• 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

You can marry a woman and I cannot. That is not equal.
It doesnt matter how many times your petulance forces you post this - the fact is that everyone suffers the same restrictions and enjoys the same privileges under the law, and thus, there is no disctimination.
 
States do not grant rights No court can change that.
Marriage would not exist if the states did not create it. No court can change that.
Marriage would cease to exist if the states repeal their relevant laws. No court can change that.
States do not have to have laws that create marriage. No court can change that.
Thus, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. No court can change that.

The U.S. Constitution gives the courts the authority to interpret which actions are rights. So courts can change that.

Irelevant; the isssu is marriage as a legal institutuon, and the desire for homosexuals to have their union legally recognized as such. This necessitates the creation of the institution of marriage by the state, and that -necessarily- makes marriage a privilege, not a right.

Marriage began as a private contract between families, with the male taking the economic burden of an unemployable female in exchange for the dowry and the opportunity to father legitimate heirs and assistants for his estates. It therefore falls into all the rights entailing business and privacy. The state perceived a use for it and incorporated into its plans. Marriage's status as a private contract is ascendant over the state's uses for it.

Marriage originates from outside the state, the state subsumes it into its policies.

In the United States, policy must be equitable. This brings us back to civil rights, and marriage being one of them.
 
Last edited:
That's all it IS about. There is no other issue.


Because the gender discrimination affects them most. It doesn't affect heterosexuals.


I don't know. What is your point.



Those millions are wrong. They don't ask you your sexual orientation when you apply for a marriage license.

They do ask your gender, though.


For ALL. They just focus on sexualilty because it affects homo and bisexuals.


Yes, I know, I read his words. And he mentions gender quite a bit. I see it in black and white, in his own words. Hence my pointing to his ruling.


Not talking about the existence of gender, but the existence of gender as the core issue. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to marriage. Always has been. It's not even in question. They don't ask what your sexual orientation is. They ask your GENDER, or sex if you will. I don't see how much clearer that could be.

But because there is blatant sex discrimination, and only homosexuals and bisexuals are adversely affected by it, then it does turn into a a discrimination of homo and bi-sexuals. But a discrimination based on sex.


Yes, it is.


No, it is not. You can marry a woman, and I cannot. That is not equal.


Because it violated equal protection.


It has to do with changing the current definition.


Yes. The ban is based on gender/sex and gender/sex alone. Revoking that ban due to it's blatant discrimination based on sex is the only argument and the only recourse.

Riv, I see an awful lot of "because I said so" here, and you're arguing a position few take. You may disagree with the positions they do take, but they take them nonetheless. The judge ruled on discrimination against sexual orientation. He did.

Look, it's certainly fine to disagree with the prevailing winds, and it's certainly fine to make your own novel argument. But this notion of yours that not only is your argument the only possible one, and thus, everyone who is for same-sex marriage must hold that position, is just plain baffling and not what I have come to expect from you.
 
The U.S. Constitution gives the courts the authority to interpret which actions are rights. So courts can change that.
If a state does not create the legal institution of marriage, then it doesnt exist. This necessarily precludes the notion of marriage being a right, as rights are not created or granted by states.
If you were right, then a state could not repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the institution of marriage; that states can do this any time they want proves that you are wrong.

Marriage began as a private contract between families, with the male taking the economic burden of an unemployable female in exchange for the dowry and the opportunity to father legitimate heirs and assistants for his estates. It therefore falls into all the rights entailing business and privacy. The state perceived a use for it and incorporated into its plans. Marriage's status as a private contract is ascendant over the state's uses for it.
None of this changes or reduces anythnig I said - the issue is marriage as a legal institution as defined and recognized by the state.
 
It doesnt matter how many times your petulance forces you post this - the fact is that everyone suffers the same restrictions and enjoys the same privileges under the law, and thus, there is no disctimination.

Everyone does not suffer the same restrictions. YOU can marry a woman. That is not the same restriction that I have since I can NOT marry a woman.


EDIT: If we had a ban stating that no person can marry someone of another race, that would still violate the equal protection clause and due process. Even if it did apply to everyone. It would be racial discrimination.
 
Last edited:
If a state does not create the legal institution of marriage, then it doesnt exist. This necessarily precludes the notion of marriage being a right, as rights are not created or granted by states.
If you were right, then a state could not repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the institution of marriage; that states can do this any time they want proves that you are wrong.

First of all, marriage is a single institution, with aspects that are cultural, economic, and legal in nature.

Secondly, the states can't do that constitutionally. They can reduce entitlements for future marriage contracts, but they can't even dissolve previously existing contracted entitlements, let alone the contract of marriage in its entirety. Its against a bunch of federal rulings and laws to dissolve contracts like that. I would imagine they wouldn't be allowed suspend the institution of marriage either, unless they allowed it to be privatized, but that's never happened, so it is speculative. But the none of the 50 states can outlaw marriages without violating the U.S. Constitution. Extricate themselves, sure, if they follow the established protocols, but they can't get rid of the institution anymore than they can get rid of religious institutions, partially because marriage is a function of those institutions.

None of this changes or reduces anythnig I said - the issue is marriage as a legal institution as defined and recognized by the state.

Being defined by the state doesn't make it a privilege. Rights are defined and recognized by the state as well.
 
Last edited:
Riv, I see an awful lot of "because I said so" here, and you're arguing a position few take. You may disagree with the positions they do take, but they take them nonetheless. The judge ruled on discrimination against sexual orientation. He did.
Discrimination against sexual orientation due to the discrimination based on gender. Were it not for the gender discrimination, there wouldn't BE any issue with the sexual orientation.

Look, it's certainly fine to disagree with the prevailing winds, and it's certainly fine to make your own novel argument. But this notion of yours that not only is your argument the only possible one, and thus, everyone who is for same-sex marriage must hold that position, is just plain baffling and not what I have come to expect from you.

LMFAO This is not a novel argument. It all comes down to gender. I'd love for you to explain how it does not come down to gender when homosexuals and bisexuals are not prevented from marrying.
 
First of all, marriage is a single institution, with aspects that are cultural, economic, and legal in nature.
The only relevant portion of this is the legal institution.

Secondly, the states can't do that constitutionally. They can reduce entitlements for future marriage contracts, but they can't even dissolve previously existing contracted entitlements,
They proibably cannot eliminate current marriages, but they CAN repeal the laws that allow marraiges to be created in the state, they CAN eliminate the legal recongition of a marriage, and they can repeal the legal benefits provided by the state to those who are married.

I would imagine they wouldn't be allowed suspend the institution of marriage either...
Based on what? Nothing requires the states to provide befenfits to married couples, allow people to enjoy marriage as a legal institution or recognize that couples are married, and as such, nothing can prevent their repeal.

Being defined by the state doesn't make it a privilege.
Being CREATED and GRANTED by the state, does. Thus, privilege.
 
Last edited:
Everyone does not suffer the same restrictions.
They do.
None can marry the same gender. All can marry the opposite gender.
Thus, same for everyone.
 
They do.
None can marry the same gender. All can marry the opposite gender.
Thus, same for everyone.

Yeah, sure. No one being allowed to marry outside their own race wouldn't be discrimination or a violation of equal protection either, eh? :roll:

Give me a ****ing break. It is not the same for everyone, no matter how many times you repeat it.
 
Discrimination against sexual orientation due to the discrimination based on gender. Were it not for the gender discrimination, there wouldn't BE any issue with the sexual orientation.

I'm sorry. That's just not what he said.



LMFAO This is not a novel argument.

It's novel in the sense that you're one of the few using at as your argument -- and your SOLE argument.


It all comes down to gender. I'd love for you to explain how it does not come down to gender when homosexuals and bisexuals are not prevented from marrying.

I can see many arguments in favor of any kind of social construct having absolutely nothing to do with gender, easily, no question. You can't?
 
Yeah, sure. No one being allowed to marry outside their own race wouldn't be discrimination or a violation of equal protection either, eh?
Non sequitur. Try again.
 
Non sequitur. Try again.

Incorrect. Banning of interracial marriage would be a violation of equal protection even if it did apply to everyone. It would be racial discrimination. So, even if one were to buy your incessant mantra about all things are equal since no one can marry someone of the same gender, it is not so. It is still a violation of equal protection, and still discrimination.

It logically follows. Feel free to show how it doesn't. Unless you think banning interracial marriage, or inter-faith marriages somehow wouldn't be discrimination and would be "equality".
 
The only relevant portion of this is the legal institution.


They proibably cannot eliminate current marriages, but they CAN repeal the laws that allow marraiges to be created in the state, they CAN eliminate the legal recongition of a marriage, and they can repeal the legal benefits provided by the state to those who are married.


Based on what? Nothing requires the states to provide befenfits to married couples, allow people to enjoy marriage as a legal institution or recognize that couples are married, and as such, nothing can prevent their repeal.


Being CREATED and GRANTED by the state, does. Thus, privilege.

Marriage was never granted by the State. It was usurped by the State. Our forefathers, who wrote our Constitution, never had to get a license. they just got married.
 
Marriage was never granted by the State. It was usurped by the State.
So you'd then have no problem if any and every state law regarding the legal institution of marriage to just disappeared...? If that happpened, I wonder what % of homosexual couples who now seek do so would bother getting married?

That aside, the legal aspects of marriage were, by definition, gratned by the state.
 
Banning of interracial marriage would be a violation of equal protection even if it did apply to everyone.
Race is considered under higher levels of scrutiny than either gender or sexual orientation - so even at best the two aren't directly comparable under equal protection. Add to that the fact that gender has long been associated with marriage in this country whereas race has not, and the analogy comes up short.
 
Race is considered under higher levels of scrutiny than either gender or sexual orientation - so even at best the two aren't directly comparable under equal protection.
Yes, they are comparable. Just because in the past women had it worse than blacks in some ways doesn't make it right.

Add to that the fact that gender has long been associated with marriage in this country whereas race has not, and the analogy comes up short.
And it's time for that to change. The fact that the discrimination has been going on longer doesn't make it any less wrong.
 
Gay marriage is legal in Cali. The American people don't care. Only the fundamentalist Christian and Muslim minorities have a real problem with it, yet they're both just immoral wacko groups who have no relevance in the lifes of average Americans.

It's a done deal, get over it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are comparable.
The point was that they aren't directly comparable. Race is treated differently under equal protection law than either sex or sexual orientation. One cannot automatically assume that something deemed unconstutional for racial discrimination must also be unconstitutional for discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation.
 
Irrelevant - my statement that not every person is guaranteed every privilege offered by a state is sound.

Irrelevant, and circular, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.
 
:roll: No. It's an anlysis of the equal protection argument. Not why I'm against -- or for -- anything. In order for there to BE an equal protection argument, there has be a class of individuals who are denied something on the basis of something about that class of individuals. In this case, the argument is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.

There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage. And you are correct that the basis of that discrimination is sexual preference. What you are failing to realize is that you are mentioning your belief in sexuality not being a requirement for marriage as if that somehow makes it okay to discriminate when it comes to the privilege of marriage, when the 14th Amendment specifically mentions that it is not okay to do so. I'm not sure how you are able to misinterpret the Amendment in such a manner, when it's plain as day. The lawyers in the case won by using exactly that.


:What you're not getting is that you're wrong about what the argument is. The argument is, as I said, about discrimination against homosexuality.

Again, what you are failing to understand is where, exactly, your argument is going wrong. I don't mean from an opinion standpoint - you are free to believe in the moon being made of green cheese, or anything else you wish, on this messageboard, your personal life, or wherever you want to. However, a court of law is an entirely different story, and your opinion about sexuality, exclusion, and the 14th Amendment lost.

:But if you want to insist that it's NOT about homosexuality at all, and only about the basis of it being against the same gender, then you fully concede that there IS NO equal protection argument, because the law then applies to EVERYONE exactly the same. NO ONE can marry the same gender, regardless of ANYTHING. The law is fully equally-applied.

No. There is most definitely an equal protection argument here. You're close to understanding it here; you mention that the law applies to everyone the same. Take that thought, and then ask yourself if, given that we have two groups of people in this example - heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - and ask yourself if the law applies the same to both. If you say "yes", perfect! You now understand that there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage based on ANY arbitrary thing such as sexuality. Because you said it yourself - sexuality isn't a requirement for marriage, making it arbitrary.


:Because in order to argue that something is being denied to someone, you have to define exactly what it is which is being denied, as well as the basis on which it's being denied. The only chance the equal protection argument has to succeed is if that which is being denied is based on something intrinsic about the individuals it's being denied to. In this case, the argument is that it's their sexuality.

No, you're still not getting it. We do have something being denied to someone - in this case, homosexuals. We do know why it is being denied - belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that marriage is exactly what they want to include themselves into as a couple, and since there is NO reason to exclude them, and they are citizens of the United States, the 14th Amendment addresses this issue. You can't just say "sexuality is not a requirement for marriage", because that makes it arbitrary, and no reason for exclusion. In order to exclude homosexual couples, there has to be an ironclad reason. "Sexuality is not a requirement for marriage" offers no such reason, as there are plenty of things that are not a requirement for marriage. Liking carrots, for instance, or owning a car. All of these things are arbitrary and no reason to exclude same sex couples from the institution.

:But if sexuality isn't a necessary part of marriage, and it is not, then the equal protection argument fails.

No. The 14th Amendment is very specific on the privilege. And since opponents love to label marriage as a privilege, then there you have it.


::roll: No. The conversation I'm having with YOU, very specifically, was an analysis of the equal protection argument. We're not discussing anything other than that.

And yet somehow, we are still getting a disconnect. I'm not sure why you think sexuality is the perfect reason for exclusion and not applying the 14th Amendment when i've already addressed that an umpteenth amount of times.

::roll: This is what I have been arguing. I assumed you actually understood how an analysis of equal protection works.

I understand perfectly. I'm having a difficult time understanding why you don't, which is why I am arguing with you.


:In order for marriage laws to discriminate against homosexuality, which is what the argument says, then sexuality MUST be a necessary component of marriage in order for there to be an equal protection violation. Look, it's as simple as that. You cannot argue that homosexuals are discriminated against if homosexuality isn't a necessary component of the law. If I were you, I'd learn more about how to argue equal protection.

No. Once again you are failing to realize that there is discrimination going on here. Homosexual couples can not get married? Why? If there was no discrimination, then they would be able to tie the knot with one another. And given the literal wording of the 14th Amendment, they can. Unfortunately you keep applying sexuality as some nebulous reason to discriminate that supersedes the 14th Amendment, which is not correct. I don't know what else to tell you, here. You're arguing in circles. Is there anything that I can explain further to help you understand where you are making the mistake? I'm not trying to belittle your argument, but maybe it's because it's just so readily apparent to me that i'm overlooking something in my explanation.

:So, you're going to have to decide what you're actually arguing here. It can't be not about homosexuality and about homosexuality at the same time.

The argument has always been about gay marriage and equal protection. I think the disconnect came in when you attempted to apply sexuality as some sort of argument against equal protection, which didn't make any sense. I'm sure you are trying to make a good point, but from what i'm reading, it's not clear why anyone would even think that offers a relative argument against the 14th Amendment here.

In any case, if you are against gay marriage, and you believe that this is an adequate defense, then maybe you email your opinion to a few anti-gay marriage organizations in the hopes that they see things the way you do, and maybe offer up some resistance to same same marriage in the courts. Good luck.
 
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.

Such as?

Further, there are any number of examples of states not having to recognize a privilege offered by another state if the state in question does not offer the same privilege - for instance, Illinois does not have to recognize my OH CCW permit - a privilege granted to me by the state of OH. Further, under your argument, OH (and every other state that has one) could never repeal the law that grants me that privilege, meaning that OH (and every other state that has one) will always have its current CCW permit system.

Your argument is not sound. A state can repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the legal instititon of marrage, and no court can stop it. Thus, marriage is unquestionably a privilege.

Specifics are everything here. Does Illinois offer their own? Is there something that would be unfairly denied to you by not allowing you to have such a permit in Illinois? What are the differences between the two permits if you can get one permit in one state and not the other? 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?

Your argument may not be correct, but on the assumption that some of this is getting through, then such discussion is a good thing.
 
There is a class of individuals denied something here - marriage. And you are correct that the basis of that discrimination is sexual preference. What you are failing to realize is that you are mentioning your belief in sexuality not being a requirement for marriage as if that somehow makes it okay to discriminate when it comes to the privilege of marriage, when the 14th Amendment specifically mentions that it is not okay to do so. I'm not sure how you are able to misinterpret the Amendment in such a manner, when it's plain as day. The lawyers in the case won by using exactly that.




Again, what you are failing to understand is where, exactly, your argument is going wrong. I don't mean from an opinion standpoint - you are free to believe in the moon being made of green cheese, or anything else you wish, on this messageboard, your personal life, or wherever you want to. However, a court of law is an entirely different story, and your opinion about sexuality, exclusion, and the 14th Amendment lost.



No. There is most definitely an equal protection argument here. You're close to understanding it here; you mention that the law applies to everyone the same. Take that thought, and then ask yourself if, given that we have two groups of people in this example - heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - and ask yourself if the law applies the same to both. If you say "yes", perfect! You now understand that there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage based on ANY arbitrary thing such as sexuality. Because you said it yourself - sexuality isn't a requirement for marriage, making it arbitrary.




No, you're still not getting it. We do have something being denied to someone - in this case, homosexuals. We do know why it is being denied - belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, what you are failing to realize is that marriage is exactly what they want to include themselves into as a couple, and since there is NO reason to exclude them, and they are citizens of the United States, the 14th Amendment addresses this issue. You can't just say "sexuality is not a requirement for marriage", because that makes it arbitrary, and no reason for exclusion. In order to exclude homosexual couples, there has to be an ironclad reason. "Sexuality is not a requirement for marriage" offers no such reason, as there are plenty of things that are not a requirement for marriage. Liking carrots, for instance, or owning a car. All of these things are arbitrary and no reason to exclude same sex couples from the institution.



No. The 14th Amendment is very specific on the privilege. And since opponents love to label marriage as a privilege, then there you have it.




And yet somehow, we are still getting a disconnect. I'm not sure why you think sexuality is the perfect reason for exclusion and not applying the 14th Amendment when i've already addressed that an umpteenth amount of times.



I understand perfectly. I'm having a difficult time understanding why you don't, which is why I am arguing with you.




No. Once again you are failing to realize that there is discrimination going on here. Homosexual couples can not get married? Why? If there was no discrimination, then they would be able to tie the knot with one another. And given the literal wording of the 14th Amendment, they can. Unfortunately you keep applying sexuality as some nebulous reason to discriminate that supersedes the 14th Amendment, which is not correct. I don't know what else to tell you, here. You're arguing in circles. Is there anything that I can explain further to help you understand where you are making the mistake? I'm not trying to belittle your argument, but maybe it's because it's just so readily apparent to me that i'm overlooking something in my explanation.



The argument has always been about gay marriage and equal protection. I think the disconnect came in when you attempted to apply sexuality as some sort of argument against equal protection, which didn't make any sense. I'm sure you are trying to make a good point, but from what i'm reading, it's not clear why anyone would even think that offers a relative argument against the 14th Amendment here.

In any case, if you are against gay marriage, and you believe that this is an adequate defense, then maybe you email your opinion to a few anti-gay marriage organizations in the hopes that they see things the way you do, and maybe offer up some resistance to same same marriage in the courts. Good luck.

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.)

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.
 
Irrelevant, and circular, as minors are an example of legal emancipation.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom