Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[larkin31]

Was it not you that said my argument was incomprehensible?

No, and to call one’s point difficult to understand is quite different from calling another stupid or unable to read English. ANd you know this.

… maybe you can find them in the constituition or the bill of rights.

The court ruling discusses all of the prior cases that recognize marriage as an inherent right. Read the ruling! Start on page 110.

Secondly, Prop 8 was challenged on the grounds of the 14th Amendment. So there is no need for you to ask where in the constitution people are looking for defense of gay marriage. You know the answer, and it is in this thread title: The 14th Amendment.

The law covers social contracts that were not created by law! The only social contract created by law was the “Civil union”.

That is a statement of dogma, not law. US law has a long history of “marriage law,” and none of it assumes that “marriage” is something that they do not define and regulate. “marriage” also existed before the time of the Bible, and existed in places around the world that never heard of the Judeo God and outwardly reject that God now that they do know of it.

I never mentioned religion into this. I find it funny that you are asking that society recognizes same sex marriages and not religious institutions…

That’s nonsense. Society recognizes many many “religious institutions.” I have no idea how you actually mean this claim.

If marriages are the foundation in which society gets new members and their education, how is not what gays are arguing for? Marriage without one of the genders is in fact a discrimination against the other sex, and a big one since it is the foundation upon which society gets new members and their education!

Do you really mean this nonsense? Are you really saying that if I individually choose a blonde to marry that I am discriminating against the class of brunettes? I am assuming that this is merely insincere talk from you.

It was an analogy… ever heard of those? If a teacher is not suitable to teach he should not be given a teaching certificate… If a couple is not suitable to marry they should not be given a marriage certificate. You do know what an analogy is don’t you?

But we are DEBATING the classification of gays as legally “unsuitable.” In law, this rejection by gender or sexual orientation from a legal status considered by most to be a fundamental right of humanity, then you had better have a valid reason for doing so other than “my God says so.” So, pardon me if I do not merely accept your rejection of gays on definition, since that is the CRUX of the entire debate. This thread is about the legal case, where the very basis for this rejection of an entire class of consenting adult was brought into question.

 

[PassingThru]

We have not gotten to that point on the slippery slope. First they want to mandate that the deffinition of marriage be revised and institutionalized then they will have better legal political standing to go after the Church.

washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/01/to-avoid-funding-gay-marrieds-catholic-charities-denies-benefits-to-all-spouses/

afterellen.com/node/75558

wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/methodists-sue-new-jersey-over-attempt-to-force-gay-%E2%80%9Cmarriage%E2%80%9D-at-church-owned-camp/

huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

First, Ill comment on your articles. Your first article is about equality in health benefits for employees of a charity. Note there is nothing there about forcing anyone to marry anyone. Equal access to benefits is clearly in the legal domain.

Your second article is some blurb about a crazy lady who threatened to sue the church, but gave up. OK.

Your last two are about Church owned properties, available to the public for a fee, for PUBLIC ceremonies. Again, nothing there about anyone forcing to marry someone.

Basically, you can not seem to separate offering services for a fee in a public domain, and private religious rights. Nothing in your links even alluded to the topic at hand.

I must also admit, there is nothing to stop a slippery slope argument, nor its failed logic. It is not coincidental that such logic is not used in the case concerning Prop 8.

So, your point seems to be that at some point, all the gays will pull a big legal “sneak attack” and force the church to change its ways. Even though gays could sue right now for a variety of similar reasons. Or sue in states where gay marriage is already legal. But, for some reason, they ALL are in on a big giant conspiracy to NOT sue, even though they have had years, and are waiting for some big “super suit”.

Enjoy your tin hat, but that is some pretty crazy logic you got goin over there…

 

[rossum]

Yes they should be denied marriage unless there is a woman as part of the marrital entity.

No. I specifically said that they could not procreate within their category. By allowing them to go outside their category you are outside the terms of my question. My intention was to show that by picking different categories (male vs female rather than homosexual vs heterosexual) you can change the results of the argument.

With gays it is outwardly obvious that they can never be a mother and a father.

A woman who has had a hysterectomy or a castrated male are in exactly the same position. The state take no account of their inability to have children and allows them to marry just like all the other people who can have children. Current law does not discriminate against those who are unable to have children.

As to being “outwardly obvious”, was Rock Hudson “outwardly obvious”? Liberace was obvious but others, like Crispin Blunt are not. Are you saying that camp men and butch women cannot get married?

rossum

 

[dskysmine]

No, and to call one’s point difficult to understand is quite different from calling another stupid or unable to read English. ANd you know this.

I apologise if my expressions were ill received. I did not mean to hurt or cause pain, only to ask for you to pay more attention.

The court ruling discusses all of the prior cases that recognize marriage as an inherent right. Read the ruling! Start on page 110.

I understand how case law works in the United States… I don’t necessarily agree how it works, but then again, I’m not an United States citizen.
If those rulings are to be read literally then the State could not prohibit incestuous marriage, for example, which I don’t see being defended by homosexuals anywhere on earth.

Secondly, Prop 8 was challenged on the grounds of the 14th Amendment. So there is no need for you to ask where in the constitution people are looking for defense of gay marriage. You know the answer, and it is in this thread title: The 14th Amendment.

I don’t think the 14th amendment can be used against proposition 8 because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention that marriage is a right or that marriage is simply a contract between two people, it just states that people should be given the same rights. I’d understand it better if you argued for article 1 section 7 from the california constitution which states:
“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.”
The problem is that according to this law literal interpretation any kind of privilege can argued for, a position in office, same kind of taxes, etc…
How can richer people pay more taxes than poorer people using this law?

That is a statement of dogma, not law. US law has a long history of “marriage law,” and none of it assumes that “marriage” is something that they do not define and regulate. “marriage” also existed before the time of the Bible, and existed in places around the world that never heard of the Judeo God and outwardly reject that God now that they do know of it.
larkin31;7014373:

US law has a long history of marriage law, but not the creation of marriage. It is a statement of fact. The US constitution and the Bill of rights were written after marriage was already practiced in the country, heck, they were even written after “life” was practiced in the country, but they felt the need to write the “right” to life, but not the “right” to marriage. And from every ammendment I’ve read in the US all definitions of marriage include a man and a woman… so you could argue that any case law where this is denied makes that case law unconstitutional.

That’s nonsense. Society recognizes many many “religious institutions.” I have no idea how you actually mean this claim.

Re-read what I wrote… If society recognizes religious institutes and religious people how is it not imposing the acceptance for such unions (gay marriage) to everyone (including religious institutions)?

Do you really mean this nonsense? Are you really saying that if I individually choose a blonde to marry that I am discriminating against the class of brunettes? I am assuming that this is merely insincere talk from you.

It was an argument for discrimination, just like you stated that gays don’t have the “right” to marry, they do have the “right”, just not each other… We are debating the definition of marriage, not the granting of rights.

But we are DEBATING the classification of gays as legally “unsuitable.” In law, this rejection by gender or sexual orientation from a legal status considered by most to be a fundamental right of humanity, then you had better have a valid reason for doing so other than “my God says so.” So, pardon me if I do not merely accept your rejection of gays on definition, since that is the CRUX of the entire debate. This thread is about the legal case, where the very basis for this rejection of an entire class of consenting adult was brought into question.

Actually we are debating the definition of marriage. If marriage is a special kind of contract, like we have talked about, we need to define it explicitely. It isn’t a matter of rights, since a contract isn’t a right, and even the privileges the state gives to such contracts are not rights. Is Marriage a contract that states: “I will only have sex with person (or group X if you count group marriages) for the rest of this contract”? If it were, why would the state grant any privileges to it? Heck, that kind of contract doesn’t even need that both parties have sex, only that they do not have sex with another person.
It doesn’t even have automatic exclusion clauses. Only if any of the people involved ask for a divorce, and even then they have to have “good reasons” to do it (altough people can argue just emotional anguish for anything). How does this kind of contract have any meaning or significance for the state or society?
What makes a married couple under this definition more stable or better than two people who live in the same roof and respect each other and have sex and have children but aren’t married?

 

[dskysmine]

My last post got wrong quotations so I’m repeating it here:

No, and to call one’s point difficult to understand is quite different from calling another stupid or unable to read English. ANd you know this.

I apologise if my expressions were ill received. I did not mean to hurt or cause pain, only to ask for you to pay more attention.

The court ruling discusses all of the prior cases that recognize marriage as an inherent right. Read the ruling! Start on page 110.

I understand how case law works in the United States… I don’t necessarily agree how it works, but then again, I’m not an United States citizen.
If those rulings are to be read literally then the State could not prohibit incestuous marriage, for example, which I don’t see being defended by homosexuals anywhere on earth.

Secondly, Prop 8 was challenged on the grounds of the 14th Amendment. So there is no need for you to ask where in the constitution people are looking for defense of gay marriage. You know the answer, and it is in this thread title: The 14th Amendment.

I don’t think the 14th amendment can be used against proposition 8 because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention that marriage is a right or that marriage is simply a contract between two people, it just states that people should be given the same rights. I’d understand it better if you argued for article 1 section 7 from the california constitution which states:
“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.”
The problem is that according to this law literal interpretation any kind of privilege can argued for, a position in office, same kind of taxes, etc…
How can richer people pay more taxes than poorer people using this law?

That is a statement of dogma, not law. US law has a long history of “marriage law,” and none of it assumes that “marriage” is something that they do not define and regulate. “marriage” also existed before the time of the Bible, and existed in places around the world that never heard of the Judeo God and outwardly reject that God now that they do know of it.

US law has a long history of marriage law, but not the creation of marriage. It is a statement of fact. The US constitution and the Bill of rights were written after marriage was already practiced in the country, heck, they were even written after “life” was practiced in the country, but they felt the need to write the “right” to life, but not the “right” to marriage. And from every ammendment I’ve read in the US all definitions of marriage include a man and a woman… so you could argue that any case law where this is denied makes that case law unconstitutional.

That’s nonsense. Society recognizes many many “religious institutions.” I have no idea how you actually mean this claim.

Re-read what I wrote… If society recognizes religious institutes and religious people how is it not imposing the acceptance for such unions (gay marriage) to everyone (including religious institutions)?

Do you really mean this nonsense? Are you really saying that if I individually choose a blonde to marry that I am discriminating against the class of brunettes? I am assuming that this is merely insincere talk from you.

It was an argument for discrimination, just like you stated that gays don’t have the “right” to marry, they do have the “right”, just not each other… We are debating the definition of marriage, not the granting of rights.

But we are DEBATING the classification of gays as legally “unsuitable.” In law, this rejection by gender or sexual orientation from a legal status considered by most to be a fundamental right of humanity, then you had better have a valid reason for doing so other than “my God says so.” So, pardon me if I do not merely accept your rejection of gays on definition, since that is the CRUX of the entire debate. This thread is about the legal case, where the very basis for this rejection of an entire class of consenting adult was brought into question.

Actually we are debating the definition of marriage. If marriage is a special kind of contract, like we have talked about, we need to define it explicitely. It isn’t a matter of rights, since a contract isn’t a right, and even the privileges the state gives to such contracts are not rights. Is Marriage a contract that states: “I will only have sex with person (or group X if you count group marriages) for the rest of this contract”? If it were, why would the state grant any privileges to it? Heck, that kind of contract doesn’t even need that both parties have sex, only that they do not have sex with another person.
It doesn’t even have automatic exclusion clauses. Only if any of the people involved ask for a divorce, and even then they have to have “good reasons” to do it (altough people can argue just emotional anguish for anything). How does this kind of contract have any meaning or significance for the state or society?
What makes a married couple under this definition more stable or better than two people who live in the same roof and respect each other and have sex and have children but aren’t married?

 

[larkin31]

I apologise if my expressions were ill received. I did not mean to hurt or cause pain, only to ask for you to pay more attention.

I understand how case law works in the United States… I don’t necessarily agree how it works, but then again, I’m not an United States citizen.
If those rulings are to be read literally then the State could not prohibit incestuous marriage, for example, which I don’t see being defended by homosexuals anywhere on earth.

Maybe this will be challenged some day. I bet that harm from incest is much easier to document than harm from homosexuality.

I don’t think the 14th amendment can be used against proposition 8 because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention that marriage is a right or that marriage is simply a contract between two people, it just states that people should be given the same rights. I’d understand it better if you argued for article 1 section 7 from the california constitution which states:

“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.”
The problem is that according to this law literal interpretation any kind of privilege can argued for, a position in office, same kind of taxes, etc…
How can richer people pay more taxes than poorer people using this law?

You are mixing privileges with burdens and responsibilities here. I don’t see your point. Challenging on the grounds of the 14th is about “law”. Prop 8, it was determined, is a LAW that disadvantaged a class of citizen without sufficient justification.

Actually we are debating the definition of marriage. If marriage is a special kind of contract, like we have talked about, we need to define it explicitely. It isn’t a matter of rights, since a contract isn’t a right, and even the privileges the state gives to such contracts are not rights. Marriage is indeed a legal “right.” The court ruling refers to the cases that establish this. Read the ruling, beginning on page 110.

What makes a married couple under this definition more stable or better than two people who live in the same roof and respect each other and have sex and have children but aren’t married?

Why does this question matter? Nothing in the law concerns what is “better,” nor does anything in the ruling.

 

[royal_archer]

No. I specifically said that they could not procreate within their category. By allowing them to go outside their category you are outside the terms of my question. My intention was to show that by picking different categories (male vs female rather than homosexual vs heterosexual) you can change the results of the argument.

There is a difference between changing categories and changeing the fundemental component of an argument

A woman who has had a hysterectomy or a castrated male are in exactly the same position. The state take no account of their inability to have children and allows them to marry just like all the other people who can have children. Current law does not discriminate against those who are unable to have children.

By denying marriage based on medical records, you are asking every applicant to prove their medical status which is impractical. and in some ways of limmited value since a normal couple incapable of bearing children can still raise children as children are genetically inclined to be raised (Mom and Dad). Also, they are still following the construct around which marriage is defined.

As to being “outwardly obvious”, was Rock Hudson “outwardly obvious”? Liberace was obvious but others, like Crispin Blunt are not. Are you saying that camp men and butch women cannot get married?

rossum

Not obviously gay, obviously male - male or obviously female - female.
There is nothing wrong with having gay inclinations, only with acting on them. And in the case of the government creating a fraudulent union. or attemptin to take advantage of allocations made for families when one is not forming a family.

 

[royal_archer]

First, Ill comment on your articles. Your first article is about equality in health benefits for employees of a charity. Note there is nothing there about forcing anyone to marry anyone. Equal access to benefits is clearly in the legal domain.

Your second article is some blurb about a crazy lady who threatened to sue the church, but gave up. OK.

Your last two are about Church owned properties, available to the public for a fee, for PUBLIC ceremonies. Again, nothing there about anyone forcing to marry someone.

Basically, you can not seem to separate offering services for a fee in a public domain, and private religious rights. Nothing in your links even alluded to the topic at hand.

I must also admit, there is nothing to stop a slippery slope argument, nor its failed logic. It is not coincidental that such logic is not used in the case concerning Prop 8.

So, your point seems to be that at some point, all the gays will pull a big legal “sneak attack” and force the church to change its ways. Even though gays could sue right now for a variety of similar reasons. Or sue in states where gay marriage is already legal. But, for some reason, they ALL are in on a big giant conspiracy to NOT sue, even though they have had years, and are waiting for some big “super suit”.

Enjoy your tin hat, but that is some pretty crazy logic you got goin over there…

You assumed the logic, I only stated the obvious intent to use law suits to hurt the religious community and the likely hood that defeating the will of the people with activist judges would only embolden the efforts. Further I have proven that lawsuits are already being used by the gay community to attack private religious institutions.

 

[dskysmine]

I expressly stated that post 184 was wrong in post 185!
Please respond to the whole post 185!

Maybe this will be challenged some day. I bet that harm from incest is much easier to document than harm from homosexuality.

Is it? Please provide us with such documentation. Don’t forget it has to “obey” your defended “equal protection clause”.

I don’t think the 14th amendment can be used against proposition 8 because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention that marriage is a right or that marriage is simply a contract between two people, it just states that people should be given the same rights. I’d understand it better if you argued for article 1 section 7 from the california constitution which states:
You are mixing privileges with burdens and responsibilities here. I don’t see your point. Challenging on the grounds of the 14th is about “law”. Prop 8, it was determined, is a LAW that disadvantaged a class of citizen without sufficient justification.

Proposition 8 does not mention “rights”. It is about the definition of marriage. The state is the one that provides rights to married people. Just like it gave those rights to married people it can also take them away. Married couples aren’t granted privileges ad hoc.

Actually we are debating the definition of marriage. If marriage is a special kind of contract, like we have talked about, we need to define it explicitely. It isn’t a matter of rights, since a contract isn’t a right, and even the privileges the state gives to such contracts are not rights. Marriage is indeed a legal “right.” The court ruling refers to the cases that establish this. Read the ruling, beginning on page 110.

And what one particular judge decides is more lawful than what the people decides, or even other judges? You know what they call that? Oligarchy. I didn’t know the US was living in the 500 BC. If the text was indeed unconstitutional how could the text have passed the judicial scrutiny? Or you think that no judge allowed for the text before it was voted on?

Why does this question matter? Nothing in the law concerns what is “better,” nor does anything in the ruling.

I was arguing to the definition of “right”. Do you even know what a “right” is?

 

[rossum]

There is a difference between changing categories and changeing the fundemental component of an argument

Your argument relied on assigning one particular pair of categories. You made no attempt to justify picking those specific categories. I merely changed to a different pair of categories, again without justification. That showed that your argument was flawed by its failure to justify the selection of the two categories it used.

By denying marriage based on medical records, you are asking every applicant to prove their medical status which is impractical.

It is you who is trying to deny people marriage on the basis of whether or not they are able to procreate. I am pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Because medical records are not checked we can know that legal marriage does not require the ability to procreate. That being case it is inconsistent to deny same sex couples a legal marriage simply because they cannot procreate.

And in the case of the government creating a fraudulent union.

Fraudulent? Legal marriage is defined by the laws passed by the government. If the law allows same sex marriage then same sex marriage is legal and not fraudulent. I know that you will consider it immoral and unrecognised by God, but it is not fraudulent. There are thousands of same sex couples in California who are legally married under California law. Their marriages are legally recognised and are not fraudulent.

Legal marriage in America is already immoral from the Catholic point of view because it allows for divorce and remarriage. That does not make a remarriage after divorce fraudulent.

rossum

 

[royal_archer]

Your argument relied on assigning one particular pair of categories. You made no attempt to justify picking those specific categories. I merely changed to a different pair of categories, again without justification. That showed that your argument was flawed by its failure to justify the selection of the two categories it used.

Nor did I specify humans and nor did I specify alive. Certain aspect are to assumed. Marriage is a well defined and understood construct. It is in appropriate to attempt to introduce abnormal scenarios into a discussion and then complain that those rediculously abnormal scenarios were not addressed.

It is you who is trying to deny people marriage on the basis of whether or not they are able to procreate. I am pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Because medical records are not checked we can know that legal marriage does not require the ability to procreate. That being case it is inconsistent to deny same sex couples a legal marriage simply because they cannot procreate.

The ability to procreate in general is what leads to the simple test of male and female. Just because you feel that this test is not sufficiently thorough, does not negate it as a method of filtering out groups who are categorically not who was to be intended to be considered in the grouping.

Fraudulent? Legal marriage is defined by the laws passed by the government. If the law allows same sex marriage then same sex marriage is legal and not fraudulent. I know that you will consider it immoral and unrecognised by God, but it is not fraudulent. There are thousands of same sex couples in California who are legally married under California law. Their marriages are legally recognised and are not fraudulent.

When the pair uses the term married to get bennefits and priveledges reserved for normal married couples, it is fraudulent.

Legal marriage in America is already immoral from the Catholic point of view because it allows for divorce and remarriage. That does not make a remarriage after divorce fraudulent.

rossum

I would make it decietful in a Catholic circumstance and if a couple attempted to pass themselves off as a validly married couple in order to gain bennefits in a catholic setting it would be fraudulent. However in society in Jewish and secular/protestant circles. remarriage is accepted and therefore a man and woman in a second marriage could honnestly describe themselves as married in a civil setting. No where has the deffinition of marriage ever included gay pairings. as such, use of the term marriage to describe such a partnership is deceitfull and the attempt to gain bennefits through such deceipt is fraudulent.

 

[royal_archer]

The gay community is trying to redefine the term marriage so that they can take advantage of bennefits married couples receive. If it is OK for them to change terminology to suit their agenda, then why can’t these things happen?:

Men redefine the meaning of women so they get government bennefits for women?

Caucasions redefining the term African American so as to allow them to get affirmative action bennefits, and slavery reparations if they are ever paid out?

For profit corporations redefining the term non proffit so they can avoid paying taxes?

Bars redefining the term religion so they can skirt local ordinances?

I know you will have to think outside the box on this but these are no more crazy than a pair of individuals other than a husband and wife trying to get defined as married.

 

[PassingThru]

The gay community is trying to redefine the term marriage so that they can take advantage of bennefits married couples receive. If it is OK for them to change terminology to suit their agenda, then why can’t these things happen?:

Men redefine the meaning of women so they get government bennefits for women?

Caucasions redefining the term African American so as to allow them to get affirmative action bennefits, and slavery reparations if they are ever paid out?

For profit corporations redefining the term non proffit so they can avoid paying taxes?

Bars redefining the term religion so they can skirt local ordinances?

I know you will have to think outside the box on this but these are no more crazy than a pair of individuals other than a husband and wife trying to get defined as married.

I was about to type a response to an earlier post you had made. Thank you for posting this, as I can now verify you are completely off the deep end.

Holy Cow.

Honestly, with your tin-foil mentality, you could rationalize an alien invasion at this point.

 

[dskysmine]

Your argument relied on assigning one particular pair of categories. You made no attempt to justify picking those specific categories. I merely changed to a different pair of categories, again without justification. That showed that your argument was flawed by its failure to justify the selection of the two categories it used.

Rossum it’s a fallacy of categoric mistake…
If marriage isn’t a contract to allow the state to get new constituants and their education, why should the state grant privileges to marriages? “Because loving people should get privileges” doesn’t come to mind… specially because someone can love any number of people, any kind of people, object or animal, and even themselves.

It is you who is trying to deny people marriage on the basis of whether or not they are able to procreate. I am pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Because medical records are not checked we can know that legal marriage does not require the ability to procreate. That being case it is inconsistent to deny same sex couples a legal marriage simply because they cannot procreate.

It isn’t “us”… it’s the state. The fact that incestuous marriages are not legal is the best proof that the state has interests not to give privileges to certain couples. The marriage contract is a contract that in secular law means: sexual-access. Both members are expected to have sex, and only to each other. It is a contract in which the state expects for something (even if it isn’t expressly stated)… not just to give privileges to the couple.
What would be inconsistent would be to allow for same sex marriages but not incestuous marriages. If incestuous (heterosexual) marriages don’t produce direct offspring they can have the same or better result than a homosexual marriage…
Don’t forget that the state cannot ask for medical records without judicial authorization, so it is moot to say that the state does not ask for medical records, and even if it did, it could still allow for infertile couples to marry so they could adopt a child and take that child’s burden from the state. What is in fact in question is whether 2 same gender people can provide for the same kind of education as 2 different gender people. The state does not get any kind of benefit from same sex marriages (maybe other than the end of civil unrest from same-sex couples). It does get new constituants from heterosexual marriages. This is the only point that matters here. And what’s more, same-sex couples already are recognized in the eyes of the state as civil unions which provides (or can provide) with the same kind of privileges.

Fraudulent? Legal marriage is defined by the laws passed by the government. If the law allows same sex marriage then same sex marriage is legal and not fraudulent. I know that you will consider it immoral and unrecognised by God, but it is not fraudulent. There are thousands of same sex couples in California who are legally married under California law. Their marriages are legally recognised and are not fraudulent.

Legal marriage in America is already immoral from the Catholic point of view because it allows for divorce and remarriage. That does not make a remarriage after divorce fraudulent.

rossum

There have been allowed marriages in New york and other places where mayors acted in defiance of the law… I don’t know the exact requirements for recognition of marriage according the US law because of it’s inherent complexity.

Take care.

 

[rossum]

Marriage is a well defined and understood construct.

This perhaps is where we differ. Marriage is not a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 man, 700 wives, 300 concubines.

• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 man, 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 man, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 man, 1 woman.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 man not previously divorced, 1 woman not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 man, 1 woman.
• Marriage (pre-1967 Virginia) = 1 man, 1 woman of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 man, 1 woman.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religions and by different legal entities.

When the pair uses the term married to get bennefits and priveledges reserved for normal married couples, it is fraudulent.

How can it be fraudulent if what they are doing is in accordance with the law? There are legally married same sex couples in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Proposition 8 relates to what is, and what is not, a legally recognised marriage. There is no fraud involved. I have shown above that there are many different versions of marriage.

rossum

 

[larkin31]

…And what one particular judge decides is more lawful than what the people decides, or even other judges? You know what they call that? Oligarchy. I didn’t know the US was living in the 500 BC.

Are you serious?

If the text was indeed unconstitutional how could the text have passed the judicial scrutiny?

Laws aren’t sent to judges for review before enactment.

I was arguing to the definition of “right”. Do you even know what a “right” is?

Are you serious? I am the one who said that this judge addresses the issue of “right” to marriage in the ruling. Shall I give you the page number? It appears that you have not read the document. (see page 112 of the pdf document here: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf )

 

[dskysmine]

Larkin: I already asked you to answer my post 185… you seem to ignore it…

Are you serious?

If something isn’t law, when one judge states it in his rulings it becomes law… do you think this is more or less of an oligarchy?

Laws aren’t sent to judges for review before enactment.

They have to pass legal scrutiny. You can’t make an unconstitutional ballot.

Are you serious? I am the one who said that this judge addresses the issue of “right” to marriage in the ruling. Shall I give you the page number? It appears that you have not read the document. (see page 112 of the pdf document here: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf )

I addressed this issue in my first comment.

 

[larkin31]

My last post got wrong quotations so I’m repeating it here:

I apologise if my expressions were ill received. I did not mean to hurt or cause pain, only to ask for you to pay more attention.

I understand how case law works in the United States… I don’t necessarily agree how it works, but then again, I’m not an United States citizen.
If those rulings are to be read literally then the State could not prohibit incestuous marriage, for example, which I don’t see being defended by homosexuals anywhere on earth.

I don’t think the 14th amendment can be used against proposition 8 because the 14th amendment doesn’t mention that marriage is a right or that marriage is simply a contract between two people, it just states that people should be given the same rights. I’d understand it better if you argued for article 1 section 7 from the california constitution which states:
“A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.”
The problem is that according to this law literal interpretation any kind of privilege can argued for, a position in office, same kind of taxes, etc…
How can richer people pay more taxes than poorer people using this law?

US law has a long history of marriage law, but not the creation of marriage. It is a statement of fact. The US constitution and the Bill of rights were written after marriage was already practiced in the country, heck, they were even written after “life” was practiced in the country, but they felt the need to write the “right” to life, but not the “right” to marriage. And from every ammendment I’ve read in the US all definitions of marriage include a man and a woman… so you could argue that any case law where this is denied makes that case law unconstitutional.

Re-read what I wrote… If society recognizes religious institutes and religious people how is it not imposing the acceptance for such unions (gay marriage) to everyone (including religious institutions)?

It was an argument for discrimination, just like you stated that gays don’t have the “right” to marry, they do have the “right”, just not each other… We are debating the definition of marriage, not the granting of rights.

Actually we are debating the definition of marriage. If marriage is a special kind of contract, like we have talked about, we need to define it explicitely. It isn’t a matter of rights, since a contract isn’t a right, and even the privileges the state gives to such contracts are not rights. Is Marriage a contract that states: “I will only have sex with person (or group X if you count group marriages) for the rest of this contract”? If it were, why would the state grant any privileges to it? Heck, that kind of contract doesn’t even need that both parties have sex, only that they do not have sex with another person.
It doesn’t even have automatic exclusion clauses. Only if any of the people involved ask for a divorce, and even then they have to have “good reasons” to do it (altough people can argue just emotional anguish for anything). How does this kind of contract have any meaning or significance for the state or society?
What makes a married couple under this definition more stable or better than two people who live in the same roof and respect each other and have sex and have children but aren’t married?

Which question? There are over a dozen here. Prioritize, say, three, and I will address them.

 

[larkin31]

If something isn’t law, when one judge states it in his rulings it becomes law… do you think this is more or less of an oligarchy?

This has nothing to do with oligarchy. Judges only rule on cases brought to them.

You can’t make an unconstitutional ballot.

Not true. Sometimes laws that have been on the books for years are struck down. I am not sure you understand what you are talking about here.

If you are complaining about the process of judicial review, then you simply are rejecting part of the process set up in the three branches of U.S. government. It is not perfect, but it is the best on the planet. I don’t complain about judicial review, and I disagree with about 50% of the case results that I follow. You can’t whine when you lose and then also use it to one’s advantage elsewhere without being hypocritical. Win some, lose some.

 

[royal_archer]

This perhaps is where we differ. Marriage is not a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.* Marriage (Solomon) = 1 man, 700 wives, 300 concubines.

• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 man, 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 man, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 man, 1 woman.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 man not previously divorced, 1 woman not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 man, 1 woman.
• Marriage (pre-1967 Virginia) = 1 man, 1 woman of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 man, 1 woman.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religions and by different legal entities.

And the universal constant till revisionist tried to redefine marriage is man and woman.

How can it be fraudulent if what they are doing is in accordance with the law? There are legally married same sex couples in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. Proposition 8 relates to what is, and what is not, a legally recognised marriage. There is no fraud involved. I have shown above that there are many different versions of marriage.

rossum

bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+fraud&FORM=DTPDIA&qpvt=deffinition+fraud