Appeals Court: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

General Buck Turgidson said:
But isn't a definition of marriage that is restricted to heterosexual couples based on a sexual lifestyle, too? Your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Nope, its based upon the fact that the lifestyle frequently leads to procreation.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Not because of their "lifestyle" but instead because their lifestyle, naturally leads to procreation.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, its based upon the fact that the lifestyle frequently leads to procreation.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Not because of their "lifestyle" but instead because their lifestyle, naturally leads to procreation.
Click to expand...


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
Dixie said:
14th Amendment
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

If it is legal for you to marry your sexual preference, it has to be legal for anyone to marry their sexual preference. It's called "equal protection" and it is outlined in the 14th Amendment. You see, currently, marriage is the union of a male and female of consenting age, that is the parameters we've established and adhere to, and everyone (including gays) has the right to do. If we alter the definition of marriage to include a sexual preference, then that becomes the parameter we codify into law, and we must adhere to the constitution regarding it, whether we like it or not. So when a goat fucker comes along and demands his right to marry his goat, because that is his sexual preference, then we have no basis on which to deny him this request, and we can't deny the request and remain true to the constitution.

Now, the goat fucker example is a little extreme (which is why you brought it up), most goat fuckers tend to keep that a secret and wouldn't likely emerge from the closet to demand their rights anytime soon, our generation would probably not have to deal with it, but eventually, someone would bring the case. The more likely scenario involves polygamists, who are already lobbying in states which have passed gay marriage. Again, the problem is, you can't say THIS sexual behavior is okay as a basis for marriage, but THAT sexual behavior is not. If you do say that, you are in violation of the 14th, if marriage has been defined by a sexual lifestyle, which "gay marriage" is, it's in the name!
Click to expand...

Your offered argument is nearly identical to the one the knuckle draggers used, when they argued AGAINST inter-racial marriage.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, its based upon the fact that the lifestyle frequently leads to procreation.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Not because of their "lifestyle" but instead because their lifestyle, naturally leads to procreation.
Click to expand...

Is procreation a prerequisite for marriage. If so are you or the State against adoption between couples who are married but cant have children?
 
Dixie said:
Let's be clear on some things. The court very seldom relies on one single piece of legislation to make ANY ruling. Cases are reviewed on the basis of the law in total at the time, and any number of laws may apply. In Loving, the 14th was the basis, but the 14th applies to black people differently before 1964, or before 1954 (Brown), as blacks were not included. It is only AFTER these measures were passed, that legal court cases could be made and won, and there were a ton of them following Civil Rights, Loving being one of them.

The bans were still in place after '64, but are they still in place today? What happened? Did people just voluntarily lift them one day, realizing they must be in the wrong? Nope... Court cases were brought, rulings were made, and one by one, the laws were struck down. Now why didn't someone bring these cases before? Why did it take until 1967 for Loving? We didn't just wake up one day and say..well, time has come for us to do this.. it took YEARS of struggle, and passage of specific legislation which forbid the discrimination against blacks on the basis of race. Once that was done, the 14th Amendment becomes the basis for establishing justice.
Click to expand...

And hopefully the process to allow same sex marriages won't take as long; but the change will occur.
 
Rune said:
Wut?
Click to expand...

Cant discriminate in favor of gays without at least a legitimate governmental interest that is served by that discrimination. It is against the Constitution of the US. Im sure just a minor inconvenience to you when it comes to winning special preferences for the gays
 
Southern Chicken said:
Pure crap, polygamy requires a reconstruction of the marriage contract in order to accomodate multiple spouses. It has already been attempted in this country with the laws regarding the civil marriage contract remaining basically as they are today and it didn't work -- so much so that abuses outweighed right to religious freedom.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Polygamists haven't had the power of the Constitution behind them to enforce the 14th Amendment because we made a law basing marriage on sexual preferences.... that's why they failed in the past.

Allowing for same-sex marriage requires absolutely zero reconstruction of the laws regarding the civil marriage contract.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I agree! But not because I support "Gay Marriage." I believe a modification of government's role in marriage to recognize civil union contracts, between any two consenting adults, would remedy any and all problems and put this issue to rest forever. There would be no basis for other sexual deviants to stake their claims, because CU isn't defined by sexuality. It could be used by a daughter a d her aging mother, or two brothers, or two platonic friends, etc. It accommodates gay couples, without interfering with the sanctity of traditional marriage, without 'redefining' marriage, or opening the door to all kinds of other shit we don't need to deal with.


So, how in the world does it logically follow that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy? To sibling marriage?
Click to expand...

Again, because you have redefined the parameters of marriage to include sexual preference. By intrinsically tying marriage to homosexuality, you have created a dichotomy. Our constitution prohibits us from establishing a law to allow one group of people to have a freedom that is not equally allowed to others. If a gay person is allowed to "marry the one he loves" then how can you deny this same right to another person, who may love two others, or who may love her doberman? If our criteria is, what turns you on sexually, then that's the criteria we have established, and we'll have to live with it, no matter how sick it gets.

To state that any simple change to a law opens the floodgates is ridiculous and ignores the fact that the same obstacles keeping these other two types of marriages illegal will remain even if same-sex marriage is allowed. Why? Because allowing same-sex marriage does nothing to change the reasons for keeping polygamy and sibling marriage illegal.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but you are wrong! Simply changing the law to say that people can't discriminate on the basis of skin color, ended up changing all kinds of laws as the floodgates opened, we've mentioned some examples already. And it's true, many things are protected against with other laws, but once was a time, sodomy was illegal most everywhere too... those laws can change. Especially, if you have a constitutional injustice, like allowing one group of deviants to have 'marriages' but not another.

How is heterosexual marriage redefined by allowing same-sex couples to marry? How are heterosexual marriages affected? They aren't. Heterosexuals will continue to marry in the same manner that they always have and nothing will change regarding the contract in which heterosexual couples will engage.
Click to expand...

Well first off, there is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage." We don't disallow homosexuals from marriage, they are welcome to marry any person of opposite sex they like, as long as they are both consenting adults and not immediately related. As far as I know, there is no state which even asks you if you are heterosexual or homosexual when issuing a marriage license. If you know of some place where this is happening, I'll join you in condemning it, because THAT would be a violation of gay people's rights.
 
dixon76710 said:
Cant discriminate in favor of gays without at least a legitimate governmental interest that is served by that discrimination. It is against the Constitution of the US. Im sure just a minor inconvenience to you when it comes to winning special preferences for the gays
Click to expand...

Thanks for repeating yourself exactly. That really clears things up.
 
dixon76710 said:
Odd that you feel free to just make the shit up as you go along. DIXIE made no such reference. DIG DEEP for some shred of integrity if you can.
Click to expand...

How odd that someone who wants to deny rights to other Americans, would find the ability to speak of integrity!! :awesome:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How odd that someone who wants to deny rights to other Americans, would find the ability to speak of integrity!! :awesome:
Click to expand...

From the Obama administration, before they decided they needed to pander for the gay vote. There is no "right" to same sex marriage.

Finally, regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this Court. While the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry is "fundamental," Zablocki v. Redhail, ...., that right has not been held to encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex. To the contrary, in Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim that the Constitution provides a right to same-sex marriage for lack of a "substantial federal question."....The decision in Baker has precedential effect and is binding here.
http://hunterforjustice.typepad.com/files/smelt-doj-mot-dismiss.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Dixie said:
*



Ahh, but you are wrong! Simply changing the law to say that people can't discriminate on the basis of skin color, ended up changing all kinds of laws as the floodgates opened, we've mentioned some examples already. And it's true, many things are protected against with other laws, but once was a time, sodomy was illegal most everywhere too... those laws can change. Especially, if you have a constitutional injustice, like allowing one group of deviants to have 'marriages' but not another.



.
Click to expand...

So do you have a problem with interracial marriages which, In my opinion, was a good floodgate to be opened. Laws must serve a purpose - even laws that respect long standing traditions. If the traditional restriction no longer serves a necessary purpose, it is unconstitutional. It's not about whether the equal protection clause guarantees gay marriage - and the equal protection argument has nothing to do with the "right to marry" - that would be the Due Process Clause, it's whether or not the law creates an unconstitutional classification.

The equal protection clause protects against the creation of classifications that aren't, at the very least, related to some legitimate government interest. That's what the equal protection argument was about. Prop 8 creates a classification that, as he ruled, is not related to any legitimate government interest.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
*

Well first off, there is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage." We don't disallow homosexuals from marriage, they are welcome to marry any person of opposite sex they like, as long as they are both consenting adults and not immediately related. As far as I know, there is no state which even asks you if you are heterosexual or homosexual when issuing a marriage license. If you know of some place where this is happening, I'll join you in condemning it, because THAT would be a violation of gay people's rights.
Click to expand...

If you choose to marry, you must choose a woman if you are a man. And if you are a heterosexual man, that choice fits your sexual orienation; if you are a homosexual man, it doesn't. A homosexual may not choose someone that fits his sexual orientation. So, logically, there must be a restriction based upon sexual orientation. And the treatment is unequal because a heterosexual is allowed to choose the person that fits his sexual orientation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top