Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[giblets]

I think we already had this argument.

Example A White man white woman
Example B Black man Black woman
Example C White man Black woman
Example D Black man White woman.

The only difference between D and A and B and C is race. This falls afoul of equal protection. Equal protection states that the same regulation should apply equally to all persons and should come out with the same answer for all 4. Bans on interracial marriage do not, ergo they fail the criterion.

Oh cool!

Example A Man want to marry a man
Example B Woman wants to marry a woman
Example C Man wants to marry a woman
Example D Woman wants to marry a man

The only difference between D and A appears to be that one is a man, and the other is a woman. How does equal protection allow us to stop a man from marrying a man, but not stop a woman from marrying a man?

[MrFun]

And such bans do not apply equally to couples of the same gender compared to couples of opposite genders.

Example A: straight man straight woman
Example B: gay man gay man

The only difference between these two is sexual orientation. This falls afoul of equal protection.

[MrFun]

damn it


x-post with gribbler

[Ben Kenobi]

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to all citizens. Are you saying that there are no citizens in United States who are gay?

I'm saying that marriage laws at present do not discriminate between you and me. They treat us exactly the same ergo equal protection doesn't come into play.

And no, I do not have the right to legally marry if I had a partner of same gender where there is mutual romantic love, and mutual desire to marry one another.

And I don't have the right to marry two women. Life sucks.

[Ben Kenobi]

How does equal protection allow us to stop a man from marrying a man, but not stop a woman from marrying a man?

Because it treats me and mr. fun exactly the same. I can't marry a man, and neither can he. That's the only thing that equal protection cares about.

If I were black and Mr. Fun were white, Interracial marriage laws would treat us differently. Ergo, it would fall afoul of equal protection. That's the difference here.

[giblets]

Because it treats me and mr. fun exactly the same. I can't marry a man, and neither can he. That's the only thing that equal protection cares about.

So would banning interracial marriage, because you're both white.

[giblets]

Let's say, hypothetically, MrFun had a sister. If Ben wanted to marry her, he could, but MrFun could not. According to Ben's definition, that violates equal protection

[Ben Kenobi]

The only difference between these two is sexual orientation. This falls afoul of equal protection.

No, that would be the case of a law that made a distinction between these two:

Gay man gay man

Straight man gay man

Which isn't what the law at present does.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's say, hypothetically, MrFun had a sister. If Ben wanted to marry her, he could, but MrFun could not. According to Ben's definition, that violates equal protection

Yes. Now the federal government argues in favour of these restrictions for health reasons. Which gets back to my point. If marriage is a natural right, then these restrictions would have to go away.

[giblets]

Yes. Now the federal government argues in favour of these restrictions for health reasons. Which gets back to my point. If marriage is a natural right, then these restrictions would have to go away.

Let's say the government shouldn't interfere with consenting adults unless someone who isn't a consenting adult would be harmed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let's say the government shouldn't interfere with consenting adults unless someone who isn't a consenting adult would be harmed.

That would be a great idea. Are you willing to do away with immigration for spouses?

[giblets]

That would be a great idea. Are you willing to do away with immigration for spouses?

Why would I want to prevent immigration?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would I want to prevent immigration?

That would be a consequence. If the federal government didn't issue marriage licenses at all, then you wouldn't be able to have spousal immigration.

But as you said, the government shouldn't interfere with consenting adults...

[giblets]

Issuing a marriage license to someone doesn't stop them from doing anything. How the hell is that supposed to be interference?

[Ben Kenobi]

Issuing a marriage license to someone doesn't stop them from doing anything. How the hell is that supposed to be interference?

Issuing a marriage licence without with the government will not recognise your marriage is interference.

Here's the deal. If you sincerely believe that the government should not be involved, then that means no marriage licenses at all. No justices of the peace, no immigration for spouses, no federal government spousal benefits, etc, etc. I'm fine with that if that is your position.

However, I'm not fine with this, 'interference so long as it supports me'. That's total bull****.