Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[secular_freedom]

In a previous thread, I argued that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it unjustly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by restricting the freedom of homosexuals, but not heterosexuals, to marry their partners). In this thread, I will argue that proposition 8 also violates the Equal Protection in another way: by unjustly discriminating on the basis of sex. Here is the argument.

1. 
   *]If Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex, and the discrimination is unjustified, then it violates equal protection.
   *]Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex (by restricting a man’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender, and by restricting a woman’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender).
   *]The discrimination is unjustified.
   *]Therefore, Proposition 8 violates equal protection.
   
   The only real dispute here is (3), but so far, I have not seen any convincing argument to justify the sex-based discrimination. The form of the justification must specify some purported harm that same-sex marriage would cause to society. In other words, allowing same-sex marriage would cause “x, y, and z,” where “x, y, and z” are bad for society, and therefore the discrimination is justified. However, the trick is for prop 8 proponents to spell out what the “x, y,and z” consequences are and provide the evidence for them. Can anyone actually do this?

 

[gardenswithkids]

In a previous thread, I argued that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it unjustly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by restricting the freedom of homosexuals, but not heterosexuals, to marry their partners). In this thread, I will argue that proposition 8 also violates the Equal Protection in another way: by unjustly discriminating on the basis of sex. Here is the argument.

1. 
   *]If Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex, and the discrimination is unjustified, then it violates equal protection.
   *]Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex (by restricting a man’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender, and by restricting a woman’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender).
   *]The discrimination is unjustified.
   *]Therefore, Proposition 8 violates equal protection.
   
   The only real dispute here is (3), but so far, I have not seen any convincing argument to justify the sex-based discrimination. The form of the justification must specify some purported harm that same-sex marriage would cause to society. In other words, allowing same-sex marriage would cause “x, y, and z,” where “x, y, and z” are bad for society, and therefore the discrimination is justified. However, the trick is for prop 8 proponents to spell out what the “x, y,and z” consequences are and provide the evidence for them. Can anyone actually do this?

1. 
   Not true. Prop eight demands that** exactly the same** number of men and women get married. 50% and 50% across the population. It’s like making sure marriage meets certain gender quotas for the purpose of assuring sexual diversity within a family.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a few:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

massresistance.org/docs/parker/

This was never about privacy, but State sponsored indoctrination.

Instead of living with others as neighbors, a certain group had to bring the State into a forced indoctrination program.

God bless,
Ed

 

[secular_freedom]

Not true. Prop eight demands that** exactly the same** number of men and women get married. 50% and 50% across the population. It’s like making sure marriage meets certain gender quotas for the purpose of assuring sexual diversity within a family.

What’s not true? Which premise do you dispute?

 

[secular_freedom]

Here’s a few:

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

massresistance.org/docs/parker/

This was never about privacy, but State sponsored indoctrination.

Instead of living with others as neighbors, a certain group had to bring the State into a forced indoctrination program.

God bless,
Ed

Please you can point to the premise of the argument you dispute. Thanks.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This was never about privacy, but …

Yes, you raise a good point. A few years ago some people challenged the anti-sodomy laws in Texas based on “privacy”. Now they want “marriage”–and marriage is a** public** act!

 

[secular_freedom]

Garden, I’ll ask again: “What’s not true? Which premise do you dispute?”

 

[royal_archer]

In a previous thread, I argued that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it unjustly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by restricting the freedom of homosexuals, but not heterosexuals, to marry their partners). In this thread, I will argue that proposition 8 also violates the Equal Protection in another way: by unjustly discriminating on the basis of sex. Here is the argument.

1. 
   *]If Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex, and the discrimination is unjustified, then it violates equal protection.
   *]Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sex (by restricting a man’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender, and by restricting a woman’s freedom to marry a person of the same gender).
   *]The discrimination is unjustified.
   *]Therefore, Proposition 8 violates equal protection.
   
   The only real dispute here is (3), but so far, I have not seen any convincing argument to justify the sex-based discrimination. The form of the justification must specify some purported harm that same-sex marriage would cause to society. In other words, allowing same-sex marriage would cause “x, y, and z,” where “x, y, and z” are bad for society, and therefore the discrimination is justified. However, the trick is for prop 8 proponents to spell out what the “x, y,and z” consequences are and provide the evidence for them. Can anyone actually do this?

1. 
   Your premise is flawed. We do not have to show that gay unions are harmfull we just have to show that normal unions are good.
   
   There are many examples of blatant discrimination for the “public good” ranging from tax policies to eminent domain.
   
   An institution where mothers and fathers unite to raise children is inherently good. Therefore marriage was institutionalized to support this activity. There is no such bennefit to society for gay marriage.

 

[secular_freedom]

Your premise is flawed. We do not have to show that gay unions are harmfull we just have to show that normal unions are good.

There are many examples of blatant discrimination for the “public good” ranging from tax policies to eminent domain.

An institution where mothers and fathers unite to raise children is inherently good. Therefore marriage was institutionalized to support this activity. There is no such bennefit to society for gay marriage.

No, the premise is not flawed. At the very least, you need to show that there is a rational basis for not allowing gay couples to marry. What is that rational basis?

 

[royal_archer]

No, the premise is not flawed. At the very least, you need to show that there is a rational basis for not allowing gay couples to marry. What is that rational basis?

No one is stoping them from giving each other rings and having a ceremony. What you need to do is prove their is a rational reason for forcing society to recognize their “union.”

 

[gardenswithkids]

What’s not true? Which premise do you dispute?

Your first premise is false. The exact equal number of both sexes (male and female) obtain marriage liscenses under prop 8. Something split that equal between both sexes* obviously* doesn’t discriminate based on sex!

The people who discriminate based on sex are* homosexuals, *not heterosexuals who marry a member of the opposite sex. Marriage requires sexual diversity. Our marriage laws require sexual diversity. Every marriage must contain an equal number of male and female. Otherwise, it would not be sexual diverse enough.

If prop 8 doesn’t stand, California might issue marriage licenses to more rich white males in a disproportionate number.

My inner feminist wants to shout,kpeople:"Sex quotas for marriage to prevent discrimination against women!"

 

[secular_freedom]

No one is stoping them from giving each other rings and having a ceremony. What you need to do is prove their is a rational reason for forcing society to recognize their “union.”

And I provided the rational reason: prop 8 unjustly discriminates on the basis of sex and thus violates Equal Protection. If a constitutional violation is not a “rational reason” for you, then I don’t know what is.

 

[secular_freedom]

Your first premise is false. The exact equal number of both sexes (male and female) obtain marriage liscenses under prop 8. Something split that equal between both sexes* obviously* doesn’t discriminate based on sex!

First of all, you’re not disputing the first premise, but the second. Second, your contention that prop 9 doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sex is incorrect.

Under prop 8, men are permitted to do certain things that women are not permitted to do - namely, marry women. Hence, prop 8 restricts women’s freedom to marry based on sex.

Under prop 8, women are permitted to do certain things that men are not permitted to do - namely, marry men. Hence prop 8 restricts men’s freedom to marry based on sex.

Please explain how this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination

The people who discriminate based on sex are* homosexuals, *

Please provide an example of this that’s relevant to the present discussion.

 

[larkin31]

Your first premise is false. The exact equal number of both sexes (male and female) obtain marriage liscenses under prop 8. Something split that equal between both sexes* obviously* doesn’t discriminate based on sex!

The people who discriminate based on sex are* homosexuals, *not heterosexuals who marry a member of the opposite sex. Marriage requires sexual diversity. Our marriage laws require sexual diversity. Every marriage must contain an equal number of male and female. Otherwise, it would not be sexual diverse enough.

If prop 8 doesn’t stand, California might issue marriage licenses to more rich white males in a disproportionate number.

My inner feminist wants to shout,kpeople:"Sex quotas for marriage to prevent discrimination against women!"

You are not winning this argument of definitions.

I suggest that you try to argue that it is a just form of discrimination (there are many legal discriminations under the law).

But to argue that it allows everyone the same options in marriage is simply NOT true. We have simply never questioned the gender restrictions in marriage law before. But now we are. Either it is a justified restriction, or it is not.

 

[royal_archer]

And I provided the rational reason: prop 8 unjustly discriminates on the basis of sex and thus violates Equal Protection. If a constitutional violation is not a “rational reason” for you, then I don’t know what is.

No, you did not. First the proposition applies equally to men and women so the sex discrimination is a moot point. Second the government has a long standing and established history of making appointments and other legal accomodations for the common good. For instance Military officers are appointed titles and legal status that is necesary for the common good. Does that mean that anyone who is not an Officer is discriminated against? Of course not. People going around immitating Officers and trying to undermine the meaning of such positions does not help society and society has a right to not recognize those other people. A Mother and Father are recognized as a necesary element to raising children as much as a public school system. Therefore the Government has seen fit to legal recognize and license mariages. Gay unions do not provide such a bennefit to society so the government has no bennefit to licensing them.

To say that the government has no right to not grant the official title of marriage to individuals would be like saying that the government has no right to deny any title to anyone. in such a world any wannabe doctor, lawyer,notary, officer, etc, etc, etc could claim that they were being discriminated against because they were not getting the licenses they want and are not qualified to have.

 

[larkin31]

No, you did not. First the proposition applies equally to men and women so the sex discrimination is a moot point. Second the government has a long standing and established history of making appointments and other legal accomodations for the common good. For instance Military officers are appointed titles and legal status that is necesary for the common good. Does that mean that anyone who is not an Officer is discriminated against? Of course not. People going around immitating Officers and trying to undermine the meaning of such positions does not help society and society has a right to not recognize those other people. A Mother and Father are recognized as a necesary element to raising children as much as a public school system. Therefore the Government has seen fit to legal recognize and license mariages. Gay unions do not provide such a bennefit to society so the government has no bennefit to licensing them.

To say that the government has no right to not grant the official title of marriage to individuals would be like saying that the government has no right to deny any title to anyone. in such a world any wannabe doctor, lawyer,notary, officer, etc, etc, etc could claim that they were being discriminated against because they were not getting the licenses they want and are not qualified to have.

I’ll let someone else address this illogic. I am done for the night.

Let me only state that public school is not the only way that children can legally be educated. I have no idea what you were doing with that analogy. It’s education that the govt wants. There are many different approaches to it that are fully acceptable. Children can be taught by gays, by parents, by state employees. The gov’t accepts the educational child-rearing provided by any of these.

 

[secular_freedom]

No, you did not. First the proposition applies equally to men and women so the sex discrimination is a moot point.

But it does not apply equally to men and women.

Under prop 8, men are permitted to do certain things that women are not permitted to do - namely, marry women. Hence, prop 8 restricts a woman’s freedom to marry a woman, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a woman.

Under prop 8, women are permitted to do certain things that men are not permitted to do - namely, marry men. Hence prop 8 restricts a man’s freedom to marry a man, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a man.

Second the government has a long standing and established history of making appointments and other legal accomodations for the common good. For instance Military officers are appointed titles and legal status that is necesary for the common good. Does that mean that anyone who is not an Officer is discriminated against? Of course not. People going around immitating Officers and trying to undermine the meaning of such positions does not help society and society has a right to not recognize those other people.

You are confusing discrimination with "bad or unjustified discrimination.’ Yes, the government is discriminating when it gives military officers - but not others - certain titles and legal statuses.

A Mother and Father are recognized as a necesary element to raising children as much as a public school system. Therefore the Government has seen fit to legal recognize and license mariages. Gay unions do not provide such a bennefit to society so the government has no bennefit to licensing them.

You are assuming that heterosexual unions must benefit society in order to be recognized as marriage. This is false: not all heterosexual unions are about raising children, and it is not a legal requirement for that such unions must be intent on raising children.

This appears to be your argument:

1. It is a legal requirement that, before a couple can get married, they must be intent on raising children.

1. Homosexual couples cannot raise children.

1. Therefore, homosexual couples do not meet the legal requirement for marriage.
2. Therefore, homosexual couples cannot get married.

Both 1) and 2) are obviously false, so your whole argument falls apart.

 

[royal_archer]

I’ll let someone else address this illogic. I am done for the night.

Let me only state that public school is not the only way that children can legally be educated. I have no idea what you were doing with that analogy. It’s education that the govt wants. There are many different approaches to it that are fully acceptable. Children can be taught by gays, by parents, by state employees. The gov’t accepts the educational child-rearing provided by any of these.

But the only reason the government license such institutions is because it is for the public good. Traditional families are recognized as benneficial to society because they are necesary for the raising of children and are recognized as the most appropriate way to raise children. Same sex, multi partner, interspecies, human robot, etc, etc, etc unions are not recognized as providing the same bennefit and putting children in these situations is not benneficial to society as a whole. Just like it is valid to discriminate agaist arcades and movie theaters and not license them as schools because they do not offer the same value to society as schools do. .

 

[royal_archer]

But it does not apply equally to men and women.

Under prop 8, men are permitted to do certain things that women are not permitted to do - namely, marry women. Hence, prop 8 restricts a woman’s freedom to marry a woman, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a woman.

Under prop 8, women are permitted to do certain things that men are not permitted to do - namely, marry men. Hence prop 8 restricts a man’s freedom to marry a man, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a man.

If the sole rationale for government recognition of marriage is based on the happiness of the couple then you might have a point but marriage is recognized as an institution because the team provides a bennefit to society. Men and women have equal access to the process of licensing the team. And both have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because some choose to not execute this right and prefer to live a deviant lifestyle is a matter of their choosing to bypass this right.

In a two seat fighter there is a pilot and a weapons officer. It is possible but innefficient to fly a mission with two pilots or with to weapons officers. However no one would say that it is discriminating against a pilot to say they can not fly with another pilot even though a weapon systems officer can do so. The fact is that the marrital team consists of two different but complementary roles.

You are confusing discrimination with "bad or unjustified discrimination.’ Yes, the government is discriminating when it gives military officers - but not others - certain titles and legal statuses.

And this is of course is justified as validated by a vote of the people.

You are assuming that heterosexual unions must benefit society in order to be recognized as marriage. This is false: not all heterosexual unions are about raising children, and it is not a legal requirement for that such unions must be intent on raising children.

This appears to be your argument:

1. It is a legal requirement that, before a couple can get married, they must be intent on raising children.

1. Homosexual couples cannot raise children.

1. Therefore, homosexual couples do not meet the legal requirement for marriage.
2. Therefore, homosexual couples cannot get married.

Both 1) and 2) are obviously false, so your whole argument falls apart.

Not all military officers go to war, not all lawyers practice, not all concealed license carriers carry concealed weapons. This does not invalidate that those who enter a traditional marriage have formed the basic element for raising children.

1. I did not say they had to have intent.
2. biologically speaking gay couples can not have children. Further they are not as suited to raise children as normal couples.
3. There is no bennefit to society to recognize such groups through the licensing process.
4. they should not be given license and equal recognition to those who do meet societies standards.

 

[wabrams]

But it does not apply equally to men and women.

Under prop 8, men are permitted to do certain things that women are not permitted to do - namely, marry women. Hence, prop 8 restricts a woman’s freedom to marry a woman, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a woman.

Under prop 8, women are permitted to do certain things that men are not permitted to do - namely, marry men. Hence prop 8 restricts a man’s freedom to marry a man, while it does not restrict a man’s freedom to marry a man.

Well a man is not permitted to do certain things a woman is permitted to do, like use a woman’s restroom. Is that discrimination, too?