bill? Society, whether guided by laws or not, ultimately tolerate, or they do not. Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

Sheesh..


Tim-

You think that is bad, how do you think it looked when just 9 judges overruled 19 states, and effectively tens of millions of voters, that had established laws banning interracial marriage? And we all know how horrible that turned out.

There were religious thinkers that had their views back then as well...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

How could you argue with reasoning like that?
 
The constitution overruled the will of less than 3% of America's population.

What Constitution? This judge you mean? How many "slim" majorities have written major law in this nation? Lot's eh? Is the majority, now somehow differnet for gay marriage?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
You think that is bad, how do you think it looked when just 9 judges overruled 19 states, and effectively tens of millions of voters, that had established laws banning interracial marriage? And we all know how horrible that turned out.

There were religious thinkers that had their views back then as well...

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

How could you argue with reasoning like that?

Irrelevant.. Color and homosexuality have nothing in common! I am not "predisposed" to being black, or white...



Tim-
 
What Constitution? This judge you mean? How many "slim" majorities have wriyyen major law in this nation? Lot's eh? Is the majority, now somehow differnet for gay marriage?


Tim-

The Constitution of the United States of America. Also known as the law of the land and the will of the people.
 
The Constitution of the United States of America. Also known as the law of the land and the will of the people.

What "equal protection"? What due process? Should we as a society protect everything? Look, Constitution or not.. When the clear will of the people is so blatantly disregarded, you have trouble on your hands. Like it or not, the vote is important! When a single person so willfully denies the vote, without a compelling enough argument, as to why, you have the potential for trouble.



Most people don't understand the law, but there was nothing, inandofitself that this law nullified. I think it not hard to present an argument against the idea that homosexuality is immutable, and or innate. One of the two qualifiers previous, is required to prove a class of people.



Tim-
 
The founders never made it an issue because it was unforseeable to allow gay marriage. How could they have known that gays would want to be married? How can 4% (at best) of the population affect society? Why should it? It's the "why should it" that has a test. That of immutablity, and innateness. Prove that, and you have a case, don't, and you have no leg to stand on.

by the way, the burden is on those seeking special class..






Tim-
 
Notwithstanding this gay mariage issue, how does it look when a single judge overrules 7 million California votes?

Naturally, one has to assess the circumstances.

The courts had no basis for interfering in Arizona's SB1070. That was purely political, and the Constitution does not bear out the Messiah's claims.

The people promoting Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment. That means the courts were obligated to throw the local ballot measure out until such time as California and 35 other states get the Constitution amended.

The United States isn't a democracy. The majority does not get it's way no matter what.
 
Its lost every single time it was up to a popular vote. 0-31. Those of us against gay marriage are in the clear majority.

So?

This says 90% o all that needs to be said:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.


This says the other 10%:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

That's it.

Not one mention of discrimination between which of "the people" get this protection, and which are denied it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom