CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does the ruling on Proposition 8 establish a dangerous precident?
The California Supreme Court issued a ruling today in Strauss v. Horton upholding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 today. Proposition 8 was passed last November to ammend the constitution to define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman, effectively banning same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court of California had already established as a right. According to the ruling in Strauss v. Horton
"A majority of this court concluded in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the protection of the constitutional right to marry embodied in the privacy and due process provisions of the California Constitution, and that by granting access to the designation of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples and denying such access to same-sex couples, the existing California marriage statutes impinged upon the privacy and due process rights of same-sex couples and violated those couples’ right to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the California Constitution."
Essentially what they are saying is that they already established that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution. The rest of the ruling goes on to say that Proposition 8 is legal because the people have a right to ammend the constitution. This establishes the precident that any right under the constitution can be taken away by a simpe majority of voters. This includes but is not limited to voting rights of any group, free speech rights of any group, freedom of religion rights of any group et cetera. Please do not let your opinion of same-sex marriage influence your position on this debate, it is irelevant. According to the California Supreme Court it was a right, and it was also able to be taken away by a majority. Does that logic frighten you?
I think my opinion was fairly clear in the description, but it frightens me that the California Supreme Court would affirm the right of same-sex marriages, yet allow a constitutional amendment to ban that right. The implications that this decision has are rather jarring. According to the California Supreme Court, any right you have can be taken away by a majority vote.
Before Canada allowed gay marriage (with a clause that specifically allowed religious ministers to abstain from the practice), they took gay marriage to the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead of mandating that gay marriages were a legal right under the Charter, they said that it was up to Parliament to make the decision. Interestingly though, lower courts ruled the other way in some provinces, mandating that it was a protected right.
People should realize that judges are human beings like us and they are just as conflicted over the constitutional "right" to gay marriage like we are. There is a saying that is very applicable here: Hard cases make bad law.
As for prop 8, when this gay marriage was debated in Canada in 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin was pressured to hold a public referendum. In his speech in parliament, he succinctly described why a referendum on gay marriage would be a terrible idea:
"The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter. [Canadian version of the Bill of Rights]
The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority."
On minority rights cases, it is unacceptable to have the majority decide what's right for the minority. Gay marriage as an issue should have been over when the court ruled it as a constitutional right. Allowing people have a referendum to overturn a court decision on a minority rights issue defeats the whole purpose of having the judiciary rule to protect the right in the first place. If we let the public just do this whenever they so choose, we would not have legal abortion right now, for example.
It's not much as frightening as it is disappointing because it's one other topic showing how the government has no integrity. It's like a straight up lie, really; "you have the right to marry, but if the majority public doesn't want you (same sex couples) to marry, then you shall not." Wonderful. The government may as well just disappear since they have no balls to make sure the actual "rights" are being upheld.
I didn't know much about Prop 8 but now that I have looked at it, if I was an American living in America... I would get on my knees and pray to dear lord this isn't true.
Because according to this, the majority can take away people's freedom, their right to speech, their right on anything. How about the majority decides that blacks have a right to be free but they would rather take that right away from them?
This is so so backward.
You know what would be ironic justice?
If all those people that voted for it, at some point became the victims of it.
Well, I do think it's bad that the people can take away my right to bear arms...
but, i do have a problem with the idea that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution. under what exactly? Marriage is a government institution where opposite sex couples are regulated and encouraged to raise a successful family. in modern times we've concluded that a gay couple can also raise a successful family, so all that means is that we should change certain things so that gays stop bitching about made up rights.
if we keep on arguing about dumb shit like "our constitutional rights" all we're doing is making the argument seem more retarded than it really is.
it's not about civil rights, it's about lesbians on their periods and gays with something stuck up their ass. legalize gay marriage and they'll stop their dumb shit. please, i'm so tired of these morons out on the street saying shit that ISN'T TRUE. i hate it when false things are stated. and the media... god damn the media.
What i'm wondering is why Obama, the guy who promised change, is also so against gay marriage. Fuckin' liar.
You really need to develop your reading comprehension ability.
"i do have a problem with the idea that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution. under what exactly? Marriage is a government institution where opposite sex couples are regulated and encouraged to raise a successful family. in modern times we've concluded that a gay couple can also raise a successful family, so all that means is that we should change certain things so that gays stop bitching about made up rights."
As I said if you read the majority opinion in Strauss v. Horton you will see that the court does affirm that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right under the privacy, due process of law, and equal protection under the law provisions of the constitution. The court then ruled that it was unconstitutional for Proposition 8 to take away those rights.
Equal protection. Lets break this down to actually something really simple:
A gay person can still get married. A straight person can still get married. They are both ONLY allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. So, they both have equal protection.
I am for gay marriage, but all it is is a new extension of marriage... that's all. It's not upholding the Constitutional rights. The court can rule w/e they want... they're just people.
Sorry the Supreme Court already ruled that separate, but equal is not constitutional. According to your logic, bans on interracial marriage were legal. White can marry whites. Blacks can marry blacks. No problem. Equal protection. Unfortunately you're wrong.
I am not the one who is arguing that it is protected under the equal protection provision. The California Supreme Court is. So if you think you understand the California Constitution better than the Supreme Court, then you're probably mistaken.
actually, no. that is in no way the same. You don't really seem to understand what i'm saying.
If gays were treated the same as the blacks were, they would ONLY be allowed to marry gays... The fact is, gays can do THE EXACT SAME THING as straights. that is not separate but equal, that's integration. If blacks were treated the same back then as gays are now, they would be able to marry white people.
so no, marriage is in no way the same as separate but equal. i'll repeat it, gays can do THE EXACT SAME THING as straights.
This is assuming that gay people are exactly the same as straight people.
This is ignoring the scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice.
This is, in essence, ignoring that homosexuality even exists.
Straight people are allowed to marry who they are attracted to, and gays aren't.
If the government outlawed insulin, diabetics would be upset, but technically (according to your definition) they aren't being discriminated against because they are being treated the same as those people who don't have diabetes.
1. they are both human beings with all the same parts... so yes, they are the same in the physiological sense. mentally, technically, we're all mentally different.
2. Homosexuality is a feeling. Never said it was a choice.
3. It does exist... just how chubby chasers and foot fetishes exist.
4. Possibly. But that is thought policing. Dog lovers can't marry their dogs and I can't marry my PS3...
5. Diabetics would die... so it's pretty different. Once again, it's a physiological thing. Gays don't die if they don't marry someone. Hell, their limbs don't fall off.
yes, i'm for gay marriage. but when people continue arguments like yours it fucks up the whole debate.
In order to truly bring in the other side, you have to understand the other point of view. Click on a few links that are ANTI-gay marriage... you'll see a lot of things. You'll understand them, and then that's when you can truly attack them. You know... keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
No they can't because homosexuals do not want to marry heterosexuals. According to your logic it would be okay to make it a law that marriage is only between a man and a man or a woman and a woman because everyone is equal right?
I just thought of a very interesting parallel to what you are saying. During the reconstruction after the Civil War many southern states adopted laws called grandfather clauses. The grandfather clauses said that you can only vote if your grandfather had the right to vote. Well considering that blacks had just been given the right to vote, their grandfathers did not have that right, so these clauses disenfranchised blacks. According to you, however, the law applied to everyone and everyone was treated the same. No matter your race, if your grandfather couldn't vote, you can't. The problem is that these clauses were a de facto disenfranchisement of blacks. It doesn't matter if the law is applied equally to everyone. You have to look at the consequences of the law to determine if it really is equal.
Just as another even more ridiculous extension of your logic, it would be okay to make a law saying that only people who can't get pregnant can own property. Well the law is applied equally to everyone right?
once again, you're wrong and don't seem to understand what i'm saying.
everyone has different grandfathers so their right to vote is dependent on something that they can not control. but, gays can still marry someone of the opposite sex regardless. they don't need to have a special ability, just be human.
please, stop trying to compare the gay movement to civil rights, I find it offensive and i'm not even black.
as for your first point, i wouldn't find it right (just how i currently don't find the current system right) but i still wouldn't say it's against the constitution because that would be silly.
"everyone has different grandfathers so their right to vote is dependent on something that they can not control."
And people can control the sex to which they are attracted? My analogy makes perfect sense.
"they don't need to have a special ability, just be human."
You might want to rephrase that because you just said gays aren't human.
"please, stop trying to compare the gay movement to civil rights, I find it offensive and i'm not even black."
I don't think anyone really cares what you find offensive. And the LGBT movement is about civil rights, along with acceptance. I think what you meant to say is you want me to stop comparing gay civil rights to black civil rights because blacks were in a worse position. Which is a really stupid and ignorant position if you think about it. A true defender of civil rights, black, gay, or anything else, would recognize the parallels between the African American civil rights movement and the LGBT civil rights movement. And they would certainly not decry the use of such analogies.
"i still wouldn't say it's against the constitution because that would be silly."
Just out of curiosity how many times have you actually read the Constitution? No I don't mean how many times have your teachers told you what certain sections mean, or political pundits tell you what it says. How many times have you actually read through the entire document along with the documents that led up to it including letters written by the authors of the Constitution?
Everything you are saying is totally irrelevant to the debate. The Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. They then upheld the constitutionality of an amendment that took away this right. The point of the debate is about your opinion on a simple majority being able to take away constitutional rights, not whether or not gay marriage should be legal.
seriously, you really don't understand what i'm saying at all... how sad.
i've explained it about a thousand times. so i'll just make it simple this time:
gays can do EXACTLY as straights can do. straights CAN NOT do what gays CAN NOT do. Blacks back in the day never had something similar to that. Gays, whether they're gay or straight, will be able to do the same thing no matter what. Blacks, on the other hand, depended on their grandfathers, which were different all the time. So no, it's not the same in any way.
so gays are equally protected. nuff said.
and i'm not debating on whether gays should be married or not. i think they should have the right. i am actually debating on whether the supreme court ruling is right or not. it is dangerous, because it shows how the Supreme Court play into popular opinion instead of actually going by what the Constitution says. They try to appeal to both sides and all it does is blow up in their faces.
I understand what you are saying. However this debate is not about if gay marriage should be legal or if band on it are constitutional. The California Supreme Court already recognized it as a constitutional right. They then said a ban on this right is legal. A law was passed earlier that made same-sex marriage illegal. The court ruled this law violated the constitution. Therefore an ammendment was passed changing the constitution. This means any right can be taken away like this.
Prop 8 does not take away any of the legal rights associated with marriage away from same sex couples. The court said gay couples were losing only the nomenclature of marriage.
"Last year, California's Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages and afforded married gay couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples. While this week's decision may seem like a reversal to many, according to the court, Prop. 8 only applies to the term "marriage" and does not take away any of the legal rights associated with marriage."
Regardless of right and wrong, the two sides are at odds because same sex couples see this issue as an equality issue and the religious right sees this as a religious issue.
The religious right is saying, "Take and keep your rights but leave the word behind." The argument that there are certain rights that are inseparable from the word "marriage" is bunk. Any and all rights afforded to the word "marriage" can be afforded to another word.
But for same sex couples, the word holds a special meaning. Kendell and other gay rights activists say the term "marriage" has a symbolic meaning that goes beyond words. "I'd like to walk down the street and ask 10 heterosexual couples if they would cease referring to themselves as married, or cease referring to themselves as spouse, or husband, or wife to their families, their friends, and the world," she says."Marriage is the common vernacular to understanding what two people mean to each other."
I don't care what the Christian Science Monitor says about what the court thinks I care about what the court says it thinks. According to the California Supreme Court if you read their ruling, same-sex couples had a constitutional right to get married before proposition 8. Read the quote.
And now they don't have the right to call their benefits and their rights a "marriage." So what? They get their benefits and their rights. Which is what really matters.
Bottom line: same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. They just don't get to call it a "marriage." Big deal!
Stop listening to NOM and start listening to the Supreme Court of California. According to their decision same-sex couples did have a constitutional right to get married. Not civil unions, marriage. This right, however, was taken away by Proposition 8.
So what is the difference between civil unions and marriage? As far as I'm concerned they are the same thing. So, the decision made by the Supreme Court of California is moot.
Let me get this straight. Because you don't think there is a difference between civil unions and marriage, the supreme court's opinion is irelevant? You don't understand it doesn't matter wether or not you agree with same-sex marriage, the court said it is a right, but it was able to be taken away. If you don't see the implications of that, you are incredibly myopic.
I think that you are trying to tell me that a right has been taken away from some group (specifically, same sex couples) and that if rights can be taken away by a simply majority rule, then we are in trouble.
What I'm trying to tell you is that I don't think any rights have been taken away from anyone.
1. I don't believe marriage is a "right" (just like driving is not a right)
2. They said same sex couples have the same rights afforded my "marriage"
3. Those rights were not taken away
The problem here is that people don't know what a right is and thus feel they are entitled to a myriad of things that they really have no rights to. For example, handicap people do not have a right to parking spaces close to the store. We make provisions to help them out a little but those provisions can be taken away. However, if you try to take those parking space away you will hear about how their rights are being violated.
That doesn't matter. The Supreme Court said it was before Proposition 8.
"The problem here is that people don't know what a right is and thus feel they are entitled to a myriad of things that they really have no rights to."
No that is not the problem. I will say this one more time, read the court's ruling. Same-sex couples did have the right to get married under the privacy, due process of law, and equal protection under the law provisions of the constitution before Proposition 8.
That's right. The courts made a mistake calling "marriage" a right. They should have separated the rights offered by marriage from the word "marriage." Porp 8 pointed out the errors of their ways, and they recanted ;)
No they never recanted. Even in Strauss v. Horton they said
"A majority of this court concluded in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the protection of the constitutional right to marry embodied in the privacy and due process provisions of the California Constitution, and that by granting access to the designation of “marriage” to opposite-sex couples and denying such access to same-sex couples, the existing California marriage statutes impinged upon the privacy and due process rights of same-sex couples and violated those couples’ right to the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the California Constitution."
"They should have separated the rights offered by marriage from the word "marriage."
Why is this so hard to see? Separate your views on this subject and just look at the facts of what happened.
1. The California Supreme Court said it is a constitutional right for same-sex couples to get married. Not civil unions or anything else. They said they have a right to get married.
2. Proposition 8 passed and added a section defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
3. The California Supreme Court affirmed in their decision that the right for same-sex couples to get marriages was true under the privacy, due process of law, and due protection under the law provision, but that the new amendment now superseded those provisions.
What this means is that a right that the Supreme Court has established can be taken away by a new amendment. So for example, according to the United States Supreme Court the constitution says the government may not disallow anyone who is over 18 from being able to vote in elections. So according to the California Supreme Court's logic, it would be okay for an amendment to be passed saying "Only white people can vote, or only men can vote, or only Christians can vote etc" and this would then supersede the voting provision. Any right in the constitution can be taken away by an amendment. No matter how you feel about gay marriage, if that logic does not scare you, you are naive.
First off ledhead, there was never anything in the Constitution about same sex marriages until some states put it there. The same with Roe vs, Wade. Abortion was never a part of the original Constitution. These rulings can be overturned at any time by the state high courts or the Supreme Court. It's really nothing new but it is disturbing in these cases since a marriage can go south just because of a ruling, which can also be overturned in kind, and leave a couple reeling from its impact.
I never said same-sex marriages were explicitly mentioned in the constitution. But according to the California Supreme Court it was an implicit right. There are many rights that are implicit. The point is that it is scary that the Supreme Court will say that something they believe currently is a constitutional right can be taken away by an amendment.
I don't see that way at all. I see it as, "Civil unions between same sex couples carries with it the same benefits as married heterosexual couples." In other words, heterosexuals can define the word marriage any way they want, but they can't take away the rights of same sex couples who can call it something else.
You didn't read what I said I guess. Regardless of your position on same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court rules that it was a constitutional right for gays to be able to get married, but that it was constitutitonal for Proposition 8 to remove that right
Are you saying that Proposition 8 takes away the benefits offered by Civil Unions between same sex couples? That doesn't make sense.
Look, I know that people love to vilify the religious right but it doesn't make sense for the religious right to take away the benefits offered by civil unions to same sex couples. What the hell does the religious right care if a gay couple gets a tax break or any other benefit offered by marriage? All the religious right cares about is preserving the meaning of the word "marriage."
But lets just say you're right, just for arguments sake, then I would argue that we should never give up our rights to bear arms. Because it is by preserving that right that we will be able to keep tyrants at bay.
This has nothing to do with vilifying the religious right or civil unions. If you read the majority opinion that I cited, the California Supreme Court ruled that previously same-sex marriage was a protected right under the privacy, due process of law, and equal protection under the law provision under the constitution, but that it was okay for Proposition 8 to remove this right. If according to the supreme court any constitutional right can be taken away by a constitutional amendment, then no rights are safe. This is what scares me. Do you understand now?
2,2, and 5 are natural numbers. They therefore obey Peano axioms.
For any natural number, n, the successor is defined as S(n).
The series of natural numbers can be defined as {0,S(n),S(S(n)),S(S(S(n)...} = {0,1,2,3...}.
According to Peano axioms for arithmetic for all natural numbers n and m,
First definition of addition: n + 0 = n
Second definition of addition: n + S(m) = S(n+m)
So here is the proof of why 2 + 2 != 5.
2 + 2 = 5; Claim
S(S(0)) = 2, S(S(S(S(S(0)))))=5; Definition of 2 and 5
S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(S(0))))); Substitute definitions of 2 and 5
S(S(S(0))+S(0)) = S(S(S(S(S(0))))); Second definition of addition
S(S(S(S(0))+0)) = S(S(S(S(S(0))))); Second definition of addition
S(S(S(S(0)))) = S(S(S(S(S(0))))); First definition of addition
S(S(S(S(0)))) != S(S(S(S(S(0)))));
2 + 2 !=5; Claim is false
Proposition 8
I have already argued quite clearly for why this statement is true: "This establishes the precedent that a right under the constitution can be taken away by a simple majority of voters." I will try and make this easier to understand. I will number my assertions and their corresponding evidence. If you still disagree, tell me which assertion's evidence is incorrect, or which link between assertions you think is a logical fallacy. If you cannot do this, you concede defeat.
Assertions
1) The California Supreme Court established that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to be married.
2) Proposition 8 took away this right by amending the constitution through a simple majority.
3) The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 was constitutional and same-sex couples no longer have the right to get married.
4) Therefore a constitutional right was removed by an amendment, passed by the initiative process, which was deemed constitutional.
5) This establishes the precedent that a right under the constitution can be taken away by a simple majority of voters.
Evidence
1) In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 the California Supreme Court noted the similarities between the case at hand and Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 which ruled that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. According to the ruling in re Marriage Cases, Perez v. Sharp "makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee. The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally recognized."
The court also ruled that domestic partnerships did not satisfy the constitutional right to marriage because "under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution."
Right sorry it took so long. Sometimes it doesn't tell me about people's replies.
Anyways, nice explanation. Very clever, it made me laugh.
Now I don't think that our liberties in the constitution can be taken away as easily as prop 8 was passed. Why?, because the constitution protects those rights, such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Therefore: "This establishes the precident that any right under the constitution can be taken away by a simpe majority of voters."
is false, voters can never hurt my inalienable rights. Even if they wanted to.
"The constitution protects those rights, such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
But according to the California Supreme Court, an amendment can take away those rights.
Also did you not actually make any counterargument against me. As I said for my statement to be incorrect either the evidence for one of my assertions must be incorrect, or there must be a logic fallacy in the link between two of my assertions.
