CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is all well and good if you like the Big Mac (i.e., a straight-straight marriage), or are willing to accept a Big Mac (i.e., a gay-straight marraige), but if that special sauce causes you enormous problems, and all you want is the Whopper, you're S.O.L

Actually, my argument was simply, just because I want something doesn't mean that it is right for me to have it. You have to give a better reason just wanting something to say you have the legal right to it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, marriage isn't an individual right.

Yes it is.

I don't think marriage laws fall under equal protection

When the government is banning people from marrying another person without any compelling government interest why then, yes, it does.

Loving was arguing that barring blacks from marrying whites was setting up unequal classes. That's not the case here.

Of course it is. Just because you are part of the class (Christian bigots) that wants to push down the other class (gay people), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS


California isn't known as a conservative state, last I checked. Nor particularly religious.

That's why it's depressing.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, my argument was simply, just because I want something doesn't mean that it is right for me to have it. You have to give a better reason just wanting something to say you have the legal right to it.

Actually, the Cal. Supremes did just the opposite. On page 120 of the opinion, they merely strike out the words "between man and woman" and leave the rest alone. That is, they eliminated a barrier to an existing right; they did not create a new right.

[snoopy369]

California is a funny state. They're quite conservative on certain issues (immigration, for example)... just not religious-conservative.

This is the state that brought us Ronald and Arnold, after all... (is it creepy or cool that they are anagrams??)

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, falls far, far short of a compelling test to eliminate equal protection. Because adoption and artificial insemination exist.

It's an argument that the state has the compelling interest to promote marriage between a man and a woman, because it satisfies all 4 criterions.

Secondly, adoption and artificial insemination are also most commonly performed between men and women who are married. So that doesn't get you anywhere there.

I'm sorry Imran, yes it is most likely to raise children. That in itself is a significant fact. Look at it this way. If the state has X dollars, and wants to get the most bang for their dollar, they will get it through promoting marriage between a man and a woman. Yes, it is true that alternatives are there, but they are both less frequently.

Finally, the reason for equal protection before the law is not to prevent the state from providing benefits that others don't get (aka disabilities), but rather to ensure that things like the judicial system, and the police are there to protect all of the citizens from harm. The argument in Loving is so long as you had two classes, this was not possible, which is not what we see here today.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. Most children are born in families with a husband and a wife.

Do you dispute this?

Having children is not necessarily connected to marriage. "Illegitimacy" rates continue to rise and may overtake children in marriages soon here. And there are countries/social groups where this is already reality.

2. Of all the different arrangements, the one that is most likely to result in children is a husband and a wife. If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to result in children.

No, it's between a non-sterlile husband and a pre-menopause wife capable to bear children. Make marriage tied to medical check of these conditions, don't allow old people to marry. And end it when a couple fails at this duty. The state's incentive is gone without children.




Secondly,

1. Most children are raised in families with a husband and a wife.

2. The arrangement that is most likely to result in raising children is a husband and a wife.

Do you disagree with either of these?

If both of these are true, then the state has an incentive to promote marriage between a man and a woman as that is the arrangement that is most likely to raise children. [/QUOTE]

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, marriage isn't an individual right. Secondly, I don't believe equal protection means the same as equal provisions. I don't think marriage laws fall under equal protection, Loving being different, because Loving was arguing that barring blacks from marrying whites was setting up unequal classes. That's not the case here.

It's too bad banning of hetero marriage would be such a terrible thing, otherwise I'd hope we could look forward to BK arguing against a court ruling allowing hetero marriage.

But I appreciate the sentiment. Even if we all know it's lies on your part, as you just search for justification to support your bigotry.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes it is.

No it isn't, not in the way we have a right to life and liberty. I can't get married without the consent of someone else, so it isn't an individual right.

When the government is banning people from marrying another person without any compelling government interest why then, yes, it does.

As you argued the state has a compelling interest in restricting the benefits to married people, the same rationales which apply to marriage between a man and a woman.

Of course it is. Just because you are part of the class (Christian bigots) that wants to push down the other class (gay people), doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yet California isn't majority Christian bigots. You are going to have to come up with a new argument to insult people with Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's an argument that the state has the compelling interest to promote marriage between a man and a woman, because it satisfies all 4 criterions.

It may compel you, but it doesn't compel the rest of us and doesn't compel the California Supreme Court.

Furthermore, as stated, women over 50 can't have kids. Infertile people can't have kids. Aren't they able to be eliminated by your test?

Secondly, adoption and artificial insemination are also most commonly performed between men and women who are married. So that doesn't get you anywhere there.

What kind of argument is that?! Just because it is most often performed by X/Y doesn't mean it doesn't exist for X/X or Y/Y.

Basically, if we flip the argument. Most kids were born and raised by white/white and black/black couples. Very few kids were born or raised by white/black couples. Since the common occurance is between members of the same race, marriage should only exist between members of the same race.

Your arguement comes down to, only the majority have rights because they are the ones who most commonly do things.

I'm sorry Imran, yes it is most likely to raise children. That in itself is a significant fact. Look at it this way. If the state has X dollars, and wants to get the most bang for their dollar, they will get it through promoting marriage between a man and a woman. Yes, it is true that alternatives are there, but they are both less frequently.

Actually the most bang for the buck in having children is to promote poor people having sex, marriage or not. The more wealthy the people, the less children they have on average.

Oooh... does that mean we can prevent rich people from marrying because having kids is more common among poor people? This is fun!

Finally, the reason for equal protection before the law is not to prevent the state from providing benefits that others don't get (aka disabilities), but rather to ensure that things like the judicial system, and the police are there to protect all of the citizens from harm. The argument in Loving is so long as you had two classes, this was not possible, which is not what we see here today.

Of course it is. Homosexuals are discriminated all the time. The judicial system is here to protect gays from harm that Christian bigots want to place on them. Already lots of progress can be made. They can actually be gay without being thrown in jail for it! Now they may actually be able to be equal members of society in the eyes of the law in some states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No it isn't, not in the way we have a right to life and liberty. I can't get married without the consent of someone else, so it isn't an individual right.

A) We don't have a right to life and liberty (at least not Constitutionally).

B) Even though you need the consent of another it is STILL an individual right. You have the right to marry any one else you wish. Just because they have to say yes, doesn't invalidate the right.

As you argued the state has a compelling interest in restricting the benefits to married people, the same rationales which apply to marriage between a man and a woman.

No, not really. Not at all really. Those rationales fail miserably when you restrict it to a man and woman.

Yet California isn't majority Christian bigots. You are going to have to come up with a new argument to insult people with Imran.

No... but you are. California is full with ignorance people who think gays are icky.

They are homophobes, no doubt... just as most Southerners were racists under Jim Crow.

[snoopy369]

Lawyers should know how to spell argument

Otherwise...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Spell it out what I am thinking, and why I am opposed to this issue.

I'm rather curious, since you seem to know better what I think then I do.

How should I know? Your arguments are so inane that they can't possibly be the real justification for your bigotry. You're basically either intellectually dishonest or a fool, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you're not making it very easy for any of us.

Gay marriage will not have any significant effect on reproduction; the human race has a compulsion to reproduce and making gay marriage legal won't change that. Even if it did, you seem to assume that population growth is an unqualified good in this age of world overpopulation and diminishing resources.

Yet California isn't majority Christian bigots. You are going to have to come up with a new argument to insult people with Imran.

Sure it is. Most people in California are Christian, and most people in California are bigots. "Christian bigot" probably describes a majority of Californians - indeed, most Americans, and probably most Mexicans, Poles, Greeks, etcetera.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A) We don't have a right to life and liberty (at least not Constitutionally).

Psst. Take a look at the 14th Amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Psst. Take a look at the 14th Amendment.

That's due process, not explicitly guarenteeing a right to life and liberty .

Though later course have read in a substantive due process clause, which they argue allows for CERTAIN rights to life and liberty to be included.