Page 23 of 35 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 347

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

  1. #221
    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, you used a minor as an example...
    Irrelevant -- that there is any example at all proves my statement - that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state - is sound.

  2. #222
    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
    What is -actually- says is that:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Nothing here prevents a state from repealing a privilege that it gratned or forces a state to grant a privilege granted by other states that the state itself does not grant.
    No. The part in bold prevents a state from doing just that. As a matter of fact, it can't get any plainer. The state cannot make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the US without due process of law.

  3. #223
    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 -- that there is any example at all proves my statement - that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state - is sound.
    Irrelevant, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.

  4. #224
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender, not because of their sexuality (when I think 'sexuality', I think more along the lines of acting in a manner or being receptive to the actual act of copulation). You can certainly argue that sexual attraction has nothing to do with who can or cannot get married, but this has provided no reason for why homosexual couples can't be included. The bottom line is simple. If heterosexuals can get married based on sexual attraction alone (which does happen), then so should homosexuals. Likewise, if heterosexuals get married even if there is a lack of sexual attraction, then homosexual couples should, too. Basically, if heterosexual couples enjoy the privilege of marriage, homosexual couples should, too. But don't take my word for it. The 14th Amendment says it perfectly.
    No, you're simply pulling this out of thin air. The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality. Look, if we can't even agree on that, then it's pointless to continue. What you say doesn't even make any sense.

    And again, you're saying I'm arguing that homosexual couples "can't be included," which isn't the argument and not at all what I was talking about.


    You still have not provided any explanation whatsoever as to why homosexual couples are being excluded from marriage based on sexual attraction (or lack thereof). In addition, if heterosexuals couples get married without sexual attraction (as your implying it could and does happen from time to time), then how does that exclude homosexual couples? You can keep repeating "well because sexuality is not a component of marriage", but that fails to address why heterosexual sexuality (or lack thereof) doesn't matter to marriage, yet homosexual sexuality (or lack thereof) does. Even if sexuality were not a component of marriage, what is different about the sexuality of homosexual couples versus that of their heterosexual counterparts, and what about that difference excludes one group and not the other?
    Dude. Get it through your head. I am not arguing that homosexuals should be excluded from marriage. Nothing I said equates to that, at all.

    I'm explaining why the equal protection argument fails, which is only one argument, and I prefaced this by saying I found other arguments compelling. But you don't actually want to argue "equal protection" at all; you're arguing the whole gamut of gay marriage.

    And the whole point, dude, is not that homosexual attraction doesn't matter to marriage, it's that sexual attraction of any kind -- homo, hetero, or bi -- isn't a necessary component to marriage at all. So, seriously, if you want to argue this, keep it together.
    “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

  5. #225
    Educator joe six-pack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Six-Pakistan
    Last Seen
    07-19-11 @ 07:59 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,123

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I'm explaining why the equal protection argument fails, which is only one argument, and I prefaced this by saying I found other arguments compelling.
    I'm not sure where you get this idea.

    A ban against Blacks from marriage would violate Equal Protection because it would based on a trait, a discrimination against a protected class. Homosexuals are also a legally recognized class. I don't see how you can agree the first example is a violation of Equal Protection--and several other Constitutional Protections--but not in the case of homosexuals. Besides, there are more Constitutitonal protections than in the 14th Amendment. That's just one avenue of legal argument for equality.

    I agree that there are "more" arguments to make, but I can think of several Supreme Court justices that would disagree with you about the Equal Protection clause.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    "In the technical sense--by the economic definition--President Obama is not a socialist," - 4-10-2010
    Do you want to have a debate? Hit the reply button.

  6. #226
    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
    No, you're simply pulling this out of thin air. The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality. Look, if we can't even agree on that, then it's pointless to continue. What you say doesn't even make any sense.

    And again, you're saying I'm arguing that homosexual couples "can't be included," which isn't the argument and not at all what I was talking about.
    If I am not grasping your point, it's because you are being rather nebulous here. You maintain that sexual attraction and sexuality are not requirements for marriage, yet I never said anything about what requirements are necessary for marriage. The issue is not about the requirements, anyway - this is something that you brought up, presumably to show why you are against gay marriage.

    And I do need to point out that you claim here "The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality" as if i'm not getting it, when I specifically said "Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender". You'll notice that I address the issue of discrimination directly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Dude. Get it through your head. I am not arguing that homosexuals should be excluded from marriage. Nothing I said equates to that, at all.

    I'm explaining why the equal protection argument fails, which is only one argument, and I prefaced this by saying I found other arguments compelling. But you don't actually want to argue "equal protection" at all; you're arguing the whole gamut of gay marriage.

    And the whole point, dude, is not that homosexual attraction doesn't matter to marriage, it's that sexual attraction of any kind -- homo, hetero, or bi -- isn't a necessary component to marriage at all. So, seriously, if you want to argue this, keep it together.
    First of all, I never said anything about sexual attraction being a necessary component to marriage. So why are you even bringing that up? This is a discussion about gay marriage, and what legal basis exists as to why homosexual couples cannot be included.

    The argument against prop 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment, a strategy that the legal team used in federal court (and won). And they are pretty much dead on, as the wording is very specific. No citizen shall have their immunities or privileges abriged by the state without due process. If you wish to continue, THIS is what you need to argue. I would stop bringing up sexual attraction or sexuality as an uneccessary component of marriage as if it is some sort of defense that nullifies the 14th Amendment protection, because that makes zero sense, and certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law. In addition, I already addressed your sexual attraction concern. If heterosexuals can get married without that component present, then it stands to reason that homosexuals can, too.
    Last edited by Singularity; 09-09-10 at 09:57 AM.

  7. #227
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    If I am not grasping your point, it's because you are being rather nebulous here. You maintain that sexual attraction and sexuality are not requirements for marriage, yet I never said anything about what requirements are necessary for marriage. The issue is not about the requirements, anyway - this is something that you brought up, presumably to show why you are against gay marriage.
    No. It's an anlysis of the equal protection argument. Not why I'm against -- or for -- anything. In order for there to BE an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something on the basis of something about that class of individuals. In this case, the argument is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.

    And I do need to point out that you claim here "The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality" as if i'm not getting it, when I specifically said "Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender". You'll notice that I address the issue of discrimination directly.
    What you're not getting is that you're wrong about what the argument is. The argument is, as I said, about discrimination against homosexuality.

    But if you want to insist that it's NOT about homosexuality at all, and only about the basis of it being against the same gender, then you fully concede that there IS NO equal protection argument, because the law then applies to EVERYONE exactly the same. NO ONE can marry the same gender, regardless of ANYTHING. The law is fully equally-applied.


    First of all, I never said anything about sexual attraction being a necessary component to marriage. So why are you even bringing that up?
    Because in order to argue that something is being denied to someone, you have to define exactly what it is which is being denied, as well as the basis on which it's being denied. The only chance the equal protection argument has to succeed is if that which is being denied is based on something intrinsic about the individuals it's being denied to. In this case, the argument is that it's their sexuality.

    But if sexuality isn't a necessary part of marriage, and it is not, then the equal protection argument fails.


    This is a discussion about gay marriage, and what legal basis exists as to why homosexual couples cannot be included.
    No. The conversation I'm having with YOU, very specifically, was an analysis of the equal protection argument. We're not discussing anything other than that.


    The argument against prop 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment, a strategy that the legal team used in federal court (and won). And they are pretty much dead on, as the wording is very specific. No citizen shall have their immunities or privileges abriged by the state without due process. If you wish to continue, THIS is what you need to argue.
    This is what I have been arguing. I assumed you actually understood how an analysis of equal protection works.

    I would stop bringing up sexual attraction or sexuality as an uneccessary component of marriage
    In order for marriage laws to discriminate against homosexuality, which is what the argument says, then sexuality MUST be a necessary component of marriage in order for there to be an equal protection violation. Look, it's as simple as that. You cannot argue that homosexuals are discriminated against if homosexuality isn't a necessary component of the law. If I were you, I'd learn more about how to argue equal protection.


    because that makes zero sense
    It may make zero sense to you, but that certainly doesn't mean it makes zero sense.

    and certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
    Except that it has.

    In addition, I already addressed your sexual attraction concern. If heterosexuals can get married without that component present, then it stands to reason that homosexuals can, too.
    You think you addressed it, but you're only making things worse for yourself by this.

    You insisted above that the discrimination isn't about homosexuality, yet here you say it is.

    The problem is, there must be a sexuality requirement for a valid marriage in order for this argument you just made to work. Otherwise, there's no basis on which to say homosexuality is discriminated against, because sexuality doesn't enter into it.

    So, you're going to have to decide what you're actually arguing here. It can't be not about homosexuality and about homosexuality at the same time.
    “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

  8. #228
    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

    Harshaw, I understand you perfectly.

    1. Walker ruled based on gender, and that law discriminates because men can't marry men, and woman can't marry women.
    2. You say that no one can marry anyone of the same sex so equal protection is not in violation.
    3. Sexuality is not a component of marriage legally, and that ones sexuality is not listed, nor is there any precedence stating sexuality as a necessary component of marriage.
    4. Therefore ones homosexual/heterosexual orientation is not fundamental to marriage.

    Your conclusion is to ask the question; So how are homosexuals being discriminated against?

    Prop 8 changed the California constitution to amend the following words.

    "marriage as between a man and a woman"

    Walkers ruling states that this violates the Due process clause, and ultimately the 14th amendment which requires equal protection. He bases this on the fact that only a man and a woman can marry, and not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman, and as a result excludes marriage to males that want to amrry males, and females that want to marry females.

    Walker is technically correct, and this is where the discrimination comes in, according to Walker.


    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

  9. #229
    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
    Irrelevant, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.
    Irrelevant - my statement that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state is sound.

  10. #230
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Walkers ruling states that this violates the Due process clause, and ultimately the 14th amendment which requires equal protection. He bases this on the fact that only a man and a woman can marry, and not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman, and as a result excludes marriage to males that want to amrry males, and females that want to marry females.
    Actually, he tied it specifically to homosexuality, but even if he had said exactly that . . .

    It's still not an equal protection issue, because the law still applies to everyone equally.

    Now, you can make a dandy free association argument based on this, but an equal protection argument fails.
    “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 23 of 35 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •