• 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.
It's there as a red herring. It has little to do with it, but is presented as a slippery slope... one that does not apply.

You had a much stronger argument for that before this decision.
 
You had a much stronger argument for that before this decision.

No, the strength of that argument remains. Ultimately, all decisions such as this, are based on what benefits society and whether those benefits outweigh the negatives.
 
No, the strength of that argument remains. Ultimately, all decisions such as this, are based on what benefits society and whether those benefits outweigh the negatives.

Not anymore. Not after where this judge went with it.

In a vacuum, I'd agree with you. But that's not where the debate is anymore.
 
You had a much stronger argument for that before this decision.

And what in the decision renders you to believe that polygamy is actually a relevant argument? You are doing the same thing the rest have, which is saying it matters, because you say it matters, with no reference to the actual decision.
 
And what in the decision renders you to believe that polygamy is actually a relevant argument? You are doing the same thing the rest have, which is saying it matters, because you say it matters, with no reference to the actual decision.

I already explained it. The grounds upon which the judge decided the case (that it's unconstitutional to define marriage on moral grounds, and that any "traditional" definition of marriage is moral grounds) make it impossible for polygamy not be taken up. This case is at the forefront of the debate, thus, polygamy is in the mix.
 
Last edited:
I already explained it. The grounds upon which the judge decided the case (that it's unconstitutional to define marriage on moral grounds, and that any "traditional" definition of marriage is moral grounds) make it impossible for polygamy not be taken up. This case is at the forefront of the debate, thus, polygamy is in the mix.

Again, the moral issue is easily overridden by the benefit to society issue.
 
141 pages impressive.

Man some arguments really get to me.

"if we let the gays get married we'll lose our soul and national identity... Etc"

Yeah because continuing to discriminate against something you don't like definitely saves your soul.

"less government, less government, unless its something i don't like in which case the government should step in and discriminate on my behalf"

Seriously? Sometimes I worry.
 
I already explained it. The grounds upon which the judge decided the case (that it's unconstitutional to define marriage on moral grounds, and that any "traditional" definition of marriage is moral grounds) make it impossible for polygamy not be taken up. This case is at the forefront of the debate, thus, polygamy is in the mix.

I am not seeing where that was the basis for his ruling. Maybe you can actually quote where he said it so I can find it. I do see things like this though:

Today, gender is not
relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their
committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are
consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of
marriage in the United States

Plaintiffs’ unions encompass the historical purpose
and form of marriage. Only the plaintiffs’ genders relative to one
another prevent California from giving their relationships due
recognition.

This is not sounding like polygamy can easily shoehorn it's way into this ruling.
 
I think maybe I found it. I hope this is what Harshaw is referring to, since searching the document on the terms he provided has brought me to almost the end of the document(page 134 of 138). So here it is:

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO
OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

Now, if this is what Harshaw is basing his comments on, we can already see the fracturing of his argument, but let's read on a bit more.

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of
proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in
the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that
same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.
FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of
homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief
that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better
than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is
not a proper basis on which to legislate.

The very start of this quote is why Harshaw's argument fails. "In the absence of rational basis". Gays where able to show that their being married is every bit as good as straits. For polygamy to be allowed, under this, and just this aspect of the ruling(and this is far from the only aspect relevant), they would have to show that the only reason to object is based on "moral disapproval", "animus" or unreasoned belief.
 
I think maybe I found it. I hope this is what Harshaw is referring to, since searching the document on the terms he provided has brought me to almost the end of the document(page 134 of 138). So here it is:



Now, if this is what Harshaw is basing his comments on, we can already see the fracturing of his argument, but let's read on a bit more.



The very start of this quote is why Harshaw's argument fails. "In the absence of rational basis". Gays where able to show that their being married is every bit as good as straits. For polygamy to be allowed, under this, and just this aspect of the ruling(and this is far from the only aspect relevant), they would have to show that the only reason to object is based on "moral disapproval", "animus" or unreasoned belief.

It could have been this word that threw them off. "animus " :2wave:
 
I think maybe I found it. I hope this is what Harshaw is referring to, since searching the document on the terms he provided has brought me to almost the end of the document(page 134 of 138). So here it is:



Now, if this is what Harshaw is basing his comments on, we can already see the fracturing of his argument, but let's read on a bit more.



The very start of this quote is why Harshaw's argument fails. "In the absence of rational basis". Gays where able to show that their being married is every bit as good as straits. For polygamy to be allowed, under this, and just this aspect of the ruling(and this is far from the only aspect relevant), they would have to show that the only reason to object is based on "moral disapproval", "animus" or unreasoned belief.

You may think it fails if you don't know how to read a case or how to conduct proper legal issue-spotting.

This IS the holding of the case. He boiled down what he considered the defendants' argument to be ruled on it.

And the absence of a rational basis is a finding of fact. This decision doesn't rule on that for cases of polygamy. Under this ruling, you have to find a basis other than moral or traditional concerns for prohibitions of polygamy to stand. This case doesn't dispose of that issue; it invites it. It invites litigating the whole issue as to whether there IS a rational basis for such a prohibition, because any moral or traditional reasons are now out the window.

So yeah, it's now a very live question, much moreso than it was before this decision, 'coz now you have to get past the "weird" factor for banning polygamy. You have to get into the facts.

Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.
 
Last edited:
I am not seeing where that was the basis for his ruling. Maybe you can actually quote where he said it so I can find it. I do see things like this though:

This is not sounding like polygamy can easily shoehorn it's way into this ruling.

How about here:

marriage under law is a union of
equals.

The other things you quoted are summaries of the plaintiffs' arguments. They're not the holding.
 
You may think it fails if you don't know how to read a case or how to conduct proper legal issue-spotting.

This IS the holding of the case. He boiled down what he considered the defendants' argument to be ruled on it.

And the absence of a rational basis is a finding of fact. This decision doesn't rule on that for cases of polygamy. Under this ruling, you have to find a basis other than moral or traditional concerns for prohibitions of polygamy to stand. This case doesn't dispose of that issue; it invites it. It invites litigating the whole issue as to whether there IS a rational basis for such a prohibition, because any moral or traditional reasons are now out the window.

So yeah, it's now a very live question, much moreso than it was before this decision, 'coz now you have to get past the "weird" factor for banning polygamy. You have to get into the facts.

Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.

Except that there is and can be a rational basis to not extend marriage to polygamy.

And the whole "You don't know what you are doing" bit is tired. One of us managed to actually back up their comments, and one of us has, and continues to, fail at doing so. You fail again in claiming that this quote "IS" the finding. It is not. It is a part of the finding, and a small part.
 
How about here:



The other things you quoted are summaries of the plaintiffs' arguments. They're not the holding.

Hey look, you can take one tiny quote out of context and try and claim it means something. You are not doing well here, you might want to save legal analysis to those who know how to do it.
 
Before this, a state defining marriage under traditional, opposite-sex, two-person terms took care of the question. No more.

Are you suggesting that there is no rational argument to be made against polygamy? Slippery slope arguments are a not a rational basis for determining policy or law.
 
Except that there is and can be a rational basis to not extend marriage to polygamy.

And where in this decision was that rational basis found? Where in any decision was that rational basis found?


And the whole "You don't know what you are doing" bit is tired. One of us managed to actually back up their comments, and one of us has, and continues to, fail at doing so.

No, Redress; it's actually true. The first statement of yours I quoted above shows it conclusively. You claim there IS a rational basis for prohibiting polygamy, thus my argument fails. But you don't get to simply declare that there is such a rational basis. That is a question which must be litigated and ruled upon, in a federal venue. That you don't understand that is only illustrating what I'm saying. It would explain why you think my argument "fails," however.

Also, that you think

You fail again in claiming that this quote "IS" the finding. It is not. It is a part of the finding, and a small part.

Redress, there's a difference between a "finding" and a "holding."

And I never said it was the only holding; there are, in fact, TWO -- due process and equal protection. That paticular one I mention is the equal protection holding, and it's the one relevant to inroads for polygamy.

But hey, if you want to get into his due process arguments, we can do that, too.

“Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States”: “two parties . . . give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household.” “The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” "“[M]arriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” But that’s “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.” “Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents.” Plaintiffs’ same-sex relationships “are consistent with the core of the history, tradition, and practice of marriage in the United States.”"

And on the basis of all of that, "“Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.”"

Strict scrutiny. Do you know what that is? Do you know how high of a standard that is? Tell you what -- you apply strict scrutiny and explain exactly why a restriction on number would succeed when a restriction on gender would not. And do it without needing to litigate any questions, because that's what you need to do show my argument "fails."

My argument, by the way, to remind you, is that this decision opens the question of polygamy in a way which was not available prior to this decision.
 
Last edited:
Hey look, you can take one tiny quote out of context and try and claim it means something. You are not doing well here, you might want to save legal analysis to those who know how to do it.

Yeah? Look above. Your turn.
 
Are you suggesting that there is no rational argument to be made against polygamy? Slippery slope arguments are a not a rational basis for determining policy or law.

Nope. I'm saying that it's an issue which must be litigated. Redress, however, is evidently claiming that there IS a rational basis, which is why my argument fails. But the decision says nothing of the kind.
 
But now that has to be litigated. Before this decision, it did not.

And you are still basing this on what you have based on your nonsense claims in this thread on. Because I say so is not a good argument.
 
But now that has to be litigated. Before this decision, it did not.

EVen if this is accurate, as I said it will be easily overridden by the benefit to society issue.
 
And you are still basing this on what you have based on your nonsense claims in this thread on. Because I say so is not a good argument.

No, Redress, what's "not a good argument" is ignoring everything I said and claiming all I said was "because I said so." That's not only not a good argument, it's a tacit admission that you can't respond to what I said.

I presented you a way, through legitimate legal argument, based on the actual decision, to show that my argument fails conclusively. You can try to do that, or you can continue to simply declare victory while ignoring it. That is up to you.
 
EVen if this is accurate, as I said it will be easily overridden by the benefit to society issue.

It is, and I never said it couldn't be overridden -- only that this decision invites the issue, so it's part of the argument now. The bottom line is, these are open legal questions now. They weren't two weeks ago. There may not have been a slippery slope before, but based on this decision, the judge tilted the field and greased it.

And, by his due process holding that marriage is a fundamental right, a decision between equals, strict scrutiny applies, so you not only have to show a rational basis, you have to show a compelling interest for restricting someone's freedom to marry whom they choose. It's well beyond mere "rational basis" now.
 
No, Redress, what's "not a good argument" is ignoring everything I said and claiming all I said was "because I said so." That's not only not a good argument, it's a tacit admission that you can't respond to what I said.

I presented you a way, through legitimate legal argument, based on the actual decision, to show that my argument fails conclusively. You can try to do that, or you can continue to simply declare victory while ignoring it. That is up to you.

When you actually show something from the actual decision, then maybe you will give something to argue with. Hell, I had to go into the decision and do your homework for you, since you failed(a recurring theme for you in this thread) to do so yourself.
 
When you actually show something from the actual decision, then maybe you will give something to argue with. Hell, I had to go into the decision and do your homework for you, since you failed(a recurring theme for you in this thread) to do so yourself.

I've been referencing the actual decision the entire time, and your "homework" even confirmed that I was doing so.

But if you want me to bring up actual quotes, well, guess what? I already did so:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ban-overturned-report-142.html#post1058903588

In which I, again, told you how you could show my argument fails conclusively.

So, go on pretending I haven't actually referenced the decision if you like. Or is it that you just failed to see that (rather long) post?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom