Page 129 of 189 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139179 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1281
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Zyphlin -

    What criteria would the court use to discriminate against polygamists? Numbers?, Serving no state interests? Or, perhaps placing an undue burden on the state?
    Well, lets see...

    First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done. For example, blacks were able to clearly show discrimination because they were clearly able to show that different classes of people were denied the ability to marry classes of people other classes of people were able to marry. IE, they were able to show that white people could marry white people, but black people couldn't marry white people, thus showing inequality in the fact that blacks could not do the same thing whites could do (marry white people).

    This is the same argument I use with gender. I can show that men can marry women, but can show that women can't marry women. Therefore I can show a clear example of discrimination where the law allows one group of people to do something that is explicitely unable to be done by the other.

    You, or whoever wishes to argue the polygamist argument, must show a clear example of discrimination and exactly how they're being discriminated against. Simply saying "polygamists are discriminated against because they can't marry who they want" is not an argument nor showing clear examples, because the law does not allow ANYONe to "marry who they want". You need to articulate clearly the discrimination first and foremost. Until you, or others, are able to do that, its irrelevant in continuing to argue this because you're not providing any kind of actual argument.

    Now, second, is the notion of burden or state interest. Mind you, you seperated these two things but they are one in the same. The states INTEREST in not allowing polygamy is the undue burden it would put on the state.

    Its very simple, so walk with me on this.

    Marriage bestows a number of benefits to the spouses that, for the sake of not personally knowing a good word for it, I'll call "Joint Power". These benefits I speak of are things like the power to make medical decisions if the spouse cannot, benefits regarding shared financial situations, regarding estate, regarding rights with regards to divorce, and other such things where essentially the legal power over certain things joins between the two spouses.

    Is it rational to suggest that adding multiple individuals to such a contract would have the relatively likely potential cause complications with regards to who exactly has the final say or who exactly has the control in those various situations between the multitude of spouses? This is especially true in situations where for example a man marrys one woman, and that woman marrys another man, who is married to another woman, and yet there is no connection between either of the two men nor between the second woman and the first two individuals.

    Now, is it rational to suggest that if such situations occur they will most likely require court action to make a judgement call on the situation?

    Now, after that, is it rational to suggest that such a thing will increase the amount of court action that is required in general across America?

    Is it rational to suggest it is in the governments interest, of any degree, to keep the amount of action filling its courts lowered due to the cost, increase amount of time needed, and the slow down it causes on each case the more cases that are added?

    Is it rational then to suggest that performing the action of discriminating against multiple person marriages will result in something that is in the interest of the government to have occur?

    The argument above is based on only one singular potential issue with polygamy, which is questionable whether or not it'd even rise to the level of the lowest tier of the EPC and of which no legitimate argument of any kind of factual basis has been presented it would reach a higher tier.

    All whimsical, IMO, if marriage is a fundamental right of the people.
    That is fine if you find it whimsical. The law however does not. The law finds that rights can be restricted or even disallowed to people upon certain conditions. This happens every day in our society.

    I understand fundamental rights can be infringed upon, and restricted to special classes, but if this is the case, just how fundamental are they to begin with? That's the point.
    And here you're equivocating, you're complaining about the way things are, forming your own fantasy world in regards to how it should be, and then telling people they should make judgements on the law of today not actually based on law but based on your fantasy world.

    Whether or not you believe rights can be infringed upon, or whether or not a right that is infringed upon is fundamental or not, is irrelevant to the fact that under the law as it is now rights CAN be infringed upon if certian requirement are met and that such a thing does not negate them as rights. Until such a notion is overturned that is the law as we have to work with. You are arguing against one particular piece of legal action by suggesting that its invalid due to something that would need legal action in and of itself to be even made true.

    Presently, right now, and for this issue, and the understanding of the 14th Amendment, you are entirely correct. I hope I'm not coming across like I think you're wrong, only that I highlight that there is a kink in the armor with regard to marriage rights, and whether it applies to the 14th, or should even apply at all.
    Heh, should've read all the way down instead of replying as I went

    Yes, it does seem like you're saying that I'm incorrect...because we're discussing a news story, not having a philisophical discussing concerning what should happen with one hypothetical situation when its placed in an entirely different hypothetical situation that is significantly different then the real world we live in today.

