Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[secular_freedom]

Okay, you win! Your argument is valid, as is this one:

1. I am superman
2. Superman can fly
3. Therefore can fly.

This is also a valid argument…it doens’t make it true. And that is my point with yours, your premises are not true because it is neccesary to beleive homosexuality is another class of people.

Which premise of my argument do you believe is false? Please indicate the specific #. Moreover, “homosexuality” isn’t another class of people, and I never claimed as such.

You can’t discriminate me because I like to wear pink and green striped pants, there are not special laws in place to protect me there are only the basic rights that all people have. Again, homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals in that they can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination there.

False. As I explained, the fact that homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean they are free to marry their partners; under prop 8, homosexuals – unlike heterosexuals – do not have the freedom to marry their partners (hence the discrimination). This fact doesn’t change just because gay men and gay women are free to marry persons of the opposite sex. Now, whether the discrimination is justified is a separate issue (premise 3), but it silly to deny that the discrimination exists.

 

[edwest2]

All laws discriminate. The biology and complementary simply aren’t there.

There is nothing to protect as such.

God bless,
Ed

 

[gardenswithkids]

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. 
   Proposition 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, bi-sexuals and anyone else.
   
   Marriage involves both a man and a woman. Without both a man and woman, it can not physically be a marriage. There are a few other restrictions on whom we can marry that have nothing to do with sexual orientation either. Couples that are brother and sister are not permitted to marry their “partner” either. Couples made up of one partner already legally married to someone else are not permitted to marry the new partner until after death or divorce of that first spouse. Couples where one or both are under a certain age are not permitted to marry their partner.
   
   While marriage partners are usually sexual attracted to each other, there is nothing in the current marriage laws requiring the couple to be sexual attracted to each other.
   
   If you think two men or two women can marry, then you just demonstrated that you really don’t know what marriage is about. People who are that clueless about the purpose and meaning of marriage probably shouldn’t get married until they know more about what marriage is.

 

[larkin31]

…If you think two men or two women can marry, then you just demonstrated that you really don’t know what marriage is about.

They can, in more than one state. And perhaps soon again in California. Even while you say that it is not possible, there are gays marrying in this country.

 

[gardenswithkids]

They can, in more than one state. And perhaps soon again in California. Even while you say that it is not possible, there are gays marrying in this country.

Yes, I know that homosexuals can marrying in this country. One of my female friends married a gay man–who later died of AIDS. Monogamy to his wife and his wedding vows would have served him well.

What homosexuals *cannot *do is marry a member of the same sex. The fact that some judges and politicians don’t know the basic meaning of the word “marriage”, doesn’t change that fact. Marriage is what it is. Judges and politicians may think they have the power to change this, but they do not. We are limited by the use of words. What two men or two women have between each other can never be the same thing as what a married couple has.

I’m not romanticizing the love between a man and woman, nor am I denigrating the love between two persons of the same sex. Love is a good thing. But homosexual acts are neither true acts of love, nor are they true acts of marriage.

 

[larkin31]

What homosexuals *cannot *do is marry a member of the same sex.

Yes, they can, and are doing so even as you claim that they are not.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, they can, and are doing so even as you claim that they are not.

Calling JohnCS “Superman” doesn’t make him the real Superman, nor does it give him the ability to fly. Calling something “marriage” that isn’t marriage does not make it a real marriage. However, it does confuse even more people about what marriage really is all about–and we already have plenty of heterosexuals around today confused about the real meaning and purpose of marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth,

When you’re ready to challenge the argument I put forth (and not engage in irrelevant side issues and stereotypes regarding the sexual behavior of certain individuals), please proceed. That goes for you too, Barbkw.

(1) I’ve challenged the argument repeatedly, on this thread and many others, which you refuse to read or acknowledge.
(2) You cannot point to a single stereotype that I have promulgated in this debate
(3) You have repeatedly engaged in group stereotyping regarding anyone who believes in any religion.
(4) You assume that arguments against gay marriage always proceed from religious frameworks. You won’t find that in my dozens of posts in the last 2 years on this issue, but again, you simply lack the intestinal fortitude to examine those.
(5) The gay proponents of gay marriage have argued repeatedly that an essential reason for granting them marriage standing is that their relationships are supposedly so much more stable and monogamous. Therefore, monogamy is not a “side issue.” It is a central issue to this discussion. Three quarters of heterosexual couples do not

negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.

(Citation previously provided, with reference to what is accepted practice among gays.)

The vast majority of heterosexual women would simply not allow such an ongoing, permanent “arrangement.”

Let me know when you’re ready to touch base with reality. So far there is no evidence of that, which is why the conversation can probably not continue. It’s not a conversation on your part: It’s partisan propaganda with all the gay lobby talking points.

 

[bingbang]

No I’m saying Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate, because same-sex “marriages” wouldn’t really BE marriages. The government can’t rewrite what marriage is by allowing same-sex couples to partake in it. If they want their own false version of marriage, they can call it something else, but marriage is not for them, anymore than I can marry my goat.

They can rewrite what marriage is and many governments already have.

 

[secular_freedom]

Proposition 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, bi-sexuals and anyone else.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the fact that homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else, doesn’t mean they, just like anyone else, can marry their partners. Please note this distinction. The reason why prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is because homosexuals, unlike heterosexuals, are unable to marry their partners. This fact doesn’t change just because, as you noted, homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex.

Marriage involves both a man and a woman. Without both a man and woman, it can not physically be a marriage.

Why not? This is just an unsupported assertion.

There are a few other restrictions on whom we can marry that have nothing to do with sexual orientation either. Couples that are brother and sister are not permitted to marry their “partner” either. Couples made up of one partner already legally married to someone else are not permitted to marry the new partner until after death or divorce of that first spouse. Couples where one or both are under a certain age are not permitted to marry their partner.

While marriage partners are usually sexual attracted to each other, there is nothing in the current marriage laws requiring the couple to be sexual attracted to each other.

If you think two men or two women can marry, then you just demonstrated that you really don’t know what marriage is about. People who are that clueless about the purpose and meaning of marriage probably shouldn’t get married until they know more about what marriage is.

None of this underscores the point that under prop 8, homosexuals do not have the same freedom to marry as heterosexuals do.

 

[secular_freedom]

What homosexuals *cannot *do is marry a member of the same sex. The fact that some judges and politicians don’t know the basic meaning of the word “marriage”, doesn’t change that fact. Marriage is what it is. Judges and politicians may think they have the power to change this, but they do not.

The fact that same-sex marriage is *legal *in Massachusetts completely refutes your claim that homosexuals “cannot” marry a member of the same sex. You appear to be confusing “cannot” with “should not.” You may not like it, you may fight against it, but it is nonsensical to claim that same-sex marriage cannot - as a matter of logic - happen.

 

[secular_freedom]

(1) I’ve challenged the argument repeatedly, on this thread and many others, which you refuse to read or acknowledge.

So indicate the premise you dispute. Here is the argument again:

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.

 

[Barbkw]

Sodomy should never be the way in which a person labels himself.

All children who have gender identity issues at a young age, (grades ranging from 3rd - 5th) can be cured of their gender confusion by a psychologist.

At puberty, and after a young boy has had anal sex with other same sex persons, the condition becomes much more difficult to correct. Then the disorder becomes a sexual dysfunction.

The sexual actions of noncelibate same sex attracted people should not be protected action by the federal, state or local government.

Legitamizing, legalizing and normalizing the sexual actions of same sex persons dooms young children with gender identity issues.

Instead of receiving the psychological help they need to overcome this disorder, these children will be left to fall into the prison of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[larkin31]

Calling JohnCS “Superman” doesn’t make him the real Superman, nor does it give him the ability to fly. Calling something “marriage” that isn’t marriage does not make it a real marriage.

It is a marriage as “real” and legal as any hetero marriage, or atheists’ marriage, or Muslim marriage, etc…

 

[larkin31]

All children who have gender identity issues at a young age, (grades ranging from 3rd - 5th) can be cured of their gender confusion by a psychologist.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that this claim is true. Even the CC states that the results of therapy are inconclusive. From where do you get this?

 

[edwest2]

Here is a good resource regarding therapy:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[gardenswithkids]

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the fact that homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex, just like anyone else, doesn’t mean they, just like anyone else, can marry their partners. …

As I already pointed out to refute your claim, not all heterosexuals can marry their partners either!

If partners are close relatives, people cannot marry. That relates to the genetic problems that may result from close relatives marrying–because marriage can produce children. Sexual relations between two men or two women won’t produce genetic offspring, so if the state recognizes homosexual unions, people with incestuous attractions should be able to sue under the equal protection clause.

If one partner is legally married to someone else, people cannot marry their partner. Perhaps those persons who find themselves sexually attracted to married persons should sue under the equal protection clause too.

If one of the partners doesn’t want to marry, people cannot marry their partners. That’s really quite unfair to those people who wish to be married who cannot find a willing partner. Perhaps those who are single not-by-choice should sue to be allowed to marry under the equal protection.

 

[ThomasToo]

As I already pointed out to refute your claim, not all heterosexuals can marry their partners either!

If partners are close relatives, people cannot marry. That relates to the genetic problems that may result from close relatives marrying–because marriage can produce children. Sexual relations between two men or two women won’t produce genetic offspring, so if the state recognizes homosexual unions, people with incestuous attractions should be able to sue under the equal protection clause.

This law passes the rational basis test since the government has a legitimate interest in preventing defectives and anti-incest laws have a rational tie to that interest. Preventing people of the same sex, however, is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

If one partner is legally married to someone else, people cannot marry their partner. Perhaps those persons who find themselves sexually attracted to married persons should sue under the equal protection clause too.

Ostensibly the partner who is married already has married their partner. The only compelling legal case I’ve heard against polygamy is that the intricacies of keeping accurate records of spiderweb like marriages could be an undue burden on the states and–similarly–preventing polygamy is rationally related to this legitimate government interest. That said, I find this case rather weak and if the paperwork can be worked out there really isn’t any legitimate reason–assuming all parties in an existing marriage consent–that one person cannot be married to more that one person. There is substantial historical (as well as biblical) precedent for this traditional form of marriage.

If one of the partners doesn’t want to marry, people cannot marry their partners. That’s really quite unfair to those people who wish to be married who cannot find a willing partner. Perhaps those who are single not-by-choice should sue to be allowed to marry under the equal protection.

This case does not apply since your claim would more or less compel persons to marry other persons which is far and away unrelated to this case. An individual’s rights end where another’s begin and such a compulsion violates any number of rights the compelled yields.

 

[secular_freedom]

As I already pointed out to refute your claim, not all heterosexuals can marry their partners either!

If partners are close relatives, people cannot marry. That relates to the genetic problems that may result from close relatives marrying–because marriage can produce children. Sexual relations between two men or two women won’t produce genetic offspring, so if the state recognizes homosexual unions, people with incestuous attractions should be able to sue under the equal protection clause.

If one partner is legally married to someone else, people cannot marry their partner. Perhaps those persons who find themselves sexually attracted to married persons should sue under the equal protection clause too.

If one of the partners doesn’t want to marry, people cannot marry their partners. That’s really quite unfair to those people who wish to be married who cannot find a willing partner. Perhaps those who are single not-by-choice should sue to be allowed to marry under the equal protection.

Your “refutation” fails to challenge what I said. The fact that not all heterosexuals can marry their partners under prop 8 doesn’t change the fact that many (if not most) heterosexuals can marry their partners, while virtually no homosexuals can marry their partners. Generally, heterosexuals are free to marry their partners; homosexuals, however, are not permitted this same general freedom.

 

[Barbkw]

Thank you Edwest2 for the article.

narth.com/docs/hope.html

HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOPE:

Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association
November, 2000

The following is the most recent statement of the Catholic Medical Association on the subject of homosexuality. It has been reprinted here by permission. Interested readers can learn more about this organization online at cathmed.org.