Hicup
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 2,709
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Sexual liberty proponents believe that Lawrence explicitly analogized same-sex sodomy and mixed-sex sodomy, and that Lawrence severed the link between constitutional protection of sexual conduct and whether the activity is procreative or takes place within the marital relationship or is traditionally protected by society, the logic of Lawrence casts considerable doubt on laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the not-so-subtle suggestions in both the majority opinion and in Justice O'Connor's concurrence that the court is not willing to listen to this argument, and that some of the justices (Kennedy and O'Connor specifically) would switch sides to vote with the dissenters in this case if the issue of gay marriage came before them. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (O'Connor, J. concurring).[citation needed]
Pretty simple.
"Marriage" is what was found to be constitutional.
BASED on the fact that marriage was found a constitutional right,
the equal protection clause stated that you can't discriminate without meeting the threshold allowing it. The threshold to descriminate on race wasn't reached, so discrimination of marriage laws against race was struck down.
However, the constitutional right that was determined wasn't "The right for blacks to marry people other than blacks". It was "The right to marriage", which then could have the EPC applied to it.
The Equal Protection Clause protects against more groups than just race.
Therefore just because its only, so far, been used in regards to marriage about race does not mean it can't be used in regards to marriage concerning other discrimination of protected groupings either.
"Marriage" is the broadly defined constitutional right, and as a constitutional right it must be equally protected under the law, a process that covers gender discrimination.
So the fact that its only been used so far in regards to race when it comes to marriage is irrelevant, because what matters is that the EPC applies to marriage as shown by the court cases challenging it based on race.
I can provide your definitive and unquestionable proof that the Equal Protection Clause applies to marriage, by showing you those court cases that use said clause to strike down discrimination in marriage based on race. Can you provide me with evidence that the Equal Protection Clause DOESN'T apply to marriage or is somehow limited to which of its groups it'll actually protect?
No, I'm relating rifles from the age of the founders vs fully automatic SMG's to opposite sex vs same sex marriage. They did not have semi-automatic pistols and rifles in the time the constitution was created.
I'm equating them as different forms of the same thing. Specifically, situations where for some time court cases didn't involve one particular type, but that did not mean that later on it couldn't. Essentially, just because the court cases thus far have looked at opposite sex marriage doesn't mean it can't look at same sex marriage with both being under the auspice of the same deemed constitutional right of "marriage". Equally even, just because that constitutional right has only had court cases arguing against it on account of discrimination on race doesn't mean it can not be argued against on discrimination in other ways either.
That's funny.
I thought the constitution is the one that specifically says the courts are there to uphold the constitution.
I thought the constitution is the one that dictates that a judges ruilng regarding to constitution is essentially constitutional law.
I thought the constitution is the one that had the surpemecy clause in it.
I thought the constitution is the one with the equal protection clause in it.
I thought then that until such a time that a case manages to occur that causes marriage to be rejected as a constitutional right, that the surpemacy clause says equal protection must apply to state laws as well and basing this simply off my argument, that when you apply the EPC to marriage with regards to gender discrimination you find that it is an unconstitutional discriminatory practice.
Everything I just said is founded singularly and solely on the constitution. I am not reaching out to foreign law, I am not inventing any new rights or privledges that aren't stated in the constitution or aren't considered at this point constitutional law.
Marriage is a constitutional right
The 14th amendment garauntees equal protection under the law.
The Supremecy Clause garauntees constitutional protection against state laws as well.
Court cases have certified without question that gender discrimination falls under the EPC.
Court cases have also showed clearly that the right of marriage is subject to the EPC.
Due to the high level of standard needed to discriminate based on Gender, I do not see the arguments for keeping the discriminatory practices happening as legitimate important state interest as being substantial enough.
As such I believe that such discrimination based on gender is unconstitutional.
Every single thing I said there was based off the system the constitution has set in place.
If you dislike it, actually address it, and clearly show me where and why its not.
Jesus Christ, how many times do I need to say I personally am not arguing about sexual orientation.
And actually, court rulings have been about the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE with specificity towards race. However the EPC does not cover ONLY race.
We'll get to this one in another post because you did the same thing again this time.
Marriage is not based on gender alone. Where did I say that? I stated that its currently discriminates against gender, that the EPC garauntees that such discrimination can't happen unless a certain burden is met, and that I don't believe that said burden is met.
The burden required for age to be discriminated against has been shown through cases to be lower than that which is required for gender.
Furthermore, the status of minors has been challenged in court a number of times and held up as meeting the necessary level of state interest to have such a status. Said status and their inability to enter into contracts invalidates them from the marriage discussion entirely. Now if you want to actually address my point, that I've now stated twice, instead of just repeating "No no no, it should work with age too!" without giving any reasons why in relation to my argument then we can talk. If not, I'm not going to answer you a third time with you continually not responding.
Sure you can, gender is more protected than age, and minor status has already been upheld as having the needed level of necessity.
I have never claimed gender alone validates marriage, no more than race alone validates it. Currently, constitutional law says MARRIAGE...just that MARRIAGE...is a constitutional right. That means the EPC applies to it. That means the EPC applies to it for all the various protected groups under it.
For now, for the purpose of this, I'll conceed the whole natural/nurture thing though I disagree and everything I've seen counters what you're saying. However, since its not pertinent to my particular argument in the least I'm not going to waste time with it nor allow it to be used for a distraction.
Again, my focus will be solely on my own personal argument...which is that its GENDER discrimination.
I have never claimed gender alone validates marriage
True or False, Marriage has been deemed a constitutional right under the courts.
True or False, the challenge to marriage regarding race was challenged based on the Equal Protection Clause.
True or False, the equal protection clause has been used in gender discrimination and found to be a protected group?
Guess what, all that together means that its perfectly reasonable to argue the constitutionality of discrimination of a protected group with regards to marriage under the EPC.
Yes, you can.
Read my damn posts.
Age discrimination is at a lower tier than gender is in regards to the EPC. Rather than needing substantial proof of an important state interest one must only show a rational proof of any state interest. There is not substantial court evidence to suggest age discrimination is on par with gender discrimination with regards to constitutional protections.
"Number of people" is not a protected group, its not a group, at all. You could possibly argue simply of "polygamists", but even they wouldn't raise beyond the lowest tier of the EPC. And as was shown in a later point, they can not show specific discrimination towards polygamists, only towards the number of spouses one can have, which is not a group, its a number.
My argument does not mean you have to allow EVERYONE to marry. It means you have to allow protected groups under the EPC who the government can not show the required level of proof regarding the required level of necessity needed to discriminate against them.
My contention, as its been clearly laid out, is that due to Gender being at a higher level...behind only race, religion, and ethnicity..that the state does not have the necessary proof of the necessary importance to discriminate based on it. I have no seen an argument concerning any of the other groups you speak of stating why the same is true for them. Perhaps if you actually make one other than "Well, um, its the same" then we could debate it.
Nothing.
Please demonstrate how they're being discriminated against based on gender. I have done so with regards to my argument, let us see yours.
He's allowed to want to marry them based off their gender, however he can't do so because the law states that a child is a juvenile and thus not able to enter into such contracts.
You're correct. However the constitution has stated that laws which are unconstitutional are meant to be struck down by the court, and interpritation of the constitution with regards to laws falls to the courts.
No where am I advocating the creation of a new law, I am advocating for the abolishment of a law OR the adherence to it to the constitution, both through the proper venue for unconstitutional laws. What I am not arguing for is to maintain an unconstitutional law.
Again, I laid out clearly, plainly, and specifically how I come to my conclussion based off the constitution and the system it has laid in place.
You have done nothing but give accusations.
Why don't you actually make an arguments with some specifics this time.
Something interesting I just read..
Wiki - Link
Tim-
No citation, which I'm trying to find, but if true, the GM proponents might be in for a battle. since Kennedy would switch, and find for the plaintiffs.
Zyphlin -
What criteria would the court use to discriminate against polygamists? Numbers?, Serving no state interests? Or, perhaps placing an undue burden on the state?
All whimsical, IMO, if marriage is a fundamental right of the people.
I understand fundamental rights can be infringed upon, and restricted to special classes, but if this is the case, just how fundamental are they to begin with? That's the point.
Presently, right now, and for this issue, and the understanding of the 14th Amendment, you are entirely correct. I hope I'm not coming across like I think you're wrong, only that I highlight that there is a kink in the armor with regard to marriage rights, and whether it applies to the 14th, or should even apply at all.
Right there you are assuming a broader definition than was given. This is the exact point where your argument falls off the tracks. The right to marriage was based on RACE between a man and a woman. You are generalizing the ruling when no such ruling was made.
Again based on race between man and woman ONLY.
And this is where your argument breaks down. You are assuming a broader definition to the right to marriage than was ever discussed by the courts. Until you stop generalizing a specific ruling you aren't going to be able to move forward.
Exactly but it was NEVER EVER generalized to include sexual orientation or sexual orientation based on gender. That was never in the ruling. Denying marriage based on race was the ruling. That was the right to marriage. Again, you are generalizing a specific ruling to fit your wants when it was never generalized that way.
And they are specific in what groups those are. They NEVER included sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender. You are injecting that when it doesn't exist in the law.
It is NOT irrelevant. You are being completely dishonest about the ruling and the case presented. Race was the focus, NOT sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender.
It was not broadly defined. It was specific to race ONLY. Please stop generalizing a ruling that was specific to the case of race.
Yes based on what you just said. The ruling was based on RACE ONLY.
NOT sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender.
If you want to continue this trend you need to present from the ruling that they stated the right to marriage includes all aspects of relationships including sexual orientation or sexual orientation based off gender which was never stated.
First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done
You, or whoever wishes to argue the polygamist argument, must show a clear example of discrimination and exactly how they're being discriminated against. Simply saying "polygamists are discriminated against because they can't marry who they want" is not an argument nor showing clear examples, because the law does not allow ANYONe to "marry who they want". You need to articulate clearly the discrimination first and foremost. Until you, or others, are able to do that, its irrelevant in continuing to argue this because you're not providing any kind of actual argument.
Marriage bestows a number of benefits to the spouses that, for the sake of not personally knowing a good word for it, I'll call "Joint Power". These benefits I speak of are things like the power to make medical decisions if the spouse cannot, benefits regarding shared financial situations, regarding estate, regarding rights with regards to divorce, and other such things where essentially the legal power over certain things joins between the two spouses
Is it rational to suggest that adding multiple individuals to such a contract would have the relatively likely potential cause complications with regards to who exactly has the final say or who exactly has the control in those various situations between the multitude of spouses? This is especially true in situations where for example a man marrys one woman, and that woman marrys another man, who is married to another woman, and yet there is no connection between either of the two men nor between the second woman and the first two individuals.
Now, is it rational to suggest that if such situations occur they will most likely require court action to make a judgement call on the situation?
Now, after that, is it rational to suggest that such a thing will increase the amount of court action that is required in general across America?
Is it rational to suggest it is in the governments interest, of any degree, to keep the amount of action filling its courts lowered due to the cost, increase amount of time needed, and the slow down it causes on each case the more cases that are added?
Is it rational then to suggest that performing the action of discriminating against multiple person marriages will result in something that is in the interest of the government to have occur?
The argument above is based on only one singular potential issue with polygamy, which is questionable whether or not it'd even rise to the level of the lowest tier of the EPC and of which no legitimate argument of any kind of factual basis has been presented it would reach a higher tier
That is fine if you find it whimsical. The law however does not. The law finds that rights can be restricted or even disallowed to people upon certain conditions. This happens every day in our society.
And here you're equivocating, you're complaining about the way things are, forming your own fantasy world in regards to how it should be
Whether or not you believe rights can be infringed upon, or whether or not a right that is infringed upon is fundamental or not, is irrelevant to the fact that under the law as it is now rights CAN be infringed upon if certian requirement are met and that such a thing does not negate them as rights
Until such a notion is overturned that is the law as we have to work with. You are arguing against one particular piece of legal action by suggesting that its invalid due to something that would need legal action in and of itself to be even made true
Heh, should've read all the way down instead of replying as I went
So I guess what I'm saying is you're making an argument that has no legs, and needs reality and law to completely shift just to allow said argument to walk let alone to run away like Usain Bolt as unquestionable truth.
I'm not saying its not an interesting hypothetical and one perhaps meriting discussion, but it is something that is far more into the hypothetical realm then the pracitcal realm at this time in regards to the current court cases at work.
Not under a due process claim. You need only argue that you are being deprived of liberty or property, and that it does not further an essential state interest.Well, lets see...
First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done.
Not under a due process claim. You need only argue that you are being deprived of liberty or property, and that it does not further an essential state interest.
He tried. The 9th circuit decision is irrelevant as this will end up in the SCOTUS. They aren't going to decide a landmark case based on Walker's "facts."
Actually, as I have already shown(you can find it, it's not hard), this ruling is not irrelevant. The facts are determined at this level, and Judge Walker put a lot of attention in this aspect, with the vast majority of his long written decision being devoted to the facts of the case. It is unusual though not impossible for higher courts to disagree on the facts, but Judge Walker made it very difficult for them to do so.
This is why you should read the thread, so you see all these things that have been pointed out and proven before bringing up the same tired, wrong objections.
Apparently you're confused about something.Apparantly you aren't familiar with the term "strict scrutiny".
Arguing the law is fun ain't it?
The discrimination is in personal identity, (personhood - I just made it up) and freedom to associate, and enter into contracts. Currently, there is a legal definition of marriage roughly being that of two consenting adults, one man, and one woman uniquely singular.
By not allowing anyone to marry whomever they want, or as many times as they want is discriminatory, because there is no rational justification to allowing only one person to marry another person. (more on that later)
None of which are uniquely intrinsic to marriage as a fundamental right, all of which are bestowed on the happy couple by way of legislation, independent of any constitutional authority.
If contracted for, there is no compelling reason to deny the privilege of marriage to any number of relationships, and multiple couplings. even if children are produced, the family law of most states is well defined. No problem, in other words.
Of course it's rational to conclude this. It happens now every single day with traditionally married couples, despite the intrinsic presumption of shared equity. It's called family court, or probate. Still no compelling reason to deny other multiple person marriages.
It might, it might not, but the simple increase in marriages alone do this already, (For instance if marriages go up by 10% year over year then it follows so too do court actions) not to mention that no fault divorce, has had a dramatic affect on divorce in general in this nation. Should no fault be repealed because a direct correlation to the increase in divorce on demand can be attributed?
No it's completely irrational. The courts are to serve justice to the people, period. There is no expressed or implied limitation on this function.
Honestly, no. It might survive some arbitrary basis test, but not a rational one, nor a strict scrutiny test to be sure.
I see three potential basis to bring suit. One, discrimination of multiple person marriages based on some arbitrary ideal of marriage being between a single man, and a single woman. If marriage is arbitrarily decided that it be only between one man, and one woman, or one person and another person, the court would need to clarify why is marriage restricted to only two individuals, as intrinsic to marriage in and of itself.
Secondly, personhood is the identity of oneself with respect to the environment in which that person chooses to pace themselves in, within the confines of the law. Carrying with it, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without jurisdiction. If the state wishes to infringe on this fundamental right, it needs to show a compelling reason to do so. The burden doesn't rest with the plaintiff, it rests with the respondent. In legal circles it's called - "showing cause".
Thirdly, people have the fundamental right to enter into contracts, and the contract of marriage, although independent of any meaning of marriage traditionally, are not mutually exclusive of each other, and more a formality that anything intrinsic to marriage itself.
Yes, true, but the "certain conditions" are in the due process clause. Are polygamists afforded due process? I say no, not at all.
Is any legal argument against the status quo, fantasy? Then maybe this attempt by the homosexual lobby is also fantasy? Surely you meant that to come out differently?
Only time will tell.
Thanks for the debate, Zyphlin!
Apparently you're confused about something.
Apparently you're confused about something.
It's actually becoming so much sputtering and stuttering over simple facts. It's just not pretty.
I've addressed your point already, and I'm laughing here to myself that you think you've "proven" something by linking to a bunch of conjecture that other people wrote. As if there aren't a bunch of legal scholars posting about how much it doesn't matter.The facts are determined at this level, and Judge Walker put a lot of attention in this aspect, with the vast majority of his long written decision being devoted to the facts of the case. It is unusual though not impossible for higher courts to disagree on the facts, but Judge Walker made it very difficult for them to do so.
This is why you should read the thread, so you see all these things that have been pointed out and proven before bringing up the same tired, wrong objections.
I've addressed your point already, and I'm laughing here to myself that you think you've "proven" something by linking to a bunch of conjecture that other people wrote. As if there aren't a bunch of legal scholars posting about how much it doesn't matter.
There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact." That THIS judge expressly wrote his opinion in a blatant effort to influence nine people on a HUGE case (all of whom think they're the smartest person in the room)... heh.
I can't wait to see how much fun Scalia and others have with Walker's opinion.
"It is unusual" is a credible argument, Redress? There is no argument to give here that will "prove" anything. I stated the simple fact:It is unusual(see, I said this already, and the links have said this already). You are not making any credible argument, you are just saying "nope, it's this way because I say it is this way", which is hardly credible.
They are not required to, but they have to have good reason to. It is unusual(see, I said this already, and the links have said this already). You are not making any credible argument, you are just saying "nope, it's this way because I say it is this way", which is hardly credible.
"It is unusual" is a credible argument, Redress? There is no argument to give here that will "prove" anything. I stated the simple fact:
"There is no rule that judges who decide a case on appeal must defer to whatever the District Judge labeled a "fact."
As to whether they will or won't - it's all conjecture. I've provided my own conjecture. You've posted links to other people's original thoughts and highlighted the phrase "it is unusual."
It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.
The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.
Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.
I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.
It's that way because it's that way. Sorry, but a man can't screw another man and create another human being. It's just that way.
The purpose of marriage is steeped in the conception of and raising of children, particularly as seen through the eyes of the church.
Gay marriages are just two dudes or girls pretending to play house together, just like a heterosexual couple living together.
I half expect gays to one day protest against heterosexuals for procreating because it's not fair that they can't conceive, too, from gay sex.
It really wouldn't make a hill of difference in the long run Navy....because even IF that were to happen (which is unlikely), public opinion is changing at a rapid pace and gay marriage is coming one way or another. You are losing this battle in the Courts and in the public arena. You continually refuse to recognize that public opinion has shifted by close to 20 percentage points in the last decade to the point that the public is almost evenly split on the issue. As your generation dies out, the more tolerant and moderate generations are embracing liberty and justice for all (in REALITY....not just something to recite in a Pledge). The storm is coming Navy.....and I suspect that even YOU will be alive to see it happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?