Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
royal_archer said:
Short of doing invasive medical exams, there is no reason to presume they can not.
Click to expand...
This is simply dismissing as irrelevant that we ALL KNOW that infertility and sterility even exist in heteros and hetero couples. All this dismissal means is that in dealing with hetero marriage, their statistically ever-present rates of infertility and sterility have NO LEGAL IMPACT on their ability to marry. The state, in fact, is uninterested in the infertility or sterility of heteros who apply for civil marriage. This was pointed out directly by Judge Walker in the ruling. To use this as a legal reason to deny marriage to gays but NOT to heteros is to apply a rejection to the legal status of marriage unevenly with the only result being that the sterility is held against gays, but not against heteros. And this, of course, is a form of discrimination that legally is questionable in this country.
 
royal_archer said:
Wolves can raise children it doesn’t mean they can provide a moral and stable home
Click to expand...
It would be more reasonable if you stopped making analogies to non-humans. The law, of course, treats them entirely differently and barely applies to them. These parallels you attempt are very weak, both rhetorically and persuasively. And to offer them in a modern court of law on this matter would be laughable, really.
 
secular_freedom said:
  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.).
Click to expand...
The basic arangement of a man and woman is the proven formula for creating a family. Gay couples have been proven to be 100% absolutely and with out exception unable to procreate. Further it is accepted that society does not believe gay couples are acceptably qualified to raise children. You can argue that gay couples can meet some minimal capability but we as a society have the right to establish points at which qualification meets the necesary standard to warrant licensing. (just like we set arbitrary points at which drivers are licensed to opperate vehicles.)
 
royal_archer said:
The basic arangement of a man and woman is the proven formula for creating a family. Gay couples have been proven to be 100% absolutely and with out exception unable to procreate. Further it is accepted that society does not believe gay couples are acceptably qualified to raise children. You can argue that gay couples can meet some minimal capability but we as a society have the right to establish points at which qualification meets the necesary standard to warrant licensing. (just like we set arbitrary points at which drivers are licensed to opperate vehicles.)
Click to expand...
  1. Again, it is not a legal requirement that couples have the ability to procreate before they can get married. 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.So the fact that gay couples can’t procreate is no basis for denying them the freedom to marry.
  2. You are confusing “society does not believe” with “some members of society does not believe.” The fact that some members of society does not mean gay couples are qualified to raise children doesn’t mean they’re right, or that gay couples are NOT qualified to raise children.
  3. Like procreation, the ability to raise children is not a requirement for marriage. So your point is entirely irrelevant.
 
royal_archer said:
The basic arangement of a man and woman is the proven formula for creating a family. Gay couples have been proven to be 100% absolutely and with out exception unable to procreate…
Click to expand...
You are aware, correct, that both IVF and surrogate birthing are fully legal in this country, and that heteros practice them, and that their marriages remain legal under the law?
 
larkin31 said:
This is simply dismissing as irrelevant that we ALL KNOW that infertility and sterility even exist in heteros and hetero couples. All this dismissal means is that in dealing with hetero marriage, their statistically ever-present rates of infertility and sterility have NO LEGAL IMPACT on their ability to marry. The state, in fact, is uninterested in the infertility or sterility of heteros who apply for civil marriage. This was pointed out directly by Judge Walker in the ruling. To use this as a legal reason to deny marriage to gays but NOT to heteros is to apply a rejection to the legal status of marriage unevenly with the only result being that the sterility is held against gays, but not against heteros. And this, of course, is a form of discrimination that legally is questionable in this country.
Click to expand...
If the normal couple does not have children that does not mean they are not qualified. For instance if a lawyer wanna be passes the bar exam and meets the minimal requirements for licensing, it is irrelevant if they may have another condition that prevents them from practicing law. A sterile normal couple still meets the minimum qualifications for a marriage and will be able to provide a normal home for a child if the condition of sterility were able to be addressed. Even if through some diabolical scientific event, a gay couple were able to conceive, then even still they would not be able to provide a normal home.
 
royal_archer said:
If the normal couple does not have children that does not mean they are not qualified. For instance if a lawyer wanna be passes the bar exam and meets the minimal requirements for licensing, it is irrelevant if they may have another condition that prevents them from practicing law. A sterile normal couple still meets the minimum qualifications for a marriage and will be able to provide a normal home for a child if the condition of sterility were able to be addressed. Even if through some diabolical scientific event, a gay couple were able to conceive, then even still they would not be able to provide a normal home.
Click to expand...
What’s the “minimum qualifications for a marriage?”
 
royal_archer said:
If the normal couple does not have children that does not mean they are not qualified. For instance if a lawyer wanna be passes the bar exam and meets the minimal requirements for licensing, it is irrelevant if they may have another condition that prevents them from practicing law. A sterile normal couple still meets the minimum qualifications for a marriage and will be able to provide a normal home for a child if the condition of sterility were able to be addressed. Even if through some diabolical scientific event, a gay couple were able to conceive, then even still they would not be able to provide a normal home.
Click to expand...
Sterile heteros by the thousands practice IVF and surrogate pregnancy legally in this country, and it does not in any way effect the hetero ability to marry.
 
larkin31 said:
It would be more reasonable if you stopped making analogies to non-humans. The law, of course, treats them entirely differently and barely applies to them. These parallels you attempt are very weak, both rhetorically and persuasively. And to offer them in a modern court of law on this matter would be laughable, really.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t the one who suggested reducing the standard of qualification. Those that do have to realize that it is a slippery slope. ability to raise children between wolves and abnormal unions is only a matter of degrees of qualification.
 
royal_archer said:
I wasn’t the one who suggested reducing the standard of qualification. Those that do have to realize that it is a slippery slope. ability to raise children between wolves and abnormal unions is only a matter of degrees of qualification.
Click to expand...
“Slippery slope” is a rhetorical and logical fallacy. Everyone knows this. Why do you refer to it as if it helps your case?
 
larkin31 said:
You are aware, correct, that both IVF and surrogate birthing are fully legal in this country, and that heteros practice them, and that their marriages remain legal under the law?
Click to expand...
Still the normal marriage is the prefered environment for raising children. As such, it is the only situation which warrants licensing.
 
royal_archer said:
Still the normal marriage is the prefered environment for raising children. As such, it is the only situation which warrants licensing.
Click to expand...
whatever

you refuse every time to stay in the logic and details that you are given

I have come to see that you want only to repeat dogma here, even though the thread title is about a specific case, a specific ruling, and a specific amendment. I am fairly certain that you have not read the ruling and will never read the ruling. I am uninterested in any more of your replies on this thread.
 
Here is the begining of Judge Walker’s conclusion in his ruling:
THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL
PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
Click to expand...
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v
Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a
fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression ] of emotional
support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978)
(“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all
individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of
personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of
the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom
to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage
is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association
that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social
projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any
involved in our prior decisions.”).
Click to expand...
The parties do not dispute that the right to marry is
fundamental. The question presented here is whether plaintiffs
seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry; or, because they
are couples of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new
right.
Click to expand...
to be continued…
 
larkin31 said:
whatever

you refuse every time to stay in the logic and details that you are given

.
Click to expand...
The “logic” you have presented is flawed. And the details you have constrained your view to are narrow minded.
 
royal_archer said:
A man (father) and a woman (mother) of the appropriate age for the state.
Click to expand...
Nice obfuscation. I didn’t ask for the minimum qualifications of marriage that is *in *dispute; I asked for the minimum qualifications of marriage that explains why opposite-sex couples can marry even if they can’t procreate.

You repeatedly claimed that the discrimination in prop 8 is justified because “same-sex couples can’t do X,” all the while forgetting that many opposite-sex couples also “can’t do X.” Hence, if X is the reason why same-sex couples are not “qualified” to marry, then X should also be the reason why opposite-sex couples are not “qualified” to marry. But of course, you hold to a double standard: Reason X only applies to same-sex couples, not to opposite-sex couples. How do you justify this double standard without being inconsistent (i.e. without violating Equal Protection)?
 
secular_freedom said:
You have yet to show how this will not be good for society.
Click to expand...
People have pointed some of the problems countless times on this and on your other thread. You continually dismiss them, or say they are separate issues.
 
I believe that this issue will eventually come before the Supreme Court of the United States, and that Proposition 8 will be held to be 100% Constitutional.

Sorry, but by your argument, plural marriage would also be discriminatory, as would human/animal marriage, marriage of adults and children, and just about any other form of “marriage” that anyone could think of.

I sincerely hope that not only will the Supreme Court hold that it is Constitutional, but that any “marriages” in California between people of the same sex are invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top