• 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.
Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit. How is that so hard for you to understand?

Well voting does and that is Constitutional sooooo what is your point?
 
General observation actually.


There was no necessity for that since at the beginning, marriage wasn't a government contract. It was left to the churches. And if it were still that way, I'd probably be agreeing with you.

But since it isn't and since this judge used the equal protection clause as justification how can you possibly exclude any other group from asking for marriage "rights" under the same claim?
 
Prove to me that pedophiles and polygamists are now able to get married. Find me the legal proof that those restrictions were overturned, because it is presently against the law to tell a woman she can't marry a woman based on the 14th Amendment clause protecting the rights of people based on gender?

There hasn't been a case since this judge just ruled that the equal protection clause includes marriage. What part of that don't you understand?

And you'll note that AGE isn't a part of it; which means it's Constitutional to discriminate based on age (in certain cases).

AGE isn't excluded either. How could you exclude age if they don't mention it being excluded under the equal protection clause? Explain that.

That's the point that you fail to get.

You are making up that polygamists and pedohpiles can now marry. It's not true and the overturning of Prop. 8 doesn't suddenly mean they can win if they challenge. You're making a leap of logic and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're doing it.

Nothing you've been saying here makes any sense whatsoever.

Only because you have no clue what the ruling was based on. Here's a hint: The equal protection clause which does not address marriage size or age. This judge if you were reading carefully stated marriage falls under this protection so if he can inject homosexual marriage as part of this clause, how could he exclude others when they too were not mentioned? I know you have to think about it for a bit but do try just once.

And as to the answer of your last question: just about everything.

I knew you couldn't be honest enough to produce examples. Thanks for staying predicatble.
 
But since it isn't and since this judge used the equal protection clause as justification how can you possibly exclude any other group from asking for marriage "rights" under the same claim?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN A PROTECTED CLASS AS GENDER IS.

Okay. How many times does the answer have to be given to you before it sinks in?

And I'm sorry I can't even acknowledge the post above this because none of it is even based in fact.
 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN A PROTECTED CLASS AS GENDER IS.

GENDER IS RELEVANT IN ALL SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS.

Tell us Film, where would gender NOT play a role in ANY sexual orientation??? Go ahead, I love a good laugh.

Would you please pay attention just ONE time? Please? And answer ALL my questions. Quit cherry picking just because you think you can win something.
 
Last edited:
There hasn't been a case since this judge just ruled that the equal protection clause includes marriage. What part of that don't you understand?

Actually, that was ruled on by judges decades back.

Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

AGE isn't excluded either. How could you exclude age if they don't mention it being excluded under the equal protection clause? Explain that.

The Supreme Court established the scrutiny test for the Equal Protection Clause in Craig versus Boren in 1976.

wikipedia said:
* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.[20]
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?
 
Last edited:
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?

I bolded the key part, the part those arguing this opens things for other types of marriage don't seem to realize.
 
Anytime someone tells you something you don't want to hear, you respond with "prove it".

Your lack of common knowledge, basic civics and concepts in U.S. Government isn't our problem. It's yours. Deal with it or get off the boards.

Yet people here spend more energy avoiding proving it than if they actuall backed up their opinions with factual links
 
Yet people here spend more energy avoiding proving it than if they actuall backed up their opinions with factual links

Back that up with links, please. Otherwise that's just pure conjecture and opinion.
 
Wow, this thread cleared out quick once the actual details of Walker's ruling were presented.

Do I sense a little disdain from the Conservatives? Perhaps the fact that Walker's ruling was based on sex, not on sexual orientation is a bit upsetting?

Maybe it's just too good an argument that Prop 8 couldn't stand up to scrutiny since the anti gay marriage side couldn't present any evidence that the state had an interest in mandating gender roles in marriage and effectively perpetuated gender discrimination?

Maybe what scared them off was the fact that marriages based on pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality can't pass under the terms of gender discrimination and the state has no substantial or rational interest in allowing them?

Oh poohy. No one wants to debate Walker's decision anymore.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I am going to ask you to prove a claim, that most people in this country actually do think gays are deviant. Once again, you are almost certainly not going to do this.

They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........
 
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........

Which does not prove that it is "most people". So again, prove that "most people" find gays to be "deviant". Just once prove one of your claims.
 
Actually, that was ruled on by judges decades back.

Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."

Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

My apologies. I meant on terms other than race.

The Supreme Court established the scrutiny test for the Equal Protection Clause in Craig versus Boren in 1976.


Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?

Do children have gender? Do more than 2 people have gender? Gender is a factor in any alternative lifestyle. How can you descriminate against that?
 
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........

Just curious but what is the primary sex act gays have?

And how do you know?
 
Wow, this thread cleared out quick once the actual details of Walker's ruling were presented.

LOL Because a few minutes passed by you think we all forgot about it? Thats quite an ego you've got.


Maybe what scared them off was the fact that marriages based on pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality can't pass under the terms of gender discrimination and the state has no substantial or rational interest in allowing them?

No substantial or rational interest in allowing them? LOL Since when was your personal opinion of what is ration or substantial count as law? This is what is so pathetic in your argument. You can't discriminate against other lifestyles without injecting what you think is substantial or rational

Nowhere in the equal protection clause states that a finding my CT or any other poster can exclude other alternative lifestyles based on their own feelings on what is substantial or rational interest :lamo
 
Last edited:
Do children have gender? Do more than 2 people have gender? Gender is a factor in any alternative lifestyle. How can you descriminate against that?

You are missing the main point. Does it pass the scrutiny test?
 
plante.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom