• 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!

Proposition 8 Dies with a Whimper.

RabidAlpaca said:
It's not a strawman, you want to take away rights/privileges from a class you deem inferior, while you enjoy those rights/privileges for yourself. Sorry, you do not get to do that.
Click to expand...

Yes it is indeed. AND a superfluous dodge at that. Though I do appreciate how you've stretched to falsely conflate privileges with rights in order to make your case. And no, NEITHER of us get to do that, or anything else - it's up to the Ayatollahs to decide, we no longer have a say.
 
Gipper said:
Yeah. Damn us libertarians for not wanting to legislate every f'n thing alive.
Click to expand...
The ones here don't want any laws at all is seems. They deem them oppressive.
 
clownboy said:
Yes it is indeed. AND a superfluous dodge at that. Though I do appreciate how you've stretched to falsely conflate privileges with rights in order to make your case. And no, NEITHER of us get to do that, or anything else - it's up to the Ayatollahs to decide, we no longer have a say.
Click to expand...

So, I know I'm going to regret this but.......are you opposed to gay marriage or is your beef with the way this was done?
 
opendebate said:
So, I know I'm going to regret this but.......are you opposed to gay marriage or is your beef with the way this was done?
Click to expand...

Mostly the way this was done, and still more the totality of the SCOTUS historically and present day. As for the gay marriage issue, that should be up to the individual states and their peoples to decide. Also, if a state recognises the marriage, the feds should too.
 
opendebate said:
So, I know I'm going to regret this but.......are you opposed to gay marriage or is your beef with the way this was done?
Click to expand...

Excuse me Opendebate and sorry for the temporary thread drift, but why don't your boobs on your avatar have any nipples ?
 
Gipper said:
Judges don't legislate in a republic.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




But they do stop the majority from taking constitutional rights away from minorities.

Do you agree that that is a good thing?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
APACHERAT said:
Excuse me Opendebate and sorry for the temporary thread drift, but why don't your boobs on your avatar have any nipples ?
Click to expand...

Leather suit doll
 
clownboy said:
Heh, you know differently, neither of us are new here and we've read one another's posts. What I say is not hyperbole, but a conclusion based upon the evolution of the SCOTUS and it's place in America constitutionally and by custom. We have given up on democracy and republic and are now ruled by a few black robed lifetime appointees. Just how is this any different from the system that is rulled by Ayatollahs or a ruling religious council?

Show me where in our federal constitution marriage exists as a right.
Click to expand...

Marriage is considered in the US a "fundamental right". See, this is why you should read about what you are talking about. I know how the courts ruled, you clearly do not.
 
clownboy said:
Yes it is indeed. AND a superfluous dodge at that. Though I do appreciate how you've stretched to falsely conflate privileges with rights in order to make your case. And no, NEITHER of us get to do that, or anything else - it's up to the Ayatollahs to decide, we no longer have a say.
Click to expand...

Dude... Seriously? You think your religion tells you to hate homosexuals and make their lives miserable, so you're trying to put your religion into the government. That is EXACTLY what ayatollas do. They don't like homosexuals either.

APACHERAT said:
What in hell does a "republic" have to do with majorities or minorties ?

The Soviet Union was a republic, Nazi Germany was a republic, Communist China is a republic, the Peoples Repulik of California is a republic.

The SCOUS did not rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, they ruled that those before the court who were defending Prop. 8 had no right standing before the SCOUS defending Prop. 8. That only the California Attorney General was allowed to defend Prop. 8. That was the Supreme Court's ruling.

Why people were celebrating is beyond my thinking. The Supreme Court basically ruled that the Governor and Attorney General of California failed to uphold the oath of office they took and violated the state Constitution by flipping off the majority of the citizens in California and saying #### the laws of California and the will of the people, do as I say.

What next initiative that is on the ballot that the vast majority of citizens pass and is challenged and the Governor or Attorney General of California or any other state decides not to uphold his or hers oath of office and ignore that states constitution and refuse to defend a law that the majority voted in to law ?

Just another few more steps towards a totalitarian government.
Click to expand...

Well, basic human decency beats religious fanaticism. Prop 8 never should have been able to exist in the first place. We're supposed to be living in an egalitarian society. Denying rights/previliges to someone else that you readily enjoy is the epitome of egocentrism and hypocrisy.

Gipper said:
Don't assume.

That aside, no "specific class" is being denied. That's like saying an enforcement of statutory rape is "denying a specific class". Privilege is privilege because not everyone is afforded it. You could make the same argument against progressive taxation by citing it being against a "specific class".

People can't just do anything they damn well please. Only hedonists would disagree.
Click to expand...

So that's your explanation? If anything is not specifically defined in the constitution, the majority can decide to do absolutely whatever they want with it? Since marriage isn't a right, I guess the majority could vote that christians can't marry, right?

Redress said:
Marriage is considered in the US a "fundamental right". See, this is why you should read about what you are talking about. I know how the courts ruled, you clearly do not.
Click to expand...

I'd like to use this court case against Gipper, since he believes it's only a privilege. Do you have a link?
 
In a constitutional Republic, such as the United States, the Constitution, and not the will of the people is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court, as a third branch of government the task of interpreting that Constitution.

That is just basic civics. It is quite surprising that so many seem to believe that the supreme law of the land is the outcome of a vote, and that the people can simply vote in whatever law they see fit. In a pure democracy, that would be the case, but then, as has been said many times before, a pure democracy consists of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A pure democracy might work on a small scale, as long as it is populated by reasonable people, but on a large scale it simply does not work.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In a constitutional Republic, such as the United States, the Constitution, and not the will of the people is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court, as a third branch of government the task of interpreting that Constitution.

That is just basic civics. It is quite surprising that so many seem to believe that the supreme law of the land is the outcome of a vote, and that the people can simply vote in whatever law they see fit. In a pure democracy, that would be the case, but then, as has been said many times before, a pure democracy consists of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A pure democracy might work on a small scale, as long as it is populated by reasonable people, but on a large scale it simply does not work.
Click to expand...

Today the courts have been stacked by Presidents and Governors with activist judges who no longer interpret the intent of laws but legislate from the bench.

The first President to stack the federal courts with activist judges was FDR. FDR was aware that many of his policies were unconstitutional and started to stack the Supreme Court with judges who would ignore the intent of laws when interperting them.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well, basic human decency beats religious fanaticism. Prop 8 never should have been able to exist in the first place. We're supposed to be living in an egalitarian society. Denying rights/previliges to someone else that you readily enjoy is the epitome of egocentrism and hypocrisy.
QUOTE]

I suppose Barack Obama evolved faster than most of America.
Click to expand...
 
shrubnose said:
But they do stop the majority from taking constitutional rights away from minorities.

You have to possess something before it can be taken away.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
Click to expand...



How can a Constitutional right be taken away if it wasn't a right to begin with ?
 
APACHERAT said:
Today the courts have been stacked by Presidents and Governors with activist judges who no longer interpret the intent of laws but legislate from the bench.

The first President to stack the federal courts with activist judges was FDR. FDR was aware that many of his policies were unconstitutional and started to stack the Supreme Court with judges who would ignore the intent of laws when interperting them.
Click to expand...

Translation: I don't like the decisions that the Supreme Court has made, so I'm calling it "legislating from the bench."
It's OK of you don't agree, but the fact of the matter is that it is their job to keep the legislature, or even the people directly, from passing laws that violate the Constitution.

IMO, they've failed to spot a couple of them, including the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture, but then, I have my own opinions of what they need to do, too, just as everyone else does.
 
shrubnose said:
As long as the Supreme Court does its job constitutional rights will not be taken away in the USA
Click to expand...

The libs only need one more activist judge on the Supreme Court and we will be in serious danger of having the Constitution being completely redefined.

The left believes that the Constitution is a living and breathing document where it's intent can be changed any time to further a political agenda.

While the other side believes that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the intent of those who wrote the Constitution and it's amendments. That the Constitution is a breathing document that can be changed, only under how the Constitution says it can be changed or amended, through the process of a Constitutional Amendment.
 
APACHERAT said:
The libs only need one more activist judge on the Supreme Court and we will be in serious danger of having the Constitution being completely redefined.
Click to expand...

The left believes that the Constitution is a living and breathing document where it's intent can be changed any time to further a political agenda.

While the other side believes that the Constitution is to be interpreted by the intent of those who wrote the Constitution and it's amendments. That the Constitution is a breathing document that can be changed, only under how the Constitution says it can be changed or amended, through the process of a Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...




I believe that by 2050 every Supreme Court judge will be a liberal.

What do you think that will do for the USA?
 
shrubnose said:
I believe that by 2050 every Supreme Court judge will be a liberal.

What do you think that will do for the USA?
Click to expand...

America will look more like South Africa. Our major urban cities will be more like how L.A. is portrayed in the movie "blade Runner."

In 2050 over half who are living in America will look at the DP archives and all of the words will look like gibberish to them.

In 2050 I will being pushing 150. I will be ashamed when I'm standing in front of the gates of Heaven knowing that I failed and America is in worse shape than when our fathers handed America over to us.

I guess we couldn't fill their boots.
 
APACHERAT said:
America will look more like South Africa. Our major urban cities will be more like how L.A. is portrayed in the movie "blade Runner."

In 2050 over half who are living in America will look at the DP archives and all of the words will look like gibberish to them.

In 2050 I will being pushing 150. I will be ashamed when I'm standing in front of the gates of Heaven knowing that I failed and America is in worse shape than when our fathers handed America over to us.

I guess we couldn't fill their boots
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




That's your opinion. I believe that we will leave the USA in better shape than it was in when they were running the show.

History will be the judge of it all and I don't waste my time worrying about it.
 
clownboy said:
So basically you're celebrating that the supreme court of a state decided not to honor the electoral will of the people. Yay. :roll:

Does this mean you'll all celebrate the next time this happens when it's an issue you voted for? Somehow I doubt it. We'll hear a different story then accompanied by groaning and complaining about the loss of democracy in America.
Click to expand...

I don't give a crap about what "the people" want, I care about liberty. When "the people" decide to constrain the individual on an issue that doesn't affect "the people" in any way shape or form, I will always be all for the courts telling "the people" to stuff it.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I don't give a crap about what "the people" want, I care about liberty.
When "the people" decide to constrain the individual on an issue that doesn't affect "the people" in any way shape or form, I will always be all for the courts telling "the people" to stuff it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I agree with you 100%.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 
shrubnose said:
That's your opinion. I believe that we will leave the USA in better shape than it was in when they were running the show.

History will be the judge of it all and I don't waste my time worrying about it.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I hope your right.

But right now from where I'm looking from, the sistuation is in doubt.
 
APACHERAT said:
Honestly, I hope your right.

But right now from where I'm looking from, the sistuation is in doubt.
Click to expand...

There is always a segment of every generation that believes we're going straight to hell on the express train -- and yet we manage to keep trundling along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom