Page 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 347

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

  1. #291
    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 danarhea View Post
    Marriage was never granted by the State. It was usurped by the State.
    So you'd then have no problem if any and every state law regarding the legal institution of marriage to just disappeared...? If that happpened, I wonder what % of homosexual couples who now seek do so would bother getting married?

    That aside, the legal aspects of marriage were, by definition, gratned by the state.

  2. #292
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Banning of interracial marriage would be a violation of equal protection even if it did apply to everyone.
    Race is considered under higher levels of scrutiny than either gender or sexual orientation - so even at best the two aren't directly comparable under equal protection. Add to that the fact that gender has long been associated with marriage in this country whereas race has not, and the analogy comes up short.

  3. #293
    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 Taylor View Post
    Race is considered under higher levels of scrutiny than either gender or sexual orientation - so even at best the two aren't directly comparable under equal protection.
    Yes, they are comparable. Just because in the past women had it worse than blacks in some ways doesn't make it right.

    Add to that the fact that gender has long been associated with marriage in this country whereas race has not, and the analogy comes up short.
    And it's time for that to change. The fact that the discrimination has been going on longer doesn't make it any less wrong.

  4. #294
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-13-10 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    21

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

    Gay marriage is legal in Cali. The American people don't care. Only the fundamentalist Christian and Muslim minorities have a real problem with it, yet they're both just immoral wacko groups who have no relevance in the lifes of average Americans.

    It's a done deal, get over it.
    Last edited by TexasSam13; 09-09-10 at 05:45 PM.

  5. #295
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

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

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yes, they are comparable.
    The point was that they aren't directly comparable. Race is treated differently under equal protection law than either sex or sexual orientation. One cannot automatically assume that something deemed unconstutional for racial discrimination must also be unconstitutional for discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.

  6. #296
    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 - my statement that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state is sound.
    Irrelevant, and circular, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.

  7. #297
    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. 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.
    There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage. And you are correct that the basis of that discrimination is sexual preference. What you are failing to realize is that you are mentioning your belief in sexuality not being a requirement for marriage as if that somehow makes it okay to discriminate when it comes to the privilege of marriage, when the 14th Amendment specifically mentions that it is not okay to do so. I'm not sure how you are able to misinterpret the Amendment in such a manner, when it's plain as day. The lawyers in the case won by using exactly that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :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.
    Again, what you are failing to understand is where, exactly, your argument is going wrong. I don't mean from an opinion standpoint - you are free to believe in the moon being made of green cheese, or anything else you wish, on this messageboard, your personal life, or wherever you want to. However, a court of law is an entirely different story, and your opinion about sexuality, exclusion, and the 14th Amendment lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :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.
    No. There is most definitely an equal protection argument here. You're close to understanding it here; you mention that the law applies to everyone the same. Take that thought, and then ask yourself if, given that we have two groups of people in this example - heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - and ask yourself if the law applies the same to both. If you say "yes", perfect! You now understand that there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage based on ANY arbitrary thing such as sexuality. Because you said it yourself - sexuality isn't a requirement for marriage, making it arbitrary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :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.
    No, you're still not getting it. We do have something being denied to someone - in this case, homosexuals. We do know why it is being denied - belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that marriage is exactly what they want to include themselves into as a couple, and since there is NO reason to exclude them, and they are citizens of the United States, the 14th Amendment addresses this issue. You can't just say "sexuality is not a requirement for marriage", because that makes it arbitrary, and no reason for exclusion. In order to exclude homosexual couples, there has to be an ironclad reason. "Sexuality is not a requirement for marriage" offers no such reason, as there are plenty of things that are not a requirement for marriage. Liking carrots, for instance, or owning a car. All of these things are arbitrary and no reason to exclude same sex couples from the institution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :But if sexuality isn't a necessary part of marriage, and it is not, then the equal protection argument fails.
    No. The 14th Amendment is very specific on the privilege. And since opponents love to label marriage as a privilege, then there you have it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    : 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.
    And yet somehow, we are still getting a disconnect. I'm not sure why you think sexuality is the perfect reason for exclusion and not applying the 14th Amendment when i've already addressed that an umpteenth amount of times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    : This is what I have been arguing. I assumed you actually understood how an analysis of equal protection works.
    I understand perfectly. I'm having a difficult time understanding why you don't, which is why I am arguing with you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :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.
    No. Once again you are failing to realize that there is discrimination going on here. Homosexual couples can not get married? Why? If there was no discrimination, then they would be able to tie the knot with one another. And given the literal wording of the 14th Amendment, they can. Unfortunately you keep applying sexuality as some nebulous reason to discriminate that supersedes the 14th Amendment, which is not correct. I don't know what else to tell you, here. You're arguing in circles. Is there anything that I can explain further to help you understand where you are making the mistake? I'm not trying to belittle your argument, but maybe it's because it's just so readily apparent to me that i'm overlooking something in my explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    :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.
    The argument has always been about gay marriage and equal protection. I think the disconnect came in when you attempted to apply sexuality as some sort of argument against equal protection, which didn't make any sense. I'm sure you are trying to make a good point, but from what i'm reading, it's not clear why anyone would even think that offers a relative argument against the 14th Amendment here.

    In any case, if you are against gay marriage, and you believe that this is an adequate defense, then maybe you email your opinion to a few anti-gay marriage organizations in the hopes that they see things the way you do, and maybe offer up some resistance to same same marriage in the courts. Good luck.

  8. #298
    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
    This is no way means that a state - or the federal government - cannot repeal or reduce a privilege that it issued. There are any number of examples of where they have done so, none of whch have ran afoul of the 14th.
    Such as?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Further, there are any number of examples of states not having to recognize a privilege offered by another state if the state in question does not offer the same privilege - for instance, Illinois does not have to recognize my OH CCW permit - a privilege granted to me by the state of OH. Further, under your argument, OH (and every other state that has one) could never repeal the law that grants me that privilege, meaning that OH (and every other state that has one) will always have its current CCW permit system.

    Your argument is not sound. A state can repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the legal instititon of marrage, and no court can stop it. Thus, marriage is unquestionably a privilege.
    Specifics are everything here. Does Illinois offer their own? Is there something that would be unfairly denied to you by not allowing you to have such a permit in Illinois? What are the differences between the two permits if you can get one permit in one state and not the other? And are those differences restricting your particular privileges while allowing someone else with a similar permit (or the same one in a different state) the same privileges?

    Your argument may not be correct, but on the assumption that some of this is getting through, then such discussion is a good thing.

  9. #299
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,608

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage. And you are correct that the basis of that discrimination is sexual preference. What you are failing to realize is that you are mentioning your belief in sexuality not being a requirement for marriage as if that somehow makes it okay to discriminate when it comes to the privilege of marriage, when the 14th Amendment specifically mentions that it is not okay to do so. I'm not sure how you are able to misinterpret the Amendment in such a manner, when it's plain as day. The lawyers in the case won by using exactly that.




    Again, what you are failing to understand is where, exactly, your argument is going wrong. I don't mean from an opinion standpoint - you are free to believe in the moon being made of green cheese, or anything else you wish, on this messageboard, your personal life, or wherever you want to. However, a court of law is an entirely different story, and your opinion about sexuality, exclusion, and the 14th Amendment lost.



    No. There is most definitely an equal protection argument here. You're close to understanding it here; you mention that the law applies to everyone the same. Take that thought, and then ask yourself if, given that we have two groups of people in this example - heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - and ask yourself if the law applies the same to both. If you say "yes", perfect! You now understand that there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage based on ANY arbitrary thing such as sexuality. Because you said it yourself - sexuality isn't a requirement for marriage, making it arbitrary.




    No, you're still not getting it. We do have something being denied to someone - in this case, homosexuals. We do know why it is being denied - belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that marriage is exactly what they want to include themselves into as a couple, and since there is NO reason to exclude them, and they are citizens of the United States, the 14th Amendment addresses this issue. You can't just say "sexuality is not a requirement for marriage", because that makes it arbitrary, and no reason for exclusion. In order to exclude homosexual couples, there has to be an ironclad reason. "Sexuality is not a requirement for marriage" offers no such reason, as there are plenty of things that are not a requirement for marriage. Liking carrots, for instance, or owning a car. All of these things are arbitrary and no reason to exclude same sex couples from the institution.



    No. The 14th Amendment is very specific on the privilege. And since opponents love to label marriage as a privilege, then there you have it.




    And yet somehow, we are still getting a disconnect. I'm not sure why you think sexuality is the perfect reason for exclusion and not applying the 14th Amendment when i've already addressed that an umpteenth amount of times.



    I understand perfectly. I'm having a difficult time understanding why you don't, which is why I am arguing with you.




    No. Once again you are failing to realize that there is discrimination going on here. Homosexual couples can not get married? Why? If there was no discrimination, then they would be able to tie the knot with one another. And given the literal wording of the 14th Amendment, they can. Unfortunately you keep applying sexuality as some nebulous reason to discriminate that supersedes the 14th Amendment, which is not correct. I don't know what else to tell you, here. You're arguing in circles. Is there anything that I can explain further to help you understand where you are making the mistake? I'm not trying to belittle your argument, but maybe it's because it's just so readily apparent to me that i'm overlooking something in my explanation.



    The argument has always been about gay marriage and equal protection. I think the disconnect came in when you attempted to apply sexuality as some sort of argument against equal protection, which didn't make any sense. I'm sure you are trying to make a good point, but from what i'm reading, it's not clear why anyone would even think that offers a relative argument against the 14th Amendment here.

    In any case, if you are against gay marriage, and you believe that this is an adequate defense, then maybe you email your opinion to a few anti-gay marriage organizations in the hopes that they see things the way you do, and maybe offer up some resistance to same same marriage in the courts. Good luck.
    Good grief.

    I already spoke to every single one of these points, in detail. You're repeating yourself as though I didn't. My answers are the same as they were the last two times. (Even when you keep shifting your argument back and forth between it being about discriminating against homosexuality and it NOT being about discriminating against homosexuality. And by the way, the actual argument has won in ONE district court. There's a long, long way to go before this is case closed.)

    You still think I'm arguing FOR exclusion. I'm not. I'm arguing only (get it? ONLY) that the equal protection argument for same-sex marriage fails. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't handle an academic discussion on a single point without including all kinds of assumptions and baggage, that's your own failing.

    And, you still think I'm against gay marriage. I'm not. I don't know how many times I have to say so specifically. I can only conclude that you're not even bothering to read what I write, because if you actually were, there's no way you could have missed all 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

  10. #300
    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, and circular, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.
    Its exceptionally relevant - it establishes that the protections of the 14th are not plenary and limitless - they do not apply to everyone, nor do they apply to every privilege offered by the states.

Page 30 of 35 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •