[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why can’t they ban inter-racial marriage?[/quote]
Because race is in a different class, both as a matter of precedent and history.
And heterosexual marriage is not and has never been enacted in law to punish or otherwise marginalize non-heterosexuals - i.e., there is no invidious motive.
[/quote]
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Lets rearrange some words here…[/quote]
You can’t - race is treated differently as a matter of law (strict scrutiny versus rational basis).
Just because (so cleverly) exchanged one phrase to try and make apples like oranges, what you typed is neither factually nor historically correct. Miscegenation was most certainly used to marginalize blacks.
Of course.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Preserving a traditional social institution designed to order child-creation, child-raising, taming and civilizing the sexual relationships of men, orderly disposition of property and encouraging the preferred and better form of family in Western civilization.
[/quote]
Ya know, I’m not sure I agree that the nuclear family is the better form (as opposed to extended family units).
Care to make a case for it? Or should we take that to a new thread?
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
the entire movement behind prop 8 was to marginalize gays. you must not be from CA, if you had seen how prop 8 was pushed, you would know. creating a law saying “only these people can get married” completely marginalizes everyone else, theres no amount of acrobatics to get around that.[/quote]
Incorrect - Prop 8 reaffirmed traditional marriage, which had been in existence long before California. Prop 8 was not designed to hurt anyone - it was designed to reconstitute a policy that had been enacted with no bad faith involved.
Marriage has been around a long time, and it was never - repeat, never - enacted to inflict any kind of harm or unfairness on non-heterosexuals. It as designed to reinforce, in law, a cultural institution that already existed to promote a number of social goods.
Reversing a reversal of this institution is not an act with an invidious motive - that’s just idiotic.
If you’re right and I’m wrong, tell me, what consenting adult relationship isn’t eligible for mariage?
And, you miss the most important part of all - voters in California decided that certain forms of marriage are, in fact, “unequal”, and they are perftectly entitled to under a rational basis test.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.[/quote]
Well, dipshit, “intent” matters for a rational basis test. The policy without a doubt treats one class of citizens differently than others - that isn’t the question. The question is “is there a rational basis to treat them differently?”, and if there is no invidious motive - i.e., no desire to “be mean” to a class of individuals - then rational basis is a very, very low threshold for a legislature to satisfy.
There is a reason for this - if this isn’t the case, you have one judge invalidating the will of the people over “what feels right”. That’s what happened in California today.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.[/quote]
Well, dipshit,
[/quote]
Not reading another word. Disregard my other post, I have no interest in further communication with you.
Goodbye, dipshit.
The question is not “what do I think the right policy is?”. The only question that matters is "can a lawmaking body rationally decide to pass such a law [and I am going to bold this part] whether I think it is the right policy or not?
Many of you simply agree with the decision because it generated a political result you think “right”. That isn’t the standard - at least, it shouldn’t be.
If you read the opinion, you’ll see the court offers no real justification for Prop 8 failing the rational basis test - it just affirms in a conclusory manner that California didn’t have a rational reason. This decision is headed nowhere fast.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ya know, I’m not sure I agree that the nuclear family is the better form (as opposed to extended family units).[/quote]
But you see, you’ve made my point for me - whether we agree or disagree on whether a nuclear family is the “better form” is irrelevant…what matters is a reasonable person could, in fact, rationally conclude that it is, even if you disagree. You are asking for a rational argument, and I could most certainly give you one, and you could most certainly give me one for extended family.
Two different conclusions, both rational. There is the key.
If so…valid law.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Not reading another word. Disregard my other post, I have no interest in further communication with you.
Goodbye, dipshit.[/quote]
My fault, you didn’t deserve that - my lack of patience was with other posters, not you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect - Prop 8 reaffirmed traditional marriage, which had been in existence long before California. Prop 8 was not designed to hurt anyone - it was designed to reconstitute a policy that had been enacted with no bad faith involved.[/quote]
Marriage may have started with no bad faith involved but to say that prop 8 or any other law against who can or cannot get married had no bad faith involved is ignorant. I question what legitimate government interest there is in denying gays to marry. and what is traditional marriage anyways?
[quote]rageradios wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Incorrect - Prop 8 reaffirmed traditional marriage, which had been in existence long before California. Prop 8 was not designed to hurt anyone - it was designed to reconstitute a policy that had been enacted with no bad faith involved.[/quote]
Marriage may have started with no bad faith involved but to say that prop 8 or any other law against who can or cannot get married had no bad faith involved is ignorant. I question what legitimate government interest there is in denying gays to marry. and what is traditional marriage anyways?[/quote]
It involves letting the king fuck your wife, I think…
[quote]formerfatboy wrote:
The only say government should have in marriage is that you can’t be wed to more than one person(consenting adult). Government should get out of granting marriage licenses and giving tax advantages to married couples. That is the whole basis of why gays feel discriminated against. Government stops rewarding people for any marriage at all, problem solved.
Marriage should be between you, your spouse and you religious beliefs.
[/quote]
Your statement is where I stand, but there needs to be some sort of protection for the, I can not find the PC words to say, female in the relationship. You can not split up, and the one who was the bread winner take off with all the money leaving the other individual to fend for themselves. I feel this way in heterosexual marriages also. Maybe there can be a legal contract or something.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But it does marginalize non-heterosexuals, regardless of if that is/was the intent.[/quote]
Well, dipshit,
[/quote]
Not reading another word. Disregard my other post, I have no interest in further communication with you.
Goodbye, dipshit.[/quote]
This coming from a guy throwing around name calling in the Christian threads? You did apologize for the worst of all the names so I will give you a little credit.
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
what’s the big deal . . . gay men have the exact same right that I do - they can marry any woman that will have them . . . . completely fair![/quote]
RFLMAO. This was so out of left field. I am crying I am laughing so hard.
Good ruling. There is only one objection to gay marriage. It’s the “my imaginary friend doesn’t like gay marriage, shell fish, or mixed fiber clothing and since I really like shrimp and cotton poly blends I’m fighting this gay thing to the end. Maybe that way he won’t burn me in hell forever, even though he is the one that made me, sin, and hell” objection.
TL:DR
God doesn’t like it does not trump the rights of others.
This link is relevant to your interests:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/californias-gay-marriage-ban-lacks-a-rational-basis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+(Cato+at+Liberty)&utm_content=Google+Reader
Cliff Notes:
[quote]formerfatboy wrote:
The only say government should have in marriage is that you can’t be wed to more than one person(consenting adult). Government should get out of granting marriage licenses and giving tax advantages to married couples. That is the whole basis of why gays feel discriminated against. Government stops rewarding people for any marriage at all, problem solved.
Marriage should be between you, your spouse and you religious beliefs.
[/quote]
the point of rewarding good holesome americans families is so we make more little fuckers and to increase oru family values. Did you live under a box for the last 50 years or something? jeezus.
I dont see why a gay woman and a gay man couldnt get married and have a little gay kid together, meanwhile they could also gay fuck the hell outta whoever they wanted because no one would give a shit.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
the entire movement behind prop 8 was to marginalize gays. you must not be from CA, if you had seen how prop 8 was pushed, you would know. creating a law saying “only these people can get married” completely marginalizes everyone else, theres no amount of acrobatics to get around that.[/quote]
Incorrect - Prop 8 reaffirmed traditional marriage, which had been in existence long before California. Prop 8 was not designed to hurt anyone - it was designed to reconstitute a policy that had been enacted with no bad faith involved.
Marriage has been around a long time, and it was never - repeat, never - enacted to inflict any kind of harm or unfairness on non-heterosexuals. It as designed to reinforce, in law, a cultural institution that already existed to promote a number of social goods.
Reversing a reversal of this institution is not an act with an invidious motive - that’s just idiotic.
If you’re right and I’m wrong, tell me, what consenting adult relationship isn’t eligible for mariage?
And, you miss the most important part of all - voters in California decided that certain forms of marriage are, in fact, “unequal”, and they are perftectly entitled to under a rational basis test.[/quote]
Were not talking about marriage as a tradition or social concept, but as a government contract. You can go to a church and get married without a license, that never changed. heterosexual marriage never left or went anywhere, i did not need reaffirming, especially at the waste of my tax dollars. enacting a law denying a group the benefits of their own government and tax dollars is inherently doing harm and marginalizing, not to mention unconstitutional.
heterosexual marriage doesn’t collapse when gays are allowed to marry, us straight people are pretty good at trashing our own institution of marriage on our own. the concept of heterosexual marriage was never a invidious move, youre correct, however prop 8 was. im glad its dead and its gonna stay dead.
yes us California voters are entitled to believe that rational, however are not entitled to turn that into a law. letting voters decide which consensual relationships are allowed or not…has been stricken down in history time and time again. ill move the mid east if i want a government who will allow that.
under prop 8 consenting homosexuals were not allowed to apply for government marriage licenses because prop 8 excluded them by creating a government definition of marriage. no one in California, except the prop 8 fundraisers a lot of whom are not Californians, benefited from prop 8
[quote]doogie wrote:
Poor reasoning or not, it was the right decision.
[/quote]
x2