Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[secular_freedom]

I didn’t say just. many rules are unjust, discriminatory, and biased. But in a democracy where there is 51% at the ballot box, voter might makes right.

Then you do not understand our legal system.

 

[royal_archer]

Not in America. If 51% of the voters in a State decided to make the possession of firearms illegal then their wishes would be ignored because such a law would be unconstitutional. The question the courts are deciding is whether or not Proposition 8 is unconstitutional or not.

America is not a pure democracy, it is a Republic so the power of the voters is limited by the Constitution. The majority can only act within the Constitution.

rossum

Right,
The constitution is silent on this matter and leaves it up to the states and people respectively (other than interpretation or misinterpretation based on activist judges)

In this case there is no discrimination in who can do what. Men and Women are both given access to normal marriage. There are only limitations on what they can do and the law is written that all people can do the exact same thing.

Marriage or the unity between male and female is an institution that even predates the human species. The majority of people have decided not to redefine marriage outside it’s ageless deffinition. They have also decided not to allow those engaged in deviant relationships from forcing their deviant arrangement on society under the guise of marriage.

 

[royal_archer]

Then you do not understand our legal system.

Then would you like to explain why women have the right to abandon and murder their children but men do not have a right to walk away from an unwanted child?

Can you explain why we have programs like WIC and Affirmative action which are by their very nature discriminatory?

 

[secular_freedom]

In this case there is no discrimination in who can do what.

This is false, as I explained. You can keep ignoring my responses if you like, but don’t pretend they’re not there.

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

 

[secular_freedom]

Then would you like to explain why women have the right to abandon and murder their children but men do not have a right to walk away from an unwanted child?

Can you explain why we have programs like WIC and Affirmative action which are by their very nature discriminatory?

This is off topic, so I won’t address it. My only point was: your “majority rules” principle is incorrect. Prop 8 isn’t suddenly immune to equal protection analysis just because people voted for it.

 

[royal_archer]

This is false, as I explained. You can keep ignoring my responses if you like, but don’t pretend they’re not there.

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

so using your logic mens bathrooms are discriminatory since women can’t use them. and vice versa.

 

[secular_freedom]

so using your logic mens bathrooms are discriminatory since women can’t use them. and vice versa.

That would be correct.

 

[royal_archer]

This is off topic, so I won’t address it. My only point was: your “majority rules” principle is incorrect. Prop 8 isn’t suddenly immune to equal protection analysis just because people voted for it.

equal protection is open to interpretation. For instance I am not given equal access to use of the space shuttle. I am not permitted to practice law or perform surgery. These are cases where license is based on qualification. The qualification for a marriage is a man and a woman. It is in societies interest to not allow alternate groups to impersonate this vital part of our society.

 

[royal_archer]

That would be correct.

and school locker rooms?

 

[secular_freedom]

equal protection is open to interpretation. For instance I am not given equal access to use of the space shuttle. I am not permitted to practice law or perform surgery. These are cases where license is based on qualification. The qualification for a marriage is a man and a woman. It is in societies interest to not allow alternate groups to impersonate this vital part of our society.

None of this challenges the point I made. When will you address my arguments head on?

 

[secular_freedom]

and school locker rooms?

yep.

 

[royal_archer]

Not in America. If 51% of the voters in a State decided to make the possession of firearms illegal then their wishes would be ignored because such a law would be unconstitutional. The question the courts are deciding is whether or not Proposition 8 is unconstitutional or not.

America is not a pure democracy, it is a Republic so the power of the voters is limited by the Constitution. The majority can only act within the Constitution.

rossum

I thought about this a little more. applicability to the second ammendment may be a good example. the government licenses some fire arms and sets up a rigid structure for who can and can not fill what role in firearms transactions that involve licenses. And public sentiment outweighs an individuals right to own the gun of their choice. Lets face it the government has no problem limmiting and setting conditions on second ammendment rights.

 

[royal_archer]

None of this challenges the point I made. When will you address my arguments head on?

You don’t seem to listen when people do respond head on. Setting up limitations based on qualifications is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

 

[secular_freedom]

You don’t seem to listen when people do respond head on.

You’re statement assumes you have responded head on.

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).

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.

When did you dispute any of the premises of this argument?

Setting up limitations based on qualifications is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

Highly vague statement. How does this apply to prop 8?

 

[royal_archer]

You’re statement assumes you have responded head on.

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).

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.

When did you dispute any of the premises of this argument?

Highly vague statement. How does this apply to prop 8?

On a rare occasion normal couples can not fulfill all of the activities for which marriage was formed how ever there is not normally a means of determining this. Gay couples can not BY DEFINITION fullfill the qualifications which are the foundation of marriage. Therefore it is inappropriate to grant them a license for something that they can not ever under any circumstances manage to meet the minimum qualifications for.

Gay couples can not be a mother and father. However Gay individuals can. Nothing is stoping a gay individual from entering a normal marriage and filling the role they are qualified for.

 

[secular_freedom]

On a rare occasion normal couples can not fulfill all of the activities for which marriage was formed how ever there is not normally a means of determining this. Gay couples can not BY DEFINITION fullfill the qualifications which are the foundation of marriage. Therefore it is inappropriate to grant them a license for something that they can not ever under any circumstances manage to meet the minimum qualifications for.

Gay couples can not be a mother and father. However Gay individuals can. Nothing is stoping a gay individual from entering a normal marriage and filling the role they are qualified for.

Try again. Nothing you wrote challenges either the validity or soundness of my argument

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).

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.

 

[PaulinVA]

Try again. Nothing you wrote challenges either the validity or soundness of my argument

1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).

It is assumed, by the legal and ecclesiastical authorities, that a heterosexual couple has the ability to procreate and raise kids. Making children is intrinsic to a heterosexual marriage. As a group, heterosexual couples can reproduce.

As a group, homosexual couples can not reproduce.

1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.

Right now, procreation is the reason for marriage. You don’t acknowledge this, but it is. Without the ability to procreate, as a group, there is no reason for marriage for that group.

1. 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.

Since you haven’t proven 1 and 2, the conclusion in 3 isn’t proven.

1. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.

Since you haven’t proven any of your arguments, your conclusion can not be proven.

I have to ask you - why are you here? Are you trying to convince the regulars here, or are you looking for a reason to abandon your support of homosexual marriage?

 

[gardenswithkids]

You don’t seem to listen when people do respond head on. …

*** As long as we continue to dialog with him, he wins***. As a parent, I have learned that a child who doesn’t like my decision will try to continue debating. Continuing to debate keeps open the possibility that they might get what they want. My children try to wear me down and change my mind. Militant homosexuals want to were us down and get us to give in. They keep pushing points that were previously already decided by law. And once they win those, they will push for yet more.

They successfully challenged laws like anti-sodomy laws. Aniti-sodomy laws were not just moral laws but also public health laws! Sodomy harms the digestive track and contributes significantly to the spread of HIV. **They challenged anti-sodomy laws on the grounds of privacy, then they moved onto wanting *public *approval of sodomy in marriage. **

The majority of people who contribute to society by raising children and working hard to provide for their families don’t have much time to engage in public debates. Continuing to discuss childish demands past a certain point creates more problems. My own children require a great deal of my time and attention. Debating previously settled societal matters distracts parents and responsible adults from taking care of their own families. We don’t have time for this debate and all the debates that will follow if they get their way on this. Society should not have to continually engage in dialog and debates with people who won’t accept our answers until they get what they want.

 

[rossum]

It is assumed, by the legal and ecclesiastical authorities, that a heterosexual couple has the ability to procreate and raise kids.

I cannot speak for the ecclesiastical authorities, but the legal authorities do not make that assumption. Fertility tests are not required to marry, and infertile people are able to contract a legal marriage.

Right now, procreation is the reason for marriage.

Right now procreation is the major reason for marriage, but not the only one. There are other reasons. A woman who has had a hysterectomy can get married and her reasons will not include procreation. I agree that procreation is a major reason, but it is not the only reason.

You don’t acknowledge this, but it is. Without the ability to procreate, as a group, there is no reason for marriage for that group.

So you can see no reason for an infertile man to get married?

rossum

 

[secular_freedom]

It is assumed, by the legal and ecclesiastical authorities, that a heterosexual couple has the ability to procreate and raise kids. Making children is intrinsic to a heterosexual marriage. As a group, heterosexual couples can reproduce.
As a group, homosexual couples can not reproduce.

Please cite any relevant legal authority for the proposition that a couple must have the ability to procreate and raise kids before they can get married.

Right now, procreation is the reason for marriage. You don’t acknowledge this, but it is. Without the ability to procreate, as a group, there is no reason for marriage for that group.

You are confusing several claims.

a) Most people marry in order to procreate.
b) The only purpose for marriage is to procreate.
c) Procreation is a requirement for marriage.

What you don’t seem to be understanding is that a) and b) are irrelevant to this discussion, and that c) is false.

Since you haven’t proven 1 and 2, the conclusion in 3 isn’t proven.

It’s simply common knowledge that many opposite sex couples can marry even if they can’t procreate.

1. follows from 1).

Since you haven’t proven any of your arguments, your conclusion can not be proven.

If you want to deny common sense, that’s your problem. I don’t need to prove that the United States consists of 50 states – you should already know this.

I have to ask you - why are you here? Are you trying to convince the regulars here, or are you looking for a reason to abandon your support of homosexual marriage?

I’m here to debate, that’s all. Why are you here? Are you here to convince newbies like me I’m wrong, or are you looking for a reason to abandon your support of prop 8? I’m happy to help you with the latter.