Page 25 of 35 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 347

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

  1. #241
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Doesn't matter, the state has the burden of providing a rationale for excluding ANY group from the equal protection of the laws.
    What "group" is "excluded" from equal protection of the law, and on what basis?
    “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

  2. #242
    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 Harshaw View Post
    What "group" is "excluded" from equal protection of the law, and on what basis?
    No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.
    Thus, everyone is treated the same; no one is excluded.

  3. #243
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    His argument wasn't based on gender. It was specicially couched in the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

    If you can find decisions based on gender discrimination and not discrimination against homosexuality, please do.
    It was based on gender. Read his ruling. He uses the word quite a bit. Particularly look at pages 113 - 114. The entire same SEX marriage issue is hinged on the sex of the people getting married. That is ALL that it is hinged on. People's sexual preferences, sexual orientation, etc are not even remotely of interest to the state. Only their sex. The decision that marriage currently discriminates against homosexual couples is based ENTIRELY on the sex of the people in the relationship. As was the judge's decision that it was discrimination and a violation of equal protection to keep said backwards bans in place.


    Sure it is. Both men and women have the exact same access to marriage as "marriage" is defined, which is, in the places where it is so, a "union between a man and woman." Again, you can raise other issues, but not equal protection.
    You can marry a woman. I can't. That is discrimination based on gender just as it was discrimination based on race when blacks could only marry blacks. Equal protection was violated then, and it's violated now. Just because blacks could marry blacks just as whites could marry whites didn't make the ban on interracial marriage any less of a violation of equal protection.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 09-09-10 at 02:09 PM.

  4. #244
    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 Goobieman View Post
    No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.
    Thus, everyone is treated the same; no one is excluded.
    Except the Men/Men, and Women/Women marriages of course? They are currently excluded forms of marriage, which is a fundamental right. The fact that no one can marry anyone they want is immaterial to the equal protection clause. Men and woman can marry, men and men cannot, and that is legally discriminatory, and as such, the state needs to provide a compelling state interest in the exclusion.

    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 09-09-10 at 02:12 PM.
    “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

  5. #245
    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
    Except the Men/Men, and Women/Women marriages of course?
    All men and women are treated equally - there's no discrimination.

    They are currently excluded forms of marriage, which is a fundamental right
    Marriage is a privilige.
    All exclusions and restrictions are equally applied to all people - and thus, equal protection is met.

  6. #246
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.
    Thus, everyone is treated the same; no one is excluded.
    Your interpretation precludes the importance of preference in fairness.

    For example, that Hitler enacted a genocidal campaign against the gypsies and homosexuals in addition to the Jews does not make his genocidal programs fairer because the groups involved would have preferred not to be recipients of the policy.

    They are currently excluded forms of marriage, which is a fundamental right
    Marriage is a privilige.
    All exclusions and restrictions are equally applied to all people - and thus, equal protection is met.
    Marriage is recognized as a right by the courts.

    Entitlements pertaining to marriage aren't rights.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-09-10 at 02:37 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #247
    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 Goobieman View Post
    All men and women are treated equally - there's no discrimination.


    Marriage is a privilige.
    All exclusions and restrictions are equally applied to all people - and thus, equal protection is met.
    You appear to be completely oblivious to the argument, or even the concept of this particular claim to discrimination? I don't know of a more crystal clear way of articulating this ruling by Walker into anything clearer than what has been previously stated. If you can't see any discrimination (I suppose you really are not seeing it) here, then your argument would hold true. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that there is no discrimination at all going on? I'm not sure why you're holding to this position? Clearly there is.


    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. #248
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:26 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,522

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    It was based on gender. Read his ruling. He uses the word quite a bit. Particularly look at pages 113 - 114. The entire same SEX marriage issue is hinged on the sex of the people getting married. That is ALL that it is hinged on. People's sexual preferences, sexual orientation, etc are not even remotely of interest to the state. Only their sex. The decision that marriage currently discriminates against homosexual couples is based ENTIRELY on the sex of the people in the relationship. As was the judge's decision that it was discrimination and a violation of equal protection to keep said backwards bans in place.
    He mentioned an "era" of "gender inequality," but he didn't base his decision on it. He based it on discrimination against homosexuality, while calling that discrimination equivalent to discrimination based on sex. Not THE SAME AS, but "equivalent," from a legal perspective. And yes, to this point, it's a distinction which matters.

    Having considered the evidence, the
    relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that
    Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would
    exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection
    claim is based on sexual orientation
    , but this claim is equivalent
    to a claim of discrimination based on sex.


    You can marry a woman. I can't.
    I can't marry someone of the same sex, either. At least not in my jurisdiction.


    That is discrimination based on gender just as it was discrimination based on race when blacks could only marry blacks. Equal protection was violated then, and it's violated now. Just because blacks could marry blacks just as whites could marry whites didn't make the ban on interracial marriage any less of a violation of equal protection.
    Because race was irrelevant to the defintion of marriage. Gender isn't, not as it's defined.

    I find myself on the converse to Hicup, in that I actually agree that anyone should be able to form whatever social constructs and commitments they wish. But agreeing with that doesn't mean I have to buy every single argument for it, when an argument just doesn't hold water.

    Nor does my view that a particular argument doesn't hold water mean that I don't think others do, nor does it mean that I think it disposes of the matter entirely. It doesn't. It's just one argument that doesn't hold water.
    “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

  9. #249
    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
    You appear to be completely oblivious to the argument, or even the concept of this particular claim to discrimination?
    Yours is a silly assertion.

    Everyone can marry the opposite sex. "Everyone" is an all-inclusive term.
    No one can marry the same sex. "No one" is an all-inclusove term.
    In both cases, everyone is treated equally, so there is no discrimination.

    Can all women marry the opposite sex? Yes.
    Can all men marry the opposite sex? Yes.
    Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no disctimination

    Can any man marry the same sex? No.
    Cany any woman marry the same sex? No.
    Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no discrimination.

    If everyone is treated equally, as they are, then there is no discrimination, and there is no equal protection issue.

  10. #250
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

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

    Because race was irrelevant to the defintion of marriage. Gender isn't, not as it's defined.

    I find myself on the converse to Hicup, in that I actually agree that anyone should be able to form whatever social constructs and commitments they wish. But agreeing with that doesn't mean I have to buy every single argument for it, when an argument just doesn't hold water.

    Nor does my view that a particular argument doesn't hold water mean that I don't think others do, nor does it mean that I think it disposes of the matter entirely. It doesn't. It's just one argument that doesn't hold water.
    Definitions themselves can discriminate. European definitions of personhood in the 18th century could exclude non-Caucasians, for example. If a definition of marriage excludes non-heterosexuals, then it discriminates.

    Not that I have an issue with that in the private sector. But to the extent that marriage is a mechanism of the state, the state cannot articiulate a discriminating definition.

    Yours is a silly assertion.

    Everyone can marry the opposite sex. "Everyone" is an all-inclusive term.
    No one can marry the same sex. "No one" is an all-inclusove term.
    In both cases, everyone is treated equally, so there is no discrimination.

    Can all women marry the opposite sex? Yes.
    Can all men marry the opposite sex? Yes.
    Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no disctimination

    Can any man marry the same sex? No.
    Cany any woman marry the same sex? No.
    Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no discrimination.

    If everyone is treated equally, as they are, then there is no discrimination, and there is no equal protection issue.
    What's silly is ignoring the function of preference in fairness, or that the courts decided marriage was a right. Your examples are at cross-purposes with the objection against your argument.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-09-10 at 02:44 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

Page 25 of 35 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... 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
  •