Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

dixon76710 said:
Doesnt effect my theory at all. A requirement of procreation is something you have imagined in my theory.
Click to expand...

Just realized I'm talking to an idiot. You don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect". Why are all conservatives "dumb"? All of 'em. And no, you've stressed that point....procreation is your bottom line. In reality, it is not. It's about controlling one's destiny, and not being tossed, helplessly, by 'the winds". Some folks plan pregnancies, others have accidents. Some decide against procreating. Marriage isn't necessary to procreate, now is it? That's rhetorical. End of line. I don't engage stupidity.
 
Rune said:
No idiot, he saw it in your words.
Click to expand...

No, it would seem you have trouble distinguishing between the potential of procreation and a requirement. Government doesnt encourage you to purchase auto insurance because you are required to be in an accident, but instead because of the potential of an accident. Father of a youg sexually active daughter doesnt encourage her to marry because she is required to procreate, but instead because she has the potential to procreate.
 
poet said:
Just realized I'm talking to an idiot. You don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect". Why are all conservatives "dumb"? .
Click to expand...


LOLOLOL!!! So now you are reduced to correcting spelling errors. Let me know if you ever get around to actually constructing a rational argument, nancy boy.
 
Rune said:
Are you a certified idiot?
What possible relevance do these cites offer? Are you too stupid to answer a question with your own words?
Since when does wikipedia determine the course of law in The U.S.?
Click to expand...

He didnt ask a question you babbling fool.
 
Dixie said:
I don't have a problem with anything, this isn't about me and what I want. This is about how society functions and how we function as a society. In the landmark Loving case, the basis was the 14th Amendment, which along with the further clarifications of the CRA 1964, make the legitimate legal case that discrimination in marriage license based on race is unconstitutional.

It is very important and vital to this current argument over gay marriage, that we recognize the fact that laws had changed during civil rights, and the changes facilitated the challenges to the laws banning interracial marriage. This wasn't something that was simply forced onto society against it's will by judges, regardless of how many rednecks may have been opposed. It was an issue which finally established a legal justification under the law, and became changed as a result. We've not adopted a Gay Rights Act, and I don't think anyone has even proposed one. Yet, you want to behave as if that is the case, and the precedent has been established in law, that people can't be discriminated against on the basis of sexual preferences. Furthermore, you want to continue to insist that gay people are being denied something, and they aren't. No one can marry the same sex, that's not what marriage is. Marriage is also not prohibited to anyone who is of legal age and not immediately related, providing both male and female consent. Nowhere is anyone ever asked are they gay or straight, when obtaining a marriage license. What you wish to do, is muddy the debate with false semantics... Gays are being denied the same rights... no they're not! Stop painting this false picture of reality, and face the truth.
Click to expand...

The ruling in loving establishes that marriage is a fundamental right. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Interracial marriage is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, many people felt, and some still do, that interracial marriage is immoral. Granted, in that case you were also dealing with a suspect class, but it is stated in Loving that marriage is a fundamental right.

So, what is the legal right that is "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition?" If you change the legal definition back to what it was pre-1970, you will see. Marriage is the right to marry another person of your choice. There was no mention of the gender of the choice. That is the right that is deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Traditionally, and throughout our Nation's history, the government has allowed a person to marry another person. Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage. The exclusion came in another form... sodomy laws. And this made sense, yes? Through most of our Nation's history marriage was about procreation and part of the government's regulation to ensure this was the existence of sodomy laws. In addition to dealing with a "moral" issue, it also ensured that sexual conduct in marriage allowed for procreation. Any sexual act which did not allow for procreation (meaning, any act that was not penetrative vaginal intercourse) was sodomy and was illegal. That, combined with the fornication laws provided government encouragement of procreation in marriage.

But this changed (starting in 1961) when states began repealing sodomy laws (either through legislative action or through judicial challenge). Suddenly, there was nothing to keep same-sex couples from marrying in states that had a legal definition on the books. So, states began changing the legal definition of marriage – oddly enough, something opponents of same-sex marriage accuse its supporters of attempting.

So, can you exclude a group from a right simply because historically same-sex couples were implicitly excluded? If you say, yes, then you are arguing that same-sex marriage should not be allowed simply because it has never been allowed before without looking at the reason why. Why can't we allow them to marry? Because they've never been allowed to marry. That is unreasonable. That ignores the reasoning behind why, historically, they were excluded and how civilization and civil marriage have evolved since the nation came into existence.

The legal right of civil marriage has changed in the last century... heterosexuals changed it... why? Because they wanted less government regulation, more privacy and a right to choose whether to procreate or not. Because they wanted to be able to have sex outside of marriage, and they wanted the freedom to explore their sexuality. This is a simple fact. However, heterosexuals would now use an antiquated idea of marriage to exclude same-sex couples from marrying because they can't procreate (something which heterosexuals believe should be a choice in marriage... not a requirement). That is unreasonable. They would deny marriage to same-sex couples with children and in the same breath say that marriage is the ideal environment in which to raise children. That is unreasonable.

Considering that the legal right of marriage in this country historically and traditionally had no explicit limitation when it came to gender, any legislation that alters that right and adds an explicit exclusion regarding gender should be subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. Because that alteration effects a legal right deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition.
 
dixon76710 said:
He didnt ask a question you babbling fool.
Click to expand...

He didn't?

poet said:
Hey, Sparky.....the provision of "tax breaks" and "entitlements" isn't predicate on "the potential of procreation"...they are given, whether the couples decide to have children or not.
Find the document which supports your claim. You have this idea that everything is based on procreation or the potential for it. It's not.
Click to expand...

Why did you answer and provide a document then? Moron.
 
dixon76710 said:
No, it would seem you have trouble distinguishing between the potential of procreation and a requirement. Government doesnt encourage you to purchase auto insurance because you are required to be in an accident, but instead because of the potential of an accident. Father of a youg sexually active daughter doesnt encourage her to marry because she is required to procreate, but instead because she has the potential to procreate.
Click to expand...

So marriage exists only due to nubility?
 
dixon76710 said:
No, it would seem you have trouble distinguishing between the potential of procreation and a requirement. Government doesnt encourage you to purchase auto insurance because you are required to be in an accident, but instead because of the potential of an accident. Father of a youg sexually active daughter doesnt encourage her to marry because she is required to procreate, but instead because she has the potential to procreate.
Click to expand...

Good attempt but here is the Flaw to your little comparison...The government is not allowed to discriminate base on suspect classification...Uninsured or Insured motorists are not members of a suspect classification----

Here is a legal definition-
http://law.yourdictionary.com/suspect-classification
suspect classification legal definition
noun

A classification by racial group, national origin, sex, or citizenship, subject to strict scrutiny.

Additionally, A "suspect" class is a class created by or distinguished in a law when that classification has no rational relationship to any legitimate government interest. It is therefore "suspected" that the class is created or distinguished in the law only due to prejudice.

Officially designated "suspect classes" in federal jurisprudence include classifications based on race, national origin, alienage, and illegitimacy.

From Varnum v. Brien: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14534568329486175622&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Classifications based on factors like race, alienage, national origin, sex, or illegitimacy are “so seldom relevant to achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy.” Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. at 440, 105 S. Ct. at 3254, 87 L. Ed. 2d at 320. Rather than bearing some relationship to the burdened class’s ability to contribute to society, such classifications often reflect irrelevant stereotypes.
 
Last edited:
Southern Chicken said:
The ruling in loving establishes that marriage is a fundamental right. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Interracial marriage is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, many people felt, and some still do, that interracial marriage is immoral. Granted, in that case you were also dealing with a suspect class, but it is stated in Loving that marriage is a fundamental right.

So, what is the legal right that is "deeply rooted in our Nation's history and tradition?" If you change the legal definition back to what it was pre-1970, you will see. Marriage is the right to marry another person of your choice. There was no mention of the gender of the choice. That is the right that is deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Traditionally, and throughout our Nation's history, the government has allowed a person to marry another person. Granted, there were limitations, but those limitations existed in other laws. There was never (prior to 1970) an explicit ban on same-sex marriage. The exclusion came in another form... sodomy laws. And this made sense, yes? Through most of our Nation's history marriage was about procreation and part of the government's regulation to ensure this was the existence of sodomy laws. In addition to dealing with a "moral" issue, it also ensured that sexual conduct in marriage allowed for procreation. Any sexual act which did not allow for procreation (meaning, any act that was not penetrative vaginal intercourse) was sodomy and was illegal. That, combined with the fornication laws provided government encouragement of procreation in marriage.

But this changed (starting in 1961) when states began repealing sodomy laws (either through legislative action or through judicial challenge). Suddenly, there was nothing to keep same-sex couples from marrying in states that had a legal definition on the books. So, states began changing the legal definition of marriage – oddly enough, something opponents of same-sex marriage accuse its supporters of attempting.

So, can you exclude a group from a right simply because historically same-sex couples were implicitly excluded? If you say, yes, then you are arguing that same-sex marriage should not be allowed simply because it has never been allowed before without looking at the reason why. Why can't we allow them to marry? Because they've never been allowed to marry. That is unreasonable. That ignores the reasoning behind why, historically, they were excluded and how civilization and civil marriage have evolved since the nation came into existence.

The legal right of civil marriage has changed in the last century... heterosexuals changed it... why? Because they wanted less government regulation, more privacy and a right to choose whether to procreate or not. Because they wanted to be able to have sex outside of marriage, and they wanted the freedom to explore their sexuality. This is a simple fact. However, heterosexuals would now use an antiquated idea of marriage to exclude same-sex couples from marrying because they can't procreate (something which heterosexuals believe should be a choice in marriage... not a requirement). That is unreasonable. They would deny marriage to same-sex couples with children and in the same breath say that marriage is the ideal environment in which to raise children. That is unreasonable.

Considering that the legal right of marriage in this country historically and traditionally had no explicit limitation when it came to gender, any legislation that alters that right and adds an explicit exclusion regarding gender should be subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. Because that alteration effects a legal right deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition.
Click to expand...

.
 
Dixie said:
What the fuck are you yammering about now? Slavery was outlawed in America 147 years ago, moron. Where the fuck do you get this stuff? Can you not stick to the subject at hand?

But you were talking about the will of the people and threrefor you must believe that if the majority of the people want slavery (their will), then it should be allowed.

Why would that surprise me?

Because in the same sentence of yours, you talk about the will of the people who vote; ergo: Homosexuals vote so their will to have the laws changed is also part of their rights.

Nope... that's NOT what the courts are for. Sorry.

Sure they are and have done so in the past. Who do you think ruled that segregation laws were unconstitutional, if it wasn't the courts? I agree, you attempts are really sorry.

This is where the left have it all wrong, and can't be reasoned with. The courts are not there to enforce whatever extremists want. In any event, there is no right being violated here, we've been over this already, gay people have the exact same right as everyone else. Oh, you can keep pretending they have a right that has been denied, and you can keep lying to people and telling them that gays are having their rights violated, but you are factually inaccurate and spreading an outright lie.

So you agree that the courts shouldn't agree with the homophobic knuckledraggers who want to keep gay marriages unrecognized. Thanks


That's not how the court works. What the fuck do you mean "determine?" WHO determines? Some judge who is appointed for life? Sorry, this isn't a monarchy or kingdom, one man doesn't get to "determine" a goddamn thing here! If you want something passed into law, you have to initiate a campaign to lobby for it, and eventually have Congress pass legislation. Once that happens, then the courts can make rulings to uphold whatever law you pass. But you haven't passed any law! You want to turn America into a social liberal dictatorship! FUCK OFF!

Laws or ruling are challanged, within the Courts, and the Courts then decide which side has the better presentation and arguement. This is why we have three branches of Government, so that one side can't pass laws that discriminate against another side or deny the public certain rights; such as the right to marry an adult who you love and want to spend your life with.
You want to turn America into a Majority Democracy, which is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for supper.
While I"m flattered at your attempt to sweet talk me into having sex with you, I have to decline; because I'm heterosexual and already married.

OH... Something is MOST DEFINITELY wrong! I've tried to establish no such thing. I have stated correctly, that gay people aren't being denied anything that anyone else isn't also denied. I have stated correctly, that there is no basis for finding Prop 8 unconstitutional. I have explained why I do not support "GAY Marriage" but I am reasonable enough to accept civil unions for consenting adults. And through all this, you have waded in and proclaimed me full of shit and popped off your stupid mouth, and that's about it. As for debate points, you've scored ZERO!

This isn't about "scoring" this is about what's correct for the people of America and adults should and will be allowed to marry another adult, who they are in love with. You really need to accept this, so that your system doesn't go into shock when it happens.

Well you need not worry about my well being, I assure you, regardless of the outcome for "Gay Marriage" I will be just fine. Are you going to be the same when we have a DOMA-style constitutional amendment, putting an end to this matter forever? Because, at this point, that is the more likely scenario than having Gay Marriage. Keep pushing... that's what will go down, eventually.
Click to expand...

The DOMA will go down in flames, faster then Slick Willy's zipper, and the more knuckledraggers scream and shout, the more people realize that DOMA was wrong to begin with.
Dixie: Just because DOMA fails, doesn't mean that you're going to be forced to marry a man.
 
dixon76710 said:
Tax breaks and governmental entitlements given to heterosexual couples because they have the potential of procreation. If you want want to give them to homosexuals, youve lost the only justification we had for not making it available to any two consenting adults who desire them.
Click to expand...

What about the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that a married couple have, who are unable to have children or decide not to have children?
Are those to be taken away?
 
Southern Chicken said:
The ruling in loving establishes that marriage is a fundamental right. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html
Quote:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival"
Click to expand...

Dont be silly. From 1776 to the 1990s we never had same sex marriage and our existance and survival has continued just fine. Loving is quoting Skinner v Oklahoma

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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0316_0535_ZO.html

In both Virginia and Oklahoma at the time, sex outside of marriage was illegal which made marriage necessary for procreation.

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with
respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the
decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family
in our society.......

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally
linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....
Click to expand...



It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society....
Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What about the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that a married couple have, who are unable to have children or decide not to have children?
Are those to be taken away?
Click to expand...

You could, without offending the constitution. Doesnt follow that we must to avoid offending the constitution. As well half of births are unplanned. Born to couples who did not "decide" to have children, it just happened. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children that result from unplanned pregnancies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top