• 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

Singularity said:
There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage.
Click to expand...
Everyone is denied marriage in exactly the same way - and so, there's no discrimination.
No discrimination, no EP issue.
 
Goobieman said:
Everyone is denied marriage in exactly the same way - and so, there's no discrimination.
No discrimination, no EP issue.
Click to expand...

Your logic.

Everyone is free to marry someone of their own race and not someone of a different race, so there is no discrimination. (intracial marriage bans)

Everyone is free to marry someone of their own religion and not someone of a different religion, so there is no discrimination. (denominational marriage bans)

Yeah, it didn't work for those and it probably won't work now.
 
Singularity said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
The most obvious: The legislative reduction of social benefit payements, such as SocSec, Pell Grants, food stamps, etc. Raising the age of retirement necessary to gain those SocSec payments, too.
Of course, these reductions need not be legislative - they can be regulatory as well.

Specifics are everything here. Does Illinois offer their own?
Click to expand...
No.

Is there something that would be unfairly denied to you by not allowing you to have such a permit in Illinois?
Click to expand...
"Unfairly"? That's subjective and irrelevant. The privilege I have in OH is denied by he state of IL by virtue of IL not having a shall-issue CCW. According to you, this vioplates the 14th.

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?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant -- the fact that -I- am not afforded the same privileges in IL that I am in OH means that, according to you, IL has violated the 14th amendment.
 
CriticalThought said:
Yeah, it didn't work for those and it probably won't work now.
Click to expand...
Show me who has a privilege that someone else does not.
Show me who does not have a privilgee that someone else does.
If you cannot, then you cannot show discrimination.
 
Goobieman said:
Show me who has a privilege that someone else does not.
Show me who does not have a privilgee that someone else does.
If you cannot, then you cannot show discrimination.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing in support of interracial marriage bans?
 
Councilman said:
It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more. :rofl
Click to expand...
Say what?

The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?
Click to expand...
Who cares which court it was? At this point, all that matters is that the good guys won.

On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense
Click to expand...
That's funny, most Americans that I know personally (even here in the heart of the Bible belt) have a much bigger problem with the nonsense being pushed by our fundamentalist Christian minority (less than 10% of the American population, and only 1/3 of .the evangelical Christian population). I'm not sure how you define "radical liberals", but even by your own calculation, you fundamentalists are an even bigger minority.

The American people don't want religious fundamentalism. But I have a feeling if we voted in referendum to, say, ban fundies from picketing gay pride parades, you guys would be up in arms about "discrimination!" and "rights!". That's what always cracks me up.

they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.
Click to expand...
The American people understand this very well, and (as you can see very well), we haven't backed down to the radical fundamentalist minority and their corrupt and underhanded attempts to force their unamerican, authoritarian agenda on us. B)

It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.
Click to expand...
We all know that fundamentalists struggle with Godlessness and immorality every day. If it wasn't for the depravity aspect, fundie churches would by out of business. Countless child sex scandals, young earth creationist home"schooling", drug-addicted pastors getting caught in gay affairs, child abuse, hatred, stupidity praised as a virture, group thought, financial exploitation, etc etc etc

Even the very core dogma of fundamentalism is rooted in moral depravity - fundamentalist "Christians" hold the Old Testament law as moral - meaning they believe that infant genocide, mass murder, forced abortions, pedophilia and child sexual slavery, ritual human sacrifice, Nazi-esque theocratic dicatorship (all in the name of their god) was acceptable, just because "Jesus said the Old Law no longer applies". Yet they have the time to whine about gay couples being granted a handful of legal rights, as if that is so]/i] much worse than slaughting and raping children and young girls in "God's name".

Evil Bible Home Page - contains the verses

What's also funny, is that in the New Testament, homosexuality is only mentioned once as a sin (alongside gluttony for that matter, yet fundie churches don't seem to have a big problem with the fatties who make up about 60% of their congregations). Hypocrisy (of the religious leaders) however, is mentioned by Jesus on numerous occaisions, as among the worst sin (Jesus himself never even mentioned homosexuality, so even if he believed it was sinful, it sure didn't hold rank with the religious hypocrites he despised).

So ironically, even by fundamentalists' own dogma, they're still far more immoral than gays (and pretty much anyone else). Sucks to be them, but apparently it's a great time to be gay in Cali.

We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.
Click to expand...
I take it you're a Mike Savage listener. Go figure.


Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
Click to expand...
I become more aware of this every day, the more posts by fundamentalists that I read. B)
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Are you arguing in support of interracial marriage bans?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry...
You can't show who has a privilege that someone else does not?
You can't show who does not have a privilgee that someone else does?
Then you cannot show discrimination.
 
Goobieman said:
I'm sorry...
You can't show who has a privilege that someone else does not?
You can't show who does not have a privilgee that someone else does?
Then you cannot show discrimination.
Click to expand...

In interracial marriage bans? A white person can marry a white person but a black person can't and a black person can marry a black person but a white person can't.

In same sex marriage bans? A man can marry a woman but a woman can't, and a woman can marry a man but a man can't.

There you go, discrimination. Just because whites and blacks were both discriminated against by interracial marriage bans did not make them just and just be both men and women are discriminated against by same sex marriage bans does not make them just.


Do you want to try again, or was that your best argument?
 
Harshaw said:
Good grief. :doh

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.)
Click to expand...

You're still missing the problem. You are arguing that sexuality somehow, magically, nullifies the 14th Amendment in this argument. When pressed on the issue, you become nebulous. You are clinging to the same debate, even though that debate has been addressed and refuted. Again, I don't mean to belittle you, but i'm not sure how much clearer I can be. What would it take to get you to realize that the argument you're putting forth is inconsistent with your argument against equal protection? There is just a huge disconnect here, and unfortunately you're still clinging to the same defense even though it's been addressed already.

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're not being very academic here. I read what you wrote over and over, but it just doesn't add up. I have no idea why you keep dismissing the equal protection argument and keep injecting your sexuality defense. It's like you are stuck on that point despite the fact it's been addressed and refuted. From here, this is where you _should_ read the argument I put forth and say, "you know, Singularity already addressed this, and it's been refuted. Let me try to explain another possible defense against the equal protection clause".

Again, I don't know why you can't seem to get past that. The only thing I can tell you to do is maybe leave out the term 'sexuality' from your next defense, in the hopes that you eventually understand that we are past that already. I mean it's been addressed an umpteenth amount of times. Is there anything that I can do to help you to move forward here? We just keep going back to you presenting the same argument, me addressing it and refuting it, and you repeating the same argument.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you put forth an example about minors, and failed to acknowledge emancipation. The discussion was about adults - specifically homosexual adults. That's why your argument is irrelevant here.
 
Goobieman said:
Everyone is denied marriage in exactly the same way - and so, there's no discrimination.
No discrimination, no EP issue.
Click to expand...

Except that there is discrimination, and it is an EP issue. That's why it was argued in a court of law (and won) based on EP.
 
Goobieman said:
The most obvious: The legislative reduction of social benefit payements, such as SocSec, Pell Grants, food stamps, etc. Raising the age of retirement necessary to gain those SocSec payments, too.
Of course, these reductions need not be legislative - they can be regulatory as well.
Click to expand...

And yet, none of those privileges exclude anyone unfairly. You can still get SocSec, food stamps, Pell Grants, if you are a citizen. Marriage, on the other hand, does exclude a group of people unfairly. That's why the case as argued and won in a court of law.

Goobieman said:
"Unfairly"? That's subjective and irrelevant. The privilege I have in OH is denied by he state of IL by virtue of IL not having a shall-issue CCW. According to you, this vioplates the 14th.
Click to expand...

You got that right. The state of Illinois, by denying you a CCW, is most definitely in violation of the 14th Amendment. Not only that, it's in violation of the 2nd Amendment (that's my opinion, of course. You don't have to agree). And like homosexual marriage, this should be resolved in a court of law if the legislature refuses to acknowlege it.


Goobieman said:
"Irrelevant -- the fact that -I- am not afforded the same privileges in IL that I am in OH means that, according to you, IL has violated the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Again, yes. By not being able to legally have a CCW permit in Illinois, they are in direct violation of the 14th Amendment, and imho, the 2nd - like I said earlier. From what I understand, Illinois is battling this, right? They should. It's Unconstitutional.
 
I agree there is discrimination. It's the unfairly Part we disagree on. :)

Tim-
 
Singularity said:
And yet, none of those privileges exclude anyone unfairly.
Click to expand...
All of them reduce a benefit granted by the state. As you said, this violates the 14th.
 
Singularity said:
Except that there is discrimination, and it is an EP issue. That's why it was argued in a court of law (and won) based on EP.
Click to expand...
If everyone is under the same setof restrictions, there can be no discrimination.
Discrimination requires that one set of people is treated differently than another. That's NOT the case.
 
CriticalThought said:
In interracial marriage bans? A white person can marry a white person but a black person can't and a black person can marry a black person but a white person can't.
Click to expand...
Everyone can marry inside their race. No one can marry outside. Each rule applies to everyone equally. Where's the discrimination?

In same sex marriage bans? A man can marry a woman but a woman can't, and a woman can marry a man but a man can't.
Click to expand...
Everyone can marry the opposite sex. No one can marry the same sex. Each rule applies to everyone equally. Where's the discrimination?




Do you want to try again, or was that your best argument?[/QUOTE]
 
Goobieman said:
All of them reduce a benefit granted by the state. As you said, this violates the 14th.
Click to expand...

No. You'd be correct if that privilege were restricted from a portion of the citizenry entirely. Since it is not, there is no violation.
 
Goobieman said:
If everyone is under the same setof restrictions, there can be no discrimination.
Discrimination requires that one set of people is treated differently than another. That's NOT the case.
Click to expand...

One set of people is being treated differently here, and under the 14th Amendment, that's Unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Singularity said:
One set of people is being treated differently here...
Click to expand...
No... all are under the same restrictions and therefore all all being treated the same. As such., there is no EP issue.
You'd be correct if that privilege were restricted from a portion of the citizenry entirely. Since it is not, there is no violation.
 
Singularity said:
No. You'd be correct if that privilege were restricted from a portion of the citizenry entirely. Since it is not, there is no violation.
Click to expand...
Ah. So the states CAN reduce or elimate a privilge so long as the reduction/elimination applies to everyone.
How, then, does the wholesale repeal of the legal privilege of marriage violate the 14th amendment.
 
Goobieman said:
Ths is just dishonest. If you can't do better than that, youre just wasting my time.
Click to expand...

it's unfortunate that you view debate on the issue as a waste of your time. Perhaps next time you defend this position, relevant examples would help. Unfortunately, I haven't seen you provide any that have not stood up to scrutiny.
 
Singularity said:
it's unfortunate that you view debate on the issue as a waste of your time.
Click to expand...
Its a shame that you have chosen to be dishonest, rather than admit someone else was right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom