Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[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.

Sir,
While sin is not, as you believe, a concept in your moral framework, you are, nevertheless, a moral agent.
I will not, on the grounds of belief, bow to your implied assertion that religious “opinion” is of no validity here. The reality is that you cannot, or will not, handle religious teaching, not “opinion”. That, sir, is your failing, not mine. I merely point it out to you not to score debating points but to disabuse you of the notion that your tactic of refusing to face up to religious argument will not wash here. Such a tactic has been employed many times on other threads and they have failed miserably.
Let us, therefore, stick to** that**.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[colmcille1]

US Law does not take a position on moral relativism.

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

rossum,
Your post, ironically, makes the very point that I was leading up to viz the law itself is not immune to the dictates of moral relativism.
Respectfully, may I suggest that you are working under the same delusion as Oresteian namely: morality is one thing and the law is quite another. While these may be noble ideals, the practice shows otherwise.
Catholics take their Faith very seriously. Their arguments are based upon that beautiful precious Faith. “Moral positions” are central to this topic. Without a moral compass (which moral relativists would like) we are lost.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[rossum]

rossum,
Your post, ironically, makes the very point that I was leading up to viz the law itself is not immune to the dictates of moral relativism.

The law in the USA is not immune to the dictates of the Constitution. Any “dictates” of moral relativism can only work through that Constitution. If you do not like this then you are free to work to change the Constitution.

Catholics take their Faith very seriously. Their arguments are based upon that beautiful precious Faith. “Moral positions” are central to this topic. Without a moral compass (which moral relativists would like) we are lost.

As a Buddhist I also take my morality very seriously. That is why I do not want a morality imported from a different religion to be imposed. I have a perfectly good moral compass thank you.

rossum

 

[secular_freedom]

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.

I never claimed prop 8 is discriminatory because it prohibits homosexuals from marry. Instead, I claimed prop 8 is discriminatory because it prohibits homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners.

The harm to society would be pervasive.

Mere assertion.

 

[secular_freedom]

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.

Please address post 130. Thanks.

 

[secular_freedom]

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.

Yes, we all know you’re highly proficient at making ill-founded stereotypes. When will you supply us with an argument against same-sex marriage? When will you refute the opening post?

 

[wanner47]

A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Part 2

 

[secular_freedom]

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.

As been pointed out to you numerous times, the ability to raise kids is not a legal prerequisite to marriage. So how is any of this relevant? Please explain. Moreover, your assumption that a child cannot be properly raised in a same-sex family home is refuted by empirical data (see recent Perry opinion).

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.

No, same marriage does not “ultimately” stand for that proposition at all. Where are you getting these ideas from? You need to do more than throw claims around that’s been pulled out of your rear.

Perhaps you mean advocates of same-sex marriage assume that same-sex couples are equal to heterosexual couples. If this is what you mean, then sure – I don’t see how one is necessarily better than the other. You are confusing “not better” with “the same.”

 

[Oresteian]

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.

SO we should all be bisexual then if we want sexual diversity? If you are gonna go for that be consistent and follow it to it’s logical conclusion.

Gender roles are social constructs. People are TAUGHT masculinity and femininity from others. Since people can adopt either role I think the idea gender is some hard and fast rule is unsupportable.

By the way I do not think any of us mentioned our sexual orientation at all…just thought I would throw that out there.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Please address post 130. Thanks.

I have addressed it and don’t have much time now, but I’ll make one point that elaborates further on a question you asked me in post 130

One of the unintended consequences of a change to marriage laws is the ripple affect is will have through a multitude of other laws and courts. “Husband” is a term that means male member of a marriage. “Wife” is a term that means the female member of a marriage. How homosexual couples intend to use these terms is beyond me, but no-doubt there will be confussion with those terms, just as there is confussion about what the word “marriage” means now.

Several legal terms and existing laws will cause more legal confussion and open other settled case matter up for further dispute. “Father” is a term that means male parent. “Mother” is a term that means female parent. By law, the spouse of a woman is presumed to be the legal father of her children concieved in the period of their marriage. So can a woman involved in a gay marriage whose partner gives birth become a “father”? We’ll have to open up those terms for debate and until it’s settled there will be lots of legal confussion.

If the courts decide a child can have two mothers or two fathers–that will likely have effect on heterosexual custody cases involving heterosexuals families. If a child can have two fathers, then a step-father may be declared the legal father and adopt the children of his wife while her ex-husband also remains the legal father. How confusing that will be! The family courts are already backed up by divorce and custody cases, and now they will be further backed up!

