• 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 won't force state to defend Prop. 8

Doesn't matter.

The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.

The California Constitution, which the United States Constitution trumps.
 
And marriage is a union between a man and woman. You can create another legal union with a different name for homosexuals. However, by definition the homosexual union does not fit the definition of marriage. And even homosexuals can get married to anyone of the opposite sex that consents. It is still reserved for everyone.

Legislative fact argument eh?

The problem with arguing that marriage has always been between a man and a woman is that there is a historical record in many different countries of people of the same sex getting married. Furthermore, just as you can argue that anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, it can be argued that everyone is denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Denying people rights is what is in contention.
 
The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.
This is, of course, silly. The oath is to defend the constitution, period, not the constitution as it stood at the time the oath was taken.

One can only imagine your outrage if this argument were used in a refusal to enforce the 13th or 15th amendment.
 
Where in the Constitution does it specifically state gay marriage as a privilege?
Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.
As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.
 
The California Constitution, which the United States Constitution trumps.

Not on every issue. Only those over which the US Constitution has supremacy. As the equal protection question under the US Constitution is an open issue, and in fact no other federal court has ever ruled that state marriage laws as they exist violate equal protection, then a defense of the California constitution requires an argument that it doesn't violate anything, and that it's a purely state matter.
 
Marrige, as a legal entity, was created by the state - it exists only because the state created it, and would not exist had the state not created it.
As such, it can ONLY be a privilege, as rights are neither created by nor bestowed upon the people by the state.
Because it's a legal entity, part of the public sphere, it's part of our legal system. As such, it must be equal in regards to the People, as per certain Constitutional protections; the Equal Protection clause, as an example. There are lots of protections in the Law which state that unfair treatment or persecution is unconstitutional.

It doesn't matter if you consider marriage itself to be a privilege or a right. What does matter is that everyone has the same rights concerning the Law itself. Duh.
 
Last edited:
Because it's a legal entity, part of the public sphere, it's part of our legal system. As such, it must be equal in regards to the People, as per the Equal Protection clause.
Yes... but that doesnt change the fact that marriage is a privilege, not a right.
The -right- involved here, if any, is the right to equal protection under the law in that priviliges may only be denied to people under certain circumstances.
 
Yes... but that doesnt change the fact that marriage is a privilege, not a right.
It's a "Law" (or lawful entity) so it doesn't matter.
The -right- involved here, if any, is the right to equal protection under the law in that privileges may only be denied to people under certain circumstances.
Those circumstances are when two people or groups of people are similarly situated, in legal terms.

So we have a situation where both same-sex and opposite-sex couples: 1. Marry. 2. Raise Children 3. Form life-long commitments, relationships, legal and economic ties. In every way that concerns the State, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similar in legal terms. Marriage is a legal contract, with a set of rights, privileges, penalties and immunities within it. Most of which concern join-finances, property and debt obligations.

It's insane to deny same-sex couples the legal institution of marriage on the base of homophobia.
 
It's a "Law" (or lawful entity) so it doesn't matter.
It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.

Those circumstances are when two people or groups of people are similarly situated, in legal terms.
The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.

It's insane to deny same-sex couples the legal institution of marriage on the base of homophobia.
Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.
 
It does when you are explaining to someone where the idea that marriage is a right/privilge to somone who asks - which is exactly what I was doing.
Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."

So, you were only half right.
The point is that the 14th does not guarantee that -everyone- has access to -every- legal privilege granted by a state.
I agree.

But where same-sex and opposite-sex coupels are similarly situated, I believe it violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to a legal contract.
Hmm. Well, given that few, if any, opponents of same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals, you'll not oppose their arguments.
I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.

Most arguments I've heard have been irrational fears about what "could" happen if homos are allowed to marry legally. That's the phobia I'm talking about.
 
Except that marriage is a Legal contract. That legal contract contains "rights, privilages, immunities, penalties and benefits."
So, you were only half right.
No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.

I agree.
But where same-sex and opposite-sex coupels are similarly situated, I believe it violates Equal Protection and Due Process to deny same-sex couples access to a legal contract.
You can hold that belief if you want - it remains to be seen if your belief has any lasting legal merit.

I have never heard a valid argument against same-sex marriage, so I wouldn't be so sure.
Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.

Most arguments I've heard have been irrational fears about what "could" happen if homos are allowed to marry legally. That's the phobia I'm talking about.
That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
 
Irrelevant to what you said
It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.
your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.
Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.

Concern is a way of expressing a fear of a thing, life-style, person or whatever. You are just playing word games.
That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.

Hence "homophobia." You don't have an argument--or at least you haven't made one. So make an argument.

