Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThomasToo said:
How about when that group is the Supreme Court? There is no question that the right to marry is constitutionally protected.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1 [1967])
Click to expand...
Nope. Another false claim. Loving had nothing to do with homosexual “marriage.” It had only to do with the universal right to heterosexual marriage. It did not define marriage as inclusive of a new category whatsoever.

You should obtain the tapes/CD’s of Professor Robert George’s comments on this very case. It had nothing to do with couples consisting of the same gender.

Get your facts straight and quit propagandizing the world with false statements which the Court did not declare and which are erroneous interpretations of the Loving decision.
 
It’s not about love of other, it’s about sex with many many others.
 
So self absorbed, yet they still need heterosexuals to confirm them in their sexual sins.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
My gosh. How much sex does a person need? You’re having sex with “your partner,” but that’s not enough? You need more “outlets”?

Sick.
Click to expand...
I’m curious why you–and many other Catholics–seem to care so much about the sorts of sex other people are having. I can almost understand the whole ‘protect marriage’ thing but these are adults consenting to sex with other adults, no children or animals are involved so why does it ruffle your feathers that other people like to have sorts of sex that you don’t?

I admit that we differ on a great many things and this is no exception. Three consenting adults want to have sex together in varieties and combination, who am I–assuming I’m not their mother, their lover nor their guild-mistress–to object? So too, if two committed partners want to give their lovers the permission to have sex with other people (i.e. non-monogamy) why on Earth should I care? The list, of course, goes on but the underlying principle is the same.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Nope. Another false claim. Loving had nothing to do with homosexual “marriage.” It had only to do with the universal right to heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
Please point to where in the opinion the term “heterosexual” was used in the context of qualifying the right to marry.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Nope. Another false claim. Loving had nothing to do with homosexual “marriage.” It had only to do with the universal right to heterosexual marriage. It did not define marriage as inclusive of a new category whatsoever.

You should obtain the tapes/CD’s of Professor Robert George’s comments on this very case. It had nothing to do with couples consisting of the same gender.

Get your facts straight and quit propagandizing the world with false statements which the Court did not declare and which are erroneous interpretations of the Loving decision.
Click to expand...
Another false claim? Loving didn’t declare marriage to be a fundamental right then? That’s all I was saying because no less than three people here have claimed marriage is not a right and this conception is wrong.

My facts are straight and I never said standing Supreme Court jurisprudence had settled the question of extending the protections of civil marriage to homosexual couples though if it does, Loving will be a large part of the precedent used.
 
I think there are a lot of people here who need to actually meet some gay people who are not on the radical fringe of gay society so they have a better understanding.
 
secular_freedom said:
Please point to where in the opinion the term “heterosexual” was used in the context of qualifying the right to marry.
Click to expand...
Here, sadly, I must somewhat agree with the hoi polloi on the forum at least to a degree. The common, accepted legal definition of the word ‘marriage’ when Loving was decided was unquestioningly a union between one man and one woman though many states added the caveat ‘of the same race.’

What is relevant for our purposes, however, is that marriage is a fundamental right and the question that will–I presume–soon before the court is whether or not the exclusion of gays from entering into the protections of that right by virtue of their gender and orientation is licit (i.e. is rationally related to a legitimate government interest).

Interestingly, Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health (Mass. marriage equality case) didn’t so much overturn any specific law but Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of ‘marriage’ since none was established in the state’s body of black letter law.
 
Gender disorders and sexual dysfunctions do not, a marriage, make.

Why would or should a society protect a dysfunction?
 
I saw a transsexual a couple of weeks ago. A man dressed in a skirt suit and long white gloves. Makeup, big hair.

We should assume, that he/she will also receive the “right” to marry.
 
And then, it comes into question. What about the man, who wants to marry 6 or 7 women. That will also be legal.

And it’s got to be legal for sexual incest when a child becomes of sexual age.

Now, don’t laugh and think it could never happen, do a Google search, countries are already marrying men and dogs, men and cats, men and their goats.

What a wonderful wonderful sexually experimental and fulfilling world.
 
Barbkw said:
I saw a transsexual a couple of weeks ago. A man dressed in a skirt suit and long white gloves. Makeup, big hair.

We should assume, that he/she will also receive the “right” to marry.
Click to expand...
That’s crossdressing which is a very different sort of situation from being transgendered. That said, ostensibly the person you described is a man and could then marry a woman and if the legal protections of civil marriages are extended to same sex couples then he could also marry a man (masculine pronouns for convenience and lack of a non-gender specific pronoun in English).

I don’t know what other options you think there are; the United States only legally establishes two genders.
 
I contained myself and didn’t peek under the skirt or unbutton the blouse.

🤷
 
For all I know, it was a woman, taking male hormones to look kinda like a man, but yet dress like a woman.
 
Or a woman, taking male hormones for her surgically altered privates, who dresses as a woman until her breasts are removed.

So many options, these days.
 
Barbkw said:
For all I know, it was a woman, taking male hormones to look kinda like a man, but yet dress like a woman.
Click to expand...
shrugs My main contention stands.

I don’t know what sort of right to marry this individual would be denied if people of the same sex were legally allowed to marry.

Further, and I say this without spite or judgment, you’re new to the forum and I would humbly suggest that it’s poor board etiquette to make five or six very short posts in less than a half an hour especially when most seem to simply be ‘oh, I forgot to say X.’ This is why there is the edit button for (as I recall) 15 minutes after posts are submitted.
 
I have no problem with the idea that Prop 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause. However I do think the ultimate compromise would be to simply remove the word marriage from all government documents and make it so that anyone wanting a legally recognized partnership get a civil union while everyone wanting a spiritually recognized one will need to go to their religious official.

Not to say that I am not Catholic on the issue. I certainly don’t feel that homosexual couples should be granted the sacrament of Holy Matrimony since it seems pretty clear biblically that God intended the sacrament for a man and a women. I just have no expectations for the secular world to hold to the morals of a Church they are not a part of.
 
Lutheranteach said:
I think there are a lot of people here who need to actually meet some gay people who are not on the radical fringe of gay society so they have a better understanding.
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of people here who need to actually meet some straight people who know quite a few (and work with quite a few) gay people, before such posters reveal their ignorance about what straight people do and do not understand about the spectrum of the gay population. It doesn’t matter, though. The people aggressively seeking to seize and redefine marriage for their unique purposes are in fact mostly on the radical fringe of gay activism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top