LOL How can you say that? Your stance is based on the law or is it based on emotion?
Pretty simple.
"Marriage" is what was found to be constitutional. BASED on the fact that marriage was found a constitutional right, the equal protection clause stated that you can't discriminate without meeting the threshold allowing it. The threshold to descriminate on race wasn't reached, so discrimination of marriage laws against race was struck down.
However, the constitutional right that was determined wasn't "The right for blacks to marry people other than blacks". It was "The right to marriage", which then could have the EPC applied to it.
The Equal Protection Clause protects against more groups than just race.
Therefore just because its only, so far, been used in regards to marriage about race does not mean it can't be used in regards to marriage concerning other discrimination of protected groupings either.
"Marriage" is the broadly defined constitutional right, and as a constitutional right it must be equally protected under the law, a process that covers gender discrimination.
So the fact that its only been used so far in regards to race when it comes to marriage is irrelevant, because what matters is that the EPC applies to marriage as shown by the court cases challenging it based on race.
I can provide your definitive and unquestionable proof that the Equal Protection Clause applies to marriage, by showing you those court cases that use said clause to strike down discrimination in marriage based on race. Can you provide me with evidence that the Equal Protection Clause DOESN'T apply to marriage or is somehow limited to which of its groups it'll actually protect?
You think you can relate a semi vs a full auto to hetero and homosexuals? Please tell me you're kidding.
No, I'm relating rifles from the age of the founders vs fully automatic SMG's to opposite sex vs same sex marriage. They did not have semi-automatic pistols and rifles in the time the constitution was created.
I'm equating them as different forms of the same thing. Specifically, situations where for some time court cases didn't involve one particular type, but that did not mean that later on it couldn't. Essentially, just because the court cases thus far have looked at opposite sex marriage doesn't mean it can't look at same sex marriage with both being under the auspice of the same deemed constitutional right of "marriage". Equally even, just because that constitutional right has only had court cases arguing against it on account of discrimination on race doesn't mean it can not be argued against on discrimination in other ways either.
Why are you so against going through the same process for law that is actually in the Constitution?
That's funny.
I thought the constitution is the one that specifically says the courts are there to uphold the constitution.
I thought the constitution is the one that dictates that a judges ruilng regarding to constitution is essentially constitutional law.
I thought the constitution is the one that had the surpemecy clause in it.
I thought the constitution is the one with the equal protection clause in it.
I thought then that until such a time that a case manages to occur that causes marriage to be rejected as a constitutional right, that the surpemacy clause says equal protection must apply to state laws as well and basing this simply off my argument, that when you apply the EPC to marriage with regards to gender discrimination you find that it is an unconstitutional discriminatory practice.
Everything I just said is founded singularly and solely on the constitution. I am not reaching out to foreign law, I am not inventing any new rights or privledges that aren't stated in the constitution or aren't considered at this point constitutional law.
Marriage is a constitutional right
The 14th amendment garauntees equal protection under the law.
The Supremecy Clause garauntees constitutional protection against state laws as well.
Court cases have certified without question that gender discrimination falls under the EPC.
Court cases have also showed clearly that the right of marriage is subject to the EPC.
Due to the high level of standard needed to discriminate based on Gender, I do not see the arguments for keeping the discriminatory practices happening as legitimate important state interest as being substantial enough.
As such I believe that such discrimination based on gender is unconstitutional.
Every single thing I said there was based off the system the constitution has set in place.
If you dislike it, actually address it, and clearly show me where and why its not.
But that isn't the law for marriage. The only court rulings have been on race and never ever sexual orientation.
Jesus Christ, how many times do I need to say I personally am not arguing about sexual orientation.
And actually, court rulings have been about the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE with specificity towards race. However the EPC does not cover ONLY race.
Cheap words without evidence to support it weighs very small.
We'll get to this one in another post because you did the same thing again this time.
Again you did not answer the question. How can you limit marriage to 2 people or two people over 18, 16 or whatever if you conclude marriage is based off gender alone?
Marriage is not based on gender alone. Where did I say that? I stated that its currently discriminates against gender, that the EPC garauntees that such discrimination can't happen unless a certain burden is met, and that I don't believe that said burden is met.
The burden required for age to be discriminated against has been shown through cases to be lower than that which is required for gender. Furthermore, the status of minors has been challenged in court a number of times and held up as meeting the necessary level of state interest to have such a status. Said status and their inability to enter into contracts invalidates them from the marriage discussion entirely. Now if you want to actually address my point, that I've now stated twice, instead of just repeating "No no no, it should work with age too!" without giving any reasons why in relation to my argument then we can talk. If not, I'm not going to answer you a third time with you continually not responding.
The answer is you can't. And you could never point to any sexual orientation and claim there is interest in performing discrimination if you claim that gender alone validates marriage. That is the trap you keep falling into.
Sure you can, gender is more protected than age, and minor status has already been upheld as having the needed level of necessity. I have never claimed gender alone validates marriage, no more than race alone validates it. Currently, constitutional law says MARRIAGE...just that MARRIAGE...is a constitutional right. That means the EPC applies to it. That means the EPC applies to it for all the various protected groups under it.
For now, for the purpose of this, I'll conceed the whole natural/nurture thing though I disagree and everything I've seen counters what you're saying. However, since its not pertinent to my particular argument in the least I'm not going to waste time with it nor allow it to be used for a distraction.
Again, my focus will be solely on my own personal argument...which is that its GENDER discrimination.
Which again is no basis for marriage in any law or judgment ever made. You can't make up law when you want to support a personal conclusion. You go through the process of creating the law you want but for some reason you don't want to play by the rules set forth in the Constitution. You want to avoid them and let a judge for the second time invalidate the votes of 7 million people
True or False, Marriage has been deemed a constitutional right under the courts.
True or False, the challenge to marriage regarding race was challenged based on the Equal Protection Clause.
True or False, the equal protection clause has been used in gender discrimination and found to be a protected group?
Guess what, all that together means that its perfectly reasonable to argue the constitutionality of discrimination of a protected group with regards to marriage under the EPC.
Then you cannot discriminate how many spouses, how old they are or any other limitation based off that argument.
Yes, you can.
Read my damn posts.
Age discrimination is at a lower tier than gender is in regards to the EPC. Rather than needing substantial proof of an important state interest one must only show a rational proof of any state interest. There is not substantial court evidence to suggest age discrimination is on par with gender discrimination with regards to constitutional protections.
"Number of people" is not a protected group, its not a group, at all. You could possibly argue simply of "polygamists", but even they wouldn't raise beyond the lowest tier of the EPC. And as was shown in a later point, they can not show specific discrimination towards polygamists, only towards the number of spouses one can have, which is not a group, its a number.
My argument does not mean you have to allow EVERYONE to marry. It means you have to allow protected groups under the EPC who the government can not show the required level of proof regarding the required level of necessity needed to discriminate against them.
My contention, as its been clearly laid out, is that due to Gender being at a higher level...behind only race, religion, and ethnicity..that the state does not have the necessary proof of the necessary importance to discriminate based on it. I have no seen an argument concerning any of the other groups you speak of stating why the same is true for them. Perhaps if you actually make one other than "Well, um, its the same" then we could debate it.
What stops polygamists from claiming you can't discriminate against them based on gender?
Nothing.
Please demonstrate how they're being discriminated against based on gender. I have done so with regards to my argument, let us see yours.
What about the sicko who wants to marry a child and they base it off gender?
He's allowed to want to marry them based off their gender, however he can't do so because the law states that a child is a juvenile and thus not able to enter into such contracts.
The Constitution specifies how laws are to be created and it was never through the court system
You're correct. However the constitution has stated that laws which are unconstitutional are meant to be struck down by the court, and interpritation of the constitution with regards to laws falls to the courts.
No where am I advocating the creation of a new law, I am advocating for the abolishment of a law OR the adherence to it to the constitution, both through the proper venue for unconstitutional laws. What I am not arguing for is to maintain an unconstitutional law.
but since your side continues to loose each and every public vote, you use judicial activism to get what you want but don't pretend you are following the constitution because its clear you aren't nor do you take into account the incredible slippery slope you fall into with such general arguments based on nothing but gender.
Again, I laid out clearly, plainly, and specifically how I come to my conclussion based off the constitution and the system it has laid in place.
You have done nothing but give accusations.
Why don't you actually make an arguments with some specifics this time.
