• 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.
Erod said:
That's what the Loyalists said circa 1775. To think this country is immune, after 234 measly years, to what has happened to thousands of societies over the course of time is naive.
Click to expand...

Hey look, a straw man.
 
Taylor said:
It's kind of cute how you follow other people's posts, thanking them and adding little one-liners to the effect of "Yeah! So there!".

Kind of a like a little sidekick.

"Yeah! Strict scrutiny!"
"Yeah! Law scholars!"

LOL
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't their posts I follow; it's the whole thread. And I have contributed to this thread all along. But as long as you are going to keep playing your moronic games, you will get called on it.

So put up or shut up...what have you got that makes a coherent argument? Surely with all your bravado, you can back it up with something. :shrug:
 
Redress said:
In point of fact, since the starting point for the next step is based on this ruling, it is anything but irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I see Redress. If at first you don't you don't succeed... change your argument entirely. And now you want to claim that by calling Walker's decision irrelevant I meant the entire case had no relevance to the legal process.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's all(including me) step it back just a bit please. Thank you.
 
Taylor said:
I see Redress. If at first you don't you don't succeed... change your argument entirely. And now you want to claim that by calling Walker's decision irrelevant I meant the entire case had no relevance to the legal process.
Click to expand...

His findings on the facts are part of his decision, and are relevant at the next level. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, and you have been denying with no evidence.
 
Well, look at it this way.

If the GOP stopped getting in the way of equal civil rights for everyone, there's the possibility that the gays may start using their brains in the polling booth and start voting for people who are trying to cut taxes, cut spending, and reverse the damage the Messiah and the Progressives have been doing to the country.

No reason to expect the GOP should get the support of people who are the targets of their irrational intolerance.
 
Redress said:
His findings on the facts are part of his decision, and are relevant at the next level. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, and you have been denying with no evidence.
Click to expand...
No, Findings of Fact, Conclusions and the Decision & Order are all separate components of the ruling.

The decision refers to what conclusion was reached. Claiming a conclusion irrelevant does not mean that everything used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Patrick said:
Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be quite that easy. This will be a fairly long ongoing battle. Just as the battle for civil rights took time, this will too. However, it will be worth it in the long run.
Click to expand...

Not too much longer.

The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is going to rubber stamp the District Court's opinion.

The Roberts' court has four flaming libtards, who will support the Ninth Circus on this matter, and four constitutionalists, most of whom can be relied upon to obey the Constitution, and if they do that, they rule that Prop 8 is in violation of the 14th Amendment, and then there's judge Kennedy, who swings both ways.

I don't expect Proposition 8, supported by at least 20% of the Obama voters, to stand.

And once same-sex marriage is once again lawful in California, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution takes effect, and the other states will be forced to recognize ALL marriages in California, whether they themselves allow such marriages in their own states or not. These final challenges won't take that long. I'm guessin five years, tops.
 
Taylor said:
No, Findings of Fact, Conclusions and the Decision & Order are all separate components of the ruling.
Click to expand...

So let's see, me saying the finding of facts are part of the ruling is wrong because they are a component of the ruling...
 
Redress said:
So let's see, me saying the finding of facts are part of the ruling is wrong because they are a component of the ruling...
Click to expand...
You said the findings on the facts are part of his decision and are trying to suggest that because I said his conclusion was irrelevant, that everything that was used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant. That is illogical.

EDIT:
I meant to say:
That is illogical and I'm off to go eat pizza and have a beer.

Have a good evening!
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
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."
Click to expand...

Taylor said:
You said the findings on the facts are part of his decision and are trying to suggest that because I said his conclusion was irrelevant, that everything that was used to reach that conclusion must also be irrelevant. That is illogical.

EDIT:
I meant to say:
That is illogical and I'm off to go eat pizza and have a beer.

Have a good evening!
Click to expand...

Those are your actual words. You are wrong. Enjoy your pizza and beer.
 
Phoenix said:
I disagree. The Constitution protects individual rights and sometimes whole groups have a valid complaint about the law discriminating.
When it comes down to it the argument that if Jill can marry John BUT Tom can't marry John is discriminatory then ......
If John can marry Jill but Tom can't ALSO marry Jill it's just as discriminatory to Tom and based on a government definition of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

First, while it may be discrimination, it would be difficult to suggest its anything greater than the lowest tier on the EPC status groupings, which is still lower thane Gender which is my argument. It would still apply to all my arguments regarding rational reasons why the state has an interest in discriminating against said groupings which is all that would be required under the lower tier of the EPC.

Additionally, in this case you're coming into an issue with contracts. To argue that such would be the case...essentially that you not being allowed to enter into a contract with something that is entered into a contract with something else in ALL cases....would be to suggest the government is unable, due to discrimination, provide for ANY type of contract that gives sole authority or joining to a person. IE, it would equally suggest that a government approved contract for a plot of land could not stop someone else from purchasing a contract and equal rights to that same piece of land, because by your own reasoning if Jim can buy that land from Jill but Tom can't ALSO buy that land from jill, then its discriminatory to Tom.
 
Phoenix said:
I disagree. The Constitution protects individual rights and sometimes whole groups have a valid complaint about the law discriminating.
When it comes down to it the argument that if Jill can marry John BUT Tom can't marry John is discriminatory then ......
If John can marry Jill but Tom can't ALSO marry Jill it's just as discriminatory to Tom and based on a government definition of what marriage is.
Click to expand...

Thank you though for being the first person to at least try and give a clear example of how they think there is evidence of inequality in regards to the inability to have multi-person marriages and what said inequality is.
 
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. 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. 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. 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.

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.


Thoughts?


Tim-
 
Phoenix said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

In regards to removing itself, I agree with you completely.
 
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-
 
Hicup said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin -
Marriage under the law is not about emotional bonds, nor affections.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Why thank you, however, with some of the clarifications above, you might have a different opinion?

Tim-
 
Dav said:
Marriage is between a man and a woman because, frankly, the entire reason marriage exists is for reproduction.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
Those are your actual words. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dav said:
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.
Click to expand...

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-
 
Hicup said:
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-
Click to expand...

So what do we consider Tim?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom