• 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!

Will CA do the right thing and overturn Prop 8?

Will the CA courts overturn Prop 8?

  • Total voters
    27
Yes it would. That would be an unconscionable and unwarranted usurpation of legislative prerogative by the judiciary--not to mention being an amazingly stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...

The California constitution EXPLICITLY states such an action is allowed.

Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.
Click to expand...
 
rathi said:
The California constitution EXPLICITLY states such an action is allowed.
Click to expand...
Revocation would require legislation or ballot initiative, not judicial fiat. You're grasping at straws on this one.
 
Goldwaters said:
Okay, fair enough. How about it put this way...the prevailing social values in America in 50 years will likely have us looking upon anti gay folks in the same way we look at people who opposed inter-racial marriage in the 40's and 50's. And people who oppossed the rights of blacks earlier. And the men who opposed the right of a woman to vote. And folks who supported the legality of slavery. And so on.

Can you admit that gay marriage, nationwide by state, will be allowed in most if not all states eventually? Or do you think otherwise?
Click to expand...

Why do you think this matters? Why do you think that legal decisions should be based on what the court predicts may happen 50 years in the future? That's pretty much antithetical to the idea of the court system.

Goldwaters said:
Does that mean you've studied slavery, the early women's rights movement, and the civil rights movement...and found aspects of slavery, denial of women's rights, and denial of civil rights to be moraly and philosophically sound?

I agree that the most oppressive bigotry comes from someone, or a group, that thinks they're moraly supreme...like the anti gay marriage folks.
Click to expand...

Most of the anti-civil rights decisions that are decried now are only bad because the context of their decisions is rejected today. Legally, they're pretty sound for the most part.
 
celticlord said:
It means I've studied those things and found the actual history to be very different from the superficial pastiche of moralizing most people put upon them.
Click to expand...
Groucho Marx said it best..."You can believe your eyes or you can believe me". I admit that I have not read any history regarding slavery, women's rights, and civil rights that contains information that changes my opinion that slavery, denial of women's rights, and denial of civil rights are unacceptable to society. I'm genuinly interested in some of the books you've read that have allowed you to obtain a historical perspective that includes a less demonic portrayal of slave owners, chauvanists, and racists.
celticlord said:
Cute. Include the pro-gay marriage folk in that sentence and you have something worth reaction besides scorn and contempt.
Click to expand...
Pro gay marriage folks want simply the right to marry, which deprives no others of any rights. Anti gay marriage folks want to regulate the lives of others, and deny rights to others that they enjoy themselves. My statement was fine the way it was.
 
RightinNYC said:
Why do you think this matters?
Click to expand...
It only matters to me. I'm curious about Celticlord's opinion.
RightinNYC said:
Most of the anti-civil rights decisions that are decried now are only bad because the context of their decisions is rejected today. Legally, they're pretty sound for the most part.
Click to expand...
I was asking him a question that was not of a legal nature. Sorry, I'm not trying to be short or anything, but right now, I'm trying explore a larger ethical theme including slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and gay marriage, not what he considers legally sound. So far he's putting up with me.
 
All this fuss over a word that too many "normal" people don't respect anyway....and the gay community has proven itself to be its own worst enemy when it comes to achieving their goals.

I predict the courts will overturn Prop. 8.
It should never have been on the ballot in the first place. Majority rule is often wrong, and it is up to the courts to remind us of that....
 
Goldwaters said:
Pro gay marriage folks want simply the right to marry, which deprives no others of any rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, I already have a ball and chain and even if I was silly enough to want two, I'd be looking the other way, if you know what I mean.

What I want is this issue to go away as fast as possible because, first off, you're right, it's no one's business who marries whom, except for Who and Whom. And secondly, there's a train wreck coming like this nation hasn't seen since the Democrats started the Civil War, and the issues in that are issues that will lead to either the permanent demise of the United States or produce a rebirth of freedom that will be nearly impossible to stop.
 
Inferno said:
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:
Click to expand...

Let's hope not, although judicial activism is not unlikely.

the right thing is to uphold the rule of law, the constitution and separation of powers and not let the ends destroy any attempt at justice and right in the means.
 
I voted no.

I hope I'm wrong... I think the decision is due in 10 minutes.
 
Inferno said:
The Ca Constitution needs to be in line with the US Constitution. If it is not than it need to be rewritten
Click to expand...
This is for the people and th elegislature of CA to do, not the CA court.
 
jallman said:
Except when the people and the legislature enact something that runs counter to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
An amendment to the constitution cannot violate the constitution.
 
jallman said:
Except where it violates prior points of the constitution without overturning them.
Click to expand...
Like...?

Amendments, by their nature, change existing portions of the constitution.
Thus, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
 
Goldwaters said:
Well it looks like another victory for anti gay marriage forces in California.
Click to expand...
Anti-gay forces... like the people of CA who voted for the amendment...?

There was a topic on this board that described how a significant portion of the support for this amendment came from hispanics and blacks, who were bought to the polls by the "get out the vote" Obama support machine.

Go figure.
 
jallman said:
Except where they contradict one another.
Click to expand...
The part you're not getting is that they cannot contradict each other. The amendment, being an amendment, takes precedence, as it, by its nature, changes the existing parts of the Constitution.

If you disagree -- please cite an example where this 'contradiction' might exist.
 
Goobieman said:
Anti-gay forces... like the people of CA who voted for the amendment...?

There was a topic on this board that described how a significant portion of the support for this amendment came from hispanics and blacks, who were bought to the polls by the "get out the vote" Obama support machine.

Go figure.
Click to expand...
By Anti gay forces I mean citizens who are opposed to gay marriage, and the Churches that ralley those people.
 
Goobieman said:
The part you're not getting is that they cannot contradict each other.
Click to expand...

I "get it" just fine. I don't see how you can have two blatantly contradictory portions of the Constitution without the language overturning the prior portion of the constitution. It creates a ton of legal conundrums.
 
jallman said:
I "get it" just fine. I don't see how you can have two blatantly contradictory portions of the Constitution without the language overturning the prior portion of the constitution. It creates a ton of legal conundrums.
Click to expand...
No, no it doesnt.

For instance: An amendment against flag burning does not conflict with the 1st amendment because, by its nature, it modifies the 1st amendment, even absent specific language to that effect.

Note that NONE of the first 10 amendments (and most of the rest) contain no language that specifically modifies the portions of the Constitutioon that they modify.
 
Goldwaters said:
By Anti gay forces I mean citizens who are opposed to gay marriage, and the Churches that ralley those people.
Click to expand...
Wouln't these people be more accurately referred to as 'anti-gay marraige forces' rather than 'anti-gay forces'?

After all, I dont think The Obama is anti-gay.
 
Goobieman said:
No, no it doesnt.

For instance: An amendment against flag burning does not conflict with the 1st amendment because, by its nature, it modifies the 1st amendment, even absent specific language to that effect.

Note that NONE of the first 10 amendments (and most of the rest) contain no language that specifically modifies the portions of the Constitutioon that they modify.
Click to expand...

We aren't discussing the US constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are discussiong the California Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom