Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Elizabeth502]

So many options, these days.

So many hedonistic lifestyles. Just not enough time in one lifespan ***to experiment with them all ***. Hey, we should just call them all “marriage.” No reason not to.

 

[ThomasToo]

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.

I agree with you on this contention in principle but do you think it is legitimate to expect such a change to take place? If marriage in the purely legal sense is here to stay as it seems to be then what is the solution?

 

[PatrickSebast]

I agree with you on this contention in principle but do you think it is legitimate to expect such a change to take place? If marriage in the purely legal sense is here to stay as it seems to be then what is the solution?

Well I would have called it a legitimate change if someone could get a major group or politician to support it. However now that we have a case headed to the supreme court, I don’t know that there will be much choice but to suck it up, and continue to extol the values of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I can’t get upset every time values that are not in line with the Church’s teachings get pushed in this country, if I did I would never be happy.

 

[ThomasToo]

Well I would have called it a legitimate change if someone could get a major group or politician to support it. However now that we have a case headed to the supreme court, I don’t know that there will be much choice but to suck it up, and continue to extol the values of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I can’t get upset every time values that are not in line with the Church’s teachings get pushed in this country, if I did I would never be happy.

I appreciate your outlook–honestly and truly. I suppose my question could be put another way. Is there anything aside from the fact that the Church calls what it does ‘marriage’ and the state calls something very different ‘marriage’ as well that is problematic (and attempts to be solved by your civil unions for all policy)?

 

[PatrickSebast]

Let’s see if I have this correct.

Non celibate same sex attracted and bisexual men advance the spread of HIV / AIDs into families and into society and now society is to reward them with the “right” to marry their same sex partner who - studies show - they won’t remain faithful to.

If it is a case of statistics in regards to monogamy, and disease transmission then I guess Lesbians would be alright. Heck lesbian relationships aren’t even touched on in the old testament like gay male relationships are.

 

[PatrickSebast]

I appreciate your outlook–honestly and truly. I suppose my question could be put another way. Is there anything aside from the fact that the Church calls what it does ‘marriage’ and the state calls something very different ‘marriage’ as well that is problematic (and attempts to be solved by your civil unions for all policy)?

Well I suppose the Catholic Church COULD (though I don’t know that they would) change the name. They could even use the latin words for marriage/married to be traditional or something, but honestly it is probably a pipe dream and it is more realistic to assume that the difference in marriages is just the type of thing Americans will have to grow to accept over time. BTW I just saw you “location” was Earth-616 so I thought I should add something about the commercial value of marriage contracts, and whether you thought a “Civil Union” would still be worth the extension of an old woman’s life.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The argument for this is fairly straightforward, and I am interested to see how proponents of prop 8 would challenge the crucial steps (if they can).

1. 
   *] If proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and the discrimination is unjustified, then it violates equal protection.
   *] Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by allowing heterosexuals, but not homosexuals, to marry their partners).
   *]The discrimination is unjustified.
   *]Therefore, proposition 8 violates equal protection.
   
   The only real dispute here is (3), but so far, I have not seen any convincing argument to justify the discrimination against homosexuals who wish to marry their partners. The form of the justification must specify some purported harm that same-sex marriage would cause to society. In other words, allowing same-sex marriage would cause “x, y, and z,” where “x, y, and z” are bad for society, and therefore the discrimination is justified. However, the trick is for prop 8 proponents to spell out what the “x, y,and z” consequences are and provide the evidence for them. Can anyone actually do this?

1. 
   So what about other marriages? Should we just allow all other marriages? An adult and a minor? Polygamy? Bestiality? Aren’t we discriminating against them if we do not allow them to marry those who they wish to marry?

 

[secular_freedom]

So what about other marriages? Should we just allow all other marriages? An adult and a minor? Polygamy? Bestiality? Aren’t we discriminating against them if we do not allow them to marry those who they wish to marry?

None of these “questions” actually challenge the argument at hand. In regards to other marriages, we have to examine them on a case by case basis to see whether the discrimination is justified.

 

[ThomasToo]

So what about other marriages? Should we just allow all other marriages? An adult and a minor? Polygamy? Bestiality? Aren’t we discriminating against them if we do not allow them to marry those who they wish to marry?

Down the line:

• Adults and minors can wed, assuming the child is above the age of consent (as low as 13 in some jurisdictions though many of these require parental permission). As in the case of animals, children cannot consent to marry and as below marriage is not about one person marrying whom they want but two people who want to marry each other being allowed to do so.
• Polygamy is a point granted; I see almost no rational relationship with any legitimate government interest being advanced in preventing people from marrying more than one person. I say ‘almost’ because the case can be made that the bookkeeping of polygamy would be an undue burden on the state and preventing this difficulty would be a legitimate government interest but don’t know how the jurisprudence will end up falling on this question. Further, from the religious side, there are numerous biblical precedents for this institution.
• No; animals cannot consent to any sort of legal proceedings including but not limited to marriage.

The issue is not about preventing people from marrying those whom they wish to marry but preventing individuals who want to marry one another from marrying. This distinction is crucial since a marriage is between two people (even in the case of polygamy since that is one person being married to multiple people and the fundamental unit is still binary) both of whom must seek it.

 

[secular_freedom]

It seems clear that most (if not all) of the opposition against same-sex marriage is motivated by irrational prejudices and stereotypes against homosexuals.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It seems clear that most (if not all) of the opposition against same-sex marriage is motivated by irrational prejudices against homosexuals.

Not even close. No one is talking about irrationality, fantasies, or suppositions. We’re talking about households, how those are defined vis–a-vis children, the process by which we define and control the boundaries of our social institutions (education, marriage, and more), and the underlying assumptions about (1) what the U.S. Constitution does and does not direct, ensure, provide, (2) who is qualified and authorized to define, limit, and legitimize the term “marriage” in a formal institutional sense (not in an informal, personal, subjective sense), (3) whether such public institutions which include children (schools, households, more) can legitimately be regulated by recognized governmental agencies, and (4) whether private language can be arbitrarily applied to existing social institutions, or altered by a particular group with an agenda which opposes what has been recognized historically as the common good for a society.

We’re also calling the Gay Lobby on their own “facts”: that supposedly they are cough cough as-or-more-monogamous than heterosexual marriages. Really? The very recent funded research by gays themselves, which has been cited here and further discussed in that article, flatly contradicts such lies.

 

[secular_freedom]

Not even close. No one is talking about irrationality, fantasies, or suppositions.

But you are. From various behavior you see some homosexuals exhibit, you (and Barbkw) do you not even hesitate to generalize about all homosexuals.

We’re talking about households, how those are defined vis–a-vis children, the process by which we define and control the boundaries of our social institutions (education, marriage, and more), and the underlying assumptions about (1) what the U.S. Constitution does and does not direct, ensure, provide, (2) who is qualified and authorized to define, limit, and legitimize the term “marriage” in a formal institutional sense (not in an informal, personal, subjective sense), (3) whether such public institutions which include children (schools, households, more) can legitimately be regulated by recognized governmental agencies, and (4) whether private language can be arbitrarily applied to existing social institutions, or altered by a particular group with an agenda which opposes what has been recognized historically as the common good for a society.

I supplied an argument (see op) which you have yet to address.

We’re also calling the Gay Lobby on their own “facts”: that supposedly they are cough cough as-or-more-monogamous than heterosexual marriages. Really? The very recent funded research by gays themselves, which has been cited here and further discussed in that article, flatly contradicts such lies.

What “research?” Again, the fact that some people engage in sexual behavior you don’t approve of doesn’t mean all people–or even most–of that group engage in such behavior. In any case, all of this is beside the point: since when is monogamy a prerequisite for marriage? Never heard of “swingers?” You would do well to get out more.

 

[Barbkw]

“Men who were associated with the gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months preceding the survey as men who were not associated with the gay community.”

I’ll highlight one area in that paragraph “…gay community were nearly four times as likely to have had more than 50 sex partners in the six months…”

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

We’re not generalizing, we’re catching you in your lies.

 

[JohnCS]

All of this is moot because homosexuality is not a race or gender, it is an appetite or inclination. Rights are not provided for things that we “like” or “prefer”. I cannot sue a restaraunt for not serving my favorite food, it is not discrimination although I may feel slighted that they don’t serve mashed potatoes. Again as someone tried to point out earlier, NO ONE has any more rights than anyone else. Your trick is to add “their parter” into the discussion to make it fit what you want to say. As a heterosexual male, I only have the right to marry my partner IF and ONLY if, my partner is a woman of the right age and not closely related…the EXACT same rights as homosexuals have. Just because they PREFER to have it a different way does not make the rights different. Gay men have the exact same right to marry that I do…EXACTLY. I can marry a woman who qualifies, they can marry a woman who qualifies, there is no inequality here. More importantly though, when did sexual orientation become a class of people? It really is sad that some feel that they have to let their sexual inclinations define them in that way. It is not a race, it is not a gender, it is a preference. Extra rights based on preferance is just mind boggling.

 

[Barbkw]

For those of us Catholics who identify with papal authority, this is what Pope Benedict has written about homosexuality and how a Catholic is to respond to the homosexual agenda:

Doctrinal document On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, July 31, 2004

…According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’.

They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.

The homosexual inclination is however ‘objectively disordered’ and homosexual practices are ‘sins gravely contrary to chastity’.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.

One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

 

[Barbkw]

Doctrinal document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, July 31, 2003

Ratzinger’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” 1986, as reported by National Catholic Reporter

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action.

Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs…

The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law."

 

[Barbkw]

“Cardinal Ratzinger on Laicism and Sexual Ethics,” Zenit.org, Nov. 19, 2004:

"…Men and women were created to be jointly the guarantee of the future of the humanity — not only a physical guarantee, but also a moral one.

Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living.

On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.

Because God loves us, because He wants us to grow into truth, He must necessarily make demands on us and must also correct us…"

 

[ConstantineTG]

Down the line:

• Adults and minors can wed, assuming the child is above the age of consent (as low as 13 in some jurisdictions though many of these require parental permission). As in the case of animals, children cannot consent to marry and as below marriage is not about one person marrying whom they want but two people who want to marry each other being allowed to do so.
• Polygamy is a point granted; I see almost no rational relationship with any legitimate government interest being advanced in preventing people from marrying more than one person. I say ‘almost’ because the case can be made that the bookkeeping of polygamy would be an undue burden on the state and preventing this difficulty would be a legitimate government interest but don’t know how the jurisprudence will end up falling on this question. Further, from the religious side, there are numerous biblical precedents for this institution.
• No; animals cannot consent to any sort of legal proceedings including but not limited to marriage.

The issue is not about preventing people from marrying those whom they wish to marry but preventing individuals who want to marry one another from marrying. This distinction is crucial since a marriage is between two people (even in the case of polygamy since that is one person being married to multiple people and the fundamental unit is still binary) both of whom must seek it.

But animals enjoy more rights that humans, why can’t they have the right to marry a human?

You kick a dog, you go to jail. You abort a baby, you are praised for exercising your right.

 

[ConstantineTG]

None of these “questions” actually challenge the argument at hand. In regards to other marriages, we have to examine them on a case by case basis to see whether the discrimination is justified.

Of course it does. If we’re giving away marriage as a right of anyone regardless of the rationality behind it, where and when do we stop?

People seem to be fighting for rights but throw out all rationality. People want the right to do something, regardless if its right or wrong. Is it discrimination to say no to people for asking something that is wrong?

 

[secular_freedom]

All of this is moot because homosexuality is not a race or gender, it is an appetite or inclination. Rights are not provided for things that we “like” or “prefer”. I cannot sue a restaraunt for not serving my favorite food, it is not discrimination although I may feel slighted that they don’t serve mashed potatoes. Again as someone tried to point out earlier, NO ONE has any more rights than anyone else.

You appear to be contesting premise (2) of my argument, but I have already addressed this particular objection. Please see posts # 7, 8, and 11.

Your trick is to add “their parter” into the discussion to make it fit what you want to say. As a heterosexual male, I only have the right to marry my partner IF and ONLY if, my partner is a woman of the right age and not closely related…the EXACT same rights as homosexuals have. Just because they PREFER to have it a different way does not make the rights different. Gay men have the exact same right to marry that I do…EXACTLY. I can marry a woman who qualifies, they can marry a woman who qualifies, there is no inequality here. More importantly though, when did sexual orientation become a class of people? It really is sad that some feel that they have to let their sexual inclinations define them in that way. It is not a race, it is not a gender, it is a preference. Extra rights based on preferance is just mind boggling.

Again, I have already addressed this objection (see the posts referenced above). While it’s true that homosexuals can marry under prop 8, it is not true that they have the same freedom to marry under prop 8 as heterosexuals. This fact doesn’t change just because gay men and gay women are free to marry persons of the opposite sex.