• 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!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Prof said:
today, gay marriage

tomorrow, polygamy

LOL!

now, there's a WINNING argument

let me ask you---after polygamy, what's next for the enlightened?

hey, when you're right in your own opened and expanded mind---AND YOU KNOW IT---of what worth are the sentiments of a bunch of backward looking, small minded neighbors, fellow workers, associates...

just like 31 states---a bunch of crap
Click to expand...

Yeah, what's next! Pigs marrying horses?!! Seriously, come up with some new material. The "what's next" argument is tired and weak.
 
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Lobbing me up soft balls Tex.

Age is a lower level of discrimination in regards to the standards needing to be met for Equal Protection. Additionally its been upheld that a status of a “minor” is allowable. There is legitimate reasons for state interest in having a minor category. As such the legal status of a minor, or more importantly the limited legal status, prevents them from entering into such a marriage.

You can’t really argue my point if you’re going to ignore my point. No where in the post you quoted did I speak a whit to sexual orientation. I care not about sexual orientation, I’m not speaking about the EPC in regards to sexual orientation, it’s a strawman you’ve plucked from no where.

I am specifically speaking about GENDER.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
Yeah, what's next! Pigs marrying horses?!! Seriously, come up with some new material. The "what's next" argument is tired and weak.
Click to expand...

tell it to the dungeon master

unless it's off topic
 
Hicup said:
Zyphlin, equal protection prevails after due process. Due process, is the key here. It is the same as "reasonable" in legal circles. This ruling is due process, but my beef is in the Judges ruling, and the language of it. She cites a lack of due process, but that's not true? Equal protection can be legislated for, "provided" the due process test is met. That's it and that's all.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Actually, in this case it doesn’t. We’ll see what the Surpeme Court says. My personal opinion in this case the state interest does not rise to the level needed to legitimize gender discrimination which requires one of the highest burdens of proof on the part of the State, falling behind race at the top, needed to be able to justify such discrimination.
 
Zyphlin -
In regards to members of the same family, it’s a reasonable argument to make that the state has legitimate and reasoned state interest to deny such marriages due to the fact that procreation between those two individuals has a higher chance for genetic deformity which could place a drain on society as a whole in having to help support that individual
Click to expand...

Hmm.. Not sure I agree here. Again I am not an advocate of sibling marriages, but the science disagrees with you; or, at the very least inconclusive. Besides, how does abortion reasonably serve the government interest?


Tim-
 
disneydude said:
You left out the best one Zyph....the one where Navy called Rasmussen a "biased pollster that only polls liberals"......

That's always been my favorite.
Click to expand...

And is also irrelevant to my post or this thread. I wasn't dragging those up to take shots at Navy or poke him as if its some fun kind of game because I like to harass him or because I'm trying to bait him as is evident in other threads at various times by other people.

I picked quotes specifically that back up whats being talked about in my point and in relation to the topic, namely that polls can be easily manipulated and are based off in part whose conducting them and whose being asked, and that governing or taking government action based singularly on polls is a foolish endevour.
 
Hicup said:
Not that I advocate children marrying children, I do however wish to raise the point, at which time does a childs inability to marry another child, legitimately serve the government interest?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Because children do not have the intellectual development to be able to meet the minimal standards required to knowingly enter into a legally binding contract.
 
texmaster said:
Why is the limitation to men and women? Why not children marrying children or children marrying men or women? If you are going to expand equal protection under the law to include sexual orientation you cannot descriminate against any sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

The state has a compelling interest in protecting children/minors from being abused by adults. Minors lack the emotional maturity to make decisions about sexual intercourse and marriage.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, in this case it doesn’t. We’ll see what the Surpeme Court says. My personal opinion in this case the state interest does not rise to the level needed to legitimize gender discrimination which requires one of the highest burdens of proof on the part of the State, falling behind race at the top, needed to be able to justify such discrimination.
Click to expand...

To my understanding, Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof, not beyond reasonable doubt. If the former, then it's not the highest burden.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Zyphlin -

Hmm.. Not sure I agree here. Again I am not an advocate of sibling marriages, but the science disagrees with you; or, at the very least inconclusive. Besides, how does abortion reasonably serve the government interest?

Tim-
Click to expand...

First, where in the world did abortion come into this? More so, where in the world does abortion even need to serve government interest. Seriously, take your derail elsewhere. No where in my post am I even speaking about abortion.

Second, I readily admit its been a while since I've looked into any studies regarding the potential for higher genetic defects when close relatives produce off spring. If I'm wrong then sure, I may have to change my view on the illegality (if not the social stigma) of such practices.
 
Hicup said:
To my understanding, Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof, not beyond reasonable doubt. If the former, then it's not the highest burden.


Tim-
Click to expand...
Once again displaying your ignorance of equal protection analysis. Neither of those are used.
 
disneydude said:
Because children do not have the intellectual development to be able to meet the minimal standards required to knowingly enter into a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I think we vastly underestimate the intellectual capacity of children. Regardless, these things can be explained without having to go into anything offensive or confusing.
 
Hicup said:
Do children have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the gay marriage issue, or homosexuality, if taught in the public schools as perfectly "normal"?


Tim-
Click to expand...

There is no legal standard for that. There is in order to enter into a contract.
 
Hicup said:
Besides, how does abortion reasonably serve the government interest?
Click to expand...

Read this book: Amazon.com: Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden…

and google this:

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John Donohue of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s. The paper, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001, offers evidence that the falling United States crime rates of the 1990s were mostly caused by the legalization of abortion due to the Roe v. Wade court decision of 1973.
Click to expand...

Then ask yourself: How much does an abortion cost the state? How much does it cost to house a repeat offender or an unwanted child, abused and neglected?
 
Zyphlin said:
First, where in the world did abortion come into this? More so, where in the world does abortion even need to serve government interest. Seriously, take your derail elsewhere. No where in my post am I even speaking about abortion.

Second, I readily admit its been a while since I've looked into any studies regarding the potential for higher genetic defects when close relatives produce off spring. If I'm wrong then sure, I may have to change my view on the illegality (if not the social stigma) of such practices.
Click to expand...

I did not wish to bring abortion in this debate, it has no place, and I agree. However, I brought it up only to illustrate the slippery slope of using "reasonable societal interest" as a staple in your argument.

Tim-
 
Your Star said:
Polygamy is a practice, not an orientation.
Click to expand...
Really? I would argue otherise - that people are naturally oriented toward polygamy (men, more so) and that monogamy is the "unnatural" orientation. Hence the need for a social institution promoting monogamy.
 
Hicup said:
To my understanding, Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof, not beyond reasonable doubt. If the former, then it's not the highest burden.

Tim-
Click to expand...

There are three levels of scrutiny that fall upon Equal Protection Claims.

The first is reserved for Suspect Classifications. These are things like Race, Religion, etc. This classification requires that the government show a compelling state interest that shows that the inequality is necessary to serve said interest.

The second is reserved for Quasi-suspect Classifications and requires middle-tier scrutiny. This is the standard for Gender. It requires that the government show an important state interest and that the inequality is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

The third tier, which is the lowest, is known as Rational Basis Scrutiny. In this the government needs to only show that the inequality is rationally related to serving a legitimate state itnerest. This is reserved for any status not generally outlined, which is actually where homosexuality would currently fit into.

In this particular instance none of the things the state presented were deemed to be an "important" state interest and/or that said interests would not be "substantially" benefited from said inequality.
 
Polygamy vs monagamy also is not the point of this thread.
 
Hicup said:
I did not wish to bring abortion in this debate, it has no place, and I agree. However, I brought it up only to illustrate the slippery slope of using "reasonable societal interest" as a staple in your argument.

Tim-
Click to expand...

Whether or not you think there is a slippery slope is irrelevant to what is actually required by legal standards.

Additionally, a slippery slope argument...especially one as far fetched as yours....is not a worth while reason to bypass doing something that IS worthy simply because people may wrongfully use it to do something not worthy in the future.

The more correct way of dealing with such situations is to argue for what's correct now and argue against what's incorrect later, not refuse to accept what is correct now for fear that it MIGHT lead to something incorrect later.
 
Taylor said:
Really? I would argue otherise - that people are naturally oriented toward polygamy (men, more so) and that monogamy is the "unnatural" orientation. Hence the need for a social institution promoting monogamy.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation states who we are attracted too, polygamy doesn't do that. People can be straight, gay, or bi polygamist. It isn't an orientation so much as a lifestyle.
 
disneydude said:
There is no legal standard for that. There is in order to enter into a contract.
Click to expand...

I understand that one is a legal issue, but the other has potentially far more, or equally more dire consequences in the social construct of a society, IMO.

By the way, I'm not trying to divert the thread into debating the efficacy of homosexuality, just illustration.

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
Whether or not you think there is a slippery slope is irrelevant to what is actually required by legal standards.

Additionally, a slippery slope argument...especially one as far fetched as yours....is not a worth while reason to bypass doing something that IS worthy simply because people may wrongfully use it to do something not worthy in the future.

The more correct way of dealing with such situations is to argue for what's correct now and argue against what's incorrect later, not refuse to accept what is correct now for fear that it MIGHT lead to something incorrect later.
Click to expand...

Huh? The key word is mght, clearly, but it carries a heavy weight in your analysis. We choose to do things everyday based on what "might" happen in the future, don't we? Don't you?


Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom