Page 21 of 35 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 347

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

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Hicup - What does science have to do with it? If a man wants to marry a man, or a woman wants to marry a woman, it is none of the government's damn business.
    We could close the thread right here.

  2. #202
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    If you want to get into a phiilsophical debate on rights, then fine.
    No philisophical debate is necessary -- rights are not grated by states, privileges are.
    The fact that marriage as a legal institution disappears once the legilsation that created it is repealed means that marriage is, undeniably, a privilege; the fact that the legal institution of marriage only exists because of the state passed legislation to create it means that marriage is, undeniably, a privilege.

    Rights are the result of a social contract between the people and the state. The state agrees to protect the rights that are important to the people in exchange for the people recognizing the legitimacy of the state.
    And privilieges are something that you can do because they state created the legal framework to allow it. Rights require no such framework; that you cannot get legally married unless there is a state laws that creates the legal institution of marriage necessitates that marriage is a privilege, not a right.

    Your thoughts are simply an irrelevant hypothetical extending from a misconception of the origin of rights.
    On the contrary -- the misconception here is yours, as demonstrated.

    Our Constitution, which is the social contract between the people and the state has been recognized by the Supreme Court to extend protection to marriage. That makes marriage a right.
    This is absolutely unsupportable. The constititon specifically protects rights, privileges and immunities; that these things are listed seperately illustrates the fallacy of your argument. That the Constitution specifies that you shall benefit from the right to equal protection when a state issues privilges in no way makes said privilege a right -- your right is found in equal protection, nothing else.

    And since the Supreme Court has recognized it as a right, it can only be overturned by a Federal Constitutional Amendment.
    This is absolutely unsupportable as well. All that has to happen for marriage, as a legal instititon, to disappear from a state is for the state to repeal the relevant laws.
    No court can stop that and no court can change that, as no court has the power to prevent a state from repealing its laws.

    Under your argument, only a constitutional amendment could repeal Social Security, Medicare, etc.
    That's absurd on its face.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-08-10 at 02:54 PM.

  3. #203
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    Are you kidding me? Even corprorations in our country are recognized as having Constitutional rights.
    Yes... and are treated as individuals in that respect.

  4. #204
    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 Singularity View Post
    Yes. The only problem is, your example was an example of emancipation and those individuals who are considered minors. And unfortunately for your example, we're not discussing minors. We are discussing homosexual adults.
    Irrelevant to my point, a point you have already accepted.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 09-08-10 at 02:57 PM.

  5. #205
    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 Singularity View Post
    No, I understood perfectly. You are discussing 'under (certain) current law', as am I. The only difference is you are attempting to interpret the 14th Amendment, and I was reading it literally. And being that the lawyers argued the case on this very point (and won), then there you have it. You may certainly disagree with same sex marriage, but in a court of law, you'd better be ready to prove that the privilege is not Constitutionally protected. Given the wording of the Amendment, it's pretty much cut-and-dried unless you engage in interpretation; in which case, every Amendment would potentially be subject to interpretation regardless of how plain the wording.
    Not sure how any of this is supposed to negate the argument that the prohibition against all men from marrying another man discrimitates against homosexuals.
    Might be because you didnt address the argument that was made.

  6. #206
    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 CriticalThought View Post
    Fundamental right
    "In constitutional law, certain rights protected by the due process or equal protection clause that cannot be regulated unless the regulating law passes a rigorous set of criteria (strict scrutiny). Fundamental rights, as defined by the Supreme Court, include various rights of privacy (such as marriage and contraception), the right to interstate travel, and the right to vote."
    Marriage is a privilige grated by a state; it must be a privilige because it cannot exist until the state creates it and oinly exists for as long as the state allows it.
    Thus, your definition is meaningless in this discussion.

  7. #207
    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

    I don't know if I agree with you that marriage is a priviledge, Goobieman. If the state repeals all laws pertaining to marriage, it could not by definition, restrict marriage at all. Marriage will still take place, but be unrecognized by the state. This is why marriage is fundamental, granted not by the state, but by ones own God. The state simply regulates marriage, and places limits, and requisits for inclusion. As such, it is the state that must provide a rational reason to restrict, limit marriage to only a certain class of people. I think that the procreative capacity of men and women to produce true blood line offspring is a vurtue over the homosexual parenting model. I think that many thousands of studies have shown that chidlren do best when both a mother and a father are present in the marriage, and although the research on homosexual parenting is in its infiancy, intuition tells me that equal parenting samples of SSM, and OSM deliver a more well rounded, and self healthy individual that the OSM marriage couple will enjoy a measurable advantage over the SSM couple. I reserve that judgement until more data comes out, but, logic tells me this will be the case.

    Is this advantage enough to stop gay couples from parenting? Nope, not even close, we can't stop it, nor should we, but it doesn't answer the question of what about marriage makes it fundamental, and why society would have any vested interest in it. Is the procreative advantage in parenting enough to limit marriage to heterosexuals only? Is it rational? Should procreative value be the single rationale for the state to even be involved in marriage? If it is, then should it extend to all heterosexuals, even those that do not produce children? Should the state recognize marriage in a tier system? Should they call it something else? Should they get out of it altogether?

    All of these questions are on the table. I don't know how it will turn out. I know in my heart that heterosexuals do have a clear advantage with procreative capacity. Is it enough to draw a rationale? I'm not so sure.


    Tim-
    “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. #208
    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 Hicup View Post
    I don't know if I agree with you that marriage is a priviledge, Goobieman. If the state repeals all laws pertaining to marriage, it could not by definition, restrict marriage at all. Marriage will still take place, but be unrecognized by the state.
    The whole of the issue involved here is marriage as a legal instituton, and the recongition of a marriage as such by the state.

    The state simply regulates marriage, and places limits, and requisits for inclusion.
    Not so. The state creates the legal institution, in total.

    Thus, it must be a privilege.

  9. #209
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Whether it was or wasn't, it isn't what you're arguing here.
    Sure it is. This is what my argument in this entire thread has been about - the right of the same sex individual to marry their partner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    People marry for many reasons, as is pointed out every time someone says that the point of marriage is children.

    People may marry for convenience. People may marry because they want money. People may marry because they just want companionship. Or they want security. In none of those cases is sexual attraction necessary.

    Nor is a "healthy" marriage necessary for the right to marry be exercised, especially considering that the definition of "health" in a marriage may and does vary widely from person to person.

    So, I ask again -- why is sexuality a necessary component of marriage?
    Unless you are planning on not having sex in your marriage, then sex is an integral part. I don't know anyone who gets married to avoid sex, do you? I'm not sure what you are driving at here.

  10. #210
    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
    Irrelevant to my point, a point you have already accepted.
    Wrong. Your argument was regarding minors and emancipation. The argument is not about minors, but about adults - specifically homosexual adults wishing to include themselves in marriage. The Amendment is specific.

Page 21 of 35 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •