• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something interesting I just read..

Sexual liberty proponents believe that Lawrence explicitly analogized same-sex sodomy and mixed-sex sodomy, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (O'Connor, J. concurring).[citation needed]

Wiki - Link


Tim-

No citation, which I'm trying to find, but if true, the GM proponents might be in for a battle. since Kennedy would switch, and find for the plaintiffs.
 
Pretty simple.

"Marriage" is what was found to be constitutional.

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.

BASED on the fact that marriage was found a constitutional right,

Again based on race between man and woman ONLY.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

It was not broadly defined. It was specific to race ONLY. Please stop generalizing a ruling that was specific to the case of 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?

Yes based on what you just said. The ruling was based on RACE ONLY. 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.

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.

They are still guns. Firing bullets faster is not changing the gun itself. That is the problem with your comparison. Just because its faster doesn’t mean its different

That's funny.

I thought the constitution is the one that specifically says the courts are there to uphold the constitution.

Uphold/Interpretation is not create new law. There is nothing funny about that.

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.

I'll say it again. You are not interpreting current law. What you want is the creation of new law based on nothing in the Constitution. Nowhere is sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender even mentioned. You are falsely expanding rulings on race and that is the definition of judicial activism.

Marriage is a constitutional right

How many times must I remind you the only decision was based on RACE not sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender?

The 14th amendment garauntees equal protection under the law.

And it is very specific on what areas they are referencing and sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender is NOT in there. Once again you are falsely expanding a law to incorporate something that was never EVER included

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.

Thats why this should be handled in an Amendment.

And if you call this gender discrimination you can't stop any sexual orientation or number of people wanting to claim the same thing based on that incredibly general interpretation

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.

You want to play that game fine. It was never ruled on the subject of sexual orientation based off gender either.

We'll get to this one in another post because you did the same thing again this time.

Address it anywhere you like. Proclaiming "read my posts" is not an argument. Its cheap talk without backing.

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.

My God its your argument! What have you been saying this entire time? That your argument is based on gender for allowing homosexual marriage! Why are you denying this?

The burden required for age to be discriminated against has been shown through cases to be lower than that which is required for gender.

Bull****. Provide those cases if you really are going to peddle that.

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.

I've already explained to you at least 5 times why age is important. Its because in your argument based on gender it isn't a factor in excluding marriage. You can't claim your argument is based on gender and want to abandon laws on the books that ban gay marriage and turn around and say its also based on age.

Sure you can, gender is more protected than age, and minor status has already been upheld as having the needed level of necessity.

Again, bull****. You have yet to prove that statement in any way shape or form. Age has plenty of protections from crimes to driving and drinking.

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.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You have claimed over and over and over again your basis for allowing gay marriage has been gender discrimination. That has been your argument so you can't claim now you aren't basing it off that unless you are going to provide a new premise. And STOP for the love of GOD STOP claiming marriage is a constitutional right without giving the CONTEXT in which that decision was made. ie RACE AND RACE ALONE.

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.

agreed

Again, my focus will be solely on my own personal argument...which is that its GENDER discrimination.

Please make up your mind. You just said
I have never claimed gender alone validates marriage

Please let me know when your final decision is made as to which direction you wish to go.

True or False, Marriage has been deemed a constitutional right under the courts.

On RACE alone yes

True or False, the challenge to marriage regarding race was challenged based on the Equal Protection Clause.

True

True or False, the equal protection clause has been used in gender discrimination and found to be a protected group?

True but never sexual orientation and that is the result of your argument. You can't base your push for a sexual orientation marriage based on gender. Sexual orientation IS the key factor in gay marriage not gender. Con’t
 
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.

If you throw out the rulings behind the right to marriage and the specific target of RACE that was considered.

Yes, you can.

Read my damn posts.

Stop that nonsense. Either provide the evidence or dont but stop the "Read my posts" That isn't an argument.

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.

And you have provided no evidence that age is less important than gender in the eyes of the law.

"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.

Of course its a group. Polygamists have been in the law FAR longer than homosexuality and there is actual law based on discriminating against that group.

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.

You may not think your intention is to allow everyone to marry but based on your own argument of gender being the single factor in allowing gay marriage you could not discriminate against anyone else demanding the same rights based on the same argument you are making for any sexual orientation or number.

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.

You first have to support your claim that gender IS at a higher level under the law than other sexual orientations, age or number of people wanting to marry and you have failed to provide any evidence to support that theory.
I'm still waiting for you to define how under your argument you could discriminate against other sexual orientations when your argument is based on gender. Simply claiming "its at a higher level" is a garbage argument without any evidence behind it.


Now you're getting it.

Please demonstrate how they're being discriminated against based on gender. I have done so with regards to my argument, let us see yours.

Quite easily. Two women want to marry one man. You are discriminating against 2 women marrying one man based on gender by not allowing them to marry. Its the exact same argument you are making for gay marriage.

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.

BINGO!! But you want to nullify laws stopping gay marriage so how is your law nullification justified and the juvenile law staying in place justified if the argument is based on gender. A female can be a child and still be female so your gender claim would be valid for that argument.

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.

But it MUST have some backing within the law to claim it is unconstitutional and it doesn't which is why its judicial activism.

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.

Based on nothing in the Constitution to nullify it. Sexual orientation which IS what you are fighting for is never mentioned nor have gender laws incorporated sexual orientation as part of their "rights" so you are arguing against the will of the people based on no existing law that has ever ruled or discussed gender and sexual orientation being on the same level.

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.

That is a clearly false claim. I have not allowed you to claim the law says something it doesn't. That is hardly giving accusations. It is not allowing you to take specific rulings and generalize them for your argument when the subject was never taken up on your issue.
 
Something interesting I just read..

Wiki - Link


Tim-

No citation, which I'm trying to find, but if true, the GM proponents might be in for a battle. since Kennedy would switch, and find for the plaintiffs.

Uh...no. It might be to your benefit to actually read Walker's ruling. The question of sexual conduct has no basis in it. Walker argues that the state has no interest in mandating gender roles in marriage.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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-
 
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:
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
It's actually becoming so much sputtering and stuttering over simple facts. It's just not pretty.

Some of the stuff has been hilarious though. Some one claimed in this thread that Judge Walker wanted to get married, so he had a clear conflict of interest. Surprise, when asked to back up that claim, nothing. The arguments against this ruling have almost entirely had exactly nothing to do with the actual content of the ruling, and once again we have proof that people just don't know anything beyond "I don't like it, so it must be bad".

On the plus side, watching all those groups who try and claim to be for "the family" have aneurysms over this has been wonderful. Watching all the arguments still come back to the same two anti arguments "it's always been that way(Hint, it hasn't)", and "it's immoral cuz gays are icky" and the people against it not understanding why those arguments are not carrying the day is pretty cool too.
 
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.
I've addressed your point already, and I'm laughing here to myself that you think you've "proven" something by linking to a bunch of conjecture that other people wrote. As if there aren't a bunch of legal scholars posting about how much it doesn't matter.

There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact." That THIS judge expressly wrote his opinion in a blatant effort to influence nine people on a HUGE case (all of whom think they're the smartest person in the room)... heh.

I can't wait to see how much fun Scalia and others have with Walker's opinion.
 
I've addressed your point already, and I'm laughing here to myself that you think you've "proven" something by linking to a bunch of conjecture that other people wrote. As if there aren't a bunch of legal scholars posting about how much it doesn't matter.

There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact." That THIS judge expressly wrote his opinion in a blatant effort to influence nine people on a HUGE case (all of whom think they're the smartest person in the room)... heh.

I can't wait to see how much fun Scalia and others have with Walker's opinion.

They are not required to, but they have to have good reason to. It is unusual(see, I said this already, and the links have said this already). You are not making any credible argument, you are just saying "nope, it's this way because I say it is this way", which is hardly credible.
 
It is unusual(see, I said this already, and the links have said this already). You are not making any credible argument, you are just saying "nope, it's this way because I say it is this way", which is hardly credible.
"It is unusual" is a credible argument, Redress? There is no argument to give here that will "prove" anything. I stated the simple fact:

"There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact."

As to whether they will or won't - it's all conjecture. I've provided my own conjecture. You've posted links to other people's original thoughts and highlighted the phrase "it is unusual."

In a couple of years, we'll get to see who made the better call.
 
Last edited:
They are not required to, but they have to have good reason to. It is unusual(see, I said this already, and the links have said this already). You are not making any credible argument, you are just saying "nope, it's this way because I say it is this way", which is hardly credible.

It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.

The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.

Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.

I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.
 
"It is unusual" is a credible argument, Redress? There is no argument to give here that will "prove" anything. I stated the simple fact:

"There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact."

As to whether they will or won't - it's all conjecture. I've provided my own conjecture. You've posted links to other people's original thoughts and highlighted the phrase "it is unusual."

You have shown no evidence that they will. I have shown evidence that, among people who study and work in the law, it is considered unlikely but not impossible. I have also shown, with links, that the Walker ruling makes it harder for those supporting prop 8 in the future. You have not in any way shown this to be less than true.
 
It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.

And what does biological reproduction have to do with right to contract?

The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.

It doesn't matter if the Church sees marriage as a device for reproduction. Gods have no say in the laws of man, I am not held to your gods laws. That's your problem.

Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.

And again, what does this have to do with right to contract?

I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.

Hello hyperbole, good to see you again.
 
It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.

This is a straw man that in now way addresses what I talked about. Making inane comments about stuff no one is arguing does not prove any points.

The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.

Gay couples can conceive in society today. It requires a bit of outside help, but is not just possible, but happening more and more often. About 1/3 of lesbian couples, and 1/4 of gay male couples have children in their households. SO by your argument, gays should be allowed to marry.

Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.

No, just like strait married couples.

I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.

Stupid, obviously over the top rhetoric that adds nothing but a mindless insult, and makes you look worse than the gay people you are opposed to.
 
It really wouldn't make a hill of difference in the long run Navy....because even IF that were to happen (which is unlikely), public opinion is changing at a rapid pace and gay marriage is coming one way or another. You are losing this battle in the Courts and in the public arena. You continually refuse to recognize that public opinion has shifted by close to 20 percentage points in the last decade to the point that the public is almost evenly split on the issue. As your generation dies out, the more tolerant and moderate generations are embracing liberty and justice for all (in REALITY....not just something to recite in a Pledge). The storm is coming Navy.....and I suspect that even YOU will be alive to see it happen.

Just because you keep preaching that lie does not mean it will happen........31-0 states banning same sex marriage with a constitutional amendment....Many will be added this November.....45 states have DOMAS saying marriage is between a man and a woman........California one of the most liberal states in the nation has said marriage is between a man and a woman......Every time gay marriage has been voted on gay marriage ahs lost.......You lose DD and you will continue to lose.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom