Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I am using the right words. It's unequal because a heterosexual can marry the adult individual that they fall in love with, but a homosexual cannot. They also cannot marry a member of the opposite sex because sham marriages are illegal.

I don't know or care how the government measures "love." Or even massive "like." I just know that a homosexual won't fall in love with an adult human individual of the opposite sex. And since an adult human heterosexual can marry who they fall in love with, and an adult human homosexual cannot. That is not equal, and therefore they do not have the same right to marry. Period.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 6:38pm by Belkira

My favorite thing about Allakhazam in 2010 is the little number in parenthesis, floating nonchalantly beside the total number of replies a thread has and informing me of how many posts have occurred since I last visited said thread.

This particular thread had 622 in those parenthesis a moment ago. Such is my interest piqued. Looking at the last page of comments, it's apparent I missed exactly what I expected.

This thread is turning into a correspondence course in the gbaji School of Arguing a Non-Issue.

The argument that the restriction of marriage to couples consisting of one male and one female isn't discriminatory against homosexuals because they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals can. I mean, in an incredibly simplistic viewpoint, we could say that heterosexual couples are being denied marriage to people of the same sex, but it's kind of a stupid argument.

It's like saying it's ok to legally mandate that all people must write with their right hands, and insist that this doesn't discriminate against left handed people because right handed people are required to write with their right hands as well. It's "the same", right? Um... No.


The correct line of argument (the only one really) is to acknowledge that it *is* discriminatory, but that the discrimination is not in violation of the constitution, since the thing being denied is not a right *and* the thing being denied is denied for a state objective which is not itself in violation of constitutional rules on discrimination. It is important to realize that discrimination alone is not a violation of the constitution. We discriminate all the time. A store chooses which brands of products to put on its shelves. That "discriminates" against other brands, but that's not a violation of the constitution to do so. It's called "freedom of choice".

Only a very narrow set of discrimination can be found to violate the constitution. These broadly are sex, race, and religion, although it's reasonable to expect that a court will rule that anything which is a strong part of someone's identity should also be included (spirit of the law and all of that). Thus, discrimination on the basis of someone's sexual identity absolutely may be in violation of the constitution.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the test for that is to determine if the discrimination exists as a result of a legitimate "state objective", and if the state objective isn't itself discriminatory. The easiest part to answer is the latter part. Were the existing marriage benefits created specifically to discriminate against gay couples? I think we can all answer "no" to that one. It's easily argued that those who wrote those laws didn't even consider gay couples when making them.


And that leads us to the final question: What is the "state objective" for those marriage benefits. Why did the state create a state defined status of marriage and then place a set of conditions on it which was clearly intended for heterosexual couples (even in states which didn't clarify this, it was assumed for decades before legal challenges forced the specific wording changes), and attach a set of benefits to that status?


This is why I keep coming back to this. It is the one key piece of the puzzle. Without determining the state objective for the marriage status, it's impossible to determine if the criteria of "one man, one woman" constitutes unconstitutional discrimination against gay couples, or is just a side effect of a law with a wholly different objective. I have presented my view of what that state objective is. So far, despite massive argument against me, no one has yet presented a viable alternative explanation that adequately explains the status, the benefits, and the qualifying criteria.


That's the best argument to make. Going off about whether or not its discrimination is kinda pointless. Of course it's discrimination. But that's not the issue. Almost all of our laws are discriminatory. That alone does not make it a violation of the constitution.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 7:00pm by gbaji

While I would argue against the idea that a state objective is in any way necessary to resolve this issue, I can offer a parallel objective that would be sufficient reason to allow homosexuals to marry: public health. As varus so often likes to point out, homosexuals are statistically more likely to contract and pass on STDs than heterosexual couples, for whatever reasons. It's a reasonable goal for the government to seek to reduce sexual promiscuity through the avenue of marriage, particularly in the golden age of AIDS. By offering benefits to entice couples (hetero and ****) into marriage, they're fulfilling what I would argue is an entirely worthy objective, and one well worth the cost of the benefits involved (whichever costs aren't already offset by increased marriage industry revenue).

If they're homosexual, they wouldn't marry each other.

Or, if it was two men and they were both straight, they couldn't get married, but that wouldn't matter because they wouldn't want to be married in the first place. Not like it matters to them, because they aren't being denied something. Which you could easily see if you weren't so rampantly retarded, but I'm not holding out for that to change.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 10:47pm by bsphil

The equality depends on your frame of reference. If your point of reference is marrying the person you love, then it's not equal. If your point of reference is what sex you can get married to then it is equal. It's a @#%^ing stupid argument alma.

Sure we have, you just yell NO NO NO, and say that it's obvious. Why don't you defend your overriding theme of marriage by showing stuff that indicates it might be the case.

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 11:07pm by Xsarus

Judge Walker has refused a stay pending appeal. Marriages can recommence in CA starting August 18th.




As I said earlier, there's some question as to whether the prop 8 proponents even have legal standing to appeal on behalf of the state, since the state itself (in the form of the AG and the governor) has no interest in appealing the ruling. That question will be forwarded to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if they defer to the Supreme Court, to Justice Kennedy, who will then decide if it's necessary to go before the full 9 judges.

Have you not been paying attention to what me and Belkira have been discussing? It's called a "sham marriage". If two best heterosexual friends are living together, you don't think they would ever get married "under the table" for benefits and live separate lives? If they find the right person, they'll just get a divorce and remarry. That way you'll always receive marriage benefits.

Why be single when you can be married with benefits, but really be single?

Signing a piece of paper doesn't change your sexuality.



That's funny because I'm using the same exact logic as you to prove the opposite. My evidence is to look at all of the different issues and observe how they all support unity in family. I'm not arguing that is the over all theme, but visitation rights, alimony, child support, tax breaks, marriage restrictions, etc, are all examples of laws promoting forms of unity between a family. Rather if that is the one that the government chose, I don't know, but that is a fairly easy one that can be used.



Except I only stated that it wasn't created all of the sudden. Then again, maybe my sarcasm flew over your head.

The local social institution of marriage has no relevance on the rationale on why the government decided to support the social institution of marriage. This is because the rationale of the government could be the same rationale as the social one or it could be completely different. For example, the people could have seen marriage as a testimony of love and commitment while the government might have seen it as a way to manage people.



No it's not, because as I said, you can't measure love, it changes all of the time and no one knows who you will fall in love with, so it's silly to try to make a law based on love. As I mentioned, are you implying that it should be illegal for a couple to stay married when the love is gone?

You are implying that I'm using this as an argument AGAINST SSM, I'm simply telling you that using the argument of equality is a horrible argument and using the argument of fairness is a much stronger argument. Your whole argument of equality denies the definitions of equality and fairness.

That's like men complaining about not having maternity leave when they have a new born child, claiming that it is not fair. In reality, it's fair, just not equal. Or why pregnant women or handicapped people have their own parking spots. It's fair, just not equal.

There is a difference between equality and fairness, so you can't just switch out the words all willy nilly just to prove a point.

That's because the "sham" part in sham marriages is not based on love, but the whole actually living together as a family thing. That's what the government cares about. That's because there is no way the government can actually measure if you love someone. As long as you are living as a family, then the government doesn't care, because that's the only thing they can measure.

I just came from overseas and I've seen people get married all of the time who either didn't love each other or thought they loved each other after only knowing each other a short period of time and done it legally. As long as they stay as a couple, then there is no problem.

What's the difference between two people in vegas getting married after knowing each other a week or two vs someone marrying a foreigner after just meeting after a week a two? How can you say one is legit and the other isn't? The answer is, you can't. This goes back to the scenarios you ignored.



These are very relevant, you are ignoring them because they show how love isn't a factor in the legality in marriage. You want love to be a factor in order to make it "unequal", but the fact still remains that love is not a factor nor is it measured. If it were, it would be illegal to remain in a loveless marriage.

Exactly....