- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
- Reaction score
- 514
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, you're simply pulling this out of thin air. The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality. Look, if we can't even agree on that, then it's pointless to continue. What you say doesn't even make any sense.
And again, you're saying I'm arguing that homosexual couples "can't be included," which isn't the argument and not at all what I was talking about.
Dude. Get it through your head. I am not arguing that homosexuals should be excluded from marriage. Nothing I said equates to that, at all.
I'm explaining why the equal protection argument fails, which is only one argument, and I prefaced this by saying I found other arguments compelling. But you don't actually want to argue "equal protection" at all; you're arguing the whole gamut of gay marriage.
And the whole point, dude, is not that homosexual attraction doesn't matter to marriage, it's that sexual attraction of any kind -- homo, hetero, or bi -- isn't a necessary component to marriage at all. So, seriously, if you want to argue this, keep it together.
If I am not grasping your point, it's because you are being rather nebulous here. You maintain that sexual attraction and sexuality are not requirements for marriage, yet I never said anything about what requirements are necessary for marriage. The issue is not about the requirements, anyway - this is something that you brought up, presumably to show why you are against gay marriage.
And I do need to point out that you claim here "The equal protection argument is very much about discrimination against homosexuality" as if i'm not getting it, when I specifically said "Actually, the argument is that they are discriminated against because of they are of the same gender". You'll notice that I address the issue of discrimination directly.
First of all, I never said anything about sexual attraction being a necessary component to marriage. So why are you even bringing that up?
This is a discussion about gay marriage, and what legal basis exists as to why homosexual couples cannot be included.
The argument against prop 8 is that it violates the 14th Amendment, a strategy that the legal team used in federal court (and won). And they are pretty much dead on, as the wording is very specific. No citizen shall have their immunities or privileges abriged by the state without due process. If you wish to continue, THIS is what you need to argue.
I would stop bringing up sexual attraction or sexuality as an uneccessary component of marriage
because that makes zero sense
and certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
In addition, I already addressed your sexual attraction concern. If heterosexuals can get married without that component present, then it stands to reason that homosexuals can, too.
Irrelevant - my statement that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state is sound.Irrelevant, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.
Walkers ruling states that this violates the Due process clause, and ultimately the 14th amendment which requires equal protection. He bases this on the fact that only a man and a woman can marry, and not a man, and a man, or a woman and a woman, and as a result excludes marriage to males that want to amrry males, and females that want to marry females.
Actually, he tied it specifically to homosexuality, but even if he had said exactly that . . .
It's still not an equal protection issue, because the law still applies to everyone equally.
Now, you can make a dandy free association argument based on this, but an equal protection argument fails.
This is no way means that a state - or the federal government - cannot repeal or reduce a privilege that it issued. There are any number of examples of where they have done so, none of whch have ran afoul of the 14th.No. The part in bold prevents a state from doing just that. As a matter of fact, it can't get any plainer. The state cannot make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the US without due process of law.
The point is that the same-sex marriage ban applies to everyone, and as such, there is no discrimination.It isn't equal legally if the law purposefully excludes men from marry men, and women, from marrying women. It is the "exclusion" that is the discrimination legally, and for the state to exclude a class or group of people from a priviledge, or fundamental right, it must provide a rationale for doing so.
It isn't equal legally if the law purposefully excludes men from marry men, and women, from marrying women. It is the "exclusion" that is the discrimination legally, and for the state to exclude a class or group of people from a priviledge, or fundamental right, it must provide a rationale for doing so.
But that doesn't make it an equal protection issue. It's only an equal protection issue if it applies to one group of people but not another.
No men have the right to do something that other men don't.
No women have the right to do something that other women don't.
The argument that men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry men is one of association, not protection.
Now, if there were a law which said that only homosexual men could marry other men, then THAT would be an equal-protection issue.
It's a gender issue, so it most certainly falls under the equal protection clause. Men are allowed to do something that women cannot do. And women are allowed to do something that men cannot do. So the issue certainly does apply to one group and not the other. The groups being men and women.
Incorrect. Quite a few people do. I have been for quite some time here. As have others. As did the judge in Cali.No one makes the argument that it's discrimination based on gender rather than sexuality.
No, it does not. A man can marry a woman. And I, as a woman, cannot. It is not equal by any means.But even so, men and women have access to marriage on an equal basis. The definition of marriage would, again, be a free association issue, but the law still applies to everyone equally.
But that doesn't make it an equal protection issue. It's only an equal protection issue if it applies to one group of people but not another.
No men have the right to do something that other men don't.
No women have the right to do something that other women don't.
The argument that men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry men is one of association, not protection.
Now, if there were a law which said that only homosexual men could marry other men, then THAT would be an equal-protection issue.
Incorrect. Quite a few people do. I have been for quite some time here. As have others. As did the judge in Cali.
No, it does not. A man can marry a woman. And I, as a woman, cannot. It is not equal by any means.
His point is that no group is excluded; all groups are treated equally.Doesn't matter, the state has the burden of providing a rationale for excluding ANY group from the equal protection of the laws.
Doesn't matter, the state has the burden of providing a rationale for excluding ANY group from the equal protection of the laws.
No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.What "group" is "excluded" from equal protection of the law, and on what basis?
It was based on gender. Read his ruling. He uses the word quite a bit.His argument wasn't based on gender. It was specicially couched in the difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
If you can find decisions based on gender discrimination and not discrimination against homosexuality, please do.
You can marry a woman. I can't. That is discrimination based on gender just as it was discrimination based on race when blacks could only marry blacks. Equal protection was violated then, and it's violated now. Just because blacks could marry blacks just as whites could marry whites didn't make the ban on interracial marriage any less of a violation of equal protection.Sure it is. Both men and women have the exact same access to marriage as "marriage" is defined, which is, in the places where it is so, a "union between a man and woman." Again, you can raise other issues, but not equal protection.
No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.
Thus, everyone is treated the same; no one is excluded.
All men and women are treated equally - there's no discrimination.Except the Men/Men, and Women/Women marriages of course?
Marriage is a privilige.They are currently excluded forms of marriage, which is a fundamental right
No one can marry a member of the same sex; everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex.
Thus, everyone is treated the same; no one is excluded.
They are currently excluded forms of marriage, which is a fundamental right
Marriage is a privilige.
All exclusions and restrictions are equally applied to all people - and thus, equal protection is met.
All men and women are treated equally - there's no discrimination.
Marriage is a privilige.
All exclusions and restrictions are equally applied to all people - and thus, equal protection is met.
It was based on gender. Read his ruling. He uses the word quite a bit.Particularly look at pages 113 - 114. The entire same SEX marriage issue is hinged on the sex of the people getting married. That is ALL that it is hinged on. People's sexual preferences, sexual orientation, etc are not even remotely of interest to the state. Only their sex. The decision that marriage currently discriminates against homosexual couples is based ENTIRELY on the sex of the people in the relationship. As was the judge's decision that it was discrimination and a violation of equal protection to keep said backwards bans in place.
Having considered the evidence, the
relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that
Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would
exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection
claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent
to a claim of discrimination based on sex.
You can marry a woman. I can't.
That is discrimination based on gender just as it was discrimination based on race when blacks could only marry blacks. Equal protection was violated then, and it's violated now. Just because blacks could marry blacks just as whites could marry whites didn't make the ban on interracial marriage any less of a violation of equal protection.
Yours is a silly assertion.You appear to be completely oblivious to the argument, or even the concept of this particular claim to discrimination?
Because race was irrelevant to the defintion of marriage. Gender isn't, not as it's defined.
I find myself on the converse to Hicup, in that I actually agree that anyone should be able to form whatever social constructs and commitments they wish. But agreeing with that doesn't mean I have to buy every single argument for it, when an argument just doesn't hold water.
Nor does my view that a particular argument doesn't hold water mean that I don't think others do, nor does it mean that I think it disposes of the matter entirely. It doesn't. It's just one argument that doesn't hold water.
Yours is a silly assertion.
Everyone can marry the opposite sex. "Everyone" is an all-inclusive term.
No one can marry the same sex. "No one" is an all-inclusove term.
In both cases, everyone is treated equally, so there is no discrimination.
Can all women marry the opposite sex? Yes.
Can all men marry the opposite sex? Yes.
Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no disctimination
Can any man marry the same sex? No.
Cany any woman marry the same sex? No.
Thus, everyone is treated equally; there is no discrimination.
If everyone is treated equally, as they are, then there is no discrimination, and there is no equal protection issue.
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?