Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[larkin31]

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)?

I commend your patience with him/her. Mine has run out.

 

[secular_freedom]

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.

Oh, and why is that? Pray tell, what’s the flaw in my argument?

 

[larkin31]

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.

It may not even get to the next fed level. The defendants may have no standing to appeal. Have you read about this issue?

 

[secular_freedom]

Still the normal marriage is the prefered environment for raising children. As such, it is the only situation which warrants licensing.

Since when do couples have to be able to provide the “preferred environment” for raising children before they can get married? Many heterosexuals can’t provide the “preferred environment” and yet are still able to marry.

 

[royal_archer]

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)?

The decision was made by the voters. That is all the justification needed.

 

[royal_archer]

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.

Actually the ability to raise children is the reason for marriage. Time has proven the right formula for raising a family is a mother and a father. It is civil law, moral law, and is even built into our DNA. While married couples are not required to have children, The institution is established around the raising children.

 

[royal_archer]

Royal,

You still haven’t addressed my post # 64.

Your redundant post has now been given a redundant answer.

 

[secular_freedom]

The decision was made by the voters. That is all the justification needed.

So according to you, whenever the decision is made by voters to implement a law denying freedoms to one group but not to another, then the law would not violate equal protection. In other words, laws decided by voters can never violate equal protection. If this were true, then if voters ever decided to implement a law denying blacks the freedom to marry whites, then that law would not violate equal protection (since that is all the justification needed).

There are so many ways to reduce your position to absurdity!

 

[royal_archer]

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.

Of course many government programs such as WIC and affirmative action are also discriminatory but have been deemed in the best interest of society.

 

[royal_archer]

Since when do couples have to be able to provide the “preferred environment” for raising children before they can get married? Many heterosexuals can’t provide the “preferred environment” and yet are still able to marry.

I also feel those who are unable to take care of themselves or are otherwise not ready for marriage should not get married.

 

[secular_freedom]

Actually the ability to raise children is the reason for marriage. Time has proven the right formula for raising a family is a mother and a father. It is civil law, moral law, and is even built into our DNA. While married couples are not required to have children, The institution is established around the raising children.

This fails to interact with what I wrote.

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. Opposite-sex couples do not need to have the ability to properly raise children before they can get married! So your point is entirely irrelevant.

 

[secular_freedom]

I also feel those who are unable to take care of themselves or are otherwise not ready for marriage should not get married.

Irrelevant. Opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z. Hence, if same-sex couples can’t do X, Y, and Z, then not being able to do X, Y, and Z cannot be a basis for denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry – otherwise, it would violate equal protection.

 

[secular_freedom]

Your redundant post has now been given a redundant answer.

But you haven’t actually addressed or interacted with the substance of my posts; all you’ve done is repeatedly parrot your original talking points.

 

[royal_archer]

This fails to interact with what I wrote.

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. Opposite-sex couples do not need to have the ability to properly raise children before they can get married! So your point is entirely irrelevant.

1. & 3. In the case of heterosexual couples it is a random and infrequent condition where they can not have children or raise children in a normal household. For gay couples it is a universal condition that they can not have children or raise children in a normal household.

2 The majority of society speak for society.In a democracy the majority has the final say on these issues.

 

[royal_archer]

Irrelevant. Opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z. Hence, if same-sex couples can’t do X, Y, and Z, then not being able to do X, Y, and Z cannot be a basis for denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry – otherwise, it would violate equal protection.

You are mistakenly trying to say that since a very small percent of group one has shortcommings that it justifies the universal and absolute short comings of the other group.

 

[secular_freedom]

1. & 3. In the case of heterosexual couples it is a random and infrequent condition where they can not have children or raise children in a normal household. For gay couples it is a universal condition that they can not have children or raise children in a normal household.

This doesn’t address the point: the ability to create and raise children is not a requirement for marriage. Hence it should not be a requirement for homosexuals. Otherwise, this would constitute unequal treatment under the law (in violation of Equal Protection)

2 The majority of society speak for society.In a democracy the majority has the final say on these issues.

Actually, it doesn’t. The fact that many members of society think group Y can’t do X doesn’t mean group Y can’t do X.

 

[secular_freedom]

You are mistakenly trying to say that since a very small percent of group one has shortcommings that it justifies the universal and absolute short comings of the other group.

This misrepresents the argument. I laid out the argument, but you’re not even bothering to contest it.

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

 

[royal_archer]

This doesn’t address the point: the ability to create and raise children is not a requirement for marriage. Hence it should not be a requirement for homosexuals. Otherwise, this would constitute unequal treatment under the law (in violation of Equal Protection)

Actually, it doesn’t. The fact that many members of society think group Y can’t do X doesn’t mean group Y can’t do X.

It is as if you are trying to stear the entire discussion into some corner where you feel you can win on a technicality. Bottom line is that the inability of an extreme small portion of the population to have children does not negate the fact that a normal marriage is the prefered and better formula for having and raising kids.

It means that society does not feel that group Y can do it to the standard of society.

 

[royal_archer]

This misrepresents the argument. I laid out the argument, but you’re not even bothering to contest it.

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

You are trying to confine the arguement to a narrow point where you feel you can win on a technicallity. Please open your perspective and consider the bigger picture.

 

[secular_freedom]

It is as if you are trying to stear the entire discussion into some corner where you feel you can win on a technicality.

No, what I’ve done is demonstrate how your argument is fallacious.

Bottom line is that the inability of an extreme small portion of the population to have children does not negate the fact that a normal marriage is the prefered and better formula for having and raising kids.

1. You assume that the number of heterosexual couples who can’t procreate is “extremely small.” What evidence do you have for this claim?
2. You also seem to assume that the number of heterosexual couples incapable of properly raising kids is “extremely small.” What evidence do you have for this claim?
3. Even if your above claim were correct, that does not in any way justify the discrimination under prop 8. “Good formula for having and arising kids” is not a requirement for marriage. Hence, it follows that this can’t be a requirement for marriage for same-sex couples.

It means that society does not feel that group Y can do it to the standard of society.

Being able to raise kids to the standard of society is not a requirement for marriage. You are again confusing what “society does not feel” with “many members of society do not feel.” You are again equating the fact that “many members of society does not think group Y can do X” with “group Y can’t do X.”