    You see a chink in the armor, but I disagree. Said chink in the armor is not an issue until there until what you suggest action comes to pass, a notion that at present seems highly unlikely. IF it ever comes to pass, then there is a legitimate argument to be made whether or not the 14th amendment applies to marriage. However, until such point, you are simply arguing a hypothetical with an argument that requires a completely seperate hypothetical to even be not just valid, but able to be reasonable debated. As even if we indulge in your hypothetical and assume that such things are no longer constitutional rights, it still is not unquestionably clear whether or not the 14th amendment would govern it since there are rights not granted by the constitution or constitutional rulings that one could still suggest the states are not allowed to do under the 14th amendment.

    So I guess what I'm saying is you're making an argument that has no legs, and needs reality and law to completely shift just to allow said argument to walk let alone to run away like Usain Bolt as unquestionable truth.

    I'm not saying its not an interesting hypothetical and one perhaps meriting discussion, but it is something that is far more into the hypothetical realm then the pracitcal realm at this time in regards to the current court cases at work.

  2. #1282
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Right there you are assuming a broader definition than was given. This is the exact point where your argument falls off the tracks. The right to marriage was based on RACE between a man and a woman. You are generalizing the ruling when no such ruling was made.
    Doesn't matter if their ruling was very specific. It established precedent that marriage in general can be challenged by the Equal Protection Clause. Just because that case only dealt with race does not exclude other protected classes from having the same ability.

    Again based on race between man and woman ONLY.
    Again, in that particular case, which came about due to the application of the EPC being found acceptable in regards to marriage, which opens up the case to use it for other protected groupings under the EPC.

    And this is where your argument breaks down. You are assuming a broader definition to the right to marriage than was ever discussed by the courts. Until you stop generalizing a specific ruling you aren't going to be able to move forward.
    It doesn't matter if it was discussed by the courts. It was not discussed as valid by the courts with regards to race prior to that point, yet they still ruled on it. What you're missing is it was not simply about RACE, it was about the equal protection clause, with the grouping under it being race. That establishes marriage as having to adhere to the EPC, and race is not the only grouping under the EPC.

    Exactly but it was NEVER EVER generalized to include sexual orientation or sexual orientation based on gender. That was never in the ruling. Denying marriage based on race was the ruling. That was the right to marriage. Again, you are generalizing a specific ruling to fit your wants when it was never generalized that way.
    For the love of all that is holy I am not ****ing talking about sexual orientation

    Jesus ****ing Christ, how can I get that through your head?

    Let me say it again.

    I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

    If two women want to get married that love to bang guys every night of the week and never even thought of the notion of being romantically or sexually involved with another woman, they absolutely should be able to.

    My argument is not based on sexual orientation in even the slighest.

    The ruling established that they could not deny the ability to marry based on Race.

    They based this ruling on the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

    This means the equal protection clause applies to marriage.

    Other cases have shown the Equal Protection Clause includes Gender.

    Therefore there is a legitimate constitutional reasoning to suggest that gender discrimination in marriage can be looked at legally under the basis of the EPC even though it never has before.

    Are you seriously being so ignorant in your arguments here that you're suggesting that if something has never been argued in court or ruled in court before that it therefore can NEVER be argued?

    And they are specific in what groups those are. They NEVER included sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender. You are injecting that when it doesn't exist in the law.
    I'm done. You are plainly and obviously being dishonest at this point. Unquestionably so.

    I can't count the number of times I've told you, plainly, obviously, in full OBVIOUS god damn English that my point has NOTHING to do with Sexual Orientation.

    Its gender.

    JUT gender.

    Not sexual orientation, not sexual orientation with regards to gender, JUST gender.

    And if you want to say that GENDER discrimination isn't covered under the EPC, I'd love to see you do it.

    It is NOT irrelevant. You are being completely dishonest about the ruling and the case presented. Race was the focus, NOT sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender.
    ...

    You are unbelievable. You accuse me of being dishonest and in the same sentence again completely misrepresent my extremely clear argument.

    It was not broadly defined. It was specific to race ONLY. Please stop generalizing a ruling that was specific to the case of race.
    It was a ruling that gave precedent that the EPC applied to marriage.

    Yes based on what you just said. The ruling was based on RACE ONLY.
    Under the basis of the Equal Protection Clause

    NOT sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender.
    ....

    If you want to continue this trend you need to present from the ruling that they stated the right to marriage includes all aspects of relationships including sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender which was never stated.
    ....

    **** it.

    Your post is the most dishonest piece of absolute trash I have ever seen on this forum from any poster, ever, and that includes the conspiracy nuts, the propogandists that go on and on about the middle east, the mentally insane ones like agnopostate, and others.

    I have said, verging on probably close to two dozen times in this thread, that my argument is based on Gender. Just, GENDER. I have repeated probably a dozen times that it has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation. Yet you have repeatedly beaten up one gigantic strawman because you do not possess the ability to actually debate my actual argument as you continually misrepresent my argument not in a slight way but in an obviously glaring way.

    We're done.

  3. #1283
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Arguing the law is fun ain't it?

    Zyphlin -
    First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done
    The discrimination is in personal identity, (personhood - I just made it up) and freedom to associate, and enter into contracts. Currently, there is a legal definition of marriage roughly being that of two consenting adults, one man, and one woman uniquely singular.

    You, or whoever wishes to argue the polygamist argument, must show a clear example of discrimination and exactly how they're being discriminated against. Simply saying "polygamists are discriminated against because they can't marry who they want" is not an argument nor showing clear examples, because the law does not allow ANYONe to "marry who they want". You need to articulate clearly the discrimination first and foremost. Until you, or others, are able to do that, its irrelevant in continuing to argue this because you're not providing any kind of actual argument.
    By not allowing anyone to marry whomever they want, or as many times as they want is discriminatory, because there is no rational justification to allowing only one person to marry another person. (more on that later)

    Marriage bestows a number of benefits to the spouses that, for the sake of not personally knowing a good word for it, I'll call "Joint Power". These benefits I speak of are things like the power to make medical decisions if the spouse cannot, benefits regarding shared financial situations, regarding estate, regarding rights with regards to divorce, and other such things where essentially the legal power over certain things joins between the two spouses
    None of which are uniquely intrinsic to marriage as a fundamental right, all of which are bestowed on the happy couple by way of legislation, independent of any constitutional authority.

    Is it rational to suggest that adding multiple individuals to such a contract would have the relatively likely potential cause complications with regards to who exactly has the final say or who exactly has the control in those various situations between the multitude of spouses? This is especially true in situations where for example a man marrys one woman, and that woman marrys another man, who is married to another woman, and yet there is no connection between either of the two men nor between the second woman and the first two individuals.
    If contracted for, there is no compelling reason to deny the privilege of marriage to any number of relationships, and multiple couplings. even if children are produced, the family law of most states is well defined. No problem, in other words.

    Now, is it rational to suggest that if such situations occur they will most likely require court action to make a judgement call on the situation?
    Of course it's rational to conclude this. It happens now every single day with traditionally married couples, despite the intrinsic presumption of shared equity. It's called family court, or probate. Still no compelling reason to deny other multiple person marriages.

    Now, after that, is it rational to suggest that such a thing will increase the amount of court action that is required in general across America?
    It might, it might not, but the simple increase in marriages alone do this already, (For instance if marriages go up by 10% year over year then it follows so too do court actions) not to mention that no fault divorce, has had a dramatic affect on divorce in general in this nation. Should no fault be repealed because a direct correlation to the increase in divorce on demand can be attributed?

    Is it rational to suggest it is in the governments interest, of any degree, to keep the amount of action filling its courts lowered due to the cost, increase amount of time needed, and the slow down it causes on each case the more cases that are added?
    No it's completely irrational. The courts are to serve justice to the people, period. There is no expressed or implied limitation on this function.

    Is it rational then to suggest that performing the action of discriminating against multiple person marriages will result in something that is in the interest of the government to have occur?
    Honestly, no. It might survive some arbitrary basis test, but not a rational one, nor a strict scrutiny test to be sure.

    The argument above is based on only one singular potential issue with polygamy, which is questionable whether or not it'd even rise to the level of the lowest tier of the EPC and of which no legitimate argument of any kind of factual basis has been presented it would reach a higher tier
    I see three potential basis to bring suit. One, discrimination of multiple person marriages based on some arbitrary ideal of marriage being between a single man, and a single woman. If marriage is arbitrarily decided that it be only between one man, and one woman, or one person and another person, the court would need to clarify why is marriage restricted to only two individuals, as intrinsic to marriage in and of itself. Secondly, personhood is the identity of oneself with respect to the environment in which that person chooses to pace themselves in, within the confines of the law. Carrying with it, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without jurisdiction. If the state wishes to infringe on this fundamental right, it needs to show a compelling reason to do so. The burden doesn't rest with the plaintiff, it rests with the respondent. In legal circles it's called - "showing cause". Thirdly, people have the fundamental right to enter into contracts, and the contract of marriage, although independent of any meaning of marriage traditionally, are not mutually exclusive of each other, and more a formality that anything intrinsic to marriage itself.

    That is fine if you find it whimsical. The law however does not. The law finds that rights can be restricted or even disallowed to people upon certain conditions. This happens every day in our society.
    Yes, true, but the "certain conditions" are in the due process clause. Are polygamists afforded due process? I say no, not at all.

    And here you're equivocating, you're complaining about the way things are, forming your own fantasy world in regards to how it should be
    Is any legal argument against the status quo, fantasy? Then maybe this attempt by the homosexual lobby is also fantasy? Surely you meant that to come out differently?

    Whether or not you believe rights can be infringed upon, or whether or not a right that is infringed upon is fundamental or not, is irrelevant to the fact that under the law as it is now rights CAN be infringed upon if certian requirement are met and that such a thing does not negate them as rights
    Correct! I have not argued otherwise..??

    Until such a notion is overturned that is the law as we have to work with. You are arguing against one particular piece of legal action by suggesting that its invalid due to something that would need legal action in and of itself to be even made true
    Exactly! I do believe you've got it. However with one caveat. It wouldn't necessarily need a separate legal action, and could be ruled on as part of a single interpretation.

    Heh, should've read all the way down instead of replying as I went
    Oops, crap I did the very same thing.. LOL Sorry man!

    So I guess what I'm saying is you're making an argument that has no legs, and needs reality and law to completely shift just to allow said argument to walk let alone to run away like Usain Bolt as unquestionable truth.
    Well, that's not entirely true. Last night, and for most of today I've been reading up on case law, with specificity to fundamental rights, and how the court decides to decide on matters substantive, and procedural. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, but from what I've read so far, I think my assertion has a great deal of merit.

    I'm not saying its not an interesting hypothetical and one perhaps meriting discussion, but it is something that is far more into the hypothetical realm then the pracitcal realm at this time in regards to the current court cases at work.
    That's a fair assessment. Only time will tell.

    Thanks for the debate, Zyphlin!

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  4. #1284
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Well, lets see...

    First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done.
    Not under a due process claim. You need only argue that you are being deprived of liberty or property, and that it does not further an essential state interest.
    Last edited by Taylor; 08-06-10 at 04:37 PM.

  5. #1285
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,121

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Not under a due process claim. You need only argue that you are being deprived of liberty or property, and that it does not further an essential state interest.
    Apparantly you aren't familiar with the term "strict scrutiny".

  6. #1286
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:36 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,289
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    He tried. The 9th circuit decision is irrelevant as this will end up in the SCOTUS. They aren't going to decide a landmark case based on Walker's "facts."
    Actually, as I have already shown(you can find it, it's not hard), this ruling is not irrelevant. The facts are determined at this level, and Judge Walker put a lot of attention in this aspect, with the vast majority of his long written decision being devoted to the facts of the case. It is unusual though not impossible for higher courts to disagree on the facts, but Judge Walker made it very difficult for them to do so.

    This is why you should read the thread, so you see all these things that have been pointed out and proven before bringing up the same tired, wrong objections.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #1287
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Actually, as I have already shown(you can find it, it's not hard), this ruling is not irrelevant. The facts are determined at this level, and Judge Walker put a lot of attention in this aspect, with the vast majority of his long written decision being devoted to the facts of the case. It is unusual though not impossible for higher courts to disagree on the facts, but Judge Walker made it very difficult for them to do so.

    This is why you should read the thread, so you see all these things that have been pointed out and proven before bringing up the same tired, wrong objections.
    It's actually becoming so much sputtering and stuttering over simple facts. It's just not pretty.

  8. #1288
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,169

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Apparantly you aren't familiar with the term "strict scrutiny".
    Apparently you're confused about something.

  9. #1289
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Arguing the law is fun ain't it?
    Indeed, its been good discussing things with you.

    The discrimination is in personal identity, (personhood - I just made it up) and freedom to associate, and enter into contracts. Currently, there is a legal definition of marriage roughly being that of two consenting adults, one man, and one woman uniquely singular.
    Alright, I'm tracking with you I think.

    By not allowing anyone to marry whomever they want, or as many times as they want is discriminatory, because there is no rational justification to allowing only one person to marry another person. (more on that later)
    Ah, but see, already you're failing to do as i asked and that I have proceeded to be able to do with regards to gender.

    You're not showing clearly HOW they're being discriminated against, or more to the point, who is getting UNEQUAL treatment.

    In the example regarding blacks, they were clearly able to show that they recieved different treatments than whites because whites can marry whites and they can't.

    In my example regarding gender, I can clearly show that they recieve different treatments because men can marry women but women can't marry women.

    You've still not shown where the disparity is. Your making an assertion that not allowing them to marry whoever or how many times they want is discriminatory. However you don't show why that's discriminatory by showing WHO is getting different treatment then they are and how that disparity is presented.

    You still need to do that. Simply saying "its discriminatory" isn't showing that. As I said, you need an actual tangible, clear example. I've presented one, you have not. As such the notion that it is hypocritical for me to support one but not the other is unfounded because they are not on equal ground regarding my argument and thus able to be reasonable viewed differently.

    None of which are uniquely intrinsic to marriage as a fundamental right, all of which are bestowed on the happy couple by way of legislation, independent of any constitutional authority.
    Indeed I'm not claiming those are fundamental nor constitutional rights. They are "rights" though, as the government says "By entering into marriage you all get [x]" essentially. Its a state given right rather than a constitutionally protected right or a natural right. But really, it doesn't even matter if you don't consider them a right.

    They're benefits the government is giving to people who are married, and based on equal protection under the law must be provided in equal means baring specific circumstances.

    If contracted for, there is no compelling reason to deny the privilege of marriage to any number of relationships, and multiple couplings. even if children are produced, the family law of most states is well defined. No problem, in other words.
    I did not ask if there was compelling reason. Compelling reason is IRRELEVANT to the question I was asking. I was asking is it RATIONAL to suggest that assigning multiple individuals with the same standard typically assigned to a single spouse would create the potential for conflicts over who say matters most.

    You went off on a completely different tangent that didn't answer my question in the least.

    Of course it's rational to conclude this. It happens now every single day with traditionally married couples, despite the intrinsic presumption of shared equity. It's called family court, or probate. Still no compelling reason to deny other multiple person marriages.
    Okay, so you answered this one. Thank you. You acknowledge this would likely cause court cases to ensue. You then try to equiviocate that court cases already ensue. That is irrelevant. Let me explain why.

    Would the issues your subscribing to two person couples ALSO routinely apply to multi-person couples?
    Would the issues I'm suggesting with regards to mulit-person couples, where multiple people are claiming spousal privledge over final say over [x] marriage granted power, ALSO routinely apply to two person couples?

    If the answer is "Yes" to the first one and "no" to the second one then your point concerning it "already happening" isn't actually correct in line with what I'm speaking about.

    It might, it might not, but the simple increase in marriages alone do this already, (For instance if marriages go up by 10% year over year then it follows so too do court actions) not to mention that no fault divorce, has had a dramatic affect on divorce in general in this nation. Should no fault be repealed because a direct correlation to the increase in divorce on demand can be attributed?
    Yes, increasing in marriage does already do this. That doesn't change whether or not this change in law would add even more on TOP of that.

    As I was stating above, if one can rataionally assume normal court issues for two individual marriages are going to occur in multi-person marriage while also rationally assuming new ones unique to multi-person marriages will arrise, then it is rational to suggest that with all other things being equal there will be more court cases under multi-person marriage being legal then under individual person marriage being legal.

    I'm not honestly familiar with no fault enough to comment on it. However, your argument against an entire different issue has no real impact on this particular issue. Something else being wrong and needing fixing doesn't necessarily mean THIS is or isn't going to have an impact on the court system.

    No it's completely irrational. The courts are to serve justice to the people, period. There is no expressed or implied limitation on this function.
    So you're saying its irrational to suggest the courts serve the people in a positive way if they spend less money?

    So you're saying its irrational to suggest the courts serve the people by allowing for more speedy occurances of trials?

    You may think they're less important than your percieved discrimination, but I think its entirely irrational to suggeset its not to the benefit of the state to:

    1. Save money
    2. Reduce the time it takes for a trial to occur

    Honestly, no. It might survive some arbitrary basis test, but not a rational one, nor a strict scrutiny test to be sure.
    And I presonally disagree, I think it absolutely would pass a rational basis one, though likely not a strict scrutiny test. However no one has presented even close to a legitimate argument of polygamy being anything but at best the lowest tier of the EPC.

    I see three potential basis to bring suit. One, discrimination of multiple person marriages based on some arbitrary ideal of marriage being between a single man, and a single woman. If marriage is arbitrarily decided that it be only between one man, and one woman, or one person and another person, the court would need to clarify why is marriage restricted to only two individuals, as intrinsic to marriage in and of itself.
    You have to present where the discrimination is. You've still yet to do that. You're just declaring "There's discrimination" and expecting it to be gospel. I've CLEARLY shown the discrimination present in my argument. You've still yet to do it. Who is getting something that someone else is not getting, and what is that something?

    Secondly, personhood is the identity of oneself with respect to the environment in which that person chooses to pace themselves in, within the confines of the law. Carrying with it, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without jurisdiction. If the state wishes to infringe on this fundamental right, it needs to show a compelling reason to do so. The burden doesn't rest with the plaintiff, it rests with the respondent. In legal circles it's called - "showing cause".
    Here's the problem.

    Anyone is free to choose to consider themselves "married". The government doesn't prevent this.

    However if one wants to be LEGALLY married then you must meet the requirements of the law. As a society the government is absolutely able to restrict and regulate your rights in exchange for getting government benefits. If you don't want the government benefits then simply declare yourself "married" to whoever you want, you're free to do so.

    But the government must give out its benefits equally unless it meets the standards needed to not, and so far you have no shown where the inequality is in this case.

    Thirdly, people have the fundamental right to enter into contracts, and the contract of marriage, although independent of any meaning of marriage traditionally, are not mutually exclusive of each other, and more a formality that anything intrinsic to marriage itself.
    Yes, you can enter into contracts.

    However, people are not free to dictate to the government what said contracts must say or be. IE, said person can't demand that the government allow them to claim to have signed a property contract because they agreed to get married, because by god they believe the woman is property and they have a right to enter into contracts so the government is constitutionally mandated to let them dictate what that contract is called or is.

    Again, if Person A and Person B would like to create a contract that says they will consider themselves married and that they will agree to sign power of attornies, wills, and other individual recognized contracts giving the other most of the benefits that married couples get automatically through the marriage contract I have no issue with that and neither should the government. They're free to do that.

    However, they're not free to go to the government and tell them that the Power of Attorny contract also must do 3 things that it doesn't do under the law because by god they have a right to enter into contracts.

    Contracts by the government can be created by the government and in doing so the people entering into them do so knowingly with the limitations and benefits that the contract has. They do not get to redfine said contract because they dislike it. However, said contract is bound by the laws of the land and the constitution.

    Again, for your suit to work in my mind, you'd need to prove that polygamists are not getting equal protection. Again, you have failed to clearly show how someone is doing/getting something, and what that something is, under the law that they do not get.

    Yes, true, but the "certain conditions" are in the due process clause. Are polygamists afforded due process? I say no, not at all.
    Sure, I'd conceed at most their afforded the same right as other bottom tier people in the EPC....with the state needing to show a rational argument for any beneficial state interest to be able to do it.

    Is any legal argument against the status quo, fantasy? Then maybe this attempt by the homosexual lobby is also fantasy? Surely you meant that to come out differently?
    No, any legal argument against the status quo isn't fantasy. However, an argument against the status quo that uses ANOTHER argument against the status quo...I don't know if I'd say fantasy, I'd say its a hypothetical that has no basis in a rational discussion of reality.

    You're not simply suggesting something opposite the status quo. You're suggesting the status quo that the equal protection clause applies to marriage is wrong because the status quo that marriage is a right is wrong. To make your one leap that goes against court precedence you're requiring ANOTHER leap that goes against court precedence. This is moving rather far out of the realm of a reasonable realistic argument against mine and into a purely philisophical realm.

    Which isn't necessarily bad...but is something I'd rather discuss in another thread rather than one talking about the issue as it stands today in this world.
    Only time will tell.

    Thanks for the debate, Zyphlin!
    Sadly I must cut this short because I need to leave, as work ended 2 minutes ago and I have an doctors appointment in a half hour. Let me say your arguments are interesting, even if I don't agree with them, and you've delivered them in a rather reasonable and intriguing way. Thanks for the good debate as well.

  10. #1290
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Apparently you're confused about something.
    Apparently, it ain't his observation of your confusion over the term "strict scrutiny".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •