Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Oresteian]

no, thanks. this is a catholic message board, and if i want to talk about God, I will do so. now, answer my question about whether a genderless world is the gay marriage proponent’s utopia.

OK so you will NOT base your opinion on objective data and only on your faith? OK fine by me. I base my conclusions in the actual world and not one of faith. Until our worlds are made congruent there is no conversation to be had on this point.

everything you say here is irrelevant. whether or not the parents of a child are married, it is far better for a child to be raised by a mom and a dad than by two moms. there are indeed differences between the male and female of the species, and it is good for a child to have a close relationship with one of each.

i say again: gay marriage makes sense only in a genderless world–i.e., in a world in which there is no male and female and no masculine and feminine. but that’s not the world that God created.

What is “better”? I think the aim for children is to be raised by someone who loves them. Plenty of children who have both parents and do not receive as much.

The last part I will dismiss as ridiculous and based on your religious beliefs. It cannot be established in the world we live in.

 

[Oresteian]

This is an interesting claim. What makes you think it’s true? There was plenty of homosexuality in the past, but never homo-marriage. What do you make of that, given that you believe that marriage was just about keeping wealth within a group and resolving conflicts? Do you think you might be putting the cart before the horse here?

My claim is based on historical and modern observations. Homosexuality here is irrelevant. I am dealing with the particular claim that marriage was solely about procreation and having children which is what many of you are building your arguments on. Furthermore it is not true that there was NEVER same sex marriage in the past, for example the Ancient Romans and a couple others did have it.

That’s not true, but why do you think it’s relevant?

Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon? Men after God’s own heart? totally relevant because it is evidence against the one man one woman argument. Polygyny was not uncommon among than Hebrews and many other groups in the ancient world. Indeed, all sorts of marriage arrangements exist today that do not conform to your conception of marriage that is based on your religious dogma.

That’s correct in a sense, but historically-speaking the act of having children is hardly separable from marriage, the two have always been tightly linked and always will be. Do you deny that? And the point, which you haven’t addressed here, is that marriage is good for children and thus for society, not that it’s necessary.

I never said that marriage was not “good” for children, but that is not what is in contention. What is at contention is whether Prop 8 is justified in its discrimination against same sex couples (what it was designed to do no matter how much some of you deny this!)

People get married for a variety of reasons with children only being ONE of those reasons. Why is so much emphasis placed on only this aspect and not the others? Why cannot same sex couples get married for those same reasons and why would that relationship be “bad” ? I do not think you are able to establish those reasons,

 

[larkin31]

I cannot set up a Medical practice because the State of Michigan will deny me a license because I have not been to Medical school.

If I follow your line of reasoning, that violates the equal protection clause because I am being denied the freedom to engage in a business of my choosing simply because I did not attend medical school

Is that your understanding of the Equal Protection Clause?..

If you were denied it for being gay (assuming you went to med school), yes. But not for skipping med school, no.

 

[colmcille1]

People get married for a variety of reasons with children only being ONE of those reasons. Why is so much emphasis placed on only this aspect and not the others? Why cannot same sex couples get married for those same reasons and why would that relationship be “bad” ? I do not think you are able to establish those reasons,

Same sex “marriage” is sought after because of the widespread poison that is moral relativism.
When heterosexuals decide to marry, they (in the vast majority of cases) do so because they are focussed on an externality.
When homosexuals desire to “marry”, they are exclusively focussed on an internality.

Still, we must always hate the sin, love the sinner.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Oresteian]

Same sex “marriage” is sought after because of the widespread poison that is moral relativism.
When heterosexuals decide to marry, they (in the vast majority of cases) do so because they are focussed on an externality.
When homosexuals desire to “marry”, they are exclusively focussed on an internality.

Still, we must always hate the sin, love the sinner.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

nonsensical naked assertion. What does this even mean?

“Sin” as you understand it is not a concept in my moral framework. I understand that this is a Catholic forum, but we really are trying to discuss secular legal issues and not religious opinions, so let’s stick to that.

 

[captainmike]

What is “better”? I think the aim for children is to be raised by someone who loves them. Plenty of children who have both parents and do not receive as much.

this is the gay marriage manifesto, right here. nothing else on this issue matters. all of the talk about whether prop 8 discriminates against gay people (it does, but it is good discrimination) is meaningless. the bottom line is, gay marriage = a world in which “heather has two mommies.” it will be a world in which, if you put up your baby for adoption, you will have no say whatsoever over whether the baby is given to a heterosexual couple. it will be a world in which the adoption agency owner will not be able to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples. genderless world. this is the world they want. all other discussion on this issue is meaningless.

 

[rossum]

Same sex “marriage” is sought after because of the widespread poison that is moral relativism.

US Law does not take a position on moral relativism.

When heterosexuals decide to marry, they (in the vast majority of cases) do so because they are focussed on an externality.
When homosexuals desire to “marry”, they are exclusively focussed on an internality.

US Law does not take a position on the internality or externality of the motives of people who marry.

This thread is about whether or not Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection clause. Moral positions specific to a particular religion are not relevant to the topic of this thread.

rossum

 

[Oresteian]

this is the gay marriage manifesto, right here. nothing else on this issue matters. all of the talk about whether prop 8 discriminates against gay people (it does, but it is good discrimination) is meaningless. the bottom line is, gay marriage = a world in which “heather has two mommies.” it will be a world in which, if you put up your baby for adoption, you will have no say whatsoever over whether the baby is given to a heterosexual couple. it will be a world in which the adoption agency owner will not be able to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples. genderless world. this is the world they want. all other discussion on this issue is meaningless.

How is it qualitatively “better” that person is raised by a straight couple than a gay couple?

This argument that same sex marriage will lead to discrimination against heterosexuals is a complete non sequitur. There is no institutional discrimination now against heterosexuals but there is plenty of it (along with harassment and bigotry) against the GLBT community.

Btw why SHOULD you have a say once you give your baby up? You no longer wanted your child for whatever reason. If I had to give my child up for adoption, as long as they are in a home where they will be loved and cared for why should I care about anything else?

These arguments are sounding eerily familiar from Prop 8 supporters that were used in another time, and it’s starting to make me worried.

 

[captainmike]

How is it qualitatively “better” that person is raised by a straight couple than a gay couple?

because there are meaningful differences between the genders. men and women are different–physically, emotionally, spiritually. both men and women have important things to add to the development of a child. a child needs both masculine and feminine influences.

but you’re proving my point. gay marriage ultimately stands for the proposition that men and women are the same. there are no meaningful differences between them. because we all know that to be untrue, we know that, at its core, gay marriage is based upon a lie.

 

[neophyte]

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. 
   Prop 8 is not discriminatory, because it doesn’t prohibit those with a homosexual orientation from marrying. The law merely codifies that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman; essentially it’s the same as a law that codifies that steel is a low-carbon alloy of iron. All it does is reflect reality.
   
   To allow same sex unions to be legally treated as marriage is analogous to allowing copper to be legally treated as steel. The harm to society would be pervasive.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Please explain the concept of a “mommy-daddy pairing.” …

Terms like “mother” and “father” are also legal terms, and they are used in many other laws beyond marriage laws.** This gets to something brought up earlier. You asked me to prove that changing marriage would effect other laws. Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions** will lead to the re-definition and confusion about of many other legal terms that are central to our laws that relate to family life.** People who are confused about marriage are often also confused about terms like “mommy” and “daddy” too.

Our society in general is already a bit confused about that as a result of large scale heterosexual problems like divorce/remarriage and out-of-wedlock sexual activity that results in out-of-wedlock births. Calling same sex relationship “marriage” will lead to even further confussion of numerous other legal terms like “mother” & “father” and that’s evidenced by the fact that you need to have the concept of “mommy-daddy pairing” further explained.

 

[captainmike]

isn’t it ironic that the same people who extol “diversity” (i.e., the idea that there are in fact meaningful differences between men and women, and that we should celebrate those differences) also advocate gay marriage, which, at its core, denies that there are meaningful differences between men and women. an inherent and unresolvable contradiction.

 

[larkin31]

isn’t it ironic that the same people who extol “diversity” (i.e., the idea that there are in fact meaningful differences between men and women, and that we should celebrate those differences) also advocate gay marriage, which, at its core, denies that there are meaningful differences between men and women. an inherent and unresolvable contradiction.

Gay marriage denies no such thing.

 

[larkin31]

this is the gay marriage manifesto, right here. nothing else on this issue matters. all of the talk about whether prop 8 discriminates against gay people (it does, but it is good discrimination) is meaningless. the bottom line is, gay marriage = a world in which “heather has two mommies.” it will be a world in which, if you put up your baby for adoption, you will have no say whatsoever over whether the baby is given to a heterosexual couple. it will be a world in which the adoption agency owner will not be able to discriminate in favor of heterosexual couples. genderless world. this is the world they want. all other discussion on this issue is meaningless.

You overgeneralize here, too. Why don’t you stick to the arguments of the case and demonstrate whether you can argue law better that the judge does in his ruling? The defense offered virtually no evidence (beyond unsupported claims) that gay marriage has anywhere, anytime harmed individuals or been detrimental to any individuals or to society. You are correct that certain forms of discriminatory practices can be justified and can be legal. But, as culture changes its negative view towards gays, and we are relying more on the results of actual social science as to whether there is any harm to society from gay marriage (that is, from gay marriage that is particular to gay marriage and not also true of hetero marriage) we are finding that there is no such evidence at all. And the defense in the case provided no such evidence.

Do you have any to offer beyond dogma-in-disguise?

 

[captainmike]

You overgeneralize here, too. Why don’t you stick to the arguments of the case and demonstrate whether you can argue law better that the judge does in his ruling? The defense offered virtually no evidence (beyond unsupported claims) that gay marriage has anywhere, anytime harmed individuals or been detrimental to any individuals or to society. You are correct that certain forms of discriminatory practices can be justified and can be legal. But, as culture changes its negative view towards gays, and we are relying more on the results of actual social science as to whether there is any harm to society from gay marriage (that is, from gay marriage that is particular to gay marriage and not also true of hetero marriage) we are finding that there is no such evidence at all. And the defense in the case provided no such evidence.

Do you have any to offer beyond dogma-in-disguise?

you argue it how you want and i’ll argue it how i want. i say that gay marriage will result in a prohibition of discrimination against homosexuals in handing out babies for adoption. am i wrong? you know i’m not.

 

[gardenswithkids]

isn’t it ironic that the same people who extol “diversity” (i.e., the idea that there are in fact meaningful differences between men and women, and that we should celebrate those differences) also advocate gay marriage, which, at its core, denies that there are meaningful differences between men and women. an inherent and unresolvable contradiction.

While it can seem that they want the world to be “genderless”–they really are quite gender specific in their sexual preference. But what’s ironic is for all their talk about “diversity” they don’t like sexual diversity in their choice of sexual partners. Otherwise they would choose a diverse relationship–like the natural sexual diversity found in male-female sexuals relationship.

What they want is a re-definition of gender. Gender confussion. It stems from their own gender and sexual confusion, and it will cause further gender and sexual confussion throughout society.

By the way, relating to this gender confussion and on the subject of discrimination against heterosexuals by homosexuals–I personally find that transexual men mock women and womanhood. As a woman, I find it highly offensive, like a person of color takes great offense at any whites who put on “black-face” routines.

 

[gardenswithkids]

you argue it how you want and i’ll argue it how i want. i say that gay marriage will result in a prohibition of discrimination against homosexuals in handing out babies for adoption. am i wrong? you know i’m not.

You are right here! Catholic adoption agencies have already had to close.

 

[captainmike]

While it can seem that they want the world to be “genderless”–they really are quite gender specific in their sexual preference. But what’s ironic is for all their talk about “diversity” they don’t like sexual diversity in their choice of sexual partners. Otherwise they would choose a diverse relationship–like the natural sexual diversity found in male-female sexuals relationship.

What they want is a re-definition of gender. Gender confussion. It stems from their own gender and sexual confusion, and it will cause further gender and sexual confussion throughout society.

By the way, relating to this gender confussion and on the subject of discrimination against heterosexual by homosexual–I personally find that transexual men mock woman and womanhood. As a woman, I find it highly offensive, like a person of color takes great offense at any whites who put on “black-face” routines.

anytime you look at a gay couple, it’s obvious which one of them is the “man” and which one is the “woman.” if you have two lesbians, one will be stocky, have short hair, and be wearing jeans and a flannel shirt. the other one will be petite, have long blond hair, and be wearing a dress and jewelry. it’s so obvious that God has placed in the heart of every human being a desire for partnership with someone who is different from himself or herself (i.e., masculine people want a feminine mate, and vice versa). even gays and lesbians can’t get away from this instinct. the “man” in a lesbian relationship can’t wake up one morning and say, “i’m going to be a woman today and seek a partner who is more masculine than i am.” can’t be done.

 

[Kevin42]

anytime you look at a gay couple, it’s obvious which one of them is the “man” and which one is the “woman.” if you have two lesbians, one will be stocky, have short hair, and be wearing jeans and a flannel shirt. the other one will be petite, have long blond hair, and be wearing a dress and jewelry. it’s so obvious that God has placed in the heart of every human being a desire for partnership with someone who is different from himself or herself (i.e., masculine people want a feminine mate, and vice versa). even gays and lesbians can’t get away from this instinct. the “man” in a lesbian relationship can’t wake up one morning and say, “i’m going to be a woman today and seek a partner who is more masculine than i am.” can’t be done.

I would be insulted if this post wasn’t based entirely on a stereotype that, while sometimes accurate, is far from being consistently accurate. This post reveals how little you actually know about gays and lesbians and how much your ideas are based on stereotypes. Since I didn’t understand how any of this had to do with whether or not Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection clause, I wasn’t sure if I should comment on this bizarre post. However, I feel that it would be a disservice to you and perhaps others who share these beliefs if I did not.

 

[rossum]

Terms like “mother” and “father” are also legal terms**, and they are used in many other laws beyond marriage laws.

Correct. There are many married people who do not have children and so are legally neither a mother nor a father. There are many unmarried people who do have children and so are legally a father or a mother. You are attempting to confuse two different legal concepts, marriage and parenthood. The concept of parenthood is not relevant to the same sex marriage debate.

rossum