CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Arrian]

Ben, if Zkribbler is correct when he states the following

Ironically, the Legislature passed a bill which would have allowed gay marriage. The govenor vetoed it, saying this is a decision that should be left up to the court.

Then your argument about the will of the people fails in this case.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How does equal protection apply to a collective? It's always been individuals. This is why marriage has never fallen under that category.

Loving v. Virginia would disagree with you. Btw, is this the place where you show your ignorance of history again?

While Loving dealt with race, the argument applies here as well, and yes, it deals with individual rights to equal protection under the law:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The California's Supreme Court's argument is, basically: The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[Ben Kenobi]

ronically, the Legislature passed a bill which would have allowed gay marriage. The govenor vetoed it, saying this is a decision that should be left up to the court.

Just the inverse. The legislature passed a bill to ban gay marriage in the state which Ahnold vetoed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Judicial tyranny

Yes, the well-educated scholars who dedicated their life to their country are tyrants when they say two consenting adults can marry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Loving v. Virginia would disagree with you.

What does the 14th Amendment say?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These are the relevent clauses.

Equal protection was designed to make sure that the law would protect all persons equally. Now, this is worded on an individual basis. Loving vs Virginia argued that by barring white people from black people, that it was in de facto arguing that there were different classes, and that it would perpetuate unequal treatment in the law.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Loving v. Virginia would disagree with you. Btw, is this the place where you show your ignorance of history again?

While Loving dealt with race, the argument applies here as well, and yes, it deals with individual rights to equal protection under the law:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The California's Supreme Court's argument is, basically: The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now that can't really be argued against by a sane person.

[Asher]

Ben is actually an obscenely hateful bigot. His polite facade is immensely annoying.

[Krill]

I'd question his reading comprehension and logical thinking ability based on his above post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We've established Ben isn't sane.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Equal protection was designed to make sure that the law would protect all persons equally. Now, this is worded on an individual basis. Loving vs Virginia argued that by barring white people from black people, that it was in de facto arguing that there were different classes, and that it would perpetuate unequal treatment in the law.

Yes, it was so the law would treat all people equally before it. Therefore, individuals should be able to marry whatever individuals they want, regardless of their race or gender or whatever. The court doesn't arguing there were different classes, but that the LAW created different classes and individuals were not being treated equally since they were prosecuted for marrying another individual of the "wrong" class.

[Ben Kenobi]

My question for you Imran, is if marriage benefits are considered to be applicable to the equal protection clause, would that not be a reason to provide them to everyone regardless of whether they are married or not?

Your argument is that homosexuals are being deprived of the equal protection of the law, in that the state cannot declare them to be married. Why then couldn't an individual simply say that he is entitled to the exact same benefits? Is he not being deprived of the equal protection of the law because he is unmarried? Shouldn't divorced people have the same benefits? Shouldn't widowed people?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My question for you Imran, is if marriage benefits are considered to be applicable to the equal protection clause, would that not be a reason to provide them to everyone regardless of whether they are married or not?

Your argument is that homosexuals are being deprived of the equal protection of the law, in that the state cannot declare them to be married. Why then couldn't an individual simply say that he is entitled to the exact same benefits? Is he not being deprived of the equal protection of the law because he is unmarried? Shouldn't divorced people have the same benefits? Shouldn't widowed people?

They all have the choice to marry, Ben.

You are fundamentally confusing the right to marry with the rights associated with being married.

Cue Ben's tired and amusing "You all have the choice to marry the opposite sex"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why then couldn't an individual simply say that he is entitled to the exact same benefits? Is he not being deprived of the equal protection of the law because he is unmarried? Shouldn't divorced people have the same benefits? Shouldn't widowed people?

One, the equal protection being argued here was the right to marriage. The case of unmarried people suing just to have the rights of married people without actually getting married isn't before the court.

Second, Important governmental interest to give those benefits to married people and not simply dating people. Mostly to promote marriages for the stability of families.

I'm not sure how the same rights would apply to widowed people though. They'd have the right to extend their medical insurance to their dead spouse?

[Aeson]

Ideally there wouldn't be any legal benefits of marriage that weren't available through other means. Or rather, just get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Have legal methods for child custody, visitation rights, joint property, ect, open to any consenting parties to enter into.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Loving v. Virginia would disagree with you. Btw, is this the place where you show your ignorance of history again?

Loving passed away a few days ago, I meant to create a thread on it. Oh well, this will be a good proxy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I saw that article too .