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

Tim-
Click to expand...

Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no? All you have to do is answer yes or no.
 
marduc said:
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
Click to expand...

I work for a living, unlike you apparently, and do not have the time nor the inclination to read 120 pages of posts.
I gave my opinion, and I was addressing Your Star who replied to my opinion, not you.

Good evening
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

boy, everything they don't like is trollish

if you don't think having relations with a 16 year old is pedophilia, it just says stuff about you

either way, i wouldn't say it to her dad

Now the Administration says it opposes DOMA and wants it overturned — but that tradition dictates that it defend the law. And that is why, the White House said in a statement, "the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to [DOMA], as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged."

Legalistically speaking, the tradition argument is true, but it's yet another Obama dodge. The Administration could easily decline to defend the anti-gay law on discrimination grounds, just as the Administration of George H.W. Bush declined to defend federal laws setting a preference for awarding broadcast licenses to minority-owned businesses in 1990. The radical firebrand at the Department of Justice who successfully argued against defending those laws? A young DOJ attorney named John Roberts, who is now the Chief Justice of the United States. Clearly, Obama could have refused to defend DOMA if he had really wanted to. Georgetown's Hunter cites other cases in which the Justice Department has declined to defend laws, including one involving a minor cable-TV dispute. As Eugene Volokh of UCLA told me Aug. 18, there is nothing in the constitution or the law that would have prevented the Department of Justice from sitting on the sidelines in the DOMA case.

Nothing except politics. Obama's triangulation between left and right has become excruciatingly obvious on this issue, and he's not quite as deft a politician as Bill Clinton at keeping his left flank at bay. I wouldn't be surprised if, next summer at the 32nd Fire Island Pines fundraiser for Lambda, I hear booing when the President's name is mentioned.
Click to expand...

Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage? - TIME
 
Last edited:
Go to your control panel and set to 40 posts per page. That way there will only be 30 pages - and many of them are repetitive rubbish.

C-21 Cowboy said:
I work for a living, unlike you apparently, and do not have the time nor the inclination to read 120 pages of posts.
I gave my opinion, and I was addressing Your Star who replied to my opinion, not you.

Good evening
Click to expand...
 
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...

Oh, what a tragic day for people who love to restrict the civil rights of their fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.

They might actually learn that their mob mentality is against the Constitution and that the right to vote doesn't mean the right to take legal benefits away from people for no other reason than you find them a little icky.
 
C-21 Cowboy said:
I work for a living, unlike you apparently, and do not have the time nor the inclination to read 120 pages of posts.
I gave my opinion, and I was addressing Your Star who replied to my opinion, not you.

Good evening
Click to expand...

nah, I am just able to earn a living and still have the latitude to also be involved in other endeavors at the same time, but I do appreciate the baseless accusation. It is 9 in the evening however, I would think that an hour or so after dinner would get me caught up with the thread.. at least even if i did not read the whole thread I would probably be acutely aware that the talking points that were spoon fed to me to regurgitate were probably also spoon fed to others and have already been regurgitated ad nauseum.

Anyhow, you posted to a public message board, and I publicly responded with my opinion to your post, independent of who you were replying to.

It is a good evening
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
boy, everything they don't like is trollish

if you don't think having relations with a 16 year old is pedophilia, it just says stuff about you
Click to expand...

Yeah, it means I actually know the definition of pedophilia and you don't. And because I actually use the correct definition of pedophilia, you feel entitled to insinuate that there is something wrong with me. It demonstrates how low you are willing to go because you don't have a valid argument on the actual issue of discussion in this thread.
 
Last edited:
there is nothing wrong with you, so far as i know

none of my business, either way

way too personal
 
once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old

2. the administration was under no legal, even less political, obligation to stand up for doma (and in such a vulgar way)

it is what it is

i think time was offended, no other way to take it, really
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old
Click to expand...

Time magazine never used the word, "pedophilia". You interjected that word on your own and incorrectly. You are seeking to flame people.
 
BDBoop said:
Go to your control panel and set to 40 posts per page. That way there will only be 30 pages - and many of them are repetitive rubbish.
Click to expand...

Indeed

Many

Are

Pretty

Repetitive aren’t they. :2wave:
 
danarhea said:
I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
Click to expand...

You need to reexamine the facts surrounding the 14th amendment and the legal precedents on how it is enforced and determined Dana.

The government can pick and choose who the law protects and absolutely call allow laws to be unequal.

However, to do so it must reach a specific level of proof showing a specific level of necessity based on the particular protected status in question.

