• 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!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Well, however this ends, whether gay marriage is eventually decided legal in all fifty states or not, heterosexuals can talk comfort in the fact that at no time will their own marriages ever come under threat, whether by litigation, popular votes or court decision.

Personally, I think a much fairer way of going about this is that if laws against gay marriage are decided constitutional, then gays don't get to be married and that's the end of that. But if they are decided to be unconstitutional, then all heterosexuals have to forfeit their marriages. The problem here is that heterosexuals (at least the anti-gay marriage camp) aren't threatened at all -- they're gambling with other people's lives.
 
What concerns me about some of these comments is that they are very similar to those made by segregationists during the civil rights struggle. Should states have had the right to decide segregation?!!!!!!!!!
 
digsbe said:
Who is prejudice? I have gay friends
Click to expand...

I only know you through this messageboard, but I doubt this part of your statement. First off, it's been my experience that folks who go around saying "I have black friends" or "I have gay friends" more than likely do not, and use such statements in an attempt to cushion their highly discriminatory beliefs by showing themselves to be inclusive of the very group they seek to eliminate. But if you do, describe these friends. You guys hang out a lot? Have dinner together? You know their relatives well? What are their aspirations - to get married, maybe have kids together and start a family?

No, friends tend to help one another, accept each other for who they are, and support each other. I've read your posts on the issue - you don't seem like you are very accepting of equality when it comes to homosexuality; therefore, I highly doubt that you seek to surround yourself with folks that you view as living an unacceptable lifestyle. You can tell the folks who really do have friends like that. They are the ones who don't label them as 'gay friends', and aren't all up in arms when they want to get married to one another.

So, you're against marriage equality? Fine. But I wish you and everyone else who is against it would please stop with the "me and my gay friends" routine, because it's really not fooling anyone.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
How does it affect you again? I keep forgetting.



No but the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of association.
Click to expand...

Funny how you are all for Gov't Forcing changes you support, but let a police officer pull you over for speeding...
 
tlmorg02 said:
What concerns me about some of these comments is that they are very similar to those made by segregationists during the civil rights struggle. Should states have had the right to decide segregation?!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the Gay is Race card!
 
I'm not really interested in another SSM marriage debate. I think we all know where each of us stands on this issue. It's been said ad nauseum.

What the 9th circuit did was not unfair, it was just unfortunate. Oh well... I'm sure people won't mind waiting until November to find out that they can get married and have equal rights.
 
Why should we have to wait for equal rights to be popular for them to be implemented? Should we have waited for the individual states to integrate the schools by vote? I mean, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that education is a right, so why should the courts have integrated the schools when the majority of people opposed it? It's the same logic, the courts were right then, and hopefully this gets to the supreme court quickly, and they uphold the rights of LGBT people.
 
Last edited:
If anything is unconstitutional, it is legislating from a direct ballot. Completely undermines the separation of powers.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

As direct ballots like Prop. 8 are instances of direct democracy, I question their republicanism.
 
Just because the State of CA had no answer for a particular question, doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. Will the 9th have enough latitude to make another argument in favor of the state? One of the central questions posed to the Respondents was that of the following:

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was
“not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.” Id at 23
Click to expand...


There's an answer to this question.


Tim-
 
9th Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal in Prop. 8 Case

Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: 9th Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal in Prop. 8 Case
Click to expand...

I could give a happy rat's ass if gay marriage is legal, but it makes me LOL to see Libbo pet issues get flushed down the toilet. I can't summon the words to say how overjoyed I am to see this turd blown out of the water by the most Liberal appelate court in the country. Could it be that someone is listening to the will of the people?
 
Morality Games said:
If anything is unconstitutional, it is legislating from a direct ballot. Completely undermines the separation of powers.



As direct ballots like Prop. 8 are instances of direct democracy, I question their republicanism.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Good luck with that one.
 
texmaster said:
Absolutely!

Its nice to see the courts stand up for the rights of 7 million voters :)
Click to expand...

Theoretically, nobody had any right to vote on this issue because only courts have the constitutional authority to define a right. A right to gay marriage may exist, or it may not, but the public cannot decide one way or another. The public might lack the impartiality necessary to render a fair judgment, whereas judges have the training to make such judgments. In more legal terms, the U.S. Constitution says judges are the ones who interpret the U.S. Constitution, and Prop. 8 effectively overturned the interpretation of a court.

Harshaw said:
Yeah. Good luck with that one.
Click to expand...

It's sort of hard to reconcile republicanism with populism. Their values contradict each other.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
there is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage Disney. No matter how much you scream, the only way to claim its in there is to bastardize the law already written to include it when it never was even hinted to be in there when it was written.



Actually I did. I enjoy seeing the rights of the voters enforced by the courts.
Click to expand...

You obviously either are not familiar with or simply do not understand what Equal protection means.
 
digsbe said:
I deleted that post.

And I have said in other threads that if the majority vote in favor of gay marriage then I have no problem with it. If a majority supports it then let them vote on it. However, they will have to vote to repeal prop 8 and then place a new proposition that defines marriage for that state. I fully support the state's rights to define marriage by popular vote.
Click to expand...

Are you willing to put inter-racial marriage to a vote?

What if the majority of voters decide that marriage should be restricted to Latinos only.

Would you be ok with that....as long as the majority of voters voted for it?
 
All I know is that a generation from now, much like the racial issues in the civil rights movement, when my grandchildren talk about prejudice and intolerance, I will be able to tell them that I was on the side of love and right and that I stood up against hatred and bigotry.
 
DD -
Are you willing to put inter-racial marriage to a vote?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant..

What if the majority of voters decide that marriage should be restricted to Latinos only
Click to expand...

Irrelevant..

Would you be ok with that....as long as the majority of voters voted for it?
Click to expand...

No, but what does any if it have to do with gay marriage?


Tim-
 
disneydude said:
All I know is that a generation from now, much like the racial issues in the civil rights movement, when my grandchildren talk about prejudice and intolerance, I will be able to tell them that I was on the side of love and right and that I stood up against hatred and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Bigotry, eh? On the side of love, eh? Please... How about being on the side that is the most ideal to society.. That's the side I wanne be on.


Tim-
 
Re: 9th Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal in Prop. 8 Case

apdst said:
I could give a happy rat's ass if gay marriage is legal, but it makes me LOL to see Libbo pet issues get flushed down the toilet. I can't summon the words to say how overjoyed I am to see this turd blown out of the water by the most Liberal appelate court in the country. Could it be that someone is listening to the will of the people?
Click to expand...

1) The judge in question is a Bush appointee;
2) The will of the people is not relevant in instances where the tyranny of the majority threatens the rights of the minority... that is exactly why we have courts that entertain constitutional questions;
3) A stay is very appropriate in the circumstance, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case;
4) The ultimate outcome is independent of granting a stay; and

5) that all said, I actually am against gay marriage.

3)
 
Hicup said:
DD -

Irrelevant..



Irrelevant..



No, but what does any if it have to do with gay marriage?


Tim-
Click to expand...

The same arguments apply. There are several people saying that they support whatever the voters decide. The logical extension then is whether ALL civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

You may not like it...because it hits too close to home. But why is it ok to put some people's rights to a vote and not others? THAT is exactly the same mentality that existed racially during the civil rights movement.
 
Hicup said:
Bigotry, eh? On the side of love, eh? Please... How about being on the side that is the most ideal to society.. That's the side I wanne be on.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Exactly how does society benefit by denying gay marriage? This should be good.
 
disneydude said:
The same arguments apply. There are several people saying that they support whatever the voters decide. The logical extension then is whether ALL civil rights should be put to a popular vote.

You may not like it...because it hits too close to home. But why is it ok to put some people's rights to a vote and not others? THAT is exactly the same mentality that existed racially during the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...

Becasue I'm not predisposed to being black, or latino, or male or female.. THAT's, why it is irrelevant..!!


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom