Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 347

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

  1. #251
    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 Morality Games View Post
    If a definition of marriage excludes non-heterosexuals, then it discriminates.
    Heterosexuals are treated exactly the same as homosexuals, and so if there is any exclusion, it is not discriminatory, as applies to everyone to exactly the same degree.

  2. #252
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    If a definition of marriage excludes non-heterosexuals, then it discriminates.
    Where does it do that?
    “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

  3. #253
    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
    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.
    From him "Having considered the evidence, the
    relationship between sex and sexual orientation ".

    Without the gender aspect, it would be a non-issue since homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. It is ALL about the sexes. I don't like the way the judge worded his ruling, because it does tend to make people such as yourself focus on the sexuality. And that focus is wholly incorrect. Homosexuals aren't banned from marriage. No one's sexuality has EVER been an issue or in question when it comes to civil marriage. But their sex is. And that is what it's about. His ruling is based in gender discrimination, but he wraps it up into sexual orientation. But it wouldn't be an issue for sexual orientation if it weren't for the gender issue. But because the laws currently discriminate based on gender, then they unfairly target homosexuals as a product of that.


    I can't marry someone of the same sex, either. At least not in my jurisdiction.
    Correct. You can't marry a man and I can. Gender discrimination.

    Because race was irrelevant to the defintion of marriage. Gender isn't, not as it's defined.
    No, because it violated equal protection and the due process clause.

    Marriage, it's definition, and all the rules surrounding it has changed many, many times in the US. This is just another change that is long overdue.

    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.
    Gender discrimination is really the ONLY argument that holds water.

  4. #254
    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
    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.
    The ommission by the state that it is likely that a man might want to marry another man is still discrimination; if it considers the ommission in its legislation, and excludes them anyway. It must explain why it is doing so. It still can, but it needs to have a damn good reason for doing it.


    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

  5. #255
    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 Harshaw View Post
    Where does it do that?
    The definition of marriage as a union between man and woman which certain persons insist is the cultural norm that must be observed under law, adopted by some states.

    Again, discrimination, or at least certain forms of discrimination, are legally permissable -- just not when the state does it.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-09-10 at 02:55 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

  6. #256
    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
    The ommission by the state that it is likely that a man might want to marry another man is still discrimination
    That doesn't matter -- the fact that -all- people are prevented from marrying people of the same sex means that the same prohibition applies to everyone. As YOU said: The fact that no one can marry anyone they want is immaterial to the equal protection clause.

    See, as long as privilege is given to everyone equally, the terms of that privilege are, as far as EP goes, irrelevant. The terms of the privilige of marriage -are- given to everyone equally, so there is no EP issue.

  7. #257
    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 Morality Games View Post
    The definition of marriage as a union between man and woman which certain persons insist is the cultural norm that must be observed under law, adopted by some states.
    The terms are the same for everyone. Where is the discrimination?

  8. #258
    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

    Heterosexuals are treated exactly the same as homosexuals, and so if there is any exclusion, it is not discriminatory, as applies to everyone to exactly the same degree.
    Except the courts decided marriage is a civil right decades ago.

    Is Marriage a Civil Right? - Why Marriage is a Civil Right

    Rights are practiced according to the preference of individuals, not collectives.
    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

  9. #259
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    From him "Having considered the evidence, the
    relationship between sex and sexual orientation ".

    Without the gender aspect, it would be a non-issue since homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. It is ALL about the sexes.
    That is correct, which is why I suspect you're trying to make it about gender discrimination when it's not.

    I don't like the way the judge worded his ruling, because it does tend to make people such as yourself focus on the sexuality.
    He worded it that way because that's what he focused on. And what almost all "gay marriage" proponents focus on.


    And that focus is wholly incorrect. Homosexuals aren't banned from marriage.
    Thus, you agree with my point.


    No one's sexuality has EVER been an issue or in question when it comes to civil marriage.
    You've got millions who disagree with you on that one. Not sure what else to say.


    But their sex is. And that is what it's about.
    Not for most.


    His ruling is based in gender discrimination, but he wraps it up into sexual orientation.
    No, his ruling is quite specifically based on discrimination against sexual orientation, which he finds equivalent to gender discrimination. You can keep saying it isn't, but it is. It's right there in his own words.


    But it wouldn't be an issue for sexual orientation if it weren't for the gender issue. But because the laws currently discriminate based on gender, then they unfairly target homosexuals as a product of that.
    If there were no gender, there would be no heterosexuality or homosexuality. He focused on sexual orientation. I don't know how much clearer he could have been on that.



    Correct. You can't marry a man and I can. Gender discrimination.
    Only because you're choosing to frame it a certain way. If you're going to argue gender discrimination, then you have to look at what the equvalency between the genders implies.

    Marrying a woman is not an identical prospect for me as it is for you, so it's not equivalent. Neither of us can marry the same sex. The law is applied equally.


    No, because it violated equal protection and the due process clause.
    Because race was irrelevant to marriage as it existed.


    Marriage, it's definition, and all the rules surrounding it has changed many, many times in the US. This is just another change that is long overdue.
    That may be, but that doesn't have anything to do with equal protection.


    Gender discrimination is really the ONLY argument that holds water.
    "Gender discrimination" is the ONLY argument in favor of allowing people to form whatever relationships they like? That's simply silly.
    “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

  10. #260
    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 Goobieman View Post
    That doesn't matter -- the fact that -all- people are prevented from marrying people of the same sex means that the same prohibition applies to everyone. As YOU said: The fact that no one can marry anyone they want is immaterial to the equal protection clause.

    See, as long as privilege is given to everyone equally, the terms of that privilege are, as far as EP goes, irrelevant. The terms of the privilige of marriage -are- given to everyone equally, so there is no EP issue.
    Bull****. If we had a law that said everyone was forbidden from marrying a christian, you don't think that would be unfair discrimination? It applies to everyone equally, even christians. No one can marry a christian. It would be discrimination, unfair, and unjustified.

    Blacks were only allowed to marry blacks.
    Whites were only allowed to marry whites.
    Men are only allowed to marry women.
    Women are only allowed to marry men.

    It's all discrimination, just different forms of it.

Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... 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
  •