Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #111
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    To the Constitution? Yeah I am.
    Not in any relevant or meaningful way.

  2. #112
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Have you read Articles I-V, as well as Amendments 13-16, 18-19, 21, 23-24, and 26?
    Oops, I don't think you read what I posted.

    You see, that's the beauty of the Constitution. While other Constitutions specify what government can do, the Bill of Rights specify what government CANNOT do.
    <snip>
    As you can see, I was not talking about articles, or other amendments, but the Bill of Rights. Easy mistake for you to make though. I might have made the same mistake myself. No big deal. Actually, later in the post, I did mention the Constitution as a whole, so that's my bad, and not what I meant. Maybe I need to type slower, and think a little more, while posting. I am an old fart, too. Yea, that's the ticket. That's my excuse.
    Last edited by danarhea; 09-07-10 at 02:38 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #113
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Oops, I don't think you read what I posted.



    As you can see, I was not talking about articles, or other amendments, but the Bill of Rights. Easy mistake for you to make though. I might have made the same mistake myself. No big deal. Actually, later in the post, I did mention the Constitution as a whole, so that's my bad, and not what I meant. Maybe I need to type slower, and think a little more, while posting. I am an old fart, too. Yea, that's the ticket. That's my excuse.
    I did read it, but thank you for acknowleding the error instead of stonewalling on it.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #114
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It -is- relevant when someone asks you the question as to if it is a privilege or a right.

    And, as we all know, not every person is entitlted to every privilege offered by a state.
    But when a state extends rights/privileges, it must do so in a non-discriminatory practice or else the government must show either a legitimate/important/compelling state interest to justify the differential treatment.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #115
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    But when a state extends rights/privileges, it must do so in a non-discriminatory practice or else the government must show either a legitimate/important/compelling state interest to justify the differential treatment.
    And this reduces what I said... how?

  6. #116
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Well, that is good news. Focusing on banning gay marriage in the first place was quite a waste of time, and it shows the immature mentality of a good deal of people in California when there are for more pressing issues to deal with. Allowing these cultural crusades that have no serious basis are circus side shows. The "ban advocates" really have nothing better to do with their time.

  7. #117
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Its irrelevant whether it is a "PRIVILEGE" or a "RIGHT". Equal Protection applies to both.
    Hehe. I thought you were a lawyer? Of course it matters.

    CT - I did provide a pretty decent argument as to why I thought legally, that, the 14th Amendment challenge did not apply to Prop 8. It was very detailed I am NOT going to right it all out again. However, and the reason I made my comment earlier in this thread, is that the proponents of Prop 8 should have argued that marriage isn't a fundamental right, and if it were a "fundamental-right", it would only ever be a right of people within the state that have a presumptive, and intrinsic ability to procreate. If the state has no vested interest in procreation, then it has no business at all in marriage. Since it is in the marriage business, then it is incumbent on the state to protect this construct; in fact, even restrict it to those who possess the intrinsic ability to realize the benefits that their bonding would impart on the state.

    Furthermore, the state contradicts itself with the right to contract in marriage when, and if the state ignores all portions of the contract should the happy couple divorce. If the state ignores the contract in its totality, then the contract isn't fundamental to the marriage.

    And finally, Due Process was followed by the state of California. It did not violate the due process clause.

    So to recap:

    1. If marriage isn't a fundamental right, then there is no valid 14th challenge, and the states are free to regulate marriage as they see fit.
    2. If it is a fundamental right, then the court should take the opportunity to properly, and once and for all articulate that marriage should only ever be fundamental to those that posses the intrinsic ability to procreate. A child has a right to know both of his or her parents. They have a right to both a mother, and a Father. Not a partner and another partner.
    3. The marriage contract is a contract in every legal definition, yet the state in no fault divorce ignores the contract, therefore the right to contract in marriage is not fundamental to it.
    4. Due process was followed.
    5. Gender discrimination is akin to any legal definition of individual identity. They are the same in legal terms. It opens up the state to a whole host of marriages.


    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 09-07-10 at 07:11 PM. Reason: Typo
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #118
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by jambalaya View Post
    There is more gray area in the equal protection clause and 14th Amendment than you think. If you would listen to opponents of Prop 8 you would think that all they have to do is want something and equal protection means they get it. One important issue is equivalency. Is being gay equivalent to being black? Do two women who want to get married have to prove they are actually gay? What is the test that proves it? Sexuality is a much more fluent trait than race. It is not equivalent to being male or female. Somebody has to rule on that point.
    I've listened to the opponents of Prop 8, and I think both sides have some pretty strong feelings on the matter; however, we both would agree that whether you are for or against same sex marriage, mere opinion are not valid testimony in a court of law. You gotta back these kinda things up with research, expert witnesses, and all that jazz. Given the nature of this case, when the 14th Amendment is applied, equivalency is not limited to the homosexual/African American comparison, but includes everyone. Is being homosexual equivalent to being, say, Jewish, or Asian, or Kurdish, or any other ethnicity and race? According to the 14th Amendment, it is. Not because it mentions any of these specifically, but because it doesn't. The Amendment simply states that citizens may not have their immunities and privileges taken away without due process - not what type of citizen, but all of them.

    But let's say that there is more 'grey area' in the 14th Amendment. Wouldn't that mean there is more grey area in other Amendments as well, say, for instance, the 2nd Amendment? Like the 14th, the wording is pretty specific and it would be hard to twist the meaning, but if we can do it to the 14th, who is to say that the 2nd wouldn't be next in line?

    I think the most accurate interpretation of both would be to apply them literally here, and that's what this case was all about.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-07-10 at 09:06 PM.

  9. #119
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If this prohibition is absolute, as you suggest, explain why 15-yr olds cannot drive.
    Well for one, anyone under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor (although this varies), and does not reach adulthood until that age from a legal standpoint. As a result, a minor gains privileges through emancipation, not because he is simply a citizen. Of course, if your argument is that the 14th Amendment should be applied to minors as well and legal emancipation done away with, then you must also agree that the adults in charge of said minor therefore have no further control over his/her actions.

  10. #120
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    I've listened to the opponents of Prop 8, and I think both sides have some pretty strong feelings on the matter; however, we both would agree that whether you are for or against same sex marriage, mere opinion are not valid testimony in a court of law. You gotta back these kinda things up with research, expert witnesses, and all that jazz. Given the nature of this case, when the 14th Amendment is applied, equivalency is not limited to the homosexual/African American comparison, but includes everyone. Is being homosexual equivalent to being, say, Jewish, or Asian, or Kurdish, or any other ethnicity and race? According to the 14th Amendment, it is. Not because it mentions any of these specifically, but because it doesn't. The Amendment simply states that citizens may not have their immunities and privileges taken away - not what type of citizen, but all of them.

    But let's say that there is more 'grey area' in the 14th Amendment. Wouldn't that mean there is more grey area in other Amendments as well, say, for instance, the 2nd Amendment? Like the 14th, the wording is pretty specific and it would be hard to twist the meaning, but if we can do it to the 14th, who is to say that the 2nd wouldn't be next in line?

    I think the most accurate interpretation of both would be to apply them literally here, and that's what this case was all about.
    If you're going to try to be lawyerly and parse the issue thusly . . .

    What, specifically, is the equal-protection argument here? As in, what is being denied one group that a another group has? Specifically?

    'Coz while I think there are other compelling arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, "equal protection" arguments have always failed to impress me.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Page 12 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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