For example, race/religion/ethnicity requires a very high burden of proof showing an unquestionably high level of necessity. Gender requires a slightly lower burden of proof and level of necessity, but still relatively tough. Most others require the lowest standard which is simple a rational explanation of why its necessary.

IF those standards can be met, discrimination is absolutely allowed on the part of the government under the 14th. Such is present every day in our society. The very nature of a "minor" status is age discrimination, but there was sufficient evidence to show the needed necessity in regards to state interest in having it. One could look at the laws and policies regarding women on the front lines in the military as well. Or look at the ability to strip felons from their rights.

So, because the government CAN legally discriminate if it meets certain requirements, and because it bestows certain benefits to those that are married, it DOES have a legitimate and constitutionally authorized stake in saying who and who can't be married.

The issue however is that Polygamists, as a grouping, at BEST could be considered under the lowest tier, "Rational Scrutiny", level as there's no proof what so ever of the inherent nature of such a group nor is it directly protected constitutionally (as is the only unquestionably self-chosen designation granted a high standing, religion). Even then its questionable as the discrimination taking part against polygamists is not actually against polygamists, but against "number of people". Namely, the claim that its discriminatory to say that you can marry one person but that you can't marry two or three people. "Number of people" in no way shape or form can be considered a "protected class" of people.

So even if you assume it can reach the highest point it could realistically reach, which is Rational Scrutiny...and even that is highly suspect...then the government doesn't really need a lot to deny it by claiming a rational state interest.

The severity in law changes needed for polygamy dwarfs that of same sex marriages. The impact on the court systems due to the issues with multiple marriages and the benefits of "control" (best way to explain the general power of attorney and other type benefits of marriage) would likely be significant and cumbersome due to the inherent issues with having multiple people supposedly being the ones with the legal "Final say of" or "rights to" a person or their property. Add onto the exceptionally large tax hole it creates by allowing multiple people to cling on together creating various tax breaks, bonuses, and benefits in ways that exponentially outweigh that of a simple two person binding and you suddenly have such benefits shifting from a positive for the government to a significant drain and negative. All of this contributes to a far more rational argument of tangible things, rather than intangible "cultural" things which is the primary arguments against gay marriage as a government interest (and could equally be applied here anyways), than does gay marriage.

So in summation...

Yes, the government CAN discriminate, as long as they reach a certain burden of proof showing a certain level of necessity based on whether or not the group is a protected one and how protected they are. Gender is unquestionably more protected then polygamists or "number of people", and a far stronger argument for sexual orientation being considered higher up on the list can be made then can be made for polygamists or "number of people" at this time.
 
digsbe said:
It is discriminatory based on gender, because the definition of marriage is a union between only a man and woman.
Click to expand...

No, its discrimination based on gender because it allows one sex to do something the other sex can't do.

The definition discriminates against allowing homosexual unions to be put under the same definition.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, the definition discriminates against allowing ANYONE of the same sex to be placed under its definition. You are responding to my argument, which relates to homosexuality but does not deal with it directly. If two guys plan on being bachelors for the next ten years if not for the rest of their life and seek to live together and trust in each other for issues relating to the other, they could enter into such regardless of whether or not they were both straight as an arrow.

However, this is not wrong. One could also argue that it's discrimination to not include animals into the definition of marriage and say its a union between a human and any consenting organism.
Click to expand...

"Animal" is not something that has been found to be protected as a "group" under the Equal Protection Clause. Additionally, animals have no rational way to show legitimate cognitive reasoning necessary to enter into a contract. Is it legal for a man in a vegetative stance to enter into a contract to purchase a house because someone near him swears that when his breath catches in a certain way it means he understands and the answer is yes? No, it does not. Similarly, a dog can't enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, because they do not have the cognitive ability necessary for such. You're beating on a strawman that doesn't actually deal with my argument. You're also doing a typical fallacy of the anti-gay marriage movement by trying to appeal to emotions by going for something radical and universally thought as relatively "out there" hoping that people won't realize that the fact you view homosexuality as "out there" and radical is the only similarity actually between the two.

Not all discrimination is unjust, we discriminate against the action of murder by making it illegal.
Click to expand...

Murderer is not a protected status under the EPC, so is irrelevant to my argument. Additionally, murder is directly infringing upon the rights of another DIRECTLY. Marriage does not do that. Finally, there is an unquestionable highest level of proof and necessity in the government discriminating against murder as its a provable, unquestionable, danger and damage to society for one person to kill another. Such is not anywhere near the case for marriage between two men.

