Page 135 of 189 FirstFirst ... 3585125133134135136137145185 ... LastLast
Results 1,341 to 1,350 of 1882

Thread: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

  1. #1341
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    The cases involving Race and marriage centered around different race marriage being illegal and criminal activity. Since same sex marriage is not a criminal activity, I do not see a direct correlation between the two cases.
    They do not need a direct correlation in any way OTHER than the fact that the basis for which the racial decisions were made was the Equal Protection Clause, which therefore opens up marriage as being under the umbrella of the Equal Protection Clause, which then makes it legitimate for others to challenge it based on said clause.

    Whether or not they'll win is another matter. Sexual Orientation has yet to be really clearly defined in regards to its tier, and that's what most people are arguing is being discriminated against. I take a different tact, feeling it is GENDER that is being discriminated against, and gender HAS been proven to be under the EPC and of a higher standard than the lowest tier (though also not to the level of race).

    The current argument is based on what benefits the government will bestow upon a couple that chooses to allow the government to "bless" their union. Government should remove itself from marriage in every way. Anything else discriminates against someone.
    In regards to removing itself, I agree with you completely.

  2. #1342
    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

    In addition, the unique identity of the individual polygamist, both sexual and spiritual is arbitrarily limited by the state of California, in favor of garnering certain legal rights and privileges to just two individuals, without a compelling state interest.

    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

  3. #1343
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Zyphlin .

    California law discriminates against polygamist's in such a way that limits the fundamental right to marry more than one, who's affections, and emotional bond is uniquely singular.
    Marriage under the law is not about emotional bonds, nor affections. There is no requirement under the law that one must be emotionally bonded to said person, nor love them, nor have any affections to them. Indeed, there are numerous people who are married that have none of those things. Just as I reject people arguing gay rights on the notion that "Gay people have the right to marry the person they love", I'd reject your notion as well.

    Furthermore, again, you've shown no evidence as to why they have a fundamental right to marry more than one person.

    CA law requires that only two people, of independent standing, can substantively experience the love, and the emotional ties that impart the wanting of a marriage commitment, whereas, the polygamist is limited by CA law, in the wanting of marriage among as many persons the individual's they themselves loves, and maintains the emotional ties that impart the very same wanting of a marriage commitment.
    Again, nothing that I've seen in any marriage law requires "emotional ties" nor "Love". Additionally, a person not being able to have what they want when another person can have what they want is not an example of inequality that reaches any kind of reasonable level for the courts. To suggest such is actually a reasonable level of suggested "discrimination" would be to suggest someone could challenge that they should have to pay less taxes than someone else because they want to pay the government less money and the law doesn't allow them too while it allows someone else to pay more money.

    Simply not giving you what you want isn't an example of inequality.

    You've still not demonstrated where one group is getting something tangible specifically under the law that the other group is unable to get.

    The example you've given thus far is.

    "Person A who want a 2 person relationship can marry the person they love, but person B who want a 3 person relationship can't marry all the people they want to love".

    Love is not a basis under the law for marriage, nor does anywhere in the law of marriage does it require said love. Additionally, one could pretty easily argue there's no equality there either. If Person A loves 3 people, he can still only marry one of those he loves. If person B loves only 1 person he can marry that one person. Both groups can do EXACTLY the same thing.

    That's not the case with Gender, which is directly attached to the law.

    There is no legal precedent that concludes with a condition that the fundamental right that marriage carries, be of only two people, only that people have the fundamental right to marriage.
    Indeed, and the government....since its a government contract....can define said contract as long as the law remains constitutional.

    It is CA law that places a limitation on the number of individuals that can experience the same kind of wanting, and love, and emotional ties that bind a marriage commitment
    Actually, to my knowledge the CA law doesn't place any limit on "wanting, love, and emotional ties". It doesn't deal with it at all to my understanding. If you want to quote the piece of the law that does that'd be great, either the law specifically or an example showing that the marriage can not occur if the couple is not shown to have "wanting, love, and emotional ties".

    [quote[Therefore, it is my opinion, that the State of CA discriminates against polygamist, and their practice, by limiting their practice altogether, rendering a polygamist as less worthy of the same protections of love, and marriage, by limiting the amount of people the polygamist can share those natural affections for the wanting of marriage.[/quote]

    You're suggesting they've got protection against something the law doesn't dictate from all I've seen.

    Thoughts?
    Interesting take, and the best take off of the "Gays should be able to marry who they love!" argument attribute to polygamy that I've seen. However since I've never agreed with the notion of discrimination in regards to not being able to marry the person you love with gays, and since I don't base my own views off it at all, I'm not inclined to agree with it for polygamists nor necessarily admit any hypocrisy in my stance for doing so. Definitely one of the better takes on it though.

  4. #1344
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Here's my gripe with the same-sex marriage laws/inter-racial marriage laws comparison.

    In the decision that deemed inter-racial marriage laws unconstitutional, Loving v Virginia, the SC seemed reluctant to reach that conclusion because part of the defending argument was true, i.e. that all races could still marry someone within their own race (similar to the argument that marriage law doesn't discriminate agianst gays because they can still legally marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else) which would make it difficult to fit under the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately they reached the final conclusion because 1. race is an arbitrary categorization that matters only in a racist point of view, and 2. the inent of the law was clearly to discriminate against non-whites, which violated the 14th Amendment. From Wikipedia:

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
    ...
    There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
    Neither qualifiers work in the current case. As Zyphlin said, it is actually gender, not sexual orientation, that marriage laws themselves discriminate. This in itself is important, but not the main point. Gender is not an arbitrary categorization (though that's what the judge in this case argues) and current marriage law is not set up to discriminate against either men or women (or gays, for that matter). Marriage is between a man and a woman because, frankly, the entire reason marriage exists is for reproduction. I'm not saying that's the only reason people should get married for, but the fact is that it is the cultural basis for marriage's existence. That fact alone makes it difficult to provide a Constitutional argument against current marriage law on a 14th Amendment basis.

  5. #1345
    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

    Zyphlin -
    Marriage under the law is not about emotional bonds, nor affections.
    Because emotional bonds, and affections are what precipitate marriage, and are wholly dependent on the success of said marriage. This is a substantive claims, but it is also true, based in reality.

    Furthermore, again, you've shown no evidence as to why they have a fundamental right to marry more than one person
    Because marriage is a fundamental right in and of itself, it has no restrictions on how many a person can marry, only that marriage is fundamental to the individual. It is only the arbitrary statute that limits this right. That's the whole point of the discrimination, in that, this limitation placed on marriage by the state is arbitrary and showing no cause for any vested state interest in so limiting the marriage commitment.

    Again, nothing that I've seen in any marriage law requires "emotional ties" nor "Love".
    I refer you to my first response on the matter, and you can decide whether it has substantive merit.

    Additionally, a person not being able to have what they want when another person can have what they want is not an example of inequality that reaches any kind of reasonable level for the courts
    It does if ones identity is defined by the it. Similar to homosexuals, and heterosexuals. Gender, as you've argued successfully, I think, is not an issue in the instant case, but that doesn't mean that one's identity isn't a consideration. Example: Homosexuals can marry too, they can marry people of the opposite sex, yet, it is their identity sexually, and spiritually that defines them, very much like a polygamists, sexual, and spirituality identifies them.

    Simply not giving you what you want isn't an example of inequality
    Of course not, but denying one's fulfillment of their identity is evidence of denying one's identity with special regard to the marriage commitment. In other words, a polygamist identifies with multiple affections which leads to the wanting of a commitment to marriage.

    You've still not demonstrated where one group is getting something tangible specifically under the law that the other group is unable to get
    Identity is tangible, it is what imparts our very existence.

    Love is not a basis under the law for marriage, nor does anywhere in the law of marriage does it require said love
    of course not, but what would be the point of having marriage laws if no one loved anyone? No one would want to be married. To deny that love is a crucial, if not requisite component of marriage, is patently absurd. The marriage contract in legal terms does not require love, or affection, only a desire, un-coerced, and with consent, to be married. It is currently restricted to only two individuals. Can't many people experience a desire, un-coerced, and with consent in many settings, and with many individuals? The court by limiting multiple marriages is saying you can't. That is discrimination, and it's arbitrary.

    Actually, to my knowledge the CA law doesn't place any limit on "wanting, love, and emotional ties". It doesn't deal with it at all to my understanding
    The limit is in just how many can do it.

    Interesting take, and the best take off of the "Gays should be able to marry who they love!" argument attribute to polygamy that I've seen. However since I've never agreed with the notion of discrimination in regards to not being able to marry the person you love with gays, and since I don't base my own views off it at all, I'm not inclined to agree with it for polygamists nor necessarily admit any hypocrisy in my stance for doing so. Definitely one of the better takes on it though.
    Why thank you, however, with some of the clarifications above, you might have a different opinion?

    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

  6. #1346
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Marriage is between a man and a woman because, frankly, the entire reason marriage exists is for reproduction.
    I disagree, I think marriage is there to build stability in society something that government always wants to develop. Secondly I think it is there to deal with property rights.

  7. #1347
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Those are your actual words. You are wrong.
    The two quotes are in no way inconsistent, and I stand by all that I've said there. You may believe that a reversal of the decision is unlikely because a podunk district court judge has the nine most powerful individuals in the country under his thumb with an extensive section on "findings of fact" that they are in no way bound to accept - I do not. I believe the SCOTUS will be quite thorough in deriving their opinion - to include careful scrutiny of each and every "fact" of Walkers'. This is an important case and the SCOTUS will treat it as such.

  8. #1348
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Here's my gripe with the same-sex marriage laws/inter-racial marriage laws comparison.

    In the decision that deemed inter-racial marriage laws unconstitutional, Loving v Virginia, the SC seemed reluctant to reach that conclusion because part of the defending argument was true, i.e. that all races could still marry someone within their own race (similar to the argument that marriage law doesn't discriminate agianst gays because they can still legally marry someone of the opposite gender like everyone else) which would make it difficult to fit under the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately they reached the final conclusion because 1. race is an arbitrary categorization that matters only in a racist point of view, and 2. the inent of the law was clearly to discriminate against non-whites, which violated the 14th Amendment. From Wikipedia:



    Neither qualifiers work in the current case. As Zyphlin said, it is actually gender, not sexual orientation, that marriage laws themselves discriminate. This in itself is important, but not the main point. Gender is not an arbitrary categorization (though that's what the judge in this case argues) and current marriage law is not set up to discriminate against either men or women (or gays, for that matter). Marriage is between a man and a woman because, frankly, the entire reason marriage exists is for reproduction. I'm not saying that's the only reason people should get married for, but the fact is that it is the cultural basis for marriage's existence. That fact alone makes it difficult to provide a Constitutional argument against current marriage law on a 14th Amendment basis.
    I think Zyphlin's take on gender is accurate, but it's not entirely about gender. In essence, the identity of the homosexual, independent from that of a heterosexual is what brought about the discrimination. Part of that identity is gender, but it encompasses a great many other things as well. All worthy of consideration.

    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

  9. #1349
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: California gay marriage ban overturned: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I think Zyphlin's take on gender is accurate, but it's not entirely about gender. In essence, the identity of the homosexual, independent from that of a heterosexual is what brought about the discrimination. Part of that identity is gender, but it encompasses a great many other things as well. All worthy of consideration.

    Tim-
    So what do we consider Tim?

  10. #1350
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    So what do we consider Tim?
    Identity, and whether is serves any state interest to restrict it.

    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

Posting Permissions

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