CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
dixon76710 said:
From the 1971 Baker v Nelson case referring to the Minn Statute
Click to expand...

The only reason Baker said that there was no constitutional issue was that, in that case, the only argument was one based upon gender discrimination and not discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Can you show me a single court that has ruled - in a case regarding same-sex marriage bans - that the law didn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? - Baker doesn't count because they never even considered the law with regard to sexual orientation.

As far as the legal definition regarding this case--

sex is a synonym for gender in the dictionary:

gender:

2 a : sex <the feminine gender>

However, you'll have to show me where "sex" or "gender" has been substituted for "sexual orientation" - which has been substituted for the term "sexual preference," a term that had been around a while in 1971. I've never read or heard anyone jumble the two concepts up or substitute either of the former for the latter.
 
dixon76710 said:
Right, now explain to me why people who consummate the relationship have a right to marriage while those who do not, do not have the rights to marriage. Cant just point to a difference and procaim it to be justification for discriminatory treatment. You have to point to some legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of couples who consummate, but not served if they have not. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Unless you can show where a state has dissolved a marriage between consenting sexless adults then your theory has flaws...In other word, sexless marriages are still sanctioned by the state. And as Damo said earlier "government should be LIMITED, not so insidiously intrusive as to try to define and sanction lifestyle choices between any consenting adults."
.
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
The only reason Baker said that there was no constitutional issue was that, in that case, the only argument was one based upon gender discrimination and not discrimination based upon sexual orientation.....
Click to expand...

Notice how effortlessly he abandons his previous claim

Southern Chicken said:
gender neutral until starting in 1973, .
Click to expand...

and slithers onto the next whenever challenged. Abandoned like a cheap suit he never really wanted
 
dixon76710 said:
Why? Any two people could adopt a child. Why the special treatment for two people who happen to be gay? Its not like being gay is equally beneficial to children as biological parents, requiring the same preference.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the same. Studies (including the one linked in this thread) have shown children of gay couples turn out the same as children of straight couples.
 
dixon76710 said:
Notice how effortlessly he abandons his previous claim



and slithers onto the next whenever challenged. Abandoned like a cheap suit he never really wanted
Click to expand...

Ok since the 70's. Does that make your argument any more valid??? If the courts work a certain way... if, as courts have recognized, we have the fundamental right to choose who we marry, on what grounds can the State restrict that choice? Does it not have to be related to a valid State interest? Does the restriction not have to be necessary in order to fulfill that interest? If that's the case, then you are arguing that we do not have the fundamental right to marry the person of our choice. If the State decided to spend the money for testing, the State could very easily claim that it has an interest in maintaining and protecting a particular level of intelligence in future generations, so you can't marry an individual whose IQ is below a certain level. If, we do not have the fundamental right to choose who we marry, such a thing would be consitutional, would it not? I know that IQ tests are not conclusive, but the State might feel it better to err on the side of caution. I mean, why undertake such a social experiment with the intelligence of our children at stake? Right?

Likewise, if we do not have the right to marry the individual of our choice and the nature of marriage as a fundamental right is tied to the ability to procreate, then every non-procreative heterosexual individual does not have the fundamental right to marry at all. Those beyond child-bearing age do not have the fundamental right to marry, any sterile individual in this country does not have the fundamental right to marry.

If we do not have the fundamental right to marry the person of our choice, these non-procreative heterosexual married couples who many times raise the children – got by procreation and abandoned by their constitutionally protected procreative neighbors – could quite easily have their marriages voided should the Government ever decide to do so. Yet they are held equally responsible for those children by the State. Your claiming that they take on this burden without constitutional protection for the framework they use in order to provide the ideal environment in which to raise these children?
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
No it is not. If that is all the justification needed to keep gay marriage illegal, then it is all the justification needed to make divorce illegal as well. It should also be enough justification to make it against the law for unmarried women to get pregnant.

And it should be plenty of justififcation to prevent married couples who do not procreate from getting the benefits the gov't gives married couples.

You want one set of rules for gays and another for straights. You may claim it is about procreation and protection of children, but until you hold straight couples to the same standards it sounds far more like bigotry.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn: "You want one set of rules for gays and another for straights".

Women sit down when they piss. I want all gay men to sit down when they piss or else they're all bigots.
 
Alias said:
WinterBorn: "You want one set of rules for gays and another for straights".

Women sit down when they piss. I want all gay men to sit down when they piss or else they're all bigots.
Click to expand...

This is your argument?

Again, if this is the best you have to offer please sit quietly and let the grownups discuss the issue.
 
Alias said:
WinterBorn: "You want one set of rules for gays and another for straights".

Women sit down when they piss. I want all gay men to sit down when they piss or else they're all bigots.
Click to expand...

Question---Exactly, How do you know if All gay men sit or stand when they piss?? Did you do a poll or something?
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, it is the same. Studies (including the one linked in this thread) have shown children of gay couples turn out the same as children of straight couples.
Click to expand...

I said biological parents, not straight parents. But thats of course why you run to studies that compare to straight parents
 
Southern Chicken said:
Ok since the 70's. Does that make your argument any more valid???
Click to expand...

My argument isnt in question. Your claimed facts are what is BS. And the Minnesota laws date to the "territorial days"


Southern Chicken said:
If the courts work a certain way... if, as courts have recognized, we have the fundamental right to choose who we marry, on what grounds can the State restrict that choice?
Click to expand...

Fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Southern Chicken said:
Does it not have to be related to a valid State interest? Does the restriction not have to be necessary in order to fulfill that interest?
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats what I said. Sooooo what valid interest is served granting two 18 yr old boys, young, dumb and full of cum a marriage license, that would not be served in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street raising three kids? Its a simple question. Cant any of you people come up with such an interest?
 
dixon76710 said:
I said biological parents, not straight parents. But thats of course why you run to studies that compare to straight parents
Click to expand...

Of course it is not.

The study link that you posted showed single father households equal to (and better in one area) biological two parent homes as far as health. And the health issue was the basis for teh study.




But if we are giving benefits to provide for better lives for kids, and you say being raised by two biological parents is best, why not outlaw divorce?
 
dixon76710 said:
Fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Click to expand...


The fact that it doesn't disallow someone from entering into a marriage does not mean there is no restriction on the choice of who we marry. The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing.

You take an black and white point of view: it doesn't keep a gay man from marrying, so the restriction can't be based at all on sexual orientation. But that ignores the nature of the fundamental right: the choice of who we marry. If the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing, 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.Even if you say that the State does not allow anyone to base their choice upon their sexual orientation, the State's restriction regarding making a choice based upon sexual orientation is still a restriction upon the right to choose who we marry, isn't it? And you can't honestly claim that the gender restriction - in leaving no choice based upon sexual orientation - impacts everyone equally, because the gender restriction happens to reflect the heterosexual orientation. Because of the gender restriction, heterosexuals gain a benefit where homosexuals do not.
 
Southern Chicken said:
The fact that it doesn't disallow someone from entering into a marriage does not mean there is no restriction on the choice of who we marry. The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing.

You take an black and white point of view: it doesn't keep a gay man from marrying, so the restriction can't be based at all on sexual orientation. But that ignores the nature of the fundamental right: the choice of who we marry. If the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing, 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.Even if you say that the State does not allow anyone to base their choice upon their sexual orientation, the State's restriction regarding making a choice based upon sexual orientation is still a restriction upon the right to choose who we marry, isn't it? And you can't honestly claim that the gender restriction - in leaving no choice based upon sexual orientation - impacts everyone equally, because the gender restriction happens to reflect the heterosexual orientation. Because of the gender restriction, heterosexuals gain a benefit where homosexuals do not.
Click to expand...

"The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of our choosing."

Nope. That is not a "right". You might think it is, but it isn't.

Is having sex with any person of your choosing a "right"?
 
Why does anyone care enough to put energy into prohibiting Gay people to marry eachother?
 
Jarod said:
Why does anyone care enough to put energy into prohibiting Gay people to marry eachother?
Click to expand...

Because we are defending our culture and want to keep it.

You make the same mistake your pals make. No one is "prohibiting" anyone from anything. No one is prohibiting you from being the QB for the NY Giants. Why aren't you playing for the Giants next Sunday?
 
Alias said:
Because we are defending our culture and want to keep it.

You make the same mistake your pals make. No one is "prohibiting" anyone from anything. No one is prohibiting you from being the QB for the NY Giants. Why aren't you playing for the Giants next Sunday?
Click to expand...

I would be against it if the government made a law saying I could not be the QB for the NY Giants.

Your example is more akin to a situation where a gay person cant find someone willing to marry them, much like I doubt I could find an NFL coach willing to let me play QB.
 
dixon76710 said:
Soooo then why dont you advocate for marriage to people of their choosing and why do you instead only advocate for marriage for those who happen to be gay? Reveals the true agenda.
Click to expand...

Uh, that is what he is advocating. Marriage being a loving relationship (as established by the gov't when they will dissolve a marriage for lack of sex), he is advocating for people to marry who they choose. Since they can already marry someone of the opposite gender, the only ones disciminated against are those who love someone of the same gender. There are only two genders.

And before one of the hacks brings up marrying sisters, marrying children, or marrying your dog, all of those are handled quite nicely by laws against incest, child abuse, and bestiality. There is no law against homosexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top