CA Prop. 8 shot down

[dixon76710]

So how about that? How about we remove all of the government benefits from marriage, remove the gov't licencing, and take back marriage as a personal and sacred institution??

What do you say, Alias & dixon???

Personally, I think the preference for mothers and fathers providing and caring for the children they create together as opposed to not doing so serves a worthy and beneficial purpose to society. It would really be a shame if we were forced to abandon this institution as old as civilization itself, ALL for no other reason than it offends the tiny minority of gays who biologically cannot participate in the process.

 

[Onceler]

Performing a sexual act doesn't mean you are having "sexual intercourse". Only a male and a female can do that.

So?

 

[dixon76710]

Your PIP insurance would not cover your live in lover, your daughters boyfriend or your domestic partner.

Wouldnt cover my live in brother, platonic friend or the grandmother living with the mother raising three children together either, and here you are demanding special treatment for those who happen to rub genitals, denied to those who do not. WTF does rubbing genitals have to do with anything here?

 

[Alias]

This is a "sexual act", but fails at being "sexual intercourse".

 

[Jarod]

Wouldnt cover my live in brother, platonic friend or the grandmother living with the mother raising three children together either, and here you are demanding special treatment for those who happen to rub genitals, denied to those who do not. WTF does rubbing genitals have to do with anything here?

It WOULD cover your BROTHER and the GRANDMOTHER as long as they were living together. It would not cover your platonic friend unless you were married to the friend.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Nope, I am restricted from marrying my brother, but not because of my sexual orientation. He only wants the special treatment reserved for homosexuals, otherwise, it would cease to be special treatment.

USSC on classifications under the Equal Protection Clause... from GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) – section used as precedent in McLAUGHLIN v. FLORIDA, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) which, in turn was used as precedent in Loving v. Virginia.



"But it is said that it is not within the scope of the fourteenth amendment to withhold from states the power of classification, and that, if the law deals alike with all of a certain class, it is not obnoxious to the charge of a denial of equal protection. While, as a general proposition, this is undeniably true, yet it is equally true that such classification cannot be made arbitrarily. The state may not say that all white men shall be subjected to the payment of the attorney's fees of parties successfully suing them, and all black men not. It may not say that all men beyond a certain age shall be alone thus subjected, or all men possessed of a certain wealth. These are distinctions which do not furnish any proper basis for the attempted classification. That must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed, and can never be made arbitrarily, and without any such basis."

The fact that homosexuals are still allowed to marry those of the opposite sex does not make the bans constitutional in light of the Equal Protection Clause
This argument was put forth in support of anti-miscegenation laws and didn't fly because, as was expressed in Perez v. Sharp:

http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html

"...the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice..."

While this case dealt with race, it doesn't change the fact that the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice. Any restriction on that choice is subject to challenge and review based on the fact that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right. So, the fundamental right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's choice. This does not automatically make any restriction on the choice of who we marry unconstitutional, but the government must prove – and the burden of proof is on the government – that the restriction is not arbitrary and that it is necessary in order to further some purpose.

So, your argument that homosexuals still have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex – and, therefore, there is no invidious discrimination – is absurd. We have the right to marry the person of our choice and the government may only restrict that choice if it serves a valid State interest and the restriction is necessary in order to further that interest.

 

[dixon76710]

But its not the government doing anything but allowing freedom. .

Nah, Freedom would entail marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Expanding it to only additionally include homosexuals reveals the true agenda, NOT equality but in fact, purposefull inequality for homosexuals for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexuals.

 

[dixon76710]

USSC on classifications under the Equal Protection Clause... from GULF, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) – section used as precedent in McLAUGHLIN v. FLORIDA, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) which, in turn was used as precedent in Loving v. Virginia.

Loving v Virginia which quoted Skinner v Oklahoma that stated

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

And evidently the meaning of

These are distinctions which do not furnish any proper basis for the attempted classification. That must always rest upon some difference which bears a reasonable and just relation to the act in respect to which the classification is proposed, and can never be made arbitrarily, and without any such basis."

Escapes you because it beautifully demonstrates why marriage limited to heterosexual is constitutional and why marriage limited to someone of the same race is not. Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. Couples of the same sex physically cannot procreate.

 

[Jarod]

Nah, Freedom would entail marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Expanding it to only additionally include homosexuals reveals the true agenda, NOT equality but in fact, purposefull inequality for homosexuals for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexuals.

No because the law prohibits you from marrying close family members due to the high risk and potential for abuse and an inability for at least one party to truely consent. Much like a 13 year old is not considered by the law to have the capacity to consent to sexual relations with an adult, a brother, sister or child is often considered to already be in a such a relationship that consenting to a marriage type relationship is beyond there capacity to consent.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Loving v Virginia which quoted Skinner v Oklahoma that stated



And evidently the meaning of



Escapes you because it beautifully demonstrates why marriage limited to heterosexual is constitutional and why marriage limited to someone of the same race is not. Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. Couples of the same sex physically cannot procreate.

Sorry ,The arguments made by the lawyers in Loving and others in amici briefs involved the right to marry - both with regard to equal protection and due process. There they make the claim that it is a fundamental right and, it appears, as far as I can tell, that the State didn't argue against that claim. (You added the rest ie and why marriage limited to someone of the same race is not. Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. Couples of the same sex physically cannot procreate)

I believe that the right to marry is a fundamental right even without the essential involvement of procreation. Marriage is an important institution that should be protected for more reasons than just procreation. It encompasses other rights that aren't necessarily associated with procreation. It involves the right to choose, the right to intimate association, the right to start a family (even if there is no procreation involved). It is still vital to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men even if procreation plays no part in it - and there has never been the requirement that it do.

 

[dixon76710]

No because the law prohibits you from marrying close family members due to the high risk and potential for abuse and an inability for at least one party to truely consent.

Revealing, the only two examples Ive used are my brother and I 51yrs old and 56 yrs old. And the grandmother and mother living down the street, 35 yrs old and about 62 yrs old, and you can come up with an imaginary defect that prevent any of these people from consenting. And of course, you just made up off the top of your head this crap about the potential for abuse.

 

[dixon76710]

Sorry ,The arguments made by the lawyers in Loving and others in amici briefs involved the right to marry - both with regard to equal protection and due process. There they make the claim that it is a fundamental right and, it appears, as far as I can tell, that the State didn't argue against that claim. (You added the rest ie and why marriage limited to someone of the same race is not. Interracial couples procreate, just like same race couples. Couples of the same sex physically cannot procreate)

I believe that the right to marry is a fundamental right even without the essential involvement of procreation. Marriage is an important institution that should be protected for more reasons than just procreation. It encompasses other rights that aren't necessarily associated with procreation. It involves the right to choose, the right to intimate association, the right to start a family (even if there is no procreation involved). It is still vital to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men even if procreation plays no part in it - and there has never been the requirement that it do.

Sooooooo explain to me why the special treatment for homosexuals. Nothing above applies to homosexuals any more than it would apply to ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, and here you are even insisting that the constitution requires that homosexuals be included???? You make no sense. I keep asking for justification for this special treatment for homosexuals that you want, AND EVERY SINGLE TIME you all provide arguments that would apply to any two consenting adults, but you only want to apply them to those who happen to be homosexual. Demonstrates the true motivations.

 

[Jarod]

Revealing, the only two examples Ive used are my brother and I 51yrs old and 56 yrs old. And the grandmother and mother living down the street, 35 yrs old and about 62 yrs old, and you can come up with an imaginary defect that prevent any of these people from consenting. And of course, you just made up off the top of your head this crap about the potential for abuse.

I did not make that up, I was recalling a lecture in a family law class I once took.

The potential for abuse, no matter how old you are, when you grew up with someone is high. The level of control that is exerted in family situations results in a lifelong inballance of power between family members. Many hold unballanced psychological dominon over family members that can only be achieved when people grow up together.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Sooooooo explain to me why the special treatment for homosexuals. Nothing above applies to homosexuals any more than it would apply to ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, and here you are even insisting that the constitution requires that homosexuals be included???? You make no sense. I keep asking for justification for this special treatment for homosexuals that you want, AND EVERY SINGLE TIME you all provide arguments that would apply to any two consenting adults, but you only want to apply them to those who happen to be homosexual. Demonstrates the true motivations.

See my post # 794
But here it is again------If the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing(AS Per the Perez case I listed above)

http://www.multiracial.com/governmen...z-v-sharp.html

"...the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice..."

Any law that restricts that choice, infringes upon the right. The fact that a gay man is required by law to ignore his sexual orientation if he wishes to choose someone to marry, means that the restriction is based upon sexual orientation. Repeat--- A heterosexual is allowed to use their sexual orientation in their choice of who they marry... it is not impacted. It is only the homosexual whose choice is based on sexual orientation that is impacted.

 

[dixon76710]

I did not make that up, I was recalling a lecture in a family law class I once took.

Made up BS. You didnt have a family law class that even discussed the potential of abuse in closely related marriages as closely related marriages have been prohibited by the law since the beginning of our nation.

 

[dixon76710]

See my post # 794
But here it is again------If the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing(AS Per the Perez case I listed above)

You mean their choosing as long as those choosing "use their sexual orientation in their choice". If they dont, no right to chose???? WHY?

http://www.multiracial.com/governmen...z-v-sharp.html

"...the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice..."

Any law that restricts that choice, infringes upon the right. The fact that a gay man is required by law to ignore his sexual orientation if he wishes to choose someone to marry, means that the restriction is based upon sexual orientation. Repeat--- A heterosexual is allowed to use their sexual orientation in their choice of who they marry... it is not impacted. It is only the homosexual whose choice is based on sexual orientation that is impacted.

LOLOL! Calling it sexual orientation instead of homosexuality isnt an argument. And simply identifying a difference and declaring it the justification isnt an argument. What does ones sexual orientation have to do with anything above? Why are only people who "use their sexual orientation in their choice" entitled to these benefits.

 

[Southern Chicken]

LOLOL! Calling it sexual orientation instead of homosexuality isnt an argument. And simply identifying a difference and declaring it the justification isnt an argument. What does ones sexual orientation have to do with anything above? Why are only people who "use their sexual orientation in their choice" entitled to these benefits.

Here we go again----http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sexual%20orientation

I could have sworn I posted this yesterday......



sexual orientationnoun
Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior


COVERS heterosexual behavior as well Your question(s) can be asked of heterosexuals as well, ya know?

 

[dixon76710]

Here we go again----http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/sexual%20orientation

I could have sworn I posted this yesterday......

sexual orientationnoun
Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior


COVERS heterosexual behavior as well Your question(s) can be asked of heterosexuals as well, ya know?

Yeah, silly. I was specifically referring to the mother and grandmother(both heterosexuals) who DID NOT "use their sexual orientation in their choice". Why no marriage benefits for them.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you know the difference between a sexual act and sexual intercourse? Please tell me you're not that stupid.

Go back and look at the comment you made that I replied "it will be your little secret".

 

[Southern Chicken]

Nope, I am restricted from marrying my brother.

The valid State interest in preventing siblings from marrying is that to allow them to marry would be State endorsement of an illegal act. Until the incest laws change to allow siblings to legally have sex, they will never be allowed to marry. It used to be that way with homosexuals. Until the 70's, there were no laws against gays marrying, the legal definition of marriage in almost every state was exactly what same-sex marriage advocates are asking for now. What prevented them from getting married were the sodomy laws.

If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, incest laws will still prevent siblings from marrying. And incest laws can and already have changed in absence of same-sex marriage. So there is no direct connection between same-sex marriage and allowing for sibling marriage. There is no connection.