Where do you draw the line? Should a man that claims to be bi-sexual be allowed to marry the woman and the man that he is in love with?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?
It is discrimination, but there is a reasonable justification for the discrimination so it is legal to discriminate.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?
Why? Just because one type of marriage is allowed does that automatically require that all other types of marriage are allowed? Loving v Virginia allowed inter-racial marriages. Does the decision in that case mean that all other types of marriage are also allowed? Are you saying that same-sex marriage has actually been legal since 1967 because of the Loving v Virginia decision? Your logic is extremely faulty here.If gay couples are allowed to “marry” then all types of marriages must be allowed under the law.
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…
huh?…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. .
You need to join the real world. If gay marriage is allowed lawsuits will be filed by bi-sexuals that will claim discrimination on the basis that they should be allowed to marry the man and the woman that they love.=rossum;7004787]Why? Just because one type of marriage is allowed does that automatically require that all other types of marriage are allowed?
Inter-racial marriages between a man and a woman. THere are no other "types’ of marriages.Loving v Virginia allowed inter-racial marriages. Does the decision in that case mean that all other types of marriage are also allowed?
apples and orangesAre you saying that same-sex marriage has actually been legal since 1967 because of the Loving v Virginia decision? Your logic is extremely faulty here.
rossum
So, what was preventing bisexuals presenting a legal case before Proposition 8? There is no evident connection between the two - bisexuals could have brought their case at any time had they wanted to.You need to join the real world. If gay marriage is allowed lawsuits will be filed by bi-sexuals that will claim discrimination on the basis that they should be allowed to marry the man and the woman that they love.
Go to your local mosque and they will be happy to marry you to up to four wives. There are a lot of different versions of marriage out there.How could a man be not allowed to have two, three, four wives that he is in love with.
Loving v Virginia was a change in the laws governing civil marriage in America. Proposition 8 was a change in the laws governing civil marriage in California. The laws on civil marriage have changed many times in the past, and all without the dire consequences you are predicting.Inter-racial marriages between a man and a woman. THere are no other "types’ of marriages.
And at the begining of our country their were no license requirements to fly but at that time unqualified people were not steaking through the skys in man made contraptions. When the government recognized the problem, they cracked down and offered licenses. As is said with driving it is not a right. if it were a right the government would not have licenses in the first place.It is discrimination, but there is a reasonable justification for the discrimination so it is legal to discriminate.
The question in this thread is if there are reasonable grounds to remove the right of same sex marriage in California. Remember that same sex marriage was legal in California before Proposition 8 was passed. There are many legally married same sex couples in California.
rossum
That’s dogma, and does not address the tests of the 14th amendment.…No one is stoping a gay man and a gay woman from getting married. since it is not their sexual orientation that is the limmiting factor it is their qualification to fill the two parts of the marrital entity.
The judge’s rationale was a violation of the 14th ammendment? don’t you mean the 10th?
- The “rationale” in the recent case decision was violation of the 14th Amendment.
- The “rationale” for encouraging marriage is multi-various, but, generally speaking, marriage is a stabilizing force for individuals and for children. And society, generally speaking, benefits from stability and families benefit from the sharing of resources. And yes, marriages also, generally speaking, produce children.
- #2 is not, however, a necessary precondition for legal permission to marry. There are many valid marriages which, of course, have been destabilizing and have not been a valuable use of resources. We, of course, have never had either stability or the production of children as a necessary pre-condition for access to marriage.
- Gay marriage would both share in and benefit from all of these conditions except the actual production of children.
your right it would be almost as silly as two people of the same sex wanting to be married. But the underlying logic of something wanting to be officially recognized and licensed for what it is not is the same.huh?
arcades and movie theaters don’t even try to be schools, nor do they request to be schools
14th ammendement does not apply when the minimum qualifications for a license are not met.That’s dogma, and does not address the tests of the 14th amendment.
See this ruling, being reading on page 110: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf
Are you being obtuse on purpose? If you’d like to make a claim about the 10th Amendment, then go ahead. Make it clear.The judge’s rationale was a violation of the 14th ammendment? don’t you mean the 10th?
Indeed it is.The individuals may bennefit from a union but no one is preventing them from shacking up or otherwise sharing resources. this is about qualification for a government license.
Indeed it is.A marriage license is not a guarantee that there will not be trouble in the marriage, only that the minimum requirements were met.
The license DOES benefit the couple. It’s intention is clearly coupled to its result. If you are claiming that a marriage license and “marriage” in general is not meant to benefit the couple in any way, then you are just denying the obvious. To understand this, try taking marriage away from, say, all your hetero neighbors. Tell them that they can no longer use the term in referring to their relationship and that they no longer can recognize the status and use it in any legal form. See what they say.the license is not their to bennefit the couple it is their to bennefit the children and society as a whole by having children raised in better circumstances.
Those minimum qualifications are being challenged. Don’t you know this?14th ammendement does not apply when the minimum qualifications for a license are not met.
see: health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/fetal-development/adam-200107.htm
hahayour right it would be almost as silly as two people of the same sex wanting to be married. But the underlying logic of something wanting to be officially recognized and licensed for what it is not is the same.
Marriage is an institution which creates a legal entity that provides an environment suitable for raising children. The bennefit to society is that such a union produces a better condition for the raising of children and reduces the problems those children will cause for society.Are you being obtuse on purpose? If you’d like to make a claim about the 10th Amendment, then go ahead. Make it clear.
In the meantime, have you even read the ruling?
Indeed it is.
Indeed it is.
The license DOES benefit the couple. It’s intention is clearly coupled to its result. If you are claiming that a marriage license and “marriage” in general is not meant to benefit the couple in any way, then you are just denying the obvious. To understand this, try taking marriage away from, say, all your hetero neighbors. Tell them that they can no longer use the term in referring to their relationship and that they no longer can recognize the status and use it in any legal form. See what they say.
To pass the tests of the 14th amendment, who who rejects gay marriage (in American civil law) must be able to justify the telling of any individual person that he/she can marry a person of ONLY one gender–the one opposite to his/her own. In other words, if I were to divorce and then later apply for a marriage license with a male partner, we would both be denied ONLY on the grounds of gender (assuming that we also meet age and family-relatedness regulations). And IF one is going to deny legal marriage status ONLY on the grounds of gender, one must be very careful in this country to be fully justified in doing so. And that was the problem with the defense in the Prop 8 challenege case: the defense did a terrible job of justifying the exclusion. PLEASE READ THE RULING THAT I LINKED ABOVE.
IF there is an appeal (that is questionable at this point), the defense will have to do a much better job of defending the grounds on which the exclusion by gender is justified. Rightly so, this country is very suspicious of gender-based legal exclusions. Nearly all the other gender-based exclusions has fallen in court challenges; now marriage is facing the same challenge.
I expect that within 5 years, marriage will no longer exclude gays. I consider this change inevitable. Fourteen European nations already recognize gay marriage or the legal equivalent. So will the US. In time.
Keep challenging the laws of nature.Those minimum qualifications are being challenged. Don’t you know this?
Just another example of “discrimination” based on sex:That’s dogma, and does not address the tests of the 14th amendment.
See this ruling, being reading on page 110: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf
As I pointed out, procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. So what is the relevance of your statement?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.
This doesn’t respond to my point about prop 8 being discriminatory on the basis of sex. Please tell me how the difference in treatment I pointed out doesn’t amount to discrimination.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.
But government (or whoever is in charge of assigning the mission) is discriminating against the second pilot. But again, you are confusing discrimination with “unjustified or bad discrimination.”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.
How so? You still haven’t offered a rational basis for the discrimination.And this is of course is justified as validated by a vote of the people.
You seem to want to build an argument against prop 8 from the fact that homosexuals can’t procreate. But this is impossible because it has never been a legal requirement in this country that couples be able to procreate before they can get married. Please be clearer in your argument.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.
- I did not say they had to have intent.
- biologically speaking gay couples can not have children. Further they are not as suited to raise children as normal couples.
- There is no bennefit to society to recognize such groups through the licensing process.
- they should not be given license and equal recognition to those who do meet societies standards.
Yes. But don’t confuse “discrimination” with “bad or unjustified discrimination.”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?