Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Now you want to restrict peoples freedom of speech? Hatemonger!

Because if you can't define the purpose of the law, then you can't assess whether the restrictions (specifically the qualifications for marriage benefits) involved in the law are consistent with that purpose. You're rudderless on the issue.



It's great that you know what my position is. I'm asking you what yours is. It's not enough to just say "I don't think that's why those benefits exist", if you can't provide an alternative explanation.

I'm asking you what purpose you think those benefits serve.




What does this mean? How does failing to include gay couples in the list of those who can qualify for a benefit violate the principle of equality? Is that true in all cases? Are you saying that no state benefits can ever have qualifying criteria attached to them? Because you've just made nearly every single government funded benefit unconstitutional right there. If there's some other specific aspects applicable to this situation, then please elaborate.

You keep tossing vague generalities at me. I want you to be specific. Remember what I started out with: The Supreme Court has already ruled (on many many occasions) that discrimination is constitutional if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law, and the laws purpose itself doesn't violate the constitution. Heck, this was even mentioned as part of the "test" for constitutionality in Loving v Virginia:




This is the test which the Supreme Court will be using in the upcoming case. While this case is specific to race, and sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned in the 14th amendment, it'll likely be extended to include it as something which can't be discriminated against (if not the case ends right there, as discrimination against homosexuals wouldn't be considered unconstitutional anyway). Given that source of the test, the question the court will have to answer is whether or not the restriction of marriage benefits in a way which excludes gay couples is "necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective", independent of the discrimination itself.

Thus, for the state of California to win this case, all they need to show is that there is a "state objective" to the marriage requirements, which necessitates a set of criteria which happens to exclude gay couples, and that said state objective is *not* specifically to exclude gay couples. The obvious argument is the one I've been using for years: That the objective is to encourage couples who might otherwise produce children outside of wedlock to do so within the constrains of an appropriately binding marriage contract. Given that the only set of couples who can produce children together are those consisting of one adult male and one adult female, those conditions are necessary and relevant to the state purpose. Certainly, it would be absurd to extend it to a set of couples who *can't* possibly ever produce children (as a freaking couple! One of them artificially inseminating herself doesn't count).



That's the argument the court will have to contend with. That is the test it will use. I know that most of you hate this argument. I suspect because it's the hardest one to debate, but the point is that the Supreme Court will be considering the "best" arguments for why this law should stand, not the worst. On this internet forum, you have the luxury of just ignoring arguments you don't like, or tap dancing around the language of the issue. The court most likely wont do that. The only way the state doesn't win this case is if 5 of the justices on the court ignore the actual law and actual precedent for cases involving discriminatory laws, and simply rule based on some broad desire to further "gay rights". I'm not saying that this wont happen, but if it does, it'll be yet another in an unfortunately long series of irrational court rulings.


I apologize for the long post (haha!), but you keep insisting that it's not important for you to establish the purpose of those benefits. But as this section of the case shows, it is important. It's the way the court will test the constitutionality of the law. It's not about what groups we like or dislike here. We can't just argue that a group we like should qualify for every government benefit we think they should have. The issue is whether they *must* be included in that benefit. More relevantly, whether or not the lack of inclusion exists purely to discriminate, or whether that lack exists for some other legitimate reason.


Obviously, I believe there exists a legitimate reason for the criteria. You're free to disagree, but to do so, you really have to argue that there's some purpose to those laws other than what I've stated.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 7:19pm by gbaji

double

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 9:24pm by bsphil

Read the rest of my post.

Because no one has ever accidentally artificially inseminated themselves. Also, the "couple" didn't produce the child. One person did. The other person was a bystander to the process.

For that matter, no gay couple has ever accidentally produced a child together. Heterosexual couples do so all the time. So, encouraging them to marry instead of just shacking up is a good idea. The state recognizes that sexually active heterosexual couples as a set will produce children together. We can't say for sure which ones will, but a statistical number of them will at any given time, whether we want them to or not. Given that it's better for all of us if as many of those couples are married when that happens as possible, there is a state interest in getting those couples to marry as early as possible.


The state has no such interest in whether or not gay couples marry.


You're free to agree with that reasoning or not, but that *is* the only consistent and logical "state objective" I can think of for the set of criteria we have for marriage benefits. Why require that in order to get those benefits, someone must be an adult, be able to enter into a contract, not presently be in a marriage contract, and agree to enter into a marriage contract with a member of the opposite sex? What do all of those things have in common? Those are a precise definition of the set of "unmarried heterosexuals who are likely to be sexually active and produce children with each other".


I'll ask again: If that's not the state objective of our marriage license criteria, then what is?

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 7:39pm by gbaji

So, you've still not answered the question. Why does that matter that people can't inseminate themselves, accidental or not? What the f*ck were you even getting at by specifying that it happen "accidentally"? Why do adopted children or children from surrogate mothers not count as children when it comes to the "needing to be raised" question?

Because we're discussing the objective behind the creation of a set of benefits for couples who marry, not whether or not we should also have programs to help people who are raising children.

I believe that gay couples have the right to enter into any sort of relationship they wish. Just as heterosexual couples are free to do so. The difference is that gay couples don't represent any potential harm to the rest of us as a result of their sexual activities, so there's no reason to create incentives to get them to enter into massively binding contracts which they might not otherwise want to enter into.

Another way to look at is is that gay couples are free of infringement with regard to their relationships. Of course, I'm a conservative, so I view this differently than liberals, but to me government involvement whether it seems positive or negative, is still an infringement. How many times in the past have I argued that recipients of welfare are just as much victims of government control (more so really) as those who have to pay the taxes to provide them? Their actions and decisions are being manipulated by the government via the benefits they receive. Same thing with heterosexual couples. They are being manipulated into entering into a contract. Yes. It benefits us. And yes, in return they get some benefits the rest of us don't. But I simply can't fathom why any gay person would think that not getting that same amount of government manipulation is somehow a violation of their rights. You've got a strange concept of freedom if you think not being controlled is a loss of liberty...

So yes. Gay couples have more freedom than straight couples. They are not currently manipulated by the government into entering into a binding socio-economic contract. They are free to decide if they want to enter into such a contract, or write their own. Or just live their lives together happy and free and (dare I say it?) gay. Gay couples currently live in the sweet spot of liberty. No one is oppressing them for their lifestyle, and no one is pressuring them, like cheap bible salesmen into changing their relationship into something the rest of us think is acceptable.


So enjoy your freedom while it lasts gay people! Oh yes! Because the big government is coming for you. Even now, they're fighting to make sure you are treated "just like straight people". But is that what you want? Do you want your mother asking you constantly "so when are you and Steve going to settle down and make honest men of eachother?". Do you want your employer dangling health care in front of you if only you sign on that big ol dotted line? Do you want to feel like you're missing out on your future if you don't join the masses of the married? Do you want to feel like there's something wrong with you that you're the only one at that swank party not hitched? No. I'm quite sure you don't want that! You want freedom! You want liberty!


Speaking as a committed bachelor, you gay people don't know how good you have it...

Wow, so the bubble you live inside is thicker than I ever thought.

I'm pretty sure it is. I'll leave it to the gay posters of the asylum to respond to that, though.

Now respond to this:





Edited, Aug 5th 2010 10:11pm by bsphil

Except for government recognized marriage. That's icky!

We aren't clamoring for marriage so that we won't use it, you ********* Gays aren't going to be shotgun married.

This is the stupidest piece of **** to dribble out of your mouth.


You're such a romantic. No wonder you will die alone.

I'd say that good couples are better at raising children than good single parents, on average. I don't see how that relates to my statement though.