Login/Sign Up




California Supreme court upholds Prop 8
Politics

kleban10
May 26, 2009
11 votes
13 debaters
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

5
Support the uphold


idiminish
May 26, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
The court's decision was not one about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage, it was about issue of how the people within a state change their own constitution. (the suit had concerned whether or not the proposition was legally appropriate). In this regard the law is pretty clear. And I think the law should be upheld. To change it would have set a precedent to allow an elite group to make and uphold laws contrary to the will of a majority exercising power within their state. A dangerous condition given the nature of our government as a democratic republic.

 
helpme
May 28, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

Loosen your tie a little bit and relax. I don't care who you marry.

 
nowurconvinced
May 28, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
First of all, I am agnostic, however, I must quote many religious texts when I say that marriage has always been man and woman (Adam and Eve, not Adam and stEve), tradition has kept us alive this long, so why break it.

Many will argue seperation of church and state, and I agree with that, but when we have to put our hand on the bible to get sworn into office, that does not sound like seperation to me.

Mr Frankie: Civil Rights is not rights for homosexuals, its right for anybody but a straight, white, man. I think that it is already racist when white men cannot be discriminated against, we are reverse discriminated against. That is stupid and very racist and bull. I also belive that the Marriages already performed should be taken away, all or nothing my friend.

I saw a post on morality here also, It is IMMORAL to go against human nature, just do it, with women, its not that bad, actually its kinda awesome. Also, I agree with the idiminish's dictionary.com post, in which he clearly adresses the fact that the US is a Democratic Republic, You are entitled to your own opinion, but not everybody agrees on it at the moment, its not going to get done, welcome to US Congress my friends, do nothing and make money, our best policy.

Also, i believe that people should hide the fact that they are gay or lesbian to keep them safe from people who are extreme opposites and will gang up on them, there are more of those types of people anywhere, we may be focusing in on Cali now, but later it will spread, once an idea gets going, there is no stopping it. However we can stop its passing, I believe that you should marry who you want, just dont show it out loud, this is for your own good, we wont persecute you for being gay, just say your not married.

Also I must add that I know a few gay and lesbian people, and I dont mind them, I just dont believe it's right.

 
thales
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

Agreed. Imagine if, say, Tennessee voted to re-establish slavery. "But we voted on it!" doesn't make it okay.

 
hottubwille
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: andre2552 Show

As much as I am against Prop 8 I was finding logical sense in what idimish was saying. I glad you put this in here because your right. Bad laws need to be challenged and courts, at times, need to test laws against the constitution and the morality of the law. Well said...

 
helpme
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

According to some, the world will cease to exist in 2012. What are you trying to say frankie? ;p

 
idiminish
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Granted that checks were put into place to safeguard the minority against the majority. But, I would argue, your founding fathers were not proposing that the judicial offices were a law unto themselves - which is why constitutional amendments can be made. This was much more particularly the issue in question with the CA Supreme Court rather than the actual issue of homosexual marriage.

 
idiminish
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

from dictionary.com

democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

I realize that the United States use Federal principals. I was not trying to redefine the government, but as my quotes demonstrate, the US is accurately, if not precisely, described as a democratic republic.

And I would completely agree that the constitution secures rights for all, regardless of the majority. Those rights are defined by the constitution, which is why the freedom of speech is secured (as you point out). The national constitution does not yet secure such rights about marriage. In addition, there is processes for amending constitutions (national and state), which had bearing on the supreme court question (it was not a decision about minority rights).

As for your final questions, I would argue that there are no 'extra rights,' even if we consider marriage a right. All people in the US have the 'right' to marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no discrimination with such a right (all possess it). You misapplied the concept of 'extra' rights. What is being desired for by the minority, in regard to this issue, is an extension of this 'right' so that all would have the 'right' to marry someone of either gender. This is why definitions are so important to debates (such as here: what constitutes a right, equality, marriage, etc.?).

Understand, before you rebut, that this does not precisely define my personal position on the matter. I was trying to deal more with the issue of constitutional amendments when I first entered this debate, the homosexual marriage issue aside.

 
idiminish
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

But the California Supreme Court does not have the power to supersede the constitution of the state unless from the precedent of a higher authority (which in such a scenario would necessarily be a federal authority, law, constitution).

Since proposition 8 is an attachment to the California constitution, the court cannot redefine or void the law (since there is yet no federal mandate to do so).

I believe this is what I meant but perhaps poorly stated earlier. The judiciary system balances and upholds the laws. I don't think it was the original vision that this system would make laws in contradiction to the nations own laws, particularly at its own level of influence.

 
hottubwille
May 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

This exactly correct. And, it is why we do not have a pure democracy.

 
helpme
May 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Thanks for clearing that up for me. ;)

 
watchman81
May 29, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

"Nonsense. Marriage has evolved over the years, and has involved different things in different times and cultures."

Really? Enlighten me. How has the definition of marriage evolved over the years?

"Separation of church and state means we don't get to base our laws on Christianity,"

Ok. How about Islam? How about Hinduism? How about the fact that throughout history, there has been NO tradition, religious or otherwise that has defined marriage as anything but being between a man and a woman? These laws are not based on Christianity, they are based on the fact that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

"The argument from human nature is absurd, because it's natural for some humans to be gay or bi. It would be unnatural to force such people into traditional marriages."

There is no credible evidence for your claim that it is "natural" for some humans to be gay or bi. And Prop 8 does NOT force anyone into traditional marriage. I don't know if you live in California or not, but I do, so I know that a homosexual couple who have a civil union would have the same rights as a traditional heterosexual married couple.

"The US is a democracy based on civil rights that protect minorities from the majority. That's why proposition h8 is fundamentally against the Constitution."

Wrong again. Prop 8 only reinforces the current definition of marriage in California. This isn't a civil rights issue because gay couples can have the same rights under civil unions. Their rights are already protected.

"The notion that people should conceal their sexuality and lie just to avoid bigots like you is, well, dumb. In fact, your entire post is full of nonsense and bile."

Okay, this statement is just silly. I know you were rebutting someone else, but in case you haven't noticed, most homosexuals do NOT have to "conceal their sexuality and lie". Homosexuality is more and more accepted in American culture. Most Americans disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but do not believe that homosexuals are less than normal folks. While there are some homosexuals who hide their sexuality from their judgmental famiilies, it seems to me that homosexuality is very much promoted in our culture through movies, television, books and other forms of media. Personally, I do not agree with the lifestyle of homosexuals, but I do not hate or dislike homosexuals based on their sexual preferences.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

I'm going to regret asking but... which comment reminded you of that article?

 
thoughtcriminal
May 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kleban10 Show

Once upon a time, this was based on the belief that people who lied after swearing on the Bible would subject testifiers to the the wrath of God, or that at least they'd believe it, so they would be more honest. I think we're beyond that now, so the Bible is no more than symbolic. Still, it's a terrible symbol because it (symbolicall) violates the separation fo church and state.

 
thoughtcriminal
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dkturner Show

Ah.

 
+ Add Argument

6
doesnt support the uphold


ifyoucan
May 26, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Why? Why go out of your way to take away some ones rights? We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For some getting married might be one of the milestones along that pursuit for happiness. If the right to marriage gets taken away, those people who lost the rights might not be truly happy. All I have to ask is, if GLBT community can get their rights taken away, then, Whos Next?

 
andre2552
May 27, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

I'm glad you picked up on this point but either way this is completely unfair. How dare they even hold a proposition to decide whether a whole section of society should be excluded from entering a union of love. 15.4% of people in San Francisco are L, G, B or T! You just don't infringe on other people's lives when they don't affect you in any way.

 
thoughtprocess
May 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
It's a damn shame. It is one of the last remnants of backwards, traditionalist, bigoted thinking. Well, there is still a lot of that I guess but things are getting better. Denying Gays and Lesbians the right to marriage is appearing unjust to more and more people. There has been a lot of progress just in the last ten years and in the next ten years there will be as much, if not more, change and progression.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
It's only a matter of time before federal DOMA crumbles, taking the state DOMA's with it. Have faith, says the atheist.

 
frankiej4189
May 26, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
An unfortunate set back. Oh well though, the Civil Rights movement had its setbacks as well. When you believe in what's right, things usually work out for you in the end.

Homosexual Marriage (not Civil Unions) will be legal in over half of the US by 2012. Mark my words.

 
dkturner
May 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

A democratic republic? In fact that's not quite true. The United States is a constituted federation. Constitutional democracy is quite different from most people's idea of democracy as "majority rule". In a very important sense, the constitution is there precisely to prevent the will of the majority from prevailing.

The founding fathers recognized that it was not good enough simply to hand power to the people, as happened in France. Rather, individual rights had to be protected: technically this is called a system of negative rights. The will of the majority prevails provided it does not impact on the given rights of individuals.

So for example, it's impossible to pass a law restricting free speech. That would be a positive imposition on the right to say what you like.

The United States is the only country in the world that constitutionally recognizes the difference between negative and positive rights. I believe that is the single most important factor in its rise to greatness.

So now consider the issue of homosexual marriage. What business of yours is it if two (gay) people want to get married? To make law in respect of that right is to make a positive imposition. The existing legislation discriminates unfairly against a minority, by providing "extra" rights for heterosexual couples. Constitutional law is there to prevent such discrimination. If the constitution of the state is found to be so discriminatory, then it must, by nature of what it is there for, be changed.


 
frankiej4189
May 27, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

Not to beat on this dead drum any further, but it was specifically in mind of the Founding Fathers that the Majority CANNOT control the Minority. They have no right to. Especially when what the Minority in this case is asking for in no way affects the Majority.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hottubwille Show

Indeed, bad laws that violate the Constitution and morality must be challenged. That's why DOMA will be challenged and will lose.

 
thales
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

Oh, dear.

Frankie, say it was a coincidence. Frankie? Frankie????

 
thoughtcriminal
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I think that what we're all saying is that, despite religious bigots such as yourself, marriage equality is only a matter of time, and not nearly as much time as you might like.

 
frankiej4189
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: helpme Show

I was OBVIOUSLY pointing out that Gay Marriage on a massive level will single handedly bring about Doom on Earth.

 
frankiej4189
May 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

That's quite wrong actually. What i think you meant to say is that State/Local Judiciary systems were not designed to impact things on a Federal level.

Either way, State Judicial systems are somewhat their own brand of law when they deal with State issues. Prop 8 is a State issue, not a Federal one. So the California Supreme Court would technically have the legal power and right to make these decisions.

 
dkturner
May 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

I agree that issues of definition are somewhat beside the point, and that this does not directly relate to homosexual marriage, although it surely does relate to it indirectly.

My understanding is that this is extremely tricky legal ground. IANAL. But I believe in the due process of law, and on that basis I would support the decision of the supreme court. That doesn't mean that I agree with it. In particular, I think proposition 8 was an act of bigotry.

You said that the minority desires an extension of the right to marry. This is quite the opposite of what actually happened. What proposition 8 did was insert the text "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" into the state constitution. Thus the anti-gay-marriage brigade achieved their ends in a back-door fashion (the irony!). I think that how other people choose to get married is none of their goddamned business.

So in my view this represents a positive imposition on the rights of the citizens of California. On the basis of the fact that the constitution is not supposed to make such impositions, I would have expected the supreme court to overturn the proposition. What they choose to do was to rule narrowly, that due process was observed and so the proposition stands. I don't like it, I think it was cowardly, but that is their right.

Does that make my position clear?

 
thoughtcriminal
May 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nowurconvinced Show

Nonsense. Marriage has evolved over the years, and has involved different things in different times and cultures. You need an argument for why we should pick a particular version instead of the fair one. Separation of church and state means we don't get to base our laws on Christianity, much less its notion of marriage. Need I remind you that non-Christians also marry?

The argument from human nature is absurd, because it's natural for some humans to be gay or bi. It would be unnatural to force such people into traditional marriages. Then again, the whole notion of nature determining morality is broken, so this is just noise.

The US is a democracy based on civil rights that protect minorities from the majority. That's why proposition h8 is fundamentally against the Constitution.

The notion that people should conceal their sexuality and lie just to avoid bigots like you is, well, dumb. In fact, your entire post is full of nonsense and bile.



 
thoughtcriminal
May 29, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History says, "The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself." I suggest you look at that, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Consider that there was a time in American history where a marriage between a "white" woman and a "black" man was illegal. Things change, often for the better.

The links above refute your claim that there's never been same-sex marriage before, but the very notion that we have some excuse to reject it because it's novel is nonsense. You would need to actually show why marriage should not include same-sex couples, rather than talking about whether it does or did.

We do know that homosexuality and bisexuality are biological in origin, and are found throughout the animal kingdom as well as in a humans across all cultures, but even if it were purely a matter of choice, there would be no argument against allowing people to choose same-sex marriages. As for the notion that civil unions are equivalent, the DOMA proves otherwise.

Proposition 8 didn't clarify a definition, it dissolved existing marriages, which makes it a wholesale breach of human rights. Only if it had converted ALL marriages to civil unions could you claim that it was neutral as opposed to homophobic.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle, and the demographics are painfully clear: the old and the religious that are disproportionately bigoted against homosexuals. As the old die, the balance will shift until there is a clear majority in favor of marriage equality. Your time will come, bigot.



 
thoughtcriminal
May 29, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: watchman81 Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History says, "The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself." I suggest you look at that, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions. Consider that there was a time in American history where a marriage between a "white" woman and a "black" man was illegal. Things change, often for the better.

The links above refute your claim that there's never been same-sex marriage before, but the very notion that we have some excuse to reject it because it's novel is nonsense. You would need to actually show why marriage should not include same-sex couples, rather than talking about whether it does or did.

We do know that homosexuality and bisexuality are biological in origin, and are found throughout the animal kingdom as well as in a humans across all cultures, but even if it were purely a matter of choice, there would be no argument against allowing people to choose same-sex marriages. As for the notion that civil unions are equivalent, the DOMA proves otherwise.

Proposition 8 didn't clarify a definition, it dissolved existing marriages, which makes it a wholesale breach of human rights. Only if it had converted ALL marriages to civil unions could you claim that it was neutral as opposed to homophobic.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle, and the demographics are painfully clear: the old and the religious that are disproportionately bigoted against gays. As the old die, the balance will shift until there is a clear majority in favor of marriage equality. Your days are numbered.



 
kleban10
May 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nowurconvinced Show

we actually have the option to put our hand on bible, if we choose not, we put it on a book with the consitution or something like that in it

 
dkturner
May 31, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Thoughtcriminal's comment reminded me of an article that won an Ignobel award: "Homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck" :-) Just thought I'd share.

 
dkturner
Jun 02, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

It was this that reminded me: "We do know that homosexuality and bisexuality are biological in origin, and are found throughout the animal kingdom as well as in a humans across all cultures..."

The animal kingdom phrase must have been what done it ;-)


 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong