• 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.
Hicup said:
Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..

Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I believe the courts have designated our right to contract to be fundamental. I confess not really knowing or caring whether it is fundamental or constitutional...nor can I make myself care enough to research the difference.

My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.

In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Here it is.

You asking a question does not automatically entitle you to an answer. The more you repeat it, the less likely it is people are going to answer it.

Hicup said:
Please, I'm asking a question, what's your answer?

Tim-
Click to expand...
 
BDBoop said:
Here it is.

You asking a question does not automatically entitle you to an answer. The more you repeat it, the less likely it is people are going to answer it.
Click to expand...

Then don't answer it? I don't care one iota?

Tim-
 
jallman said:
I believe the courts have designated our right to contract to be fundamental. I confess not really knowing or caring whether it is fundamental or constitutional...nor can I make myself care enough to research the difference.

My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.

In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership. :shrug:
Click to expand...


Thanks for the courtesy of the answer. I'm going to smoke a cig, but I'll be back.

Tim-
 
Redress said:
The only way to not abide by a SCOTUS decision is to amend the constitution, which is unlikely to pass either way. So it's kinda a nonquestion.
Click to expand...

Another way is to beat the issue like a dead horse...........
 
jallman said:
My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.
Click to expand...

all of which can be overcome

love conquers all

In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership.
Click to expand...

there ya go
 
The Prof said:
all of which can be overcome

love conquers all



there ya go
Click to expand...

And you notice that above, I stated I don't mind them having that nor do I care if they call it a marriage. However, let me be clear that I do see several social challenges to the legitimizing of polygamous corporate arrangements...all of which we have been demonstrated in fundamental mormon sects.
 
Hicup said:
Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..

Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Aww.. geez, nobody wants to play with you, and you are stuck trying to plead to get someone to set you up for this great argument you have. Maybe you should put the straw man back in the closet (i made a pun!) since nobody wants to play nor are making any claims which would facilitate your argument.

anyhow here ill lob an informal opening pitch, perhaps you can take a swing and at least let a little straw get to flying.

A person does have the fundamental right to determine who they decide to share their lives with.. run with it!! I left a lot of openings for you to swing away at.
 
katzenbachWallace_0.jpg


Some on this tread would be right at home backing up ole George here. Just might be able to use some of the same reasoning as well. Such as, it’s a states right kinda thing. :2wave:
 
jallman said:
I believe the courts have designated our right to contract to be fundamental. I confess not really knowing or caring whether it is fundamental or constitutional...nor can I make myself care enough to research the difference.

My point is that there are basic differences between marriage and a polygamous relationship that are separate from gender issues. Namely, that when you involve more than two people, the joint power of attorney privileges become more and more complex and a heirarchy begins to takes shape. In this structure, it becomes a given that certain "partners" will fall lower and some will rise higher in the power structure, completely negating the mutual responsibility and decision making legal equality that a marriage insists.

In essence, the contracted become members of a corporate structure rather than an unlimited partnership. :shrug:
Click to expand...

POA is a minor thing and not essential to the construct of marriage philosphically. It's hardly a complex thing to legislate for, but I do acknowledge that it does make it more cumbersome than just two people wishing to marry. Marriage in and of itself though, is independant from the state and its jurisdiction. It is considered inalienable, and the fact that courts and legislatures place limits or prerequisits is telling. It is a contradiction in terms, if one looks at it literally. Consequently, one must conclude that the state places value on certain types of marriages, or arrangements, or a vested interest. If it does so, which it does, then how fundamental is marriage at all? If it can be argued successfully that marriage is a fundamental right belonging to no jurisdiction, then placing limits on this right isn't constitutional, but rather legislative, and contradicts the meaning of fundamental, essentially invalidating it altogether. The lmitations on marriage, if legislative, belong to the states. In Roe v Wade, the court ruled that there is a limitation on what constitutes life, which we all agree is a fundamental right, but it apparantly isn't really a fundamental right, since woman can choose to abort the life growing inside them. Life is protected, or should be, but it isn't. There is no equal protection challenge, or it was ignored because in essence, life, still in the womb, is not fundamental., worthy of protections The way around it was belieiving that, that sack of cells isn't life. Well, one could argue that historically, marriage has only been fundamental to one man, and one woman; and if it were otherwise we'd see examples of it.

So to sum up, if one agree's that marriage is a fundamental right, then one must agree that it has only ever been fundamental to a single group, otherwise there'd be a whole host of different types of marriages. If however one decides that marriage isn't a fundamental right, then a 14th challenge is rendered moot, and the states are free to decide for themselves, and be held accountable by their citizens.


Tim-
 
marduc said:
Aww.. geez, nobody wants to play with you, and you are stuck trying to plead to get someone to set you up for this great argument you have. Maybe you should put the straw man back in the closet (i made a pun!) since nobody wants to play nor are making any claims which would facilitate your argument.

anyhow here ill lob an informal opening pitch, perhaps you can take a swing and at least let a little straw get to flying.

A person does have the fundamental right to determine who they decide to share their lives with.. run with it!! I left a lot of openings for you to swing away at.
Click to expand...

You're an odd person. You poke fun that no one wants to play, and then play?

By the way point out the strawman please? Is it common around here for members, mostly liberal leaning ones to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without providing the foundation for their accusation? Anyway, no matter, I'm getting used to it now.

My answer to your question is asked and answered.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
POA is a minor thing and not essential to the construct of marriage philosphically. It's hardly a complex thing to legislate for, but I do acknowledge that it does make it more cumbersome than just two people wishing to marry. Marriage in and of itself though, is independant from the state and its jurisdiction. It is considered inalienable, and the fact that courts and legislatures place limits or prerequisits is telling. It is a contradiction in terms, if one looks at it literally. Consequently, one must conclude that the state places value on certain types of marriages, or arrangements, or a vested interest. If it does so, which it does, then how fundamental is marriage at all? If it can be argued successfully that marriage is a fundamental right belonging to no jurisdiction, then placing limits on this right isn't constitutional, but rather legislative, and contradicts the meaning of fundamental, essentially invalidating it altogether. The lmitations on marriage, if legislative, belong to the states. In Roe v Wade, the court ruled that there is a limitation on what constitutes life, which we all agree is a fundamental right, but it apparantly isn't really a fundamental right, since woman can choose to abort the life growing inside them. Life is protected, or should be, but it isn't. There is no equal protection challenge, or it was ignored because in essence, life, still in the womb, is not fundamental., worthy of protections The way around it was belieiving that, that sack of cells isn't life. Well, one could argue that historically, marriage has only been fundamental to one man, and one woman; and if it were otherwise we'd see examples of it.

So to sum up, if one agree's that marriage is a fundamental right, then one must agree that it has only ever been fundamental to a single group, otherwise there'd be a whole host of different types of marriages. If however one decides that marriage isn't a fundamental right, then a 14th challenge is rendered moot, and the states are free to decide for themselves, and be held accountable by their citizens.


Tim-
Click to expand...

And again, this goes back to the whether or not marriage is a fundamental right. I don't really care if it is or isn't because I don't think the pro-gm side needs to argue that, specifically, although it is a sound and interesting argument if it is pursued from that angle. I think, in the interest of not alienating public sympathy for the cause, the argument should focus specifically on the right to contract. There is no debate whether or not we have the right to contract in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment will apply since it is a right enumerated to us and, therefore, subject to the equal protection clause. And finally, there is little lattitude in the argument that marriage is, in fact, a civil contract. If the debate is approached in this way, the pro-gm side of the debate stays blameless and untouchable from accusations of stepping on the rights of the religious which is their major opposition.

The only argument is whether or not there can be a vested interest in the State to determine restrictions on the right to contract between individuals and if it can legally extend benefits to one and not the other. Being that marriage has already been defined through case law as a mutually binding contract granting two individuals equal power of attorney (among other things but lets just use that phrase as a catch all for simplicity's sake) with one another, and designating them as basically one person in the eyes of the law (exemplified by the fact that they cannot be made to testify against each other, basically extending the personal right in the 5th Amendment to cover two people), I can't see how a court could reject that the 14th Amendment is applicable.

As to the polygamy argument, I have no issue with polygamous contracts being established. I personally find the idea distasteful and see a host of difficulties that would open the door for State interest in halting or seriously curbing them, but that's all speculation on my part and not something I have researched. I would be interested to see how they used existing case law to argue their point though.
 
Hicup said:
You're an odd person.
Click to expand...

I prefer the term "unique individual"

Hicup said:
You poke fun that no one wants to play, and then play?
Click to expand...

yeah sometimes it gets hard seeing the kid off in the corner of the playground all by himself when he keeps looking around expectantly, plus I was curious to see how far you may or may not run if I gave you something small to chew on.


Hicup said:
By the way point out the strawman please?
Click to expand...
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

You wanted it to NOT be a straw man, but since nobody was presenting your superficially similar position, it was a straw man because what you wanted to attack was a position that was not held, nor presented by anyone.

1)People -and the ruling -claim the issue violated parts of the constitution (x), and some even claimed it violated constitutional rights.
2) you have a great argument that would undermine X based on the superficially similar fundamental rights position Y
3) person B begs for someone to set him up so that he can attack position Y, concluding that position X (the ruling) is flawed.

I will give you some props for withholding beating on that straw man without an attempt at goading people to fleshing it out some.


Hicup said:
Is it common around here for members, mostly liberal leaning ones to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without providing the foundation for their accusation?
Click to expand...

about as common as people trying to pigeonhole people into the liberal leaning classification without any sort of substantiation to back it.



Hicup said:
Anyway, no matter, I'm getting used to it now.
Click to expand...

If I were routinely accused of committing fallacies I would not get used to it, and would really start to wonder why personally.. but I am a "unique individual" ;)

Hicup said:
My answer to your question is asked and answered.
Click to expand...

huh? I did not ask a question, but mighty nice of you to answer it I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
Boy I LOVE playing with you. I have flawed reasoning eh? Dear lord, here we go again. Lets take it slow.
Click to expand...

And I LOVE playing with you because of your flawed reasoning... which I have pointed out several times, already on this thread. You make it so easy.



Well, ok, but the courts claim it is a fundamental right, and that's kind of what we're discussing here isn't it? Did you walk into the wrong thread?
Click to expand...

No, it's not what we are discussing. You have repeatedly asked if people believe it's a fundamental right, so I am addressing that. Try to follow along.



In your opinion, maybe. I don't disagree with you, but it is a little off topic.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You all are talking about the discrimination perspective, but are also throwing in the red herring of polygamy. Eliminate discrimination, and polygamy goes out the window.

Not so fast there fella. Says who, you?
Click to expand...

Says peer reviewed studies and logical explorations of the issues.

Yep, still not seeing the "red herring" bud? The two are entirely comparable to my central point. That is, what constitutes a fundamental marriage?
Click to expand...

Your central point is flawed... as I said. That is why polygamy doesn't apply. When you start with a false premise, everything that flows from it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Didn't I explain this to you before?



Not sure I could "prove" it, anymore than you "proved" the benefits of gay marriage? LOL
Click to expand...

The benefits of GM are the same as the benefits as straight marriage. I've presented this plenty of times here. However, I am certain that you cannot prove it, but that's my challenge to you. Prove that polygamy is NOT a red herring by showing it's benefits and how they outweigh it's negatives.

I do not support polygamy, but that's unimportant to the legal question of what constitutes a fundamental right. Pay attention please.
Click to expand...

Pay attention. You asked if people support that marriage is a fundamental right. I reject that. Your question has been answered. So, now it is your turn to answer mine. Show how polygamy's benefits outweigh it's negatives.

I would say though that if I had to make any argument for polygamy, I would probably say that certain communal benefits can be imparted on polygamist relationships.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Says who? You? Let's see an actual argument.
 
I just wanted to express my happiness over civil rights being more important than religious dogma. This fight has been one step back for every two steps forward , but the progress is clear and the trend promising. Like segregation there will still be people howling that it's the way it should be , but they will be howling without any teeth. This is the future I see . Once again our children are better than the parents as subjective morality continues to evolve.
 
This is a travesty of epic proportions.
The votes of 7,100,000 Californians have been discounted, because of one activist Judge, an admitted homosexual no less.

I don't know why the pro-gay agenda people are celebrating, gays still can't legally marry in the State of California.
It will be years before this is heard before the Supreme Court.
In the meantime California still does not recognize same sex marriage as legally binding.
 
On a related note. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hicup said:
So to sum up, if one agree's that marriage is a fundamental right, then one must agree that it has only ever been fundamental to a single group, otherwise there'd be a whole host of different types of marriages. If however one decides that marriage isn't a fundamental right, then a 14th challenge is rendered moot, and the states are free to decide for themselves, and be held accountable by their citizens.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Well nobody has agreed that marriage as an institution (whether it be a religious, government, or social institution) is a fundamental right, so the first part of this dilemma you present gets tossed on its ass, leaving us with the 14th.

fundamental rights and the 14th... hmm, lets see, no mention of fundamental rights directly (there have been court rulings that have used it as a basis to define some, marriage not being one of them) we have this part which seems close to the issue at hand though:

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.
Click to expand...

now I am no constitutional scholar or anything, but it seems there is a lot of latitude independent of a fundamental rights classification to find issue with this based on the 14th, and the clause I quoted above. That whole equal protection thing is awfully compelling, and I think that is rather central to the ruling was it not? There is also that privilege thingy and due process which i think was also mentioned? . As far as I know privilege ≠ fundamental rights either, and that would also leave room for a challenge based on the 14th independent of this whole "fundamental rights" issue you are manufacturing.
 
Last edited:
C-21 Cowboy said:
This is a travesty of epic proportions.
The votes of 7,100,000 Californians have been discounted, because of one activist Judge, an admitted homosexual no less.

I don't know why the pro-gay agenda people are celebrating, gays still can't legally marry in the State of California.
It will be years before this is heard before the Supreme Court.
In the meantime California still does not recognize same sex marriage as legally binding.
Click to expand...

Yeah equal rights, real tavesty :roll:

If prop 8 banned guns instead of gay marriage I doubt you would be calling this a travesty.
 
gay marriage in CA---not today

dadt---kicked down the road

the president's perspective---it's the same as pedophilia

prospects in the ultimate upstairs---no chance

political payback pending---priceless

sanctimony and pissiness a horrible leader make
 
Your Star said:
Yeah equal rights, real tavesty :roll:

If prop 8 banned guns instead of gay marriage I doubt you would be calling this a travesty.
Click to expand...

Actually, many types of guns are indeed banned in California without a Federal license.
For example automatic weapons, "machine guns".

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment protects the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.
even though there are limits to these rights.

There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and the legality of Proposition 8
was already established by the California Supreme Court as a legal referendum. Had the good people of California
voted against Prop 8, I would respect State's rights to vote down a ban on gay marriage. However
the referendum passed by a majority vote; and an activist Federal district Judge with a built in bias, as he's an admitted homosexual, decides to throw out the State's right to ban homosexual marriage and 7,100,000 California citizens votes along with it.

The travesty is in the political activism by a Judge.
 
Last edited:
C-21 Cowboy said:
Actually, many types of guns are indeed banned in California without a Federal license.
For example automatic weapons, "machine guns".

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment protects the citizens's right to keep and bear arms.
even though there are limits to these rights.

There is no Constitutional right to marriage, and the legality of Proposition 8
was already established by the California Supreme Court as a legal referendum. Had the good people of California
voted against Prop 8, I would respect State's rights to vote down a ban on banning gay marriage. However
the referendum passed by a majority vote; and an activist Federal district Judge with a built in bias, as he's an admitted homosexual decides to throw out the State's right to ban homosexual marriage and 7,100,000 California citizens votes along with it.

The travesty is in the political activism by a Judge.
Click to expand...

May I suggest you start with page 1? You present nothing but cliched rhetoric that is already well worn, and it honestly comes across as merely parroting the same old talking points
 
The Prof said:
the president's perspective---it's the same as pedophilia
Click to expand...

I wish you would stop saying that because you know it isn't true and it is intellectually dishonest and simply ignorant to keep repeating it. The president is obligated by his office to defend federal law, which means the Department of Justice must make a case to defend DOMA even though Obama has openly argued for its repeal. The fact that the DOJ brought up a case of a 16 year old neice has nothing to do with pedophilia. 16 year olds can marry in many states with their parent's consent. And even if there was sex involved, it has nothing to do with pedophilia, which has to do with prepubescent children, not those in their late teenage years.

All you are trying to do at this point is bait and incite people, and it is trollish behavior.
 
Last edited:
The real travesty is that 7,100,000 Californians feel justified in denying equality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom