- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
I'll say it again real slow just for you. the Equal protection clause has no age limit. How is that so hard for you to understand?
General observation actually.
There was no necessity for that since at the beginning, marriage wasn't a government contract. It was left to the churches. And if it were still that way, I'd probably be agreeing with you.
Prove to me that pedophiles and polygamists are now able to get married. Find me the legal proof that those restrictions were overturned, because it is presently against the law to tell a woman she can't marry a woman based on the 14th Amendment clause protecting the rights of people based on gender?
And you'll note that AGE isn't a part of it; which means it's Constitutional to discriminate based on age (in certain cases).
That's the point that you fail to get.
You are making up that polygamists and pedohpiles can now marry. It's not true and the overturning of Prop. 8 doesn't suddenly mean they can win if they challenge. You're making a leap of logic and for the life of me, I can't figure out why you're doing it.
Nothing you've been saying here makes any sense whatsoever.
And as to the answer of your last question: just about everything.
But since it isn't and since this judge used the equal protection clause as justification how can you possibly exclude any other group from asking for marriage "rights" under the same claim?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN A PROTECTED CLASS AS GENDER IS.
There hasn't been a case since this judge just ruled that the equal protection clause includes marriage. What part of that don't you understand?
AGE isn't excluded either. How could you exclude age if they don't mention it being excluded under the equal protection clause? Explain that.
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?wikipedia said:* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest.[20]
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?
Anytime someone tells you something you don't want to hear, you respond with "prove it".
Your lack of common knowledge, basic civics and concepts in U.S. Government isn't our problem. It's yours. Deal with it or get off the boards.
Yet people here spend more energy avoiding proving it than if they actuall backed up their opinions with factual links
Yet people here spend more energy avoiding proving it than if they actuall backed up their opinions with factual links
Once again, I am going to ask you to prove a claim, that most people in this country actually do think gays are deviant. Once again, you are almost certainly not going to do this.
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........
They shouldn't watch it next time.
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........
Actually, that was ruled on by judges decades back.
Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public commitment."
Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
The Supreme Court established the scrutiny test for the Equal Protection Clause in Craig versus Boren in 1976.
Walker ruled that Prop 8 did not pass the intermediate scrutiny test because the state had no substantial interest in mandating gender roles in marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was gender discrimination. For children below the age of consent to be allowed to marry, it would have to pass the Rational-basis test. Care to explain how the government would have an interest in young children marrying pedophiles?
If by deviant, you mean morally wrong, then you are not correct. 49% of Americans thnk that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Daily Number: Homosexuality and Morality - Pew Research Center
They think the primary sex act gays engage in is deviant and before you say it its deviant if straights do it to........
Wow, this thread cleared out quick once the actual details of Walker's ruling were presented.
Maybe what scared them off was the fact that marriages based on pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality can't pass under the terms of gender discrimination and the state has no substantial or rational interest in allowing them?
to me it has very little to do with morals, its more disgust.....
Do children have gender? Do more than 2 people have gender? Gender is a factor in any alternative lifestyle. How can you descriminate against that?
Then don't have gay sex, duh.
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?