If you don't think homosexuality is wrong or bad. What possible reason could you have for opposing same-sex marriage? Just for fun?
 
To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.

"Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.

Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.
 
"Wrong" is a moral judgement, and irrelevant.
Actually, it's a "subjective" judgment, not necessarily concerning morals. But nice try.
Which isn't to say that homosexuality isn't a genetic flaw or a developmental maladjustment. It clearly serves no evolutionary purpose, since it's consumation does not lead to progeny.
I often hear this argument from the Right; same people who believe everything in nature has a purpose. That's why they call it an "intelligent design."

Just because you don't understand the purpose of homosexuality in nature, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a purpose. Nature has a way of stabilizing a population, keeping the ecosystem in balance. I believd that the purpose of homosexuality is to keep the population relatively stable. There are almost seven billion people on the planet and the number is increasing exponentially. In the 1800s there were only about a billion people on the planet.

Maybe there is a purpose that you simply don't understand.
 
Last edited:
It was highly relevent to what I said, you don't seem to understand the point I was making.
I do. And it has nothing to do with why I said what I said.

Everyone that opposes Homosexual-marriage, does so out of "concern" of the "homosexual" part.
Concern is a way of expressing a fear of a thing, life-style, person or whatever. You are just playing word games.
Ah, the irony.

To assume that "homosexuality" is a part of a "slope" that will lead to disaster is also assuming that "homosexuality" itself is inherently wrong.
There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.
 
No, I am fully right. It exists only because the state created it, and as such, it must be a privillege.

Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"

Irrelevant to what you said - your statement referenced positions rooted in homophobia. Since few, if any, people that oppose same-sex marriage are afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality, their arguments are not rooted in homophobia, and as such, you must not oppose them.

Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.


That's a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.

No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
 
Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"
Voting is, at times -- your state grants you the privilege to vote for President; you have no right to do so.
Your legal ability to have a gun or a trial by jury were not granted to you by the government - they are rights that pre-exist government.
Your legal ability to get married, however, exists only because the state gives it to you - thus, a privilege.

Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.
Oh. So it isnt REALLY a phobia then. Why contine to use the term if it doesn't really apply?

No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
And thus, it is a 'slippery slope' argument, not homophobia.
 
Can we then call voting, guns, speech, and trial-by-jury "privileges?"

Phobia, in this context, does not necessarily indicate literal fear of danger.

No, it's deliberately putting the fear of the unknown into people.
Exactly. I'm glad someone understands the subject.
Clearly you don't. Must be a miscommunication somewhere.
There is absolutely no necessary relationship between those two things.
So are saying you don't believe same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Good, at least we agree on that.

There is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage. I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
 
Clearly you don't. Must be a miscommunication somewhere.
Most likely your inability, willfull or otherwise, to comprehend a statement in the context it was made.

So are saying you don't believe same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Good, at least we agree on that.
No.. I am saying that there is no necessary relationship between the two concepts your tried to relate together. As such, your argument to that effect is unsound.

There is no valid reason--legal or otherwise--to oppose same-sex marriage. I've never read a post that provided such a reason.
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
 
Your legal ability to have a gun or a trial by jury were not granted to you by the government - they are rights that pre-exist government.
In correct. Trial by jury is an entity created by the Government, it's not a "right" given naturally to human beings. Neither is "voting." There is no natural "right" to own a fire-arm.

Those were all legal concepts designed through legal Governmental processes. While I agree the Government doesn't "create" natural rights, it does create legal rights.

The only natural rights I know of are the rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. I never heard "God" say, yo, man you have the right to own a AK-47.
 
Most likely your inability, willfull or otherwise, to comprehend a statement in the context it was made.

No.. I am saying that there is no necessary relationship between the two concepts your tried to relate together. As such, your argument to that effect is unsound.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
In other words, you are unable to simply make a argument on your own.

All you are doing is stating "I'm right and you are wrong" and posting to some website to make your argument for you. Pathetic.
 
In correct. Trial by jury is an entity created by the Government, it's not a "right" given naturally to human beings. Neither is "voting." There is no natural "right" to own a fire-arm.
Please cite for me the constitutional, legislative or regulatory languange that positively grants you the right to own a firearm.
 
In other words, you are unable to simply make a argument on your own.
Nothing in anything that I have posted here requires me to make any argument regarding the constitutionality of state provisions that do not allow same-sex marriange.
I have, however, pointed out logical/factual/other flaws in the arguments that YOU have presented, which is a perfectly valid thing to do.

For instance, your argument that "I've never read a post that provided such a reason" is, without question, an appeal to ignorance.
 
Back
Top Bottom