CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...ar_n_671018.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

"In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution's equal protection and due process rights clauses.

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008."
Click to expand...

The supreme courts treatment of the equal protection clause is interesting. If it's a protected class, essentially no state interest is strong enough to overcome it. The only real member of the protected class right now, though, is race. If it's unprotected, then a rational scrutiny test applies. "Rational", in this instance, means "not insane". So pretty much any state interest will be valid. They did create a middle category between the two after a while, but the only class they've ever decided to put in this category is sex. They've previously said that sexual orientation isn't in either the protected or semi-protected tiers. If they do promote sexual orientation, though, it may open the floodgates to a much more expansive interpretation of the equal protection clause. And with that, the supreme court could get itself involved in politics, which is precisely what the rationality test was designed to avoid.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? Uuuuuhhh no, but any two consenting adults could adopt a child. Not sure of what you think this does for the arguments, advocating for gay marriage. Heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to adoption.
Click to expand...

Your argument claims that being raised by two biological parents has advantages. Unless adoptive parents lack the same advantages, it is an irrelevant argument in this discussion. Heterosexual sex can and often does lead to having children. This often happens whether the couple wants kids or not. Gay sex does not lead to unplanned children, but they are no less capable of raising a child. I have seen no study that shows children raised by their biological parents do any better than those raised by adoptive parents.
 
dixon76710 said:
What does them being "gay" have to do with anything? Single mother and grandmother down the street from me have been raising 3 kids together for years. What possible justification could there be for denying this couple with children the rights of marriage while extending them to two lesbians with a kid? What justification could there be for this special treatment because two people happen to rub genitals.
Rational argument can be made that any two consenting adults should be able to receive the rights of marriage but I cant imagine any rational argument that only sexual couples should be able to do so.
Click to expand...

Because marriage is about two people committing to one another in a relationship based on love. The idea that two people does so just for benefits is a bogus argument.

Its not about rubbing genitalia together any more than it is about kids. It is about the two people.
 
dixon76710 said:
????? And....somehow gays have convinced themselves that this cant be achieved without government endorsement, tax breaks and governmental entitlements?
Click to expand...

No, it is about the gov't bestowing benefits on one set of couples and denying it to another for no reason other than the paranoia of a bigots.

I have not seen one single reason given that justifies this inequality.
 
dixon76710 said:
Here in America we give superior rights to the married, not equal. In 44 states to heterosexual couples because they are the only couples who procreate. In 6 states, also to gay couples because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad....although I dont know what rubbing genitals has to do with anything.
Click to expand...

You are correct, rubbing genitals together has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Since those same benefits are given to heterosexual couples that do not or cannot have children, this is not a genuine reason for the continued denial of the right to marry.

Unless you make procreation part of the marriage licencing and benefits, it is not a reason to disallow gay marriage. And since modern medical science can now help gays have children, it is no longer a reason at all.
 
dixon76710 said:
Which part didnt you understand? Marriage isnt about "equal rights" but instead, by design UNEQUAL rights granted to the married, denied to the unmarried.
Click to expand...

You are talking nonsense, and basing your entire argument on the idea that the state should only reward biological parents and child-bearing couples. But the state currently rewards couples who do not have children or cannot have children.

And the idea that step-parents or adoptive parents are, in any way, inferior as parents has not been shown by you. Unless you have some evidence to support your supposition, it is a worthless argument.
 
cawacko said:
Agreed Russellbor, Alabama should not be playing in the BCS Championship game. Y'all already lost at home to LSU. You DO NOT deserve a rematch on a neutral field.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, you didn't go there, did you???

The BCS Championship game is about the #1 and #2 teams playing each other. Bama is #2 according to the BCS polls. We lost to LSU in OT. Ok St lost to a nobody. That cost them.

But look on the bright side. You get to see something you have never seen before. You get to see an SEC team LOSE in the BCS Championship game. :)
 
WinterBorn said:
Oh hell, you didn't go there, did you???

The BCS Championship game is about the #1 and #2 teams playing each other. Bama is #2 according to the BCS polls. We lost to LSU in OT. Ok St lost to a nobody. That cost them.

But look on the bright side. You get to see something you have never seen before. You get to see an SEC team LOSE in the BCS Championship game. :)
Click to expand...
Ehhh another BCS fiasco....I have no intention of watching the game. The last one was one of the most boring games I've seen.
 
You know what the non AQ conferences ought to do is stage their own NCG playoff and declare any team who accepts a BCS bowl bid as ineligable. Under anti-trust laws the NCAA would not be able to do a thing to stop them
 
Eye said:
equal rights means rights equal to like parties.
Click to expand...

But they are not like parties. Any distinction drawn in the law that discriminates between people must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. The distinction of heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in encouraging mothers and fathers to provide and care for their children they have created, together in the home with the child as oppposed to the alternative of only one or none of them doing so. Only heterosexual couples create children. If you want to make marriage available to sexual couples, both heterosexual and homosexual couples, youll need some other legitimate governmental interest to serve to justify the discrimination. I cant think of any such interest that wouldnt also be served in the case of two platonic friends or closely related couples who choose to form a home together.
 
dixon76710 said:
But they are not like parties. Any distinction drawn in the law that discriminates between people must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. The distinction of heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in encouraging mothers and fathers to provide and care for their children they have created, together in the home with the child as oppposed to the alternative of only one or none of them doing so. Only heterosexual couples create children. If you want to make marriage available to sexual couples, both heterosexual and homosexual couples, youll need some other legitimate governmental interest to serve to justify the discrimination. I cant think of any such interest that wouldnt also be served in the case of two platonic friends or closely related couples who choose to form a home together.
Click to expand...

Then the distinction needs to be drawn between heterosexual couples who can and do produce children, and those who can't or won't.
 
icedancer2theend said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

If, as he claims, the reason the gov't gives the benefits is all about producing children, then it certainly does. Now I am not saying that marriage is only about producing children. I have also not said that biological parents are somehow superior to adoptive or step-parents. Dixon did that. I am simply saying that, if his suppositions are accurate, the gov't should only reward those married couples who produce children.
 
WinterBorn said:
Your argument claims that being raised by two biological parents has advantages. Unless adoptive parents lack the same advantages, it is an irrelevant argument in this discussion.
Click to expand...

???? well, first, any two consenting adults could adopt, does nothing for your argument of extending marriage to two consenting adults when they happen to be gay. Second, while heterosexual sex has a natural tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency to lead to adoption. And third, the most frequent alternative to being born into a home with the benefit of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them is usually being born into a home with just the single mother present to provide and care for the child. Other alternatives include orphanages, foster care, being raised by other members of the extended family and only a small minority involve adoption of the child by another adult.
 
WinterBorn said:
If, as he claims, the reason the gov't gives the benefits is all about producing children, then it certainly does. Now I am not saying that marriage is only about producing children.
Click to expand...

You havent understood a thing Ive said. Its not about producing children. Procreation continues just fine without it. One only needs to look at the statistics in the black community in the US. Their marriage rate is significantly less than the rest of the population and still their birth rate significantly higher. The result is now that the majority of black children are now born to single mothers, and all that this entails. On average, more poverty, more juvenile delinquincy, more drug and alchohol abuse, more teen pregnancy, more HS dropouts and higher rates of criminal conviction as an adult. Encouraging more black heterosexual couples to marry helps alleviate these effects. Encouraging two black guys to marry does not.

WinterBorn said:
I have also not said that biological parents are somehow superior to adoptive or step-parents. Dixon did that. I am simply saying that, if his suppositions are accurate, the gov't should only reward those married couples who produce children.
Click to expand...

Nooooo, both biological parents are superior to the alternative of one or none of them present. That includes children raised by single moms, remarried mothers, a multitude of other possible arrangements and adoptive parents. Adoption probably the most favorable among the other options in that parents wishing to adopt are more frequently financially better off, in a stable marriage and have a strong desire to have children.
 
Emperor Nero said:
The supreme courts treatment of the equal protection clause is interesting. If it's a protected class, essentially no state interest is strong enough to overcome it. The only real member of the protected class right now, though, is race. If it's unprotected, then a rational scrutiny test applies. "Rational", in this instance, means "not insane". So pretty much any state interest will be valid. They did create a middle category between the two after a while, but the only class they've ever decided to put in this category is sex. They've previously said that sexual orientation isn't in either the protected or semi-protected tiers. If they do promote sexual orientation, though, it may open the floodgates to a much more expansive interpretation of the equal protection clause. And with that, the supreme court could get itself involved in politics, which is precisely what the rationality test was designed to avoid.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt it be ironic, for sexuality be subjected to even stricter scrutiny than sex.
California cases use the judicial fiction/finding of fact that the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman, as old as civilization itself, has not been because only a man and a woman can procreate, but instead has been motivated by animus towards homosexuals, intended to exclude homosexuals. ABSURD!

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

This isnt animus towards homosexuals, it is the biology of procreation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top