• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

Morality Games said:
If a definition of marriage excludes non-heterosexuals, then it discriminates.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :shrug: At least not in my jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Gender discrimination is really the ONLY argument that holds water.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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-
 
Harshaw said:
Where does it do that?
Click to expand...

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:
Hicup said:
The ommission by the state that it is likely that a man might want to marry another man is still discrimination
Click to expand...
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.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...
The terms are the same for everyone. Where is the discrimination?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rivrrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

He worded it that way because that's what he focused on. :shrug: And what almost all "gay marriage" proponents focus on.


And that focus is wholly incorrect. Homosexuals aren't banned from marriage.
Click to expand...

Thus, you agree with my point.


No one's sexuality has EVER been an issue or in question when it comes to civil marriage.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Not for most.


His ruling is based in gender discrimination, but he wraps it up into sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That may be, but that doesn't have anything to do with equal protection.


Gender discrimination is really the ONLY argument that holds water.
Click to expand...

"Gender discrimination" is the ONLY argument in favor of allowing people to form whatever relationships they like? That's simply silly.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The terms are the same for everyone. Where is the discrimination?
Click to expand...

Because the terms do not respect the preferences of the applicant groups. The terms by their nature respect the preferences of people who beleive marriage is a union between man and woman, not people who would will otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Because the terms do not respect the preferences of the applicant groups.
Click to expand...
That doesn't in any way mean those terms legally discrimnate or violate the equal protection clause.
"I dont get to do what I want to do" does not a dsicrimination argument make.

Under this argument, states that do not have shall-issue concealed-carry laws discriminate against those that would have a concealed-carry permit because the terms of the states laws "do not respect the preferences of the applicant groups".
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
That is correct, which is why I suspect you're trying to make it about gender discrimination when it's not.
Click to expand...
That's all it IS about. There is no other issue.

He worded it that way because that's what he focused on. :shrug: And what almost all "gay marriage" proponents focus on.
Click to expand...
Because the gender discrimination affects them most. It doesn't affect heterosexuals.

Thus, you agree with my point.
Click to expand...
I don't know. What is your point.


You've got millions who disagree with you on that one. Not sure what else to say.
Click to expand...
Those millions are wrong. They don't ask you your sexual orientation when you apply for a marriage license.

They do ask your gender, though.

Not for most.
Click to expand...
For ALL. They just focus on sexualilty because it affects homo and bisexuals.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, I read his words. And he mentions gender quite a bit. I see it in black and white, in his own words. Hence my pointing to his ruling.

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.
Click to expand...
Not talking about the existence of gender, but the existence of gender as the core issue. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to marriage. Always has been. It's not even in question. They don't ask what your sexual orientation is. They ask your GENDER, or sex if you will. I don't see how much clearer that could be.

But because there is blatant sex discrimination, and only homosexuals and bisexuals are adversely affected by it, then it does turn into a a discrimination of homo and bi-sexuals. But a discrimination based on sex.

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.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.

Neither of us can marry the same sex. The law is applied equally.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. You can marry a woman, and I cannot. That is not equal.

Because race was irrelevant to marriage as it existed.
Click to expand...
Because it violated equal protection.

That may be, but that doesn't have anything to do with equal protection.
Click to expand...
It has to do with changing the current definition.

"Gender discrimination" is the ONLY argument in favor of allowing people to form whatever relationships they like? That's simply silly.
Click to expand...
Yes. The ban is based on gender/sex and gender/sex alone. Revoking that ban due to it's blatant discrimination based on sex is the only argument and the only recourse.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
That doesn't in any way mean those terms legally discrimnate or violate the equal protection clause.
"I dont get to do what I want to do" does not a dsicrimination argument make.
Click to expand...

It does if marriage is a civil right. Which it is. You can't limit a person's practice of a right out of favortism toward a certain ideological viewpoint. You can limit it only if there is a compelling material obstacle.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
It does if marriage is a civil right. Which it is.
Click to expand...
It does not, and it is not.
-The terms of the privilige are applied equally to everyone and as such there can be no discrimination; that some people do not get to exercize that privilege exactly as they would like to doesnt mean they are being discriminated against.

-Marriage is a creature of the state and exists only because the state created it - and so is a privilege, not a right.
 
rivrrat said:
No, it is not. You can marry a woman, and I cannot. That is not equal.
Click to expand...
Both of your can marry someone of the opposite gender; neither of you can marry someone of the same gender. That's equal.
 
Goobieman said:
Both of your can marry someone of the opposite gender; neither of you can marry someone of the same gender. That's equal.
Click to expand...

So a woman can do something I can not and you call that equal?
 
Goobieman said:
It does not, and it is not.
-The terms of the privilige are applied equally to everyone and as such there can be no discrimination; that some people do not get to exercize that privilege exactly as they would like to doesnt mean they are being discriminated against.

-Marriage is a creature of the state and exists only because the state created it - and so is a privilege, not a right.
Click to expand...

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

Marriage is a civil right. The courts defined it as such 40 years ago.

Anthropologically, marriage belongs as much to the market and religion as the state. There have been marriages in anarchical communities, like medieval Iceland, based on market and religious demands. If marriage were truly a creature of the state, it could not exist even in a minimal form outside the state.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
His ruling is based in gender discrimination, but he wraps it up into sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
No.. he clearly states the opposite: "the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation," arguing that sex and sexual orientation are "necessarily interrelated" but that sexual orientation discrimination is distinct (though related) to sex discrimination.
 
Taylor said:
No.. he clearly states the opposite: "the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation," arguing that sex and sexual orientation are "necessarily interrelated" but that sexual orientation discrimination is distinct (though related) to sex discrimination.
Click to expand...

And I disagree.
 
Morality Games said:
Marriage is a civil right. The courts defined it as such 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
States do not grant rights No court can change that.
Marriage would not exist if the states did not create it. No court can change that.
Marriage would cease to exist if the states repeal their relevant laws. No court can change that.
States do not have to have laws that create marriage. No court can change that.
Thus, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. No court can change that.

Anthropologically, marriage belongs as much to the market and religion as the state.
Click to expand...
Irelevant; the isssu is marriage as a legal institutuon, and the desire for homosexuals to have their union legally recognized as such. This necessitates the creation of the institution of marriage by the state, and that -necessarily- makes marriage a privilege, not a right.
 
Taylor said:
No.. he clearly states the opposite: "the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation," arguing that sex and sexual orientation are "necessarily interrelated" but that sexual orientation discrimination is distinct (though related) to sex discrimination.
Click to expand...

And I disagree. Were it not for the issue of gender, there would be no issue of sexual orientation.
 
rivrrat said:
You can marry a woman and I cannot. That is not equal.
Click to expand...
Both of us can marry someone of the opposite gender; neither of us can marry someone of the same gender. That's equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom