I find it ironic that many conservatives are all for invading other countries under the guise of spreading democracy, bringing freedom from oppression, but when it comes to an issue like gay marriage, those same conservatives tend to overlook the dangerous precedent for oppression that the gay marriage issue can set.
And yes, I believe the decision on gay marriage goes far beyond the issue itself; it is about legal precedent.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You’re quick to point out that sexual orientation is not race, and that sexual orientation is not religion, therefore they are not analogous.
Yet sexual orientation is not multiple partners, nor is sexual orientation age. What makes these more analogous than race or religion?[/quote]
Because all three are measured by the same standard under the constitution - rational basis. Religion and race are not.
Race and religion have always had heightened protection. Read up.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
You have horrible reasoning and you do not know the law well enough to post on the matter.
Race is not in a “different” class. Race and sexual orientation are both protected classes (one of the 7) that cannot be discriminated against.[/quote]
Good Lord.
Laws affecting race are subject to strict scrutiny, the heighest form of review under Equal Protection. Sexual orientation is not subject to this review, and never has been. Most assuredly, race and sexual orientation are “different” classes.
And, bozo, sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level.
This topic, strangely, brings out the idiots. I have no idea why.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
You have horrible reasoning and you do not know the law well enough to post on the matter.
Race is not in a “different” class. Race and sexual orientation are both protected classes (one of the 7) that cannot be discriminated against.[/quote]
Good Lord.
Laws affecting race are subject to strict scrutiny, the heighest form of review under Equal Protection. Sexual orientation is not subject to this review, and never has been. Most assuredly, race and sexual orientation are “different” classes.
And, bozo, sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level.
This topic, strangely, brings out the idiots. I have no idea why.[/quote]
My mistake. Sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level, but can be at the state level and even county (I believe).
It does bring out the idiots: you have been the most vocal.
Please tell us why discrimination based on sexual orientation is “different” that discrimination based on race. Please.
And don’t say some stupid shit like, “I don’t have the patience to explain to fools like you.” That’s the worst kind of cop out.
Explain your logic.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Laws routinely assume that one category of “people” or “things” are superior to another and there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it. It only becomes unconstitutional when the categorizations are based in arbitrariness or ill motive or are otherwise irrational. [/quote]
Doesn’t “arbitrariness” therefore apply when people state that a law should be uphold their religious values, because religious values vary widely based on the fact that we have multiple religions (and non-religions: atheism, agnosticism) ?
And the judge’s argument that moral disapproval should not be the basis for law is correct.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
My mistake. Sexual orientation is not a protected class at the federal level, but can be at the state level and even county (I believe).
It does bring out the idiots: you have been the most vocal.[/quote]
Wait, let’s get this right - you wander in and get every single fact wrong in your post, and then you want to call someone else an idiot? Hilarious.
Because race has been given heightened protection in the constitution via the Reconstruction amendments, the Supreme Court and enacted federal law. It’s a fact - it isn’t my opinion, chuckles. Read up:
These classes are “different”, and have always been.
Let me guess - you have no idea about the various levels of protection under the Constitution for various classes, do you? You simply have no clue - I’m right, aren’t I?
Wouldn’t it just be better if you go learn the basic facts before blabbering incorrect information and then demanding that someone else explain to what you should already know before you open your mouth and declare such things as “race and sexual orientation are no different!!!” and “you don’t know anything about the law!!!”?
I’m embarrassed for you at this point.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Doesn’t “arbitrariness” therefore apply when people state that a law should be uphold their religious values, because religious values vary widely based on the fact that we have multiple religions (and non-religions: atheism, agnosticism) ?[/quote]
Uh, no - that wouldn’t arbitrary because it would have a basis in fact, and those values (whichever way they go) will be reflected in majoritarian politics. Your hypothetical doesn’t even make sense.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Oldman Powers wrote:
The Judge is Gay.
Not that there’s anything “wrong” with it.[/quote]
And the judge was first appointed by REAGAN and then by GEORGE BUSH SR., not that there’s anything “wrong” with that.
I’m referring to the “leftist nut job conspiracy” that Rush Limbaugh spouted. Stupid fucking radio red neck. I hope he drops dead…like, yesterday.
The state should recognize all unions as “domestic partnerships” that can qualify for certain benefits, whereas each individual church should be allowed to bless a partnership as a “marriage” or not.
Then, everyone should shut the hell up, gays and religious heteros alike.
[/quote]
Sorry Ponce. I don’t listen to Limbaugh so I have no idea what you are talking about. And as far as the judge appointment by Reagan and confirmed by Bush, that’s irrelevant unless you subscribe to the liberal media’s “defense” of his decision. My take is that he, like many other Judges, had an opportunity to further a personal agenda and he took it.
I might be OK with your proposal for “domestic partnerships” but haven’t thought it through.
You raise an interesting question about the difference between racial discrimination and gay discrimination. The gay agenda has brainwashed you like millions of others. They want equal footing on the discrimination front.
The reality is that racial discrimination is based on the whole person. That is, their genetic makeup whereas gay discrimination is only against a behavior, not the whole person.
Light years difference. Huge.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
In the future, if the people decide to ban a religion from their state, say for example Islam, then don’t you think it’s the supreme courts responsibility to uphold the constitution and overturn that law? [/quote]
Yes, it is, and the constitution expressly addresses religion in the First Amendment. This was a dumb and irrelevant question, since religion is not the same thing under the constitution and never has been.
No, it isn’t and never has been. Laws routinely assume that one category of “people” or “things” are superior to another and there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about it. It only becomes unconstitutional when the categorizations are based in arbitrariness or ill motive or are otherwise irrational. There is no credible showing that a law privileging traditional marriage over other forms of marriage is “irrational” (despite the very poor defense of the law in the case). We decided long ago that alternative forms of marriage are inferior to traditional marriage, and it was perfectly constitutional then (and is so now).
If it is unconstitutional “now”, then all forms of privileging traditional marriage “then” are “now” unconstitutional under the same principle, and that is an absurd conclusion, unless you happen to think that bans on polygamy are “now” unconstitutional.
Here’s the thing - “unconstitutional” has never meant “stuff I don’t like or think is unfair”. When you say “that is 100% unconstitutional”, have a clue as to what you are talking about.[/quote]
Your argument is a lot of talk, but the simple fact of the matter is that I have no burden of proof for my argument, I stand by the supreme courts ruling 100%. I don’t have to show “that a law privileging traditional marriage over other forms of marriage is “irrational””. Where you, as a matter of fact, have the burden of proof in showing why a ban on gay marriage is even remotely rational. You are quite mixed up indeed.
All laws must have a rational purpose. Since it is not me but you that is on the defense, tell me why a ban on gay marriage is rational at all.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Since it is not me but you that is on the defense, tell me why a ban on gay marriage is rational at all.
[/quote]
Is there one?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The shallow individualistic, “I’m an island, your an island, individuals of the next generation will be islands,” line of thinking needs to die the true death. Man hasn’t been, isn’t, and never will be an island.[/quote]
I say it needs to be expanded. We would be a lot better off if people would just mind their own fucking business.
[/quote]
It has been expanded. And it’s exactly what’s turning around and biting the liberaltarian in the ass.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You’re quick to point out that sexual orientation is not race, and that sexual orientation is not religion, therefore they are not analogous.
Yet sexual orientation is not multiple partners, nor is sexual orientation age. What makes these more analogous than race or religion?[/quote]
Because all three are measured by the same standard under the constitution - rational basis. Religion and race are not.
Race and religion have always had heightened protection. Read up.[/quote]
What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Because race has been given heightened protection in the constitution via the Reconstruction amendments, the Supreme Court and enacted federal law. It’s a fact - it isn’t my opinion, chuckles.
[/quote]
the act of discriminating against someone based on race or sexual preference is the same. how we protect it is different.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa[/quote]
Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
right decision. I for one believe in civil rights.[/quote]
I’m sure you believe in the destruction of community as well?[/quote]
I have yet to understand how gay marriage destroys anything. I could argue that it has the opposite affect. At a time when divorce rates are high, having a marginalized group fight hard for the right to be married suggests that marriage just might be a valuable thing. I, for one, cannot even contemplate how gay marriage would devalue my own marriage for the simple reason that I define the importance of my marriage by my own standards, not anyone else’s.[/quote]
The shallow individualistic, “I’m an island, your an island, individuals of the next generation will be islands,” line of thinking needs to die the true death. Man hasn’t been, isn’t, and never will be an island. This kind of thought has pretty much rolled out every cultural degradation responible for the already sad state of marriage. The ability to even debate this issue, as if wasn’t anything but a farce, is not an indication of marriage’s attractiveness and vitality. It’s a friggen symptom of how deep of a hole we’ve already dug for ourselves. And you folks just insist you’re going to keep on digging. [/quote]
This is just rhetoric and nothing else. Explain with facts and evidence how gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage and I will oppose it. Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air in an attempt to justify the fact that you find homosexuality disgusting. Hey, I understand. I’m not into the gay thing either - never have, never will be - and I don’t understand how someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex. And because I don’t understand why someone would be gay is precisely why I am completely not threatened by the idea of gays getting married. I simply don’t care - it doesn’t affect me one bit.
Perhaps you feel that the option of gay marriage might cause someone to rethink their heterosexuality and “switch sides,” become gay, and opt for that life as opposed to entering into a heterosexual marriage. You may see this as a negative - I say, GOOD! If someone can be so easily persuaded to change their sexual orientation then I would seriously question whether they have any business to be getting married and raising kids to begin with. You see, I don’t live in a happy world. To be blunt, there are people out there who have no business having children. If they choose another option, so much the better. [/quote]
How do you even ask me this? You yourself depend on gay marriage cheapening state recognition of the institution. You want government out of the business of incentivizing marriage, and you’ve admitted as much. Now you’re going to pretend you want a broadening of of government action for the sake of ‘gay marriage’ itself? How about for the polyamorous? How about for the non-sexually involved? Oh yes, it’s none of our business what the never-to-be-consummated bride, groom, groom, and groom do in the sack. Even if it’s nothing.
What, you ask me, will be the consequences? How about turning the institution into a damn joke? How about defining it so broadly it pretty much has no definition, therefore, no prestige? No place on a pedestal in society to be aspired to? Hey, let’s open up government drive thru windows, where even the single man can have his status changed to partnerless “married,” therefore claiming his ‘right.’ What the hell is government doing discriminating between lifestyles, after all!
We have enough problems already with our culture and the institution of marriage. All created by the “it’s none of my business” brigade. Sorry if I want get off the van. But hey, keep preaching the abolishment of the nanny state while ignoring the moral decay, the decay of traditional social institutions, etc. You’re spinning your wheels because you haven’t made the connection. True socialists must love you guys.
So hey, let’s just define marriage as a right to a stamped, sealed, and approved title. Or, maybe the purpose of state recognized marriage is simply to hand out ‘marriage benefits’ for the sake of handing out ‘benefits’ to whoever/whatever claims their rights. Forget that though, let’s cut to the chase. We could remove the word single from any all documentation. US citizens would all have the right to the same status, married. There, everyone’s married and making use of whatever applies to them.
Or, are you a bigot who’d deny all other forms of relationship and association a pretty little ‘marriage’ license? Nah, you’re enlightned. So, if Tom, Jim, Charlotte, and Peggy Sue and about 5 others want their claim to the marriage right, how’s it harm your marriage, right? Don’t dare say that was absurd, because you can’t object to any arrangement between consenting adults. Unless their association exists for the purpose breaking into your home, I suppose.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa[/quote]
Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
[/quote]
Really? Who says being attracted to religion is any more of a choice than sexual orientation? Some of our atheist members have delighted in the possibility of God Spots, and such. A sort of evolutionary survival mechanism us non-brights are still enslaved to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…What qualifies race and religion to have heightened protection?..”
The most obvious reason is that throughout history and even today…some of the worst atrocities committed by humans against other humans have been because of another’s race and/or what their religious beliefs are.
Mufasa[/quote]
Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t.
[/quote]
Really? Who says religion is any more of a choice than sexual orientation? Some of our atheist members have delighted in the possibility of God Spots, and such. A sort of evolutionary survival mechanism us non-brights are still enslaved to.[/quote]
Want to prove to me how religion isn’t a choice? I have a Jewish mother and a Baptist father. What does that make me?
There are a lot of atheist bashers on this site.
We all seem to pick our religious poison or pleasure.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The following is from an above link:
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll simply ask: Is there a constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis as he claims? If so, does that impact the “rational basis” argument? If so, how? Further, you seem to have advanced a “rational basis” for the argument, but, by the wording of this anyway, he is claiming that prop 8 fails to do so. Does prop 8 do so? Does it need to? Again, I’m no lawyer, so I guess I’m asking for someone who is to explain the process a bit here. [/quote]
No, there is not a constitutional right to marriage as he states it - that is not what Loving v. Virginia states. New York’s court of appeals has dealt with this attempted justification, and it deserves quoting:
Plaintiffs’ reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, which precluded “any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian” (id. at 5 n 4), violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovingsâ??a white man and a black womanâ??had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States,” the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification” (id. at 10, 11). It made clear “that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause” (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendmentâ??to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)â??a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (id. [emphasis added]). Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.
Hernandez v. Robles.
Moreover, there has never been an overarching “right” to marriage as defined by anyone - the “right” to marriage (which cannot be restricted by invidious discrimination) only exists to marriage as it is defined - which is why age restrictions and restrictions against polygamy are not unconstitutional.
No, this judge had to reach to get to his conclusions. Proof? In his findings of fact, he doesn’t “find” a single “fact” presented in favor of the defendant’s argument. Not one.
As for the result and California, it isn’t really surprising, and what is interesting is how exactly a plebiscite referendum is defended when it is challenged - who is the defendant? Certain interest groups certainly stepped up, but the vote was determined by California voters on a referendum ballot. Who defends the law? It’s quirky, but certainly because the state itself backed out (as it should have, it’s really not their law), it affected the outcome.
This is the worst aspect of all - people genuinely believe that a court should simply generate policy conclusions that they want no matter how it arrives that conclusion. If someone thinks gay marriage is a great idea, it wouldn’t (and doesn’t) matter if the court gets it right as a matter of law - it only matters that they got their way.
I’ve seen this on both sides of the aisle, but certainly the Left is far more guilty, as they have no pretenses about thinking courts should be agents of “progress”, especially when certain “progressive” ideas continue to fail in the arena of democratic politics.
The 9th Circuit - a notably wacky appeals court - may not overrule this decision, but the Supreme Court, I’d suspect, most certainly will.
And, of course, the great irony is that continuing to have this policy commanded from courts only hardens the opposition against it - even people sympathetic to the idea don’t like the “top down” paternalism of courts mandating gay marriage. If courts keep mandating it, expect to see more and more support for amendments to overturn the judges’s decisions - and fitfully, the gay marriage movement, by pressing this through the courts instead of the legislature, will continue undermine their own efforts.[/quote]
Thanks for the response.