• 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: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

ttwtt78640 said:
And your stance on polygamy? Business partnerships have no limits on the number partners or their genders. What compelling state reason bars mutiple partners in only marraige contracts, since we got that sexual reproduction "detail" out of the way?
Click to expand...

There is a lack of evidence that polygamy relationships promote social stability or create good environments for raising children, and there is some evidence that in fact polygamy is harmful.
 
Tigger said:
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
Click to expand...

Invoking morality to impose one's preferences would be a recipe for totalitarianism. Using often abstract and subjective concepts to impose one's preferences would be no more beneficial to a free society than advocating the opposite extreme of abolishing all laws whatsoever. In the former case, oppressive rules would suffocate individual freedom. In the latter case, the absence of protection from others using their freedom to impair the freedom of others, would suffocate freedom. Hence, societies have tried to strike a balance, not deliberately to deprive people of freedom, but to safeguard it for all.
 
Redress said:
OK, go look at the post again. Notice that it contains a quote of something you wrote. That should be a big hint.
Click to expand...

Just answer the question. All you did was post a link to Perry v. Schwarzenegger in response to a post of mine which said several things.

What isn't accurate, and what in the Perry decision shows it?
 
Harshaw said:
You're going to have to explain what you mean better than that, because it's not clear from your posts.
Click to expand...

Let me try again: The claim that gender discrimination is part of rulings on DOMA is false. No one who has looked at the cases makes that claim. As I pointed out earlier, if you are just talking DOMA, then you are correct, it is not based on gender discrimination. That is Perry V Schwarzenegger(which is actually called something else now but I forget what) that the ruling involved gender discrimination.
 
Boo Radley said:
Now that's just silly. Not having children starving also promotes social stability. There is not only one way to or one area in which we do this.
Click to expand...

But without financial reward there would be far, far less of them. Look at the statistics for out-of-wedlock childbirth after AFDC.
 
Harshaw said:
You're going to have to explain what you mean better than that, because it's not clear from your posts.
Click to expand...

I would add that gender is not a valid argument against discrimination either because both men and women are barred from marrying same gender. Now, if men were allowed to marry both women, and men, and women were only allowed to marry just men, then Walker would have been correct, but since both genders are equally discriminated against there is no 14th challenge in my opinion.

Again the appeal brief is here: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Prop-8-merits-brief-9-17-10.pdf


Tim-
 
How bout we point to where the government gets to regulate marriage in the first place?
 
medu_20260840_Dean%20Morris%20Cards_Coasters_this-season-go-gay-coaster.jpg
 
donsutherland1 said:
Invoking morality to impose one's preferences would be a recipe for totalitarianism. Using often abstract and subjective concepts to impose one's preferences would be no more beneficial to a free society than advocating the opposite extreme of abolishing all laws whatsoever. In the former case, oppressive rules would suffocate individual freedom. In the latter case, the absence of protection from others using their freedom to impair the freedom of others, would suffocate freedom. Hence, societies have tried to strike a balance, not deliberately to deprive people of freedom, but to safeguard it for all.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that I'm an Authoritarian and not a very strong believer in the idea of individual Freedom.
 
Redress said:
The claim that gender discrimination is part of rulings on DOMA is false.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is false. Did I say otherwise?


No one who has looked at the cases makes that claim.
Click to expand...

When looking at the totality of the rulings about SSM, yes, they have. This ruling is only one.


That is Perry V Schwarzenegger(which is actually called something else now but I forget what) that the ruling involved gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

No, the ruling was not based on that. The court said that discrimination against homosexual couples was equivalent to that, from a legal analysis perspective (i.e., the same rules apply), but they specifically did NOT rule based on gender discrimination. It was about homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
I would add that gender is not a valid argument against discrimination either because both men and women are barred from marrying same gender. Now, if men were allowed to marry both women, and men, and women were only allowed to marry just men, then Walker would have been correct, but since both genders are equally discriminated against there is no 14th challenge in my opinion.

Again the appeal brief is here: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Prop-8-merits-brief-9-17-10.pdf


Tim-
Click to expand...

Wait...so if other people are discriminated under the 14th, that makes all discrimination ok under the 14th? Do you realize how silly that is?
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, it is false. Did I say otherwise?

When looking at the totality of the rulings about SSM, yes, they have. This ruling is only one.
Click to expand...

Well that is good, you don't even try and hide that you are moving the goalposts. Yes, when you look at rulings that are not part of this ruling, things are different. Thank you for clearing that up.

No, the ruling was not based on that. The court said that discrimination against homosexual couples was equivalent to that, from a legal analysis perspective (i.e., the same rules apply), but they specifically did NOT rule based on gender discrimination. It was about homosexuality.
Click to expand...

From the ruling:

The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an
individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally
further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead,
the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose
when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender
roles. See FF 26-27. California has eliminated all legallymandated
gender roles except the requirement that a marriage
consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus
enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that
the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a
foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic
life.
Click to expand...

That is far from the biggest part of the ruling and it is not the most important part, but it is there.
 
Redress said:
There is a lack of evidence that polygamy relationships promote social stability or create good environments for raising children, and there is some evidence that in fact polygamy is harmful.
Click to expand...

And what evidence or statistics are available with regards to SSM (and single parent) relationships for raising children? We do not always consider these factors it seems.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then what compelling state interest is served by giving tax breaks to the married? Does that then not amount to simple discrimination against the non-married, if no compelling state interest is served by that discrimination? What compelling state interest is served by the taxation of those too young to vote (taxation w/o representation)?
Click to expand...

Married people tend to have more disposable income which can be funnelled into the economy. They are more likely to own homes, own multiple vehicles, etc. They are traditionally more likely to have children. They are also willing to legally entangle their financial lives together, resulting in more long-term financial stability.
 
Redress said:
Well that is good, you don't even try and hide that you are moving the goalposts. Yes, when you look at rulings that are not part of this ruling, things are different. Thank you for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

What "goalpost"? It appears you simply misread me.




That is far from the biggest part of the ruling and it is not the most important part, but it is there.
Click to expand...

It's dicta. It is not part of the actual ruling. It's part of the discussion of the background.

Here's the actual determination of the question in the case:

Having considered the evidence, the
relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that
Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would
exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection
claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent
to a claim of discrimination based on sex.
Click to expand...

And here is the actual ruling:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Wait...so if other people are discriminated under the 14th, that makes all discrimination ok under the 14th? Do you realize how silly that is?
Click to expand...

Pay attention, redress. It was a valid attempt by you but you missed it as usual. In order for a 14th challenge to carry weight constitutionally, it must have distinguishing characteristics. A man marrying a woman and a man would be distingusinable from a man that can only marry a woman, and a woman that can only marry a man. If both women and men are barred EQUALLY from marrying their same gender, then there is no gender discrimination. Please articulate how having both men and women being barred from marrying their own gender is gender discrimination WITHOUT referencing sexuality as the root..

You can't.. And neither could Walker, but please do try.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
If both women and men are barred EQUALLY from marrying their same gender, then there is no gender discrimination.
Tim-
Click to expand...
No, there is still gender discrimination because women are still unable to do something men can do and men are still unable to do something women can do. They are equivalently discriminated against.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, there is still gender discrimination because women are still unable to do something men can do and men are still unable to do something women can do. They are equivalently discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Yes, AND society has within its power to regulate that as long as there are no distinguishable characteristics where one party is disadvantaged from the other.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Pay attention, redress. It was a valid attempt by you but you missed it as usual. In order for a 14th challenge to carry weight constitutionally, it must have distinguishing characteristics. A man marrying a woman and a man would be distingusinable from a man that can only marry a woman, and a woman that can only marry a man. If both women and men are barred EQUALLY from marrying their same gender, then there is no gender discrimination. Please articulate how having both men and women being barred from marrying their own gender is gender discrimination WITHOUT referencing sexuality as the root..

You can't.. And neither could Walker, but please do try.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Except it does not work that way.
 
Hicup said:
Yes, AND society has within its power to regulate that as long as there are no distinguishable characteristics where one party is disadvantaged from the other.


Tim-
Click to expand...

SSM bans violate the 14th, it's that simple.
 
Hicup said:
Yes, AND society has within its power to regulate that as long as there are no distinguishable characteristics where one party is disadvantaged from the other.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.
 
Redress said:
Except it does not work that way.
Click to expand...

Um, no it works exactly that way. If two people, one black, and the other white, were not allowed to jaywalk, that is constitutional, however, if the black guy was and the white guy not, then that would be unconstitutional based on the 14th and due process. If two people, one a woman, and one a man, were allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex that would be constitutional, however, if only a man could marry a man, and a woman, and the woman only allowed to marry a man, then that would have distinguishable characteristics and manifestly unfair, and would violate the 14th Amendment.


Tim-
 
Redress said:
Loving v Virginia disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

How so? Come on, you really think I'm going to let you off the hook that easy? Redress: "Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you".. :)

Ok show me..


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
How so? Come on, you really think I'm going to let you off the hook that easy? Redress: "Loving v. Virginia disagrees with you".. :)

Ok show me..


Tim-
Click to expand...

A black person could not marry a white person, just as a white person could not marry a black. No difference, yet the ruling was based on the 14th amenement. Do you even read about what you comment on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom