• 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.
CriticalThought said:
Indeed, and that right is defined in this case as, "the right of two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents."

The judge argued that the evidence presented demonstrated clearly that same sex couples could fulfil their obligations to their dependents as well as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence that polygamists could do so and so it is an irrelevant argument to make.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a "condition" on marriage then, doesn't it? But how can there be conditions to marriage if it is fundamental?

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
To help make this a bit more specific for people complaining about the polygamist stuff, so you know...maybe you can actually make an argument for it that addresses peoples points.

In regards to equal protection there's two arguments being made.

One held by myself, riv, and perhaps others, that this is a gender thing. Gender is already a defined status under the EPC that is of mid level protection requiring important state interest and substantial proof.

One held by others is that sexual orientation should be covered under EPC. They tend to feel one of two ways:

  • 1. They feel that they should be there under the minimum scrutiny level "Rational Basis" and that even under that there is not enough proof to show that the the discrimination is rationally able to be shown to serve a legitimate state interest.

    2. They feel that they should be there under the Quasi-Suspect middle tier at the very least, requiring an equal amount of proof and need as gender does. And possibly even arguing equal to the top tier "Strict Scrutiny". They feel this way because there's a large amount of legitimate evidence that suggests homosexual orientation is, in many if not most cases, a natural occuring thing that one is born with akin to race or sex.

Finally, the argument from both in regards to equal protection and why it does not account for polygamists is as generall as follows. "How many people" is not a protected status of some sort under the EPC, and saying "Its not equal that he can marry one person but I can't marry two" is not evidence of inequality based on a protected status of any kind.

Additionally, there is a far stronger argument for state interest in preventing polygamists marriages then there is in gay marriages. And it can be made without the typical hyperbolic stereotypes of pedophilia or incest. The implimentation of polygamist marriages opens the door for a significant hinderance on the U.S. and States court systems due to the numerous issues surrounding polygamy. Take for example the ability for the spouse to have the final say over health decisions...when there is multiple spouses if they disagree then this becomes a legal issue that will bog down the courts. The only alternative to this would be to be able to designate certain spouses as somehow special and having more of the benefits than others, but that in and of itself creates a government imposed unequal designation. Additionally it opens up a far more glaring and damaging issue for the government in regards to the tax abilities regarding marriage by allowign people to create extremely long chains of individuals all connected with regards to the tax benefits where as the current "two people" limit provides a reasonable limit on the connections that keeps its impact from reaching the point where it would reach government interest.

So to truly use the polygamist argument against people making the EPC claims to suggest they're hypocritical one must:

1. Provide a legitimate argument as to how and why Polygamy should be or is a protected EPC class of equal or greater level to the class they're suggesting is the reason for same sex marriage is.

2. Provide a legitimate argument as to why the arguments for government interest against polygamy are incorrect.

3. Provide a legitimate argument as to why there is as pertinent of arguments for government interest against same sex marriage as there is for polygamy.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

I can also provide more information on how the polygamist argument is completely different than the GM argument, later, with information I have posted before that is similar and expands on this. As I've said it is nothing but an irrelevant red herring that the opposition throws out as a "the sky is falling" slippery slope. It does NOT apply.
 
Zyphlin said:
You have never once given an example of how my arguments regarding the constitutionality of allowing same sex marriage also applies to polygamy. Not once. So don't put forth a broad challenge to people for ignoring your comments on polygamy when you are ignoring people making arguments against said arguments.
Click to expand...

To be honest, Zyphlin, any time the polygamy red herring gets tossed up, a lot of us do actually ignore it because polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality are the big three that get bandied about despite how irrelevant they are.

Most of us might acknowledge it long enough to scoff at it openly but, for the most part, why bother?
 
Redress said:
This is a red herring, as has been shown time and again. Gay marriage and polygamy are not the same thing, not even close.
Click to expand...

You are right, but although I do not support polygamy, I recognize the fact that if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman, or many men, or many women, it is none of the government's damn business.
 
The Prof said:
two?

that's it?

that's your grand constitutional construct?

LOL!

bobby, betty and beatrice are individuals

each one
Click to expand...

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, you've shown me a fool for doing that.

If you want to address my arguments, go ahead.

If You

Keep wanting

To Spout Your

Iditoic Bull****

one liners

While Ignoring

Everyones Points

and act like

you're doing anything

but making

a

fool out of

your side

be my guest.

But I am

No longer wasting

my time with

someone

who refuses

to actually

discuss things

rather than

just repeat

their one liners
 
Navy Pride said:
When a Black person marrys he is marrying someone of the opposite sex...........I guess that if a gay man or woman wanted to change their sex then they could marry someone of the opposite sex no matter how screwed up that is.........
Click to expand...

Wait?

So you are saying that people can't change their race, but they CAN change their sex?

Is that the stance you're taking navy?

That people can actually CHANGE their sex?
 
The Prof said:
did you hear what obama said about gay marriage when our gay neighbors and friends had their backs turned...

pedophilia

that's gotta hurt

why doesn't barry agree with all the refined constitutionalists of dp?
Click to expand...

PROTIP: repeating the same nonsense time and again is not an effective debate style.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've addressed the polygamy argument numerous times and demonstrated that it is inconsistent and irrelevant with what we are discussing. Conservatives bring it up as a red herring.
Click to expand...

Hehe.. Red herring eh? No, it is important to the clarification of what constitutes a fundamental marriage. Is a polygamist marriage, IN YOUR OPINION, or any type of marriage for that matter fundamental to humanity? If you believe it is, thenplease do tell us why. If not, then also explain why you would limit certain marriages, and not others.

Don't run from the intent of my question because you're uncomfortable with it.



Tim-
 
Redress said:
OK, I have a question for our legal experts on both sides. I am, admittedly not a legal expert, though I have learned alot in my time on this board. Sometimes it is best to reach out and ask for input from people who know more:

The ruling on Prop 8 says that this state law violated the constitution. The ruling in the DOMA case said in part that DOMA violated a states right to regulate marriage. I can, I think see ways these can be reconciled, but is there an easy way to do so? Is winning on one mean a loss on the other?
Click to expand...

I am no legal scholar, but in my opinion I don't think they can be reconciled. I believe the issue in MA was that DOMA prevents the state from extending full marital benefits. Their ruling was that the federal government (through DOMA) cannot infringe upon a state's rights to define marriage. In California, defining marriage has been made illegal because it was ruled unconstitutional. Again, I am no legal expert, but I feel these rulings contradict each other. One says that the federal government cannot infringe upon the state's rights because of the power the Constitution gives to states. The other says that state's can't define marriage because the federal Constitution does not permit a state from passing a definition that does not include gay marriage.
 
Amidst the huge number of messages that has been posted today and the noise of irrelevant references to polygamy, etc.,, a valid question as to why the "will of the voters" (of Proposition 8) could not be respected arose.

Aside from the constitutional issues associated with "equal protection," it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized limits on majority rule. For example, the protection of fundamental rights is beyond the reach of the majority to impair. The 1943 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette is particularly relevant. Authoring the majority opinion, Justice Robert Jackson explained:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a "rational basis" for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the State may lawfully protect. It is important to note that, while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State, it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.

In the introduction to his famous essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill spoke eloquently of the dangers of what can be described as a "tyranny of the majority." He wrote:

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

Of course, the above just illustrates the argument that, if unchecked, majority rule can evolve into tyranny. Hence, if fundamental liberties are to be safeguarded, the proverbial bar must be set very high. Does marriage rise to the level of fundamental liberties described in the 1943 description? Given the status of marriage in society, one might make such a case.

However, yesterday's ruling by Judge Vaugh Walker did not require that marriage be placed on a First Amendment footing. It merely required that the 14th amendment be interpreted in a fashion consistent with settled law. That standard is met, as noted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, "if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." Yesterday's ruling found that the proponents of Proposition 8 did not meet that standard, namely they failed to demonstrate a "rational basis" or "legitimate state interest" in seeking that the Proposition be upheld.
 
Zyphlin said:
You have never once given an example of how my arguments regarding the constitutionality of allowing same sex marriage also applies to polygamy. Not once. So don't put forth a broad challenge to people for ignoring your comments on polygamy when you are ignoring people making arguments against said arguments.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it doesn't apply to polygamy, in-fact it does. That's my point. Are we even arguing here?

Tim-
 
How do you think I came to this stance to begin with?

Navy Pride said:
There are many documented cases..........just google on it and you might learn something.......
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
Additionally, there is a far stronger argument for state interest in preventing polygamists marriages then there is in gay marriages. And it can be made without the typical hyperbolic stereotypes of pedophilia or incest. The implimentation of polygamist marriages opens the door for a significant hinderance on the U.S. and States court systems due to the numerous issues surrounding polygamy. Take for example the ability for the spouse to have the final say over health decisions...when there is multiple spouses if they disagree then this becomes a legal issue that will bog down the courts. The only alternative to this would be to be able to designate certain spouses as somehow special and having more of the benefits than others, but that in and of itself creates a government imposed unequal designation. Additionally it opens up a far more glaring and damaging issue for the government in regards to the tax abilities regarding marriage by allowign people to create extremely long chains of individuals all connected with regards to the tax benefits where as the current "two people" limit provides a reasonable limit on the connections that keeps its impact from reaching the point where it would reach government interest.
Click to expand...

medical decisions, tax forms, and TWO?

that's it?

no wonder barry won't go out on that limb
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, you've shown me a fool for doing that.

If you want to address my arguments, go ahead.

If You

Keep wanting

To Spout Your

Iditoic Bull****

one liners

While Ignoring

Everyones Points

and act like

you're doing anything

but making

a

fool out of

your side

be my guest.

But I am

No longer wasting

my time with

someone

who refuses

to actually

discuss things

rather than

just repeat

their one liners
Click to expand...

Damn, that made my eyes hurt. :mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
To be honest, Zyphlin, any time the polygamy red herring gets tossed up, a lot of us do actually ignore it because polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality are the big three that get bandied about despite how irrelevant they are.

Most of us might acknowledge it long enough to scoff at it openly but, for the most part, why bother?
Click to expand...

Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the "gay marriage as a fundamanetal right's", issue.

You're not fooling anyone..


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
I don't disagree that it doesn't apply to polygamy, in-fact it does. That's my point. Are we even arguing here?

Tim-
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that it doesn't apply to polygamy.

Equal Protection Clause does not apply to discrimination based on "The amount of people".
 
Hicup said:
Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the gay marriage as a findamanetal right's issue.

You're not fooling anyone..


Tim-
Click to expand...

And if a man chose to marry 100 people of any sex, what damn business is it of yours?
 
Hicup said:
Hehe.. Red herring eh? No, it is important to the clarification of what constitutes a fundamental marriage. Is a polygamist marriage, IN YOUR OPINION, or any type of marriage for that matter fundamental to humanity? If you believe it is, thenplease do tell us why. If not, then also explain why you would limit certain marriages, and not others.

Don't run from the intent of my question because you're uncomfortable with it.



Tim-
Click to expand...

Since I never claimed that marriage is a fundemenal right, your challenge is irrelevant. My position is, that the government supports marriage because of the benefits that it causes society and the individual. GM has been shown to do the same. Polygamy has been shown to NOT do the same. It's that simple. This is the flaw in your reasoning and why this is a red herring that you all keep bringing out because you have little else. The two are not comparable.

Now, unless you can show how polygamy benefits society... and the individual... more than the consequences that it would yield, you've got nothing on this issue. So, there's your challenge. Prove that polygamy is on equal footing to GM and straight marriage, and I will liisten. Don't and your argument remains irrelevant.
 
The Prof said:
medical decisions, tax forms, and TWO?

that's it?

no wonder barry won't go out on that limb
Click to expand...

Medical Decisions is one example of a far more far reaching thing, which is specifically spousal benefits of control. This relates to inheretence, this relates to medical expenses, this relates to what is gained in divorce, and onwards and onwards.

Interjecting mulitple parties into these type of situations creates issues where there is no clear singular individual that gets the benefit, meaning that the benefit becomes disputed. Disputes lead to the courts having to make judgements on this, which can create a significant and unreasonable strain on the court system.

Medical decision was simply one example of the type of benefit that would cause this substantial strain.
 
Zyphlin said:
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, you've shown me a fool for doing that.

If you want to address my arguments, go ahead.

If You

Keep wanting

To Spout Your

Iditoic Bull****

one liners

While Ignoring

Everyones Points

and act like

you're doing anything

but making

a

fool out of

your side

be my guest.

But I am

No longer wasting

my time with

someone

who refuses

to actually

discuss things

rather than

just repeat

their one liners
Click to expand...

pure pissiness
 
Hicup said:
Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the "gay marriage as a fundamanetal right's", issue.

You're not fooling anyone..


Tim-
Click to expand...

Until you can prove that polygamy shows the same benefits to society... without the significant consequences, that GM and straight marriage does, you are just flapping in the breeze. So, go at it. Let's see your information.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, I am saying that it doesn't apply to polygamy.

Equal Protection Clause does not apply to discrimination based on "The amount of people".
Click to expand...

It does if marriage is construed to be afundamental right, doesn't it? Surely you see this? That's why I asked you to define what you consider a fundamental right? It helps me get inside your brain.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the "gay marriage as a fundamanetal right's", issue.

You're not fooling anyone..

Tim-
Click to expand...

No, what he means is yours and others tired arguments of "You're just choosing who its okay to be bigoted to if you don't allow polygamy too" or "Next its going to be allowing people to marry their horse!" or "Great, and so you're not going to be a hypocrite and say pedophilia is wrong too!" are all idiotic arguments that have been repeatedly debated, and destroyed, time and time and time again here on DP and so posters who have engaged in such conversations in threads that actually focused on them rather than were attempted to use them as derailment attempts basically see no point in rehashing it for some random poster coming into a thread in which that isn't the topic and begins throwing out the same tired BS that's been shot down time and time again.
 
danarhea said:
You are right, but although I do not support polygamy, I recognize the fact that if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman, or many men, or many women, it is none of the government's damn business.
Click to expand...

and there ya go
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom