Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[secular_freedom]

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?

If gay couples are allowed to “marry” then all types of marriages must be allowed under the law.

You’re off topic. Whether we should draw the line with same-sex marriage is a separate question from whether we should draw the line elsewhere.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…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.

Qualified pilots = good = license
Qualified couples = good = license

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.

Good point!

 

[secular_freedom]

Marriage is an institution which creates a legal entity that provides an environment suitable for raising children.

The fact that it does this - or attempts to do this - doesn’t imply that people can’t get married if they don’t want 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.

This isn’t an argument against same-sex marriage.

Gay couples by deffinition can not have children and therefore there is no bennefit to society nor purpose to grant them license for marriage.

1. You’re assuming (again) all partnerships must be able to benefit society through the raising of children before the they can get married. This is false.
2. The fact that gay couples can’t produce children doesn’t mean they can’t ***have ***or ***raise ***children.

Why should America care if 14 European nations don’t understand first grade biology.

It isn’t about biology.

 

[secular_freedom]

Keep challenging the laws of nature.

Let us know when two men or two women can have a baby with out a member of the opposite sex involved.

Let us know when the ability to procreate is a requirement for marriage.

 

[royal_archer]

As I pointed out, procreation is not a legal requirement for marriage. So what is the relevance of your statement?

Driving is not a legal requirement of having a drivers license. a license seldom requires the licensed activity as mandatory.

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.

It is discrimination purely on the basis of qualification.

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.”

You are presuming that your disagreement with it is sufficient to label it as unjustified or bad.

How so? You still haven’t offered a rational basis for the discrimination.

The vote itself is basis of evidence of rationale. Should courts overturn the obama election because a judge disagrees with the choice made by 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.

In fact it is advisable that couples refrain from procreating until marriage. a married couple has the presumed ability and intent to have a family. A gay couple is not capable of bearing children and having a natural family.

 

[royal_archer]

The fact that it does this - or attempts to do this - doesn’t imply that people can’t get married if they don’t want children.

This isn’t an argument against same-sex marriage.

1. You’re assuming (again) all partnerships must be able to benefit society through the raising of children before the they can get married. This is false.
2. The fact that gay couples can’t produce children doesn’t mean they can’t ***have ***or ***raise ***children.

It isn’t about biology.

Seldom do licenses require licensees to participate in the act they are licensed to perform.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes. But don’t confuse “discrimination” with “bad or unjustified discrimination.”

Have you considered that all gay men wanting to enter into a gay union are discriminating against women. Women who choose women over men are likewise discriminating against men.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… Whether we should draw the line with same-sex marriage is a separate question from whether we should draw the line elsewhere.

When I was a little girl, I wanted to marry my daddy. I told my mom that I wanted to marry him and she told me that I couldn’t because he was aleady married to her. My daddy was a wonderful man. I loved him and he loved me. Alas, I was young and I believed my mom that I couldn’t have a polygamous, incestuous relationship with my father. (I was young and fortunataly I knew nothing about either polygamy or incest.)

Apparently, I did not have to take “no” for an answer when I wanted to marry my daddy. I could have argued and continued to argue about how unfair my mommy was! I could have said she was being mean and selfish by not allowing me to marry my daddy, the person whom I loved who loved me too! I could have had a temper tantrum. I could have grown up, gone to law school, been promoted to judge and then* forced* my mommy to allow me to marry my daddy!

Please don’t throw a temper tantrum. The citizens of California have told you, “No.” My parents loved me enough to sometimes tell me, “No.” We love you enough to tell you, “No.” You are asking for something that is not good for you or for the rest of society.

 

[secular_freedom]

Driving is not a legal requirement of having a drivers license. a license seldom requires the licensed activity as mandatory.

Okay. Sow hat’s your point?

It is discrimination purely on the basis of qualification.

As I pointed out, a couple does not have to be “qualified” to procreate in order to get married.

You are presuming that your disagreement with it is sufficient to label it as unjustified or bad.

When did I say I disagreed with it? The point was that in your example, the government (or whoever is in charge of assigning the mission) is discriminating against the second pilot. But this is not to say that the discrimination was “unjustified or bad discrimination.”

The vote itself is basis of evidence of rationale. Should courts overturn the obama election because a judge disagrees with the choice made by the people?

lol - not even remotely analogous. The election of Obama cannot even trigger an Equal Protection analysis; prop 8, on the other hand, can. The fact that the voters voted for prop 8 doesn’t mean prop 8 doesn’t unjustly discriminate on the basis of sex.

In fact it is advisable that couples refrain from procreating until marriage. a married couple has the presumed ability and intent to have a family. A gay couple is not capable of bearing children and having a natural family.

But again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Heterosexual couples who can’t procreate can still get married. If procreation were a requirement for marriage, then many heterosexual couples wouldn’t be able to get married, but this is not the case. You don’t seem to have a problem with this. You only have a problem if the couple is homosexual - not because they can’t procreate.

 

[secular_freedom]

Seldom do licenses require licensees to participate in the act they are licensed to perform.

So what’s your point? You keep saying that gay couples can’t produce children, and apparently you want to use this fact to support an argument against same-sex marriage. But this argument only works if it were a legal requirement for marriage that a couple be able to produce children. Since this is not the case, your claim is irrelevant.

 

[secular_freedom]

Have you considered that all gay men wanting to enter into a gay union are discriminating against women. Women who choose women over men are likewise discriminating against men.

Sure, but how is this relevant? We’re talking about a law being discriminatory, not individuals. I discriminate all the time (as do you).

 

[secular_freedom]

You are asking for something that is not good for you or for the rest of society.

You have yet to show how this will not be good for society.

 

[royal_archer]

So what’s your point? You keep saying that gay couples can’t produce children, and apparently you want to use this fact to support an argument against same-sex marriage. But this argument only works if it were a legal requirement for marriage that a couple be able to produce children. Since this is not the case, your claim is irrelevant.

Married couples have the potential to have children and raise families, gay couples can not possibly create children. Therefore, it is a pointless effort and waste of government resources to grant licenses to gay couples.

 

[royal_archer]

Sure, but how is this relevant? We’re talking about a law being discriminatory, not individuals. I discriminate all the time (as do you).

The law does not discriminate. Every man can marry a woman and every woman can marry a man. The law just does not allow for men to discriminate against women in marriage and does not allow women to discriminate against men in marriage.

 

[secular_freedom]

Married couples have the potential to have children and raise families, gay couples can not possibly create children. Therefore, it is a pointless effort and waste of government resources to grant licenses to gay couples.

1. Some married couples do NOT have the potential to have children and raise families.
2. Gay couples, while they can’t create children, can raise children.
3. The potential for procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in this country.

 

[royal_archer]

1. Some married couples do NOT have the potential to have children and raise families.
2. Gay couples, while they can’t create children, can raise children.
3. The potential for procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in this country.

Short of doing invasive medical exams, there is no reason to presume they can not.
Gay couples can not raise their children. Nor can they offer other people’s children a proper environment to grow up in. Children need a father and a mother. There is no reason the government should sanction or license a family where there is not a father and mother.
The potential for procreation has always been the basis of marriage on this planet.

 

[secular_freedom]

The law does not discriminate. Every man can marry a woman and every woman can marry a man. The law just does not allow for men to discriminate against women in marriage and does not allow women to discriminate against men in marriage.

I showed exactly how the law discriminates on the basis of sex (and sexual orientation – see other thread), but you ignored what i wrote.

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.

 

[secular_freedom]

Short of doing invasive medical exams, there is no reason to presume they can not.
Gay couples can not raise their children. Nor can they offer other people’s children a proper environment to grow up in. Children need a father and a mother. There is no reason the government should sanction or license a family where there is not a father and mother.
The potential for procreation has always been the basis of marriage on this planet.

1. For many couples, there’s no need to do invasive medical exams to determine that they can’t procreate.
2. I never said gay couples can raise children they produced. I said gay couples can raise children.
3. Your last claim that “potential for procreation” is a legal requirement for marriage is simply false: no legal precedent or statute supports your contention.

 

[royal_archer]

1. For many couples, there’s no need to do invasive medical exams to determine that they can’t procreate.
2. I never said gay couples can raise children they produced. I said gay couples can raise children.
3. Your last claim that “potential for procreation” is a legal requirement for marriage is simply false: no legal precedent or statute supports your contention.

Wolves can raise children it doesn’t mean they can provide a moral and stable home

I didn’t say a “legal requirement” I said it was the basis.

 

[secular_freedom]

Wolves can raise children it doesn’t mean they can provide a moral and stable home

I didn’t say a “legal requirement” I said it was the basis.

1. Well, if you’re not claiming that the ability to procreate is a legal requirement for marriage, then you have no argument. As I pointed out, opposite-sex couples can marry even if they can’t procreate. Hence it would be inconsistent for deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry just because they can’t procreate – in fact, it would be a double standard.
2. Just because wolves can’t provide children with a moral and stable home doesn’t mean same-sex couples can’t.
3. It is not a requirement that couples be able to provide children with a moral and stable home before they can get married. (Many opposite-sex couples would make rotten parents, but that fact doesn’t prevent them from getting married. Again, your double standard is more than apparent.).