That doesn’t even factor in homosexual* divorce*, which no doubt will follow some gay “marriages.” Family courts can barely handle the caseload of men and women divorcing each other and fighting over property and children. If prop 8 doesn’t stand, family and divorce courts be even more backed up and more crowded in a few years.

I could go on and on about how much confussion will be brought into our legal system and our courts by changes to the marriage laws if prop 8 doesn’t stand, but I cannot discuss it here in detail. There are thousands and thousands of laws that use these simple legal terms. There are countless lives that will be negatively affected by changes to our marriage laws.

 

[Oresteian]

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.

This is a straw man. You are confusing “difference” with "betterness and “sameness” with “equality”. The concepts impinge on each other but they are not equivalent.

Again your side keep bringing up the issue of rearing children. It is NOT a requisite for marriage as many married couples purposely decide to forgo child rearing nor is the reverse true.

Even if I granted you that point (I don’t), you have not demonstrated that same sex child rearing is “better” than heterosexual child rearing, At best you only show that there may be some difference in approaches to child raising. It is not clear if any of those possible differences are any more significant than the differences among heterosexual couples.

 

[secular_freedom]

I have addressed it

Not really. This is what you didn’t address in post 130.

"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. "

"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. "

“: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?”

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

and don’t have much time now, but I’ll make one point that elaborates further on a question you asked me in post 130

One of the unintended consequences of a change to marriage laws is the ripple affect is will have through a multitude of other laws and courts. “Husband” is a term that means male member of a marriage. “Wife” is a term that means the female member of a marriage. How homosexual couples intend to use these terms is beyond me, but no-doubt there will be confussion with those terms, just as there is confussion about what the word “marriage” means now.

I just don’t see the problem. Obviously, a lesbian couple will not use the term “Husband,” nor will a gay couple use the term “wife.” Hence no confusion.

Several legal terms and existing laws will cause more legal confussion and open other settled case matter up for further dispute.

What “legal confusion?” (Btw, there’s ALOT of confusion in the law. Circuit courts often disagree with each other, and the meaning of certain terms in one state don’t necessarily translate in others. So “legal confusion” in itself is no reason to reject same-sex marriage.)

“Father” is a term that means male parent. “Mother” is a term that means female parent. By law, the spouse of a woman is presumed to be the legal father of her children concieved in the period of their marriage. So can a woman involved in a gay marriage whose partner gives birth become a “father”? We’ll have to open up those terms for debate and until it’s settled there will be lots of legal confussion.

The “confusion” is easily settled. Reality check: the law constantly changes to meet the needs of the time.

If the courts decide a child can have two mothers or two fathers–that will likely have effect on heterosexual custody cases involving heterosexuals families. If a child can have two fathers, then a step-father may be declared the legal father and adopt the children of his wife while her ex-husband also remains the legal father. How confusing that will be! The family courts are already backed up by divorce and custody cases, and now they will be further backed up!

Sorry, but this “confusion” isn’t likely to be an insurmountable problem. One easy way to side-step this “confusion” is to make a distinction between couples and non-couples. A gay couple can be two fathers, but two male individuals who are not a couple cannot both be fathers. I’m sure there are others.

That doesn’t even factor in homosexual* divorce*, which no doubt will follow some gay “marriages.” Family courts can barely handle the caseload of men and women divorcing each other and fighting over property and children. If prop 8 doesn’t stand, family and divorce courts be even more backed up and more crowded in a few years.

“Overcrowding” in the legal system isn’t a legitimate reason to deny people marriage licenses. On your view, if we see a huge surge in heterosexual couples, such that “divorce courts will be backed up and crowded in a few years,” then we should deny those couples the right to marry.

I could go on and on about how much confussion will be brought into our legal system and our courts by changes to the marriage laws if prop 8 doesn’t stand, but I cannot discuss it here in detail. There are thousands and thousands of laws that use these simple legal terms. There are countless lives that will be negatively affected by changes to our marriage laws.

Sorry, but you’re over-exaggerating the significance of this “problem.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have addressed it.

gwk, it took me awhile to figure out that the OP is not interested in genuine intellectual debate, on this or any other thread. You, Los_Angeles, myself, others, have answered particular points he has raised – some of us repeatedly. Some of us have also asked that rather than bore CAF posters with re-pasted posts from the last 2 years, the OP actually use the search function to see developed debates which have occurred (and some which are still occurring) on CAF.

When specific intellectual (including constitutional and other legal) points are responded to, he simply ignores those, or dismisses them without providing rational, informed refutation based on rules of logic and within the confines of the issue. His claim is that no one is responding to his points, but of course that claim is transparently false. When repliers refuse to accept his erroneous and non-legal definitions, he merely discredits those posters.

It’s a lose/lose situation to attempt to argue with someone who is not interested in the logic of argument. Either this person has not been trained in logic, does not value logic, or does not care to use logic, but rather, to engage in polemics, which I suspected all along and is merely confirmed now.

The Gay Lobby engages in aggressive campaigning immediately before and after every judicial event – anticipated or decided – with their opposition. Their intent is to reframe the basic order of society in their own image. Inventing definitions and misinterpreting previous legal decisions and terminology are some of their tactics, but so is the tactic of merely ignoring existing opinions and premises, no matter how logical and dispassionate those opinions and premises are. They like to go onto various religious-themed discussion forums to engage in this sabotage and try to wear their opponents down. I’ve seen it for several years now. Others on CAF have also seen it, and therefore refuse to play the game.

It’s all about manipulation.
(But God Bless You for your efforts)

 

[secular_freedom]

gwk, it took me awhile to figure out that the OP is not interested in genuine intellectual debate, on this or any other thread. You, Los_Angeles, myself, others, have answered particular points he has raised – some of us repeatedly. Some of us have also asked that rather than bore CAF posters with re-pasted posts from the last 2 years, the OP actually use the search function to see developed debates which have occurred (and some which are still occurring) on CAF.

When specific intellectual (including constitutional and other legal) points are responded to, he simply ignores those, or dismisses them without providing rational, informed refutation based on rules of logic and within the confines of the issue. His claim is that no one is responding to his points, but of course that claim is transparently false. When repliers refuse to accept his erroneous and non-legal definitions, he merely discredits those posters.

It’s a lose/lose situation to attempt to argue with someone who is not interested in the logic of argument. Either this person has not been trained in logic, does not value logic, or does not care to use logic, but rather, to engage in polemics, which I suspected all along and is merely confirmed now.

You try too hard. Of course, this is understandable given your refusal to actually engage in the discussion at hand, and so naturally, you feel impulsed to come at me rhetorically. I get it, I really do.

Let’s look at some of your claims against me.

Apparently, I’m not “interested in genuine intellectual debate,” or the “logic of argument.”

Apparently, I’ve ignored and dismissed responses to specific points I made.

Apparently, I claimed that “no one” is responding to my points.

Apparently, I put forth “erroneous and non-legal definitions,” and then “merely discredit” posters who refuse to accept them.

If you ever feel the inclination, perhaps you may even attempt to substantiate these assertions (however, you won’t). But let’s not kid ourselves about what you’re doing: you’re throwing around baseless accusations in the hope that no one will notice they’re completely baseless. Just thought I point this out to the general reader. Please continue!

 

[captainmike]

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.

uh huh. check out this photo. is there any doubt which one is the “man” and which one is the “woman”?

0.tqn.com/d/lesbianlife/1/0/l/E/kiss.jpg

how about this one:

biggayweddings.com/Resources/dsc2579a.jpeg

or this one:

i18.tinypic.com/53yvtvk.jpg

 

[edwest2]

gwk, it took me awhile to figure out that the OP is not interested in genuine intellectual debate, on this or any other thread. You, Los_Angeles, myself, others, have answered particular points he has raised – some of us repeatedly. Some of us have also asked that rather than bore CAF posters with re-pasted posts from the last 2 years, the OP actually use the search function to see developed debates which have occurred (and some which are still occurring) on CAF.

When specific intellectual (including constitutional and other legal) points are responded to, he simply ignores those, or dismisses them without providing rational, informed refutation based on rules of logic and within the confines of the issue. His claim is that no one is responding to his points, but of course that claim is transparently false. When repliers refuse to accept his erroneous and non-legal definitions, he merely discredits those posters.

It’s a lose/lose situation to attempt to argue with someone who is not interested in the logic of argument. Either this person has not been trained in logic, does not value logic, or does not care to use logic, but rather, to engage in polemics, which I suspected all along and is merely confirmed now.

The Gay Lobby engages in aggressive campaigning immediately before and after every judicial event – anticipated or decided – with their opposition. Their intent is to reframe the basic order of society in their own image. Inventing definitions and misinterpreting previous legal decisions and terminology are some of their tactics, but so is the tactic of merely ignoring existing opinions and premises, no matter how logical and dispassionate those opinions and premises are. They like to go onto various religious-themed discussion forums to engage in this sabotage and try to wear their opponents down. I’ve seen it for several years now. Others on CAF have also seen it, and therefore refuse to play the game.

It’s all about manipulation.
(But God Bless You for your efforts)

That is precisely true. It is the only reason this subject is brought up so often here - to create confusion, to muddy the waters, and to ignore the facts.

It is important that Catholics realize this.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Oresteian]

Sir,
While sin is not, as you believe, a concept in your moral framework, you are, nevertheless, a moral agent.
I will not, on the grounds of belief, bow to your implied assertion that religious “opinion” is of no validity here. The reality is that you cannot, or will not, handle religious teaching, not “opinion”. That, sir, is your failing, not mine. I merely point it out to you not to score debating points but to disabuse you of the notion that your tactic of refusing to face up to religious argument will not wash here. Such a tactic has been employed many times on other threads and they have failed miserably.
Let us, therefore, stick to** that**.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

So you will not deal with the actual world issues and instead will retreat to your religious views? That usually means that you cannot make the logical and empirical connections to the real world necessary to formulate a proper, well thought out argument. Even those I disagree with here at least attempted to steer away from theology but you jumped right in with Leviticus (figuratively speaking).That’s pretty bold.

What I am doing is not a “tactic” but rather an attempt to keep the conversation on an objective basis because then there is the possibility of dialogue on common terms. We are discussing secular public policy and civil rights. This is not a theological debate, so I try to keep mention of it to a minimum because such discussions don’t really get us anywhere. Not everyone is a Christian, or a Catholic, or religious. As I stated earlier I appreciate the fact that one’s religious leanings informs their view of the world, but appeals to faith are simply unconvincing to those who do not share your belief, so why would you want to use them in the first place? It’s a total conversation stopper.

 

[larkin31]

You try too hard. Of course, this is understandable given your refusal to actually engage in the discussion at hand, and so naturally, you feel impulsed to come at me rhetorically. I get it, I really do.

Let’s look at some of your claims against me.

Apparently, I’m not “interested in genuine intellectual debate,” or the “logic of argument.”

Apparently, I’ve ignored and dismissed responses to specific points I made.

Apparently, I claimed that “no one” is responding to my points.

Apparently, I put forth “erroneous and non-legal definitions,” and then “merely discredit” posters who refuse to accept them.

If you ever feel the inclination, perhaps you may even attempt to substantiate these assertions (however, you won’t). But let’s not kid ourselves about what you’re doing: you’re throwing around baseless accusations in the hope that no one will notice they’re completely baseless. Just thought I point this out to the general reader. Please continue!

 

[larkin31]

…It’s a lose/lose situation to attempt to argue with someone who is not interested in the logic of argument. Either this person has not been trained in logic, does not value logic, or does not care to use logic, but rather, to engage in polemics, which I suspected all along and is merely confirmed now.

Let’s take you at your word. Please indicate the post # in which anyone here has answered sec-free with “logic.” I would very much like to analyze it publicly. So, please back up your assertion with a post #.

 

[larkin31]

I have addressed it and don’t have much time now, but I’ll make one point that elaborates further on a question you asked me in post 130

One of the unintended consequences of a change to marriage laws is the ripple affect is will have through a multitude of other laws and courts. “Husband” is a term that means male member of a marriage. “Wife” is a term that means the female member of a marriage. How homosexual couples intend to use these terms is beyond me, but no-doubt there will be confussion with those terms, just as there is confussion about what the word “marriage” means now.

Several legal terms and existing laws will cause more legal confussion and open other settled case matter up for further dispute. “Father” is a term that means male parent. “Mother” is a term that means female parent. By law, the spouse of a woman is presumed to be the legal father of her children concieved in the period of their marriage. So can a woman involved in a gay marriage whose partner gives birth become a “father”? We’ll have to open up those terms for debate and until it’s settled there will be lots of legal confussion.

If the courts decide a child can have two mothers or two fathers–that will likely have effect on heterosexual custody cases involving heterosexuals families. If a child can have two fathers, then a step-father may be declared the legal father and adopt the children of his wife while her ex-husband also remains the legal father. How confusing that will be! The family courts are already backed up by divorce and custody cases, and now they will be further backed up!

That doesn’t even factor in homosexual* divorce*, which no doubt will follow some gay “marriages.” Family courts can barely handle the caseload of men and women divorcing each other and fighting over property and children. If prop 8 doesn’t stand, family and divorce courts be even more backed up and more crowded in a few years.

I could go on and on about how much confussion will be brought into our legal system and our courts by changes to the marriage laws if prop 8 doesn’t stand, but I cannot discuss it here in detail. There are thousands and thousands of laws that use these simple legal terms. There are countless lives that will be negatively affected by changes to our marriage laws.

Where has any of this yet happened in a jurisdiction with gay marriage? This is all based on “might” or “will” claims. Courts of law are not persuaded by speculation. Please indicate anywhere that this has been an onerous problem. Justice is not always easy to work out. But we must try.