Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

It's the lulz that make it funny.


Because I'd be preaching to the choir. You're the only one who seems confused.

Are we doing anagrams now?

Nor me.

No, as in actually confused.

I already did. If you couldn't understand the answer or something, that's not really my problem.

Your mother is an anagram.


For "Rhyme Or Out"

You mean this answer? Fine. I'll play that game:



Can we agree that the entire argument here is that gender combination of a couple should be treated the same as racial combinations in terms of the 14th amendment protections? Thus, the same test which would allow discrimination on the basis of race would apply to the basis of sexual orientation, right?



The state objective for limiting marriage to same race couples is examined though. Thus, the state objective for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples must be examined as well. Given that this is a much older and more universally held aspect of marriage, it's impossible to do that without examining the whole objective of marriage as defined by the state.

Were you seriously basing your argument over such a hair splitting detail? If your argument were correct, then it would be unconstitutional to ban polygamy. Clearly, you're missing something when broadly declaring marriage as a "fundamental right" which cannot be infringed. You're missing the context of what marriage is in relationship to what laws define it. In the case of racial discrimination, the court could find no state objective other than sheer discrimination to restrict marriage on the basis of race.

That cannot be said of restrictions of marriage on the basis of sexual combination of the couple in question. You seem to have glossed over the part which said "The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races". The court didn't have to examine the issue of marriage further in order to see that the discrimination was purely arbitrary. They found no relevant fundamental difference between a man and woman of the same race marrying and a man and a woman of different races marrying.

This is doubly relevant when we already had this conversation before and I showed you how the determination of marriage as a "fundamental right" largely rested on previous rulings having to do with child rearing and a broad right to procreate with the person you choose. It's unlikely that the court will magically miss this.




Because the state objective for marriage statutes is to encourage couples who might procreate to first bind themselves into a state managed marriage contract. The discrimination fills that state objective, and the objective is not itself discriminatory. Thus, it passes the test.

That there's an extra layer of thought involved maybe confuses you, but not me.

Waffle waffle waffle.

No.

There are two halves of the issue Joph. You're only looking at one half, and narrowly defining that one half at that. The declaration of marriage as a "fundamental right" has to exist within limits. The determination of state objectives has to include an examination of those limits.

As I stated in my last post, which you dutifully ignored, if your interpretation of the Courts position of marriage as a "fundamental right" was correct, anti-polygamy laws would violate the constitution. But that's not the case, is it? Thus, you are overly simplifying the right itself.

In Loving, the court did not need to examine that right within the context of the objective of the law any further than to say that if the couple consisted of a man and a woman of the same race instead of a man and woman of two different races, the marriage would be allowed. But in the case of same sex marriage, we're examining exactly that aspect of the issue. It shifts the focus from a law restricting a pairing which would otherwise be acceptable, to a law restricting a pairing which is utterly different from that previously determined by the Court to have a "fundamental right" to marriage.


I know that this requires more than a surface level examination of the issue, and what's strange is that I'm quite sure you know this. But you'll choose the simplistic argument because it's easier to make and when you're in front of an agreeable crowd like this forum, it's all you need. But the Court isn't going to be made up of posters on a liberal leaning forum Joph. Assuming that what works here will magically work there is wishful thinking at best.

Right.

Your half and Almalieque's half.

This right here is what I'm talking about. Everything else you've posted has very little to do with anything I've said. You see a certain position, go "THEY'RE A LIBERAL!!" and start assuming their position on everything else.

On top of that, you're rarely right when you do it.



Anyone who says the latter is clearly not being serious. I'm not willing to get into a debate with you about your definition of "homophobe." My toenails need clipping and that's not going to happen by itself.



If only you had any idea what I'm talking about.

Edited, Aug 24th 2010 12:04am by CBD

/whoosh