I am not morally equating homosexuality, murder, and bestiality.
Click to expand...

No, you're just trying to legally equate them, because you know that morally equating them would get you absolutely panned so you were hoping this would work better. Unfortunately legally equating them is even more difficult then morally.

What I am doing is showing how discrimination isn't always a wrong thing and that we discriminate against things all the time.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. Discrimination ISN'T always wrong.

However, constitutionally, it is unquestionably wrong to discriminate on gender without an *important* state interest that is *substantially* proven.

Would it be discrimination to define marriage as a union between a man and woman but then also allow civil unions with equal benefits to be in place for other sexualities?
Click to expand...

Would it be discrimination to allow restaurants to have two sides equa-distant to all the important amenities and that have the same service and the same food for the same prices...but one side is only for men and the other is only for women? Or colored and whites?
 
The Prof said:
once more, it is time magazine, not any petty little dp personality, making the case that:

1. the administration in court compared homsexuality to pedo... to sex with a 16 year old
Click to expand...
Pedophilia is specifically "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." Sixteen year olds are not prepubescent.
 
rivrrat said:
Pedophilia is specifically "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." Sixteen year olds are not prepubescent.
Click to expand...

tell it to her dad
 
rivrrat said:
Pedophilia is specifically "characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." Sixteen year olds are not prepubescent.
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time. I explained that to him already, but he has demonstrated that he is intellectually dishonest by continuing to post it. He is simply trying to bait people, and that behavior demonstrates that he lacks a sufficient argument for the matter of this discussion.
 
The Prof said:
tell it to her dad
Click to expand...

I would certaintly tell a Dad that his 16 year old having sex with an adult is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is a psychological disorder characterized by attraction to prepubescent children. Trying to link gay marriage to pedophilia in this manner is pathetic, and I pity you for falling this low.
 
texmaster said:
And I'll say it again very very slowly. Marriage as a right was NEVER EVER granted based on sexual preference. The ONLY case was based on race.
Click to expand...

And that doesn't matter.

The first cases of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with assault weapons, and the original intent behind the 2nd never even likely imagined such things. And yet you'd believe they're covered right?

Simply because the broad thing, such as marriage or arms, has only been applied to specific subsets of it does not necessarily mean it is regulated ONLY to that subset.

Besides, once again, I am not arguing this based on sexual preference, I'm arguing it based off gender.

Then by your logic you cannot exclude ANYONE no matter what size, age or sexual preference from demanding the same thing. That is the key point you keep missing.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. Read my posts, because its evident by your repeated statements that are either countering things I didn't say or ignoring things I've said that you're not.

You can DEFINITELY discriminate against people....however the state has to show a certain level of proof of a certain level of necessity based on what status is being discriminated against. While currently it is questionable, and is likely going to be answered by the Supreme Court in time, at what tier sexual orientation will fall under it is not a question when it comes to gender. That one is clearly already defined as the mid-tier "Quasi-Suspect", and requires the state to substantially show an important governmental interest in performing said discrimination. Of which I argue has not been shown when it comes to same sex marriage, not to the level that would be needed to discriminate against gender.

That is where we totally disagree. There is no natural finding in even a majority of homosexuals to characterize it in that way.
Click to expand...

I'll leave this one up to CC, but the vast majority of studies I've seen linked or referenced that are legitimately peer reviewed and undebunked regarding sexual orientation point to nature over nurture in regards to said orientation.

Even so, as I said, while I understand where people are coming from arguing sexual orientation and think there's a decent case for it, my personal feeling on it does not deal with orientation at all. It deals with gender.

Nowhere in any part of the Constitution does it specify the number of people than can marry. If you are going to claim it is a right you cannot descriminate against the number of people marrying each other.
Click to expand...

Nope, it doesn't. It doesn't have to. Number of people is not a "grouping", such as race, gender, ethnicity, religious designation, etc. So arguing "You allow me to marry one person but not two people" is not arguing discrimination against an equally protected group but discrimination based on the number. There is no constitutional protection against discrimination based on such a thing. If I say every person can have one spouse, then everyone can have one spouse. You can not point me to a specific group that is getting something another group does not get or can not have.

However if you say everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex, I can point you to men and say "they can't marry females but females can" and I can point to females and say "they can't marry males but males can". That is specifically showing you a grouping of people who are able to do something under the law that the other grouping can not do. More than that, there is legal basis showing that gender is unquestionably protected under the EPC and at a medium tier of scrutiny. There is no court case I can think of in any way shape or form that suggests "number of people" falls into such a thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom