Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[larkin31]

I challenge point number 1 that is discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. It doesn’t. Marriage laws don’t ask about sexual orientation. People don’t even have to be sexually attracted to their marriage partners in order to marry. Prop 8 applies to everyone in California. …

this is is ruse. The effect cannot be discriminatory, either, despite the language. Clearly
, the law is primarily meant to keep gays from marrying each other within their genders. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

 

[PassingThru]

I challenge point number 1 that is discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. It doesn’t. Marriage laws don’t ask about sexual orientation. People don’t even have to be sexually attracted to their marriage partners in order to marry. Prop 8 applies to everyone in California.

I challenge point number 2 because as I already pointed out, the current laws do not allow heterosexuals to marry their sexual partners in every circumstance. Heterosexuals also cannot marry a person of the same sex, nor can they marry more than one person. Quite honestly, I can imaging two close heterosexual friends or family members of the same sex wanting to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage.

Something else to consider on point number 2:
Might not an unmarried single daughter who cares for her aging mother want to the legal advantages of “same sex marriage” to her mother? Certainly they love each other. But that loving relationship between mother and daughter isn’t “marriage”–it’s something else. Likewise, the relationship between two homosexuals is not marriage. If homosexual relationships gain legal recognition to use the term “marriage” based on their homosexual attraction, then heterosexuals (under the equal protection laws) gain the right to “marry” someone of the same sex too. But heterosexuals don’t have that right. None of us have that right. Prop 8 does not treat homosexuals different than heterosexual.

Re point 3: it is not discrimintation solely against homosexuals. It discriminates against anyone who would use the legal term “marriage” to refer to something other than the relationship between one man and one woman. And yes, if that is discrimination, then such discrimination is justified. A large number of Americans are currently involved in such “legal partnerships” known as marriage. We have a vested interest that the term “marriage” not be used to refer to any two (or three, or more) people who have affectionate feelings for each other.

People are not entitled under equal protection laws to change the basic meaning of words. Society has an interest in keeping a specific meaning to certain words. The words “marriage” “spouse” “husband” “wife” “mother” “father” and other words relating to marriage and family, are used in our laws. If we change this law, it will have a ripple effect on a multitude of other laws.

Re point 4: No, it doesn’t violate equal protection. It protects marriage equally from those who would make the word marriage mean everything, and ultimately make that word mean nothing.

I mean this with all due respect, but have you read the court findings? Every point you have made is covered, and explained in detail how it does or does not apply, or how it can or can not be proven in a legal sense.

As this discussion is on the strictly legal side of the fence, I think you might want to read it. I can find a link of you cant find it.

Even if you disagree with the judge, what you can not simply dismiss is the *process *that is required, the burden of proof, and how the court views some of the basic assumptions of the case. If you do not start with this understanding, you are mis-understanding the logic that is used to explain why certain decisions were made, and why.

None of this has to do with anyones religion, by the way. How people keep pulling it in is beyond me. Again, it explains specifically why in the case. Plus, then all I would have to say is my religion says otherwise, and we are at an impasse. We have to prove these things, which leads us right back into the court case, which is explained in great detail.

Most of the points people are trying to make were attempted in trial. A good percentage were abandoned by the defense. Can you make a guess as to why?

 

[larkin31]

I mean this with all due respect, but have you read the court findings? Every point you have made is covered, and explained in detail how it does or does not apply, or how it can or can not be proven in a legal sense.

As this discussion is on the strictly legal side of the fence, I think you might want to read it. I can find a link of you cant find it.

Here: glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/perry-decision-8-4-10.pdf I have posted it about 5 times now.

Even if you disagree with the judge, what you can not simply dismiss is the *process *that is required, the burden of proof, and how the court views some of the basic assumptions of the case. If you do not start with this understanding, you are mis-understanding the logic that is used to explain why certain decisions were made, and why.

None of this has to do with anyones religion, by the way. How people keep pulling it in is beyond me. Again, it explains specifically why in the case. Plus, then all I would have to say is my religion says otherwise, and we are at an impasse. We have to prove these things, which leads us right back into the court case, which is explained in great detail.

Most of the points people are trying to make were attempted in trial. A good percentage were abandoned by the defense. Can you make a guess as to why?

They have no standing in law and no empirical support in fields of study? That’s my guess.

 

[Barbkw]

Gay marriage is merely the battle.

Crushing religious freedom of speech is the war.

Homosexuals and their liberal counterparts want (through the gay marriage agenda) to crush religious freedom of speech.

When gay marriage is seen as a win over discrimination laws, it will in effect silence religious freedom of speech concerning sodomy, gender identity disorder as a clinical diagnosis and homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction.

That’s why Secular Freedom continues to pound on his 3 “discrimination” premises.

One percent of the US population (who are disordered by a curable condition) are controlling the remaining 99% of the US.

 

[edwest2]

Gay marriage is merely the battle.

Crushing religious freedom of speech is the war.

Homosexuals and their liberal counterparts want (through the gay marriage agenda) to crush religious freedom of speech.

When gay marriage is seen as a win over discrimination laws, it will in effect silence religious freedom of speech concerning sodomy, gender identity disorder as a clinical diagnosis and homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction.

That’s why Secular Freedom continues to pound on his 3 “discrimination” premises.

One percent of the US population (who are disordered by a curable condition) are controlling the remaining 99% of the US.

Well, the people did not vote for this but like other recent examples of social engineering, the courts will be used. In the end, the truth will prevail. Just continue to speak the truth.

Control will only occur if the truth is denied.

God bless,
Ed

 

[secular_freedom]

Heterosexual marriages are ordered toward procreation.

All heterosexual marriages are ordered toward procreation? What do you mean by “ordered?” I assume you mean heterosexual marriages are enacted for the purpose of creation. But again, this is not true of all or many heterosexual marriages, and there is no requirement in current law that marriage be so “ordered.”

If everything works, a baby can be created.

Sure. A baby “can” be created if everything works.

It is assumed that everything works, therefore society considers heterosexual marriage essential to it’s survival.A homosexual marriage* can never* be ordered toward procreation. They are in no way essential to the survival of the anything.

Your argument relies on an obviously false premise: that marriage must be essential to survival in order for it to be legally valid. This is just not true, since not all – or many – heterosexual marriages are essential to survival. In fact, marriage in itself isn’t essential to survival because there can be procreation without marriage!

Proposition 8 rightly denies the name and benefits of marriage to a group that will not benefit society if they are given such. Marriage is for society, not the individuals who are married. It provides a stable platform for the raising of the next generation. Since gay marriage produces absolutely zero babies, there is no need for society to sanction it.

1. Again, it is not a requirement that all marriages be essential for the survival of society before a union can be legally recognized as marriage. If this were the case, then obviously, many heterosexuals couldn’t get married.
2. Your claim that marriage is for society and NOT for the individuals involved is embarrassingly false. Regardless of whether marriage is for society, it is most certainly for the individuals involved.
3. You seem to be confusing the “raising of the next generation” with the “creation of the next generation.” The fact that same-sex couples can’t “create” the next generation doesn’t mean they can’t “raise the next generation.” So, if marriage is partly about “raising the next generation,” then it makes perfect sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples, since many desire and are perfectly capable of doing just that.

 

[larkin31]

Gay marriage is merely the battle.

Crushing religious freedom of speech is the war.

My gosh, no. You really have that wrong.

Homosexuals and their liberal counterparts want (through the gay marriage agenda) to crush religious freedom of speech.

Again, no. That is simply a wild accusation based in frustration.

When gay marriage is seen as a win over discrimination laws, it will in effect silence religious freedom of speech concerning sodomy, gender identity disorder as a clinical diagnosis and homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction.

Nope. Not even in Canada, where gays are protected in hate crime legislation, is this true. Religious conservatives claim this, but then I read the cases and discovered they were all about people wishing that gays as a group be killed (executed) and none were spoken in a church. There are, indeed, certain physical threats against individuals and groups that one is not free to speak. Try threatening a president with death publicly sometime, or the police. See how that freedom goes.

One percent of the US population (who are disordered by a curable condition) are controlling the remaining 99% of the US.

Hardly.

 

[secular_freedom]

I will echo PaulinVA to some extent here:

But it is also false to say that the state has any interest in promoting partnerships as ‘marriage’ which by their very nature are not oriented towards the fundamental purpose of marriage.

This falsely assumes that partnerships must, by their very nature, be oriented towards procreation before a state has an interest in recognizing such unions as marriages. Many heterosexual partnerships, by their very nature, are not oriented towards procreation.

Moreover, you again seem to assume that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation. This may be the main purpose for many people, but it does not follow that that is what marriage is necessarily all about. Procreation is not necessarily the fundamental purpose of marriage (since marriage means different things to different people), nor is it essential to the concept of marriage (since people can get married without the ability to procreate).

The state has reasonable grounds for not enquiring too closely into the details of particular cases and where there is no obvious intrinsic impediment to marriage serving its natural purpose the state has good reason not to intervene so as to regulate questions that regard the concrete difficulties/issues of particular individuals’ situations.

There are many “obvious intrinsic” impediments to procreation in many heterosexual relationships (think about a couple in their 80s, sterile individuals, etc), but that they haven’t stopped the state from restricting marriage in those circumstances. You are still relying on the false premise that marriage, before it can be legally sanctioned, must be for the purpose of procreation.

No. If prop 8 properly discriminates on one basis, while also purely incidentally discriminating on some other basis, then prop 8 does not meet the necessary condition for its being formally considered as a relevant form of discrimination on that other basis. If you don’t understand this point I can give you an analogy. Is that necessary?

Your point is moot because prop 8 intentionally discriminates against homosexuals. Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

 

[larkin31]

But it is also false to say that the state has any interest in promoting partnerships as ‘marriage’ which by their very nature are not oriented towards the fundamental purpose of marriage.

“oriented toward reproduction” is a term from Catholic dogma, not from law. As such it is irrelevant in law.

Furthermore, the broadening of justice and the broadening of freedom are valid reasons for legal changes in this country.

The correction of a legal injustice, decided upon the standard of the 14th amendment, is valid and sufficient reason to make a legal change. Remedying a Constitutional injustice is sufficient cause for legal change. And if no harm can be demonstrated by the broadening of the status of marriage to include gays, then there is no defensible reason to block that broadening.

Furthermore, all (but one) of the positive stabilizing aspects of marriage for heteros would also, by extension, be true for gays who marry. The ONLY aspect that gays cannot participate in is reproduction between the gametes of the pair. But as with heteros presently (and in no violation of marriage law), gays can adopt or seek IVF treatment or a surrogate parent for pregnancy.

 

[secular_freedom]

I challenge point number 1 that is discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. It doesn’t.

Premise (1) does not claim that prop 8 discriminates on the sexual orientation – it only claims that if prop 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, etc, then the law violates equal protection. Your dispute is with premise (2).

Marriage laws don’t ask about sexual orientation. People don’t even have to be sexually attracted to their marriage partners in order to marry. Prop 8 applies to everyone in California.

This does not challenge the point that prop 8 isn’t discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, since it does not challenge the point (which I have repeated over and over) that prop 8 prevents homosexuals, but not heterosexuals, from being able to marry their partners.

I challenge point number 2 because as I already pointed out, the current laws do not allow heterosexuals to marry their sexual partners in every circumstance. Heterosexuals also cannot marry a person of the same sex, nor can they marry more than one person. Quite honestly, I can imaging two close heterosexual friends or family members of the same sex wanting to take advantage of the legal benefits of marriage.

And I responded to this novel argument. 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.

Something else to consider on point number 2:
Might not an unmarried single daughter who cares for her aging mother want to the legal advantages of “same sex marriage” to her mother? Certainly they love each other. But that loving relationship between mother and daughter isn’t “marriage”–it’s something else. Likewise, the relationship between two homosexuals is not marriage. If homosexual relationships gain legal recognition to use the term “marriage” based on their homosexual attraction, then heterosexuals (under the equal protection laws) gain the right to “marry” someone of the same sex too. But heterosexuals don’t have that right. None of us have that right. Prop 8 does not treat homosexuals different than heterosexual.

I’m not sure what the conclusion of your argument is here. If your claim is that prop 8 isn’t discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, I simply refer you to my above, unrefuted point that under prop 8, homosexuals don’t have the same general freedom to marry their partners as heterosexuals do. If, however, your contention is that same-sex marriage will lead to “x, y, z, marriages,” then it is wholly irrelevant to premise (2).

Re point 3: it is not discrimintation solely against homosexuals. It discriminates against anyone who would use the legal term “marriage” to refer to something other than the relationship between one man and one woman.

The fact that prop 8 doesn’t solely discriminate against homosexuals doesn’t mean prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. You seem to be admitting here that prop 8 DOES discriminate against homosexuals, but are now trying to justify the discrimination. Which is it? If you think prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals, then why are you contradicting yourself by arguing that the discrimination against homosexuals is justified?

And yes, if that is discrimination, then such discrimination is justified. A large number of Americans are currently involved in such “legal partnerships” known as marriage. We have a vested interest that the term “marriage” not be used to refer to any two (or three, or more) people who have affectionate feelings for each other.

Okay, what is the “vested interest?” In other words, what harm or damage would result from allowing same-sex marriage?

People are not entitled under equal protection laws to change the basic meaning of words.

You’re assuming that there’s been a change to the “basic meaning” of marriage. How do you justify this assumption without resorting to mere assertions?

Society has an interest in keeping a specific meaning to certain words. The words “marriage” “spouse” “husband” “wife” “mother” “father” and other words relating to marriage and family, are used in our laws. If we change this law, it will have a ripple effect on a multitude of other laws.

Your point, I take it, is that if same-sex marriage can be considered marriage, then certain bad consequences would follow. What are those bad consequences and what’s your evidence that they will occur?

Re point 4: No, it doesn’t violate equal protection. It protects marriage equally from those who would make the word marriage mean everything, and ultimately make that word mean nothing.

I’m not sure how this addresses the premises of the argument.

 

[Betterave]

This is Catholic dogma, not legal reasoning. This is no different from stating, “Most marriages result in children.” Yep, most do. But this is irrelevant in law in determining who is eligible to be married. Especially not in determining what class or group of individuals may marry.

Actually it’s a statement of fact. The claim is not a generalization about “most marriages,” it gives the reason for the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriage.

 

[Betterave]

I mean this with all due respect, but have you read the court findings? Every point you have made is covered, and explained in detail how it does or does not apply, or how it can or can not be proven in a legal sense.

As this discussion is on the strictly legal side of the fence, I think you might want to read it. I can find a link of you cant find it.
…

Most of the points people are trying to make were attempted in trial. A good percentage were abandoned by the defense. Can you make a guess as to why?

I haven’t read it, but I’m happy to hear some relevant details. Posts such as this one, however, which don’t provide any and don’t make an argument, are not constructive.

 

[captainmike]

as with so many issues, it’s all about children. if you believe that a kid being raised by two mommies is just as good as a kid being raised by a mom and a dad, then you probably support gay marriage. if you don’t, then you shouldn’t. it’s as simple as that.

 

[larkin31]

Actually it’s a statement of fact. The claim is not a generalization about “most marriages,” it gives the reason for the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriage.

not legal fact

and nowhere does the state’s interest in marriage acknowledge the “order” of hetero marriage toward reproduction. “Order” is a Catholic term, not a legal or empirical one.

you are speaking in the generalized terms of the Catholic faith. Do you not acknowledge this? It is not an accusation. I thought I was stating the obvious.

 

[Betterave]

This falsely assumes that partnerships must, by their very nature, be oriented towards procreation before a state has an interest in recognizing such unions as marriages. Many heterosexual partnerships, by their very nature, are not oriented towards procreation.

No, I’m just saying that that in fact is the reason that the state has an interest in recognizing the institution of marriage, that that is what marriage as such is ordered towards.

Moreover, you again seem to assume that the fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation. This may be the main purpose for many people, but it does not follow that that is what marriage is necessarily all about. Procreation is not necessarily the fundamental purpose of marriage (since marriage means different things to different people), nor is it essential to the concept of marriage (since people can get married without the ability to procreate).

Obviously what you say is true, but my assumption is still correct. The fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation. I certainly don’t mean to imply that that is all that marriage is about, simply that partnerships that are fundamentally alien to this fundamental purpose should not be recognized as marriage. To be more precise, then, a sine qua non condition for a marriage is some minimal level of formal compatibility with the purpose of procreation, namely, sexual complementarity.

There are many “obvious intrinsic” impediments to procreation in many heterosexual relationships (think about a couple in their 80s, sterile individuals, etc), but that they haven’t stopped the state from restricting marriage in those circumstances.

Right… I assume you meant to write: “…but that hasn’t led to the state restricting marriages in those circumstances”? But as I said: The state has good grounds for not enquiring too closely into the details of particular cases. Where the basic formal condition of sexual complementarity is fulfilled the state has good reasons not to intervene so as to restrict individual’s freedom to marry where doing so will inevitably require delving into questions that regard the concrete difficulties/issues of particular individuals’ situations.

You are still relying on the false premise that marriage, before it can be legally sanctioned, must be for the purpose of procreation.

No I am not. I am claiming that that in fact is the purpose of legally-sanctioning marriage.

Your point is moot because prop 8 intentionally discriminates against homosexuals. Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

No, your point is moot for the reason I already pointed out, which you chose to ignore here.

 

[larkin31]

as with so many issues, it’s all about children. if you believe that a kid being raised by two mommies is just as good as a kid being raised by a mom and a dad, then you probably support gay marriage. if you don’t, then you shouldn’t. it’s as simple as that.

Do you mean to claim that we should refuse marriage to those demographic groups (or other groups) that fail most often in certain parenting categories?

Geez, would men be allowed to marry at all???

 

[larkin31]

No I am not. I am claiming that that in fact is the purpose of legally-sanctioning marriage.

The ONLY reason?

Could you be more clear in your claims, please? And do you have a place where we could look up this “purpose” that you are claiming that “state” has in marriage? The state typically puts all relevant legal purposes in writing. I am sure that you must have a document or reference to support this claim about the “purpose” of the “state’s” legal purpose in marriage.

 

[Betterave]

not legal fact

and nowhere does the state’s interest in marriage acknowledge the “order” of hetero marriage toward reproduction. “Order” is a Catholic term, not a legal or empirical one.

you are speaking in the generalized terms of the Catholic faith. Do you not acknowledge this? It is not an accusation. I thought I was stating the obvious.

I’m just talking facts here, bro! The point is to get at the truth of the matter, no? The fact that a term is used in the Catholic faith is no reason to claim that it has no application to legal arguments. I should have thought that that was stating the obvious.

Now as ThomasToo mentioned, Loving v. Virginia states:

*Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… *

Now you might want to insist in an irrelevant legalistic sense that there is no reference to any kind of “order” in this statement, but obviously in the sense that matters that would be a false claim.

And in this case, any claims about broadening justice or broadening freedom appear to be groundless, apart from purely legalistic arguments which can hardly be decisive for deciding the truth of the matter.

 

[larkin31]

Now as ThomasToo mentioned, Loving v. Virginia states:

*Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… *

you aren’t even quoting an entire sentence. Could you quote the entire paragraph, at least, please? I have not seen this document yet.

 

[larkin31]

I’m just talking facts here, bro! The point is to get at the truth of the matter, no? The fact that a term is used in the Catholic faith is no reason to claim that it has no application to legal arguments. …

It doesn’t have application until it hs been shown to.

So far you have given one piece of one sentence from one case that does not in fact use the term, nor does it state what you are suggesting. The word the ruling appears to use is “fundamental to survival.” No one questions that in terms of the history of the west. Of course marriage has helped families and villages, etc, survive. Marriage helps societies in many ways.

I would like to read the entire ruling (I greatly enjoy reading legal documents).