• 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.
Erod said:
It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Someone explained procreation to you and you have now shared your secrets with us. Now what does that have to do with the gay marriage debate?

The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.
Click to expand...

So then you confess it's a religious thing to disapprove of gay marriage. Good, we can disregard that argument completely.

Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.
Click to expand...

Heterosexual marriages are just a frigid old bitch and a fat, lazy sod of a husband in a sexless, financially cooperative tenant situation. Aren't hyperboles and stereotypes FUN!!!???!!!??

I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.
Click to expand...

I half expect you to make a coherent argument one day but that's obviously just a fantasy, too. :shrug:
 
Navy, you are back. Can you now show us all those legal experts who claim this ruling is flawed that you said you had read? I can't seem to find them, and published a list of sources showing the opposite. I just know you can back up your word.
 
Bottom line is this judge should have reclused himself because he is gay.................
 
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line is this judge should have reclused himself because he is gay.................
Click to expand...

Being gay is no reason to be a recluse. And no, he had every right to rule on this case as anyone else. Should every straight judge have "reclused" himself too since straight people were arguing against it?
 
Redress said:
You have shown no evidence that they will. I have shown evidence that, among people who study and work in the law, it is considered unlikely but not impossible. I have also shown, with links, that the Walker ruling makes it harder for those supporting prop 8 in the future. You have not in any way shown this to be less than true.
Click to expand...
You've also claimed to have "proven" something you have not. I agree that you've supported your position better than I have with outside sources. Were you to have come to the table having read both sides and formed your own view, I might be interested in more of discussion. As it is, I have little interest in simply trading links, or discussing interpretations of other people's conjecture.

Let's just wait and see how each of our predictions fares.
 
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line is this judge should have reclused himself because he is gay.................
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that is just stupidly false. The only way he would have needed to recuse himself is if he was planning to get gay married.

Should women judges recuse themselves in sex discrimination cases Navy? Hint: they don't

Should black judges recuse themselves in racial discrimination cases? Hint: they don't

Should white judges recuse themselves in reverse discimination cases? Hint: they don't.

Should a christian judge recuse himself from a case involving religion?

Come on Navy, move past the whiny talking point. Show why he should recuse himself. Being gay does not mean anything(hint: some gays are against gay marriage), just as being strait doesn't mean anything.
 
Taylor said:
You've also claimed to have "proven" something you have not. I agree that you've supported your position better than I have with outside sources. Were you to have come to the table having read both sides and formed your own view, I might be interested in more of discussion. As it is, I have little interest in simply trading links, or discussing interpretations of other people's conjecture.

Let's just wait and see how each of our predictions fares.
Click to expand...

I have proven just what I have claimed, that my position is based on actual evidence, not sayso. You then came in, said I was wrong, for no reason other than you said so, and offered zero backing evidence. You have totally and completely failed to make your point, in any way, shape or form.
 
Wow I need to check in more often....I scan through the thread so If I bring up something alreadt emntioned forgive me...

The problem I have with the ruling is the claim to EPC and Due process since this is a California law and California law SPECIFICALLY states that anyone on the Domestic partner registry get the same privledges as "married" spouses. So don't we now have a level playing field with each group receiving equal treatment under the law?
I see the whole Prop 8 scenario as propaganda by both sides of the arguement with each only representing their particular narrow ideological focus and neither interested in real freedom or justice.
 
jallman said:
Excellent. Someone explained procreation to you and you have now shared your secrets with us. Now what does that have to do with the gay marriage debate?



So then you confess it's a religious thing to disapprove of gay marriage. Good, we can disregard that argument completely.



Heterosexual marriages are just a frigid old bitch and a fat, lazy sod of a husband in a sexless, financially cooperative tenant situation. Aren't hyperboles and stereotypes FUN!!!???!!!??



I half expect you to make a coherent argument one day but that's obviously just a fantasy, too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're a good dude, and I certainly wince that I'm offending you. I have no issue with you being gay, so please know that. This is an issue I'm very passionate about, as are you, and one we'll continue to butt heads. We're pretty parallel elsewhere.

I post so absolutely for a reason. I find the debate ridiculous frankly. I know you don't, but that's just where I am with it.

If I met you face to face, I'd gladly have a few beers with you. However, we'll just never see eye to eye on this particular issue.
 
I am not against gay marriage. I do not have a homophobic bone in my body (no pun intended.) But I must confess, even though I support allowing gays to marry, I do find it a bit uncomfortable to see a judge over ruling the will of the majority on any issue. But, that being said, if the courts were to always rule along the lines of majority rule, women wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be riding at the back of the bus. So, I can see some benefits going against the majority.

But one thing is for sure, as Redress brought up. Homophobia is on the decline. In ten years, I think you would be hard pressed to find a majority against the gays no matter where you looked. The folks from the older generations conditioned the way the older generations were raised to believe, are becoming less, and less, and less. That isn't an opinion, but a fact.

My question is this, when the majority of the population approves gay marriage in the years (<10) to come, will they still hang on to the idea that the will of the majority should be adhered to, like they are saying now, or will they come up with another reason to poo-poo gay marriage?

Face it. It's coming. Gays will be allowed to marry, coast to coast, within the next 10 years. I know some say it will never happen but those folks also said Obama would never get elected. LOL!
 
Zyphlin said:
I am arguing that the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause protects individual classes of people from discrimination in regards ot the law, including constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The Constitution protects individual rights and sometimes whole groups have a valid complaint about the law discriminating.
When it comes down to it the argument that if Jill can marry John BUT Tom can't marry John is discriminatory then ......
If John can marry Jill but Tom can't ALSO marry Jill it's just as discriminatory to Tom and based on a government definition of what marriage is.
 
Captain America said:
But I must confess, even though I support allowing gays to marry, I do find it a bit uncomfortable to see a judge over ruling the will of the majority on any issue.
Click to expand...

The will of the majority of California may have been to ban gay marriage, but the will of the majority of the United States of America is the Federal Constitution. Look at this way; the judge was simply protecting the interest of a larger majority. Until there is a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, I am quite certain the will of the people of America is to protect and serve the Federal Constitution as it is, and this judge has done very well in that respect.
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
I am not against gay marriage. I do not have a homophobic bone in my body (no pun intended.) But I must confess, even though I support allowing gays to marry, I do find it a bit uncomfortable to see a judge over ruling the will of the majority on any issue. But, that being said, if the courts were to always rule along the lines of majority rule, women wouldn't be voting and blacks would still be riding at the back of the bus. So, I can see some benefits going against the majority.

But one thing is for sure, as Redress brought up. Homophobia is on the decline. In ten years, I think you would be hard pressed to find a majority against the gays no matter where you looked. The folks from the older generations conditioned the way the older generations were raised to believe, are becoming less, and less, and less. That isn't an opinion, but a fact.

My question is this, when the majority of the population approves gay marriage in the years (<10) to come, will they still hang on to the idea that the will of the majority should be adhered to, like they are saying now, or will they come up with another reason to poo-poo gay marriage?

Face it. It's coming. Gays will be allowed to marry, coast to coast, within the next 10 years. I know some say it will never happen but those folks also said Obama would never get elected. LOL!
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

Gays will be allowed to marry. Healthcare will be universal. The deficit will be insurmountable. Social security will have dried up and gone. Unemployment will be at 20 percent.

And secession very well may be underway.

America is losing its soul and its identity.
 
Erod said:
You're a good dude, and I certainly wince that I'm offending you. I have no issue with you being gay, so please know that. This is an issue I'm very passionate about, as are you, and one we'll continue to butt heads. We're pretty parallel elsewhere.

I post so absolutely for a reason. I find the debate ridiculous frankly. I know you don't, but that's just where I am with it.

If I met you face to face, I'd gladly have a few beers with you. However, we'll just never see eye to eye on this particular issue.
Click to expand...

That's fair. Just understand that I have a real hard time with your presentation here though...it's not the argument itself; its how you're kinda going out of your way to be a little offensive about it.
 
Erod said:
Perhaps.

Gays will be allowed to marry. Healthcare will be universal. The deficit will be insurmountable. Social security will have dried up and gone. Unemployment will be at 20 percent.

And secession very well may be underway.

America is losing its soul and its identity.
Click to expand...

Hey look, irrational fear and an appeal to emotion.
 
Zyphlin said:
Pretty simple.

"Marriage" is what was found to be constitutional. BASED on the fact that marriage was found a constitutional right, the equal protection clause stated that you can't discriminate without meeting the threshold allowing it. The threshold to descriminate on race wasn't reached, so discrimination of marriage laws against race was struck down.
Click to expand...

The cases involving Race and marriage centered around different race marriage being illegal and criminal activity. Since same sex marriage is not a criminal activity, I do not see a direct correlation between the two cases. The current argument is based on what benefits the government will bestow upon a couple that chooses to allow the government to "bless" their union. Government should remove itself from marriage in every way. Anything else discriminates against someone.
 
Redress said:
I have proven just what I have claimed, that my position is based on actual evidence, not sayso. You then came in, said I was wrong, for no reason other than you said so, and offered zero backing evidence.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't understand and I'm bored now repeating myself. Your original position was that you had somehow "proved" that the district court case is not irrelevant because facts are "usually" determined at the district court level and Walker "made it difficult" for it to happen otherwise.

Sorry you haven't proven anything. That's simple logic, no "backing evidence" required.
 
Taylor said:
You obviously don't understand and I'm bored now repeating myself. Your original position was that you had somehow "proved" that the district court case is not irrelevant because facts are "usually" determined at the district court level and Walker "made it difficult" for it to happen otherwise.

Sorry you haven't proven anything. That's simple logic, no "backing evidence" required.
Click to expand...

Except that redress called on law scholars to back the assertion up. All you did was make meaningless decrees with no basis or support. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
That's fair. Just understand that I have a real hard time with your presentation here though...it's not the argument itself; its how you're kinda going out of your way to be a little offensive about it.
Click to expand...

And I apologize for that, but the notion of gay marriage is somewhat offensive to me in the first place. It's not something I want to have to address with my kids now, or ever.

It's like the teachers who had to explain cum on a dress to 5th graders in 1998. Our president was boning the intern outside of marriage, and that character flaw of his had to be dealt with by parents and teachers across the country.

I'm all for growth and the evolving of society, but to me, this is just an entirely unnecessary and frankly absurd "evolution" that isn't needed. Gays can live and prosper forever, and they can commit to each other however they wish. Just don't ask me to introduce to my 9-year-old that "this is Steve and his husband, Gary."
 
jallman said:
Except that redress called on law scholars to back the assertion up. All you did was make meaningless decrees with no basis or support. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It's kind of cute how you follow other people's posts, thanking them and adding little one-liners to the effect of "Yeah! So there!".

Kind of a like a little sidekick.

"Yeah! Strict scrutiny!"
"Yeah! Law scholars!"

LOL
 
Taylor said:
You obviously don't understand and I'm bored now repeating myself. Your original position was that you had somehow "proved" that the district court case is not irrelevant because facts are "usually" determined at the district court level and Walker "made it difficult" for it to happen otherwise.

Sorry you haven't proven anything. That's simple logic, no "backing evidence" required.
Click to expand...

You obviously are not following this at all. You called the ruling irrelevant. It is not and I showed why it is not, with evidence to back me up. You have failed to do anything of the sort. In point of fact, since the starting point for the next step is based on this ruling, it is anything but irrelevant. Now, do you have any facts to bring to bear?
 
Redress said:
Hey look, irrational fear and an appeal to emotion.
Click to expand...

That's what the Loyalists said circa 1775. To think this country is immune, after 234 measly years, to what has happened to thousands of societies over the course of time is naive.
 
Erod said:
And I apologize for that, but the notion of gay marriage is somewhat offensive to me in the first place. It's not something I want to have to address with my kids now, or ever.

It's like the teachers who had to explain cum on a dress to 5th graders in 1998. Our president was boning the intern outside of marriage, and that character flaw of his had to be dealt with by parents and teachers across the country.

I'm all for growth and the evolving of society, but to me, this is just an entirely unnecessary and frankly absurd "evolution" that isn't needed. Gays can live and prosper forever, and they can commit to each other however they wish. Just don't ask me to introduce to my 9-year-old that "this is Steve and his husband, Gary."
Click to expand...

As the decision made clear, the fact that this makes you uncomfortable is not a valid reason for discrimination.

Many people (as you know) had the exact same attitude toward interracial marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom