Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Betterave]

Mere assertion and projection. The evidence for my statement comes from pages of your
drivel.

Good one.

Another mere assertion. I an others have repeatedly pointed out why your responses are lacking. Whether you accept them or not is a decision YOU have to make.

Sorry bud, I’ve studied way too much logic and it forms way too big a part of my daily life for me to be able to just DECIDE to give up on using it. Again:

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Do you understand how a catch-22 works? You have repeatedly asked the same questions here that have already been answered, so apparently you are obstinately and intolerantly devoted to your own opinions and prejudices, and your obstinate intolerance manifests in the groundless, obstinate, and fallacious ad hominem dismissal of my view as “rooted in your religious beliefs and little else more” - which, as colmcille has pointed out, contradicts your admission earlier in this thread.

Now when you respond to my reasoned case with the claim that I have made “another mere assertion” - good one - you’re obviously only proving my case all the more. Please note that the intended point of my analysis is not to push you into further bigotry, but to invite you to try to avoid it. However, as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

[btw, you obviously don’t have to “crusade against Catholicism” in order to be bigoted towards Catholicism, as you imply in post 474]

Yup.

It doesn’t show.

 

[larkin31]

Hey passingthru, you may just be passing through, but if you had read (and understood) the arguments presented in this thread, you would realize that you are begging the question here. Marriage laws do discriminate on the basis of consanguinity, but Prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yes, it does. The purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn the gay marriage rulings in CA and prevent gay marriage. Do you deny this?

 

[Betterave]

Yes, it does. The purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn the gay marriage rulings in CA and prevent gay marriage. Do you deny this?

No, Prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and no, of course I don’t deny that the purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn the gay marriage rulings (i.e., the redefinition of marriage) in CA and prevent gay marriage (i.e., the redefinition of marriage).

In the words of Justice Fitzgerald’s ruling for the Texas Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2010, overruling a District Court’s ruling that Texas marriage laws, in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, violate the infamous Equal Protection Clause and are thus unconstitutional:

See Loving v. Virginia (1, 388 U.S. I 12 (1967) (describing marriage as a “fundamental freedom” that may “not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations”); accord Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 719 (citing Loving as establishing fundamental right to marry); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rd. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535,541 (I 942)(”Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”). But Loving involved a marriage between a man and woman. The Loving opinion’s discussion of the
right to marry does not embrace the broad formulation proposed by appellee. See Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270, 1301 (Cob. 1993) (Erickson, J., dissenting) (“[R]ather than expressing a willingness to extrapolate new fundamental rights based on selective language from prior Supreme Court decisions, we should exercise caution in identifying and embracing previously unrecognized fundamental rights.”). Many courts in other jurisdictions have confronted similar challenges to the federal DOMA and similar state laws, and they have generally concluded that the right being claimed should be defined and analyzed precisely as the right to marry a person of the same sex, not as the right to marry whomever one chooses. See. e.g., Smelt, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 877-79; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. at 138—41; Conawav, 932 .2d at 616—24; I-fernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 9—10;
Andersen v. King c’ntv., 138 P.3d 963, 976—79 (Wash. 2006) (plurality op.). The Conaway court’s thorough discussion of the question demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s right-to-marry jurisprudence has always involved opposite-sex couples and that the Court has always justified the fundamental nature of the right to marry. at least in part, by reference to procreation. Conawav. 932 A.2d at 619—21. We agree with that analysis and conclude that the precise rights claimed by appellee are the right to marry a person of the same sex and the concomitant right to divorce.

“The limitation of marriage to one man and one woman preserves both its structure and its historic purposes.” Goodridge V. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 992 n.l3 (Mass. 2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting). Accurately identifying and analyzing appellee’s claimed right----the purported “right to marry a person of the same sex”-—exposes the serious consequences such a position portends: the redefinition of the fundamental institution of marriage. And, of course, only by asserting that marriage includes the union of two persons of the same sex can appellee advance his claim of discrimination. A fatal flaw in this position is that it assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved.

dallasvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Gay.Divorce.pdf

In other words, those who claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are begging the question, just as I and others have pointed out repeatedly on this thread.

 

[larkin31]

No, Prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and no, of course I don’t deny that the purpose of Prop 8 was to overturn the gay marriage rulings (i.e., the redefinition of marriage) in CA and prevent gay marriage (i.e., the redefinition of marriage).

In the words of Justice Fitzgerald’s ruling for the Texas Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2010, overruling a District Court’s ruling that Texas marriage laws, in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, violate the infamous Equal Protection Clause and are thus unconstitutional:

See Loving v. Virginia (1, 388 U.S. I 12 (1967) (describing marriage as a “fundamental freedom” that may “not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations”); accord Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 719 (citing Loving as establishing fundamental right to marry); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rd. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535,541 (I 942)(”Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”). But Loving involved a marriage between a man and woman. The Loving opinion’s discussion of the
right to marry does not embrace the broad formulation proposed by appellee. See Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270, 1301 (Cob. 1993) (Erickson, J., dissenting) (“[R]ather than expressing a willingness to extrapolate new fundamental rights based on selective language from prior Supreme Court decisions, we should exercise caution in identifying and embracing previously unrecognized fundamental rights.”). Many courts in other jurisdictions have confronted similar challenges to the federal DOMA and similar state laws, and they have generally concluded that the right being claimed should be defined and analyzed precisely as the right to marry a person of the same sex, not as the right to marry whomever one chooses. See. e.g., Smelt, 374 F. Supp. 2d at 877-79; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. at 138—41; Conawav, 932 .2d at 616—24; I-fernandez, 855 N.E.2d at 9—10;
Andersen v. King c’ntv., 138 P.3d 963, 976—79 (Wash. 2006) (plurality op.). The Conaway court’s thorough discussion of the question demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s right-to-marry jurisprudence has always involved opposite-sex couples and that the Court has always justified the fundamental nature of the right to marry. at least in part, by reference to procreation. Conawav. 932 A.2d at 619—21. We agree with that analysis and conclude that the precise rights claimed by appellee are the right to marry a person of the same sex and the concomitant right to divorce.

“The limitation of marriage to one man and one woman preserves both its structure and its historic purposes.” Goodridge V. Dept of Pub. Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, 992 n.l3 (Mass. 2003) (Cordy, J., dissenting). Accurately identifying and analyzing appellee’s claimed right----the purported “right to marry a person of the same sex”-—exposes the serious consequences such a position portends: the redefinition of the fundamental institution of marriage. And, of course, only by asserting that marriage includes the union of two persons of the same sex can appellee advance his claim of discrimination. A fatal flaw in this position is that it assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved.

dallasvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Gay.Divorce.pdf

In other words, those who claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are begging the question, just as I and others have pointed out repeatedly on this thread.

You should quote the section of the ruling where the definition is argued. This is the inevitable conclusion FROM the definition, not the argument over the definition itself. Walker in the CA ruling addresses the definition and whether his ruling is a definition of a new right. He claims that it is not. Where, in this ruling, is the definition addressed?

 

[Betterave]

You should quote the section of the ruling where the definition is argued. This is the inevitable conclusion FROM the definition, not the argument over the definition itself. Walker in the CA ruling addresses the definition and whether his ruling is a definition of a new right. He claims that it is not. Where, in this ruling, is the definition addressed?

That would be addressed in the paragraphs I quoted! - as well as, in various ways, in all of Section V: TEXAS LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, from which the paragraphs I quoted were drawn.

 

[larkin31]

That would be addressed in the paragraphs I quoted! - as well as, in various ways, in all of Section V: TEXAS LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, from which the paragraphs I quoted were drawn.

Marriage as ONLY applying to heteros is taken for granted in this ruling. This is no longer the case in this country, with some notable legal expansions of it to include gay marriages. One can no longer simply state that it has never happened. It IS happening, and there appear to be no ill effects that would prevent the continued practice.

 

[Betterave]

Marriage as ONLY applying to heteros is taken for granted in this ruling. This is no longer the case in this country, with some notable legal expansions of it to include gay marriages. One can no longer simply state that it has never happened. It IS happening, and there appear to be no ill effects that would prevent the continued practice.

It certainly is not “taken for granted.” Anyone can see that by reading the ruling for themselves.

 

[larkin31]

It certainly is not “taken for granted.” Anyone can see that by reading the ruling for themselves.

I did, and it does. It questions it not at all.

 

[Betterave]

I did, and it does. It questions it not at all.

I don’t know what you mean by “questions” or why you think that was called for, but in the context here you seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy: either “questions” or “takes for granted”, but not neither.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t know what you mean by “questions” or why you think that was called for, but in the context here you seem to be suggesting a false dichotomy: either “questions” or “takes for granted”, but not neither.

huh?

My point is that the case ruling opinion (that we are discussing most immediately here) assumes, from the start, no possibility for marriage to be anything but between a man and a woman. The Prop 8 appeal challenged that assumption and the practice. The ruling addressed that assumption and the appeal questioned its legitimacy in practice.

That is what I mean.

 

[FOFEBA]

Michael Sandel teaches a marvelous course on social justice at Harvard. In fact, it is the most popular undergraduate course.

12 lectures are available online to view. He teaches in a somewhat Socratic method which is compelling.

In the 12th and final lecture, he points out that for many moral questions the nature of the thing under scrutiny cannot be separated from the moral answer. In this lecture, he has two groups of students debating the gay marriage issue.

I would recommend the entire series to anyone who enjoys provocative and intelligent discussions on morality and social justice.

Relevant to this thread, here is a link to episode 12 which has the debate on gay marriage: justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=20

 

[mtolympus]

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

These twenty-two words are the original definition of marriage. Unless this definition is changed there is no discrimination, for same sex unions simply are not a marriage by definition! The argument has incrementally shifted so that eveyone now assumes that the definition of marriage has been changed, but it hasn’t. If it has been changed, what is the definition? If the definition is changed to a union between any two people, then of course it would be discrimination to not allow those of the same sex to marry.

The question is: Since God is the author of the definition, who has the authority to change it? If people of faith understand this only a secular society will change the definition. Jesus said: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt 19:6)

 

[FOFEBA]

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

These twenty-two words are the original definition of marriage. Unless this definition is changed there is no discrimination, for same sex unions simply are not a marriage by definition! The argument has incrementally shifted so that eveyone now assumes that the definition of marriage has been changed, but it hasn’t. If it has been changed, what is the definition? If the definition is changed to a union between any two people, then of course it would be discrimination to not allow those of the same sex to marry.

The question is: Since God is the author of the definition, who has the authority to change it? If people of faith understand this only a secular society will change the definition. Jesus said: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt 19:6)

If you read judge Walker’s opinion, and the opinion of the Massachusett’s supreme court, you will find that the opinion of the court is that the definition of marriage has changed.

Walker points out that during slavery, then marriage was illegal between slaves, because they were property, and could not legally enter a marriage contract. He goes on the remind us that until recently, women were subjugated to their husbands in marriage in most ways, both in terms of “civil rights” and also property. He further states that it was not until very recently that the last inter-racial prohibitions were overturned. Today, Walker asserts, there is no legal distinction with respect to gender within marriage. That is the basis of the equal protection breech which he ruled on.

I am not defending his position. It just seems that many posting here do not understand it, so I thought I would post my understanding of his legal position.

For me, the issue is teleological. What is the essence and purpose of marriage? If it is solely the union of a man and a woman for procreation, and union, then the same-sex issue is mute.

 

[larkin31]

If you read judge Walker’s opinion, and the opinion of the Massachusett’s supreme court, you will find that the opinion of the court is that the definition of marriage has changed.

Walker points out that during slavery, then marriage was illegal between slaves, because they were property, and could not legally enter a marriage contract. He goes on the remind us that until recently, women were subjugated to their husbands in marriage in most ways, both in terms of “civil rights” and also property. He further states that it was not until very recently that the last inter-racial prohibitions were overturned. Today, Walker asserts, there is no legal distinction with respect to gender within marriage. That is the basis of the equal protection breech which he ruled on.

I am not defending his position. It just seems that many posting here do not understand it, so I thought I would post my understanding of his legal position.

You are quite right in this.

For me, the issue is teleological. What is the essence and purpose of marriage? If it is solely the union of a man and a woman for procreation, and union, then the same-sex issue is mute.

A fair question.

 

[larkin31]

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

These twenty-two words are the original definition of marriage.

Some theologians and psychologists argue that this is not a definition of “marriage” (no marriage occurs here), but rather it is a religious explanation of the sex drive and need for physical intimacy in humanity.

 

[Betterave]

huh?

My point is that the case ruling opinion (that we are discussing most immediately here) assumes, from the start, no possibility for marriage to be anything but between a man and a woman. The Prop 8 appeal challenged that assumption and the practice. The ruling addressed that assumption and the appeal questioned its legitimacy in practice.

That is what I mean.

That is simply false. The case ruling very clearly does not claim or assume that there is “no possibility for marriage to be anything but between a man and a woman.” The Texas ruling also *references *the Prop 8 ruling, so you can hardly maintain that it was made in ignorance of the principles/arguments advanced in that ruling.

 

[FOFEBA]

It seems that the legal weight of the challenges is increasing, as more and more state judges find on equal protection issues.

I usually have dinner with my personal attorney weekly, and his opinion is that Walker’s opinion will be very difficult to overturn, due to its thoroughness and it factual bases in the law.

My own opinion is that our courts are not very predictable, and it could go either way. My experience during the multiple times that I have been a juror is that most jurors prefer to ignore the facts of a case, and to rule based on the preferences and prejudices. I don’t know if this is also true with judges.

 

[larkin31]

That is simply false. The case ruling very clearly does not claim or assume that there is “no possibility for marriage to be anything but between a man and a woman.” The Texas ruling also *references *the Prop 8 ruling, so you can hardly maintain that it was made in ignorance of the principles/arguments advanced in that ruling.

Where does it address the definitional dispute other than simply to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

 

[mtolympus]

Some theologians and psychologists argue that this is not a definition of “marriage” (no marriage occurs here), but rather it is a religious explanation of the sex drive and need for physical intimacy in humanity.

My points made on this website will always be biblical. If you have a secular argument we may have to respectfully agree to disagree. The passage in Genesis 2:24 does say “man… shall cleave unto his wife” which indicates it is talking about marriage. When the Pharisees came to Jesus tempting him with a question about marriage/divorce he scolded them for not knowing the scriptures and then quoted the above passage from Genesis. The first part of Jesus’ answer seems pertinant to today’s discussion:

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:4-6) (emphasis added)

 

[mtolympus]

If you read judge Walker’s opinion, and the opinion of the Massachusett’s supreme court, you will find that the opinion of the court is that the definition of marriage has changed.

Walker points out that during slavery, then marriage was illegal between slaves, because they were property, and could not legally enter a marriage contract. He goes on the remind us that until recently, women were subjugated to their husbands in marriage in most ways, both in terms of “civil rights” and also property. He further states that it was not until very recently that the last inter-racial prohibitions were overturned. Today, Walker asserts, there is no legal distinction with respect to gender within marriage. That is the basis of the equal protection breech which he ruled on.

I am not defending his position. It just seems that many posting here do not understand it, so I thought I would post my understanding of his legal position.

For me, the issue is teleological. What is the essence and purpose of marriage? If it is solely the union of a man and a woman for procreation, and union, then the same-sex issue is mute.

Thank you. I admit I am not up to date on the legal aspects of the case. For me it is also a theololgical/biblical issue. The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, it seems to me, originated in Genesis and went basically unquestioned for thousands of years in essentially in all societies. The definition has to be changed before there is discrimination. For example prohibition of inter-racial marriage is definitely discrimination because it falls within the definition of marriage. While same sex unions are not marriage by definition. California voted in Proposition 22 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It won but was over thrown in court. Proposition 8 made it a constitutional amendment. It was also overthrown. It seems to me that judges or trying to change the definition out of thin air.