California Prop 8

[martybegan]

have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.

on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.

per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502

6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.

6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.

now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.

"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."

then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""

and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"

You got your order screwed up.

Proposition 8 was IN RESPONSE to the In Re Marriage Cases judgement, not overruled by it. The California Supreme courts review of proposition 8 was only to see if proper procedures were followed, not if its content was within the state constitution.

In re Marriage Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note in the first few paragraphs that the article shows wording that marriage is bewtween a man and a woman in the california marriage code.

i apologize you are correct in the timeline. as Prop 8 was in response to the Re Marriage Case.

although i am correct in that marriage was never defined by "law". Prop 22 was a statute:

"The Act (Prop 22) added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry"

Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional as well.

I am sure older marriage codes/laws/statues whatever merely referred to the parties as husband and wife, and when they were written is was implied and known that meant man and women. The recent additions to the codes of those words are in response to same sex couples trying to marry, but the original intent was always 1 man, 1 woman.

 

[Common Sense]

You got your order screwed up.

Proposition 8 was IN RESPONSE to the In Re Marriage Cases judgement, not overruled by it. The California Supreme courts review of proposition 8 was only to see if proper procedures were followed, not if its content was within the state constitution.

In re Marriage Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also note in the first few paragraphs that the article shows wording that marriage is bewtween a man and a woman in the california marriage code.

i apologize you are correct in the timeline. as Prop 8 was in response to the Re Marriage Case.

although i am correct in that marriage was never defined by "law". Prop 22 was a statute:

"The Act (Prop 22) added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry"

Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional as well.

I am sure older marriage codes/laws/statues whatever merely referred to the parties as husband and wife, and when they were written is was implied and known that meant man and women. The recent additions to the codes of those words are in response to same sex couples trying to marry, but the original intent was always 1 man, 1 woman.

before prop 22 there was no definition. and neither the us constitution nor the california state constitution stated this.

morality aside, (meaning whether or not you like gay people) please point me to where it is legal to discriminate against a certain group of people? which is the core issue here. is it legal to treat a certain group of people differently in the eyes of the law? i have yet to hear a viable argument as to this issue.

although the issue here is the term marriage, but underlying argument has to do with the "right" to marry. now if you feel that this is not a fundamental right, then we also have to look as the idea that we can restrict straight people from marrying as well. thus marriage licenses for anyone could conceivably be denied by the state for any reason. simply using the "historic" argument or child bearing argument has been struck down in several courts. we should the law be allowed to treat gay couples differently that straight couples?

 

[martybegan]

i apologize you are correct in the timeline. as Prop 8 was in response to the Re Marriage Case.

although i am correct in that marriage was never defined by "law". Prop 22 was a statute:

"The Act (Prop 22) added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry"

Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional as well.

I am sure older marriage codes/laws/statues whatever merely referred to the parties as husband and wife, and when they were written is was implied and known that meant man and women. The recent additions to the codes of those words are in response to same sex couples trying to marry, but the original intent was always 1 man, 1 woman.

before prop 22 there was no definition. and neither the us constitution nor the california state constitution stated this.

morality aside, (meaning whether or not you like gay people) please point me to where it is legal to discriminate against a certain group of people? which is the core issue here. is it legal to treat a certain group of people differently in the eyes of the law? i have yet to hear a viable argument as to this issue.

although the issue here is the term marriage, but underlying argument has to do with the "right" to marry. now if you feel that this is not a fundamental right, then we also have to look as the idea that we can restrict straight people from marrying as well. thus marriage licenses for anyone could conceivably be denied by the state for any reason. simply using the "historic" argument or child bearing argument has been struck down in several courts. we should the law be allowed to treat gay couples differently that straight couples?

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

 

[bodecea]

Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional as well.

I am sure older marriage codes/laws/statues whatever merely referred to the parties as husband and wife, and when they were written is was implied and known that meant man and women. The recent additions to the codes of those words are in response to same sex couples trying to marry, but the original intent was always 1 man, 1 woman.

before prop 22 there was no definition. and neither the us constitution nor the california state constitution stated this.

morality aside, (meaning whether or not you like gay people) please point me to where it is legal to discriminate against a certain group of people? which is the core issue here. is it legal to treat a certain group of people differently in the eyes of the law? i have yet to hear a viable argument as to this issue.

although the issue here is the term marriage, but underlying argument has to do with the "right" to marry. now if you feel that this is not a fundamental right, then we also have to look as the idea that we can restrict straight people from marrying as well. thus marriage licenses for anyone could conceivably be denied by the state for any reason. simply using the "historic" argument or child bearing argument has been struck down in several courts. we should the law be allowed to treat gay couples differently that straight couples?

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

Segregation was a precedent at one time....

Women not being allowed to own property was a precedent at one time....

Child labor was a precedent at one time....

 

[Common Sense]

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

they way you are defining discrimination is completely false.

Discriminate - treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Felons are not "discriminated" against. they are being punished for a crime. people under the age of 16 are not being "discriminated" against, they have simply failed to qualify for a "privilege". (driving is not a fundamental right nor it is described in any constitution)although if you want to take this even farther, as soon as an individual reaches the age of 16 that restriction goes away. that is not the case in allowing gay marriage. there is no arbitrary date that one would qualify. this would be a ban forever. Men are not "discriminated" against in having no say in abortion, they are simply not being afforded a choice in a matter not concerning their own body. (a man took this to the Supreme Court saying his sperm was his property therefore the child was as well. The court ruled that the woman takes care of the child in the reproductive cycle for 9 months vs. a man's 3 second ejaculation. Therefore, since the woman carries a bigger burden she has the last say in termination.) plus sex is a free choice and right of all individuals. the free act of sex between two consenting adults is not regulated nor restricted by any body of government. it is a private matter between two adults. (unless sex is sold as a commodity, then it is not a free act and it is a totally different argument)

you still fail to show me a law that eliminated a fundamental right afforded by law. such as a right to vote, right to hold property, right to free speech etc etc.

legal precedent is not the only factor here. we used to have a legal precedent of slavery, that was abolished. we used to have a legal precedent against women voting and owning property, that has been abolished. we used to have a legal precedent against interracial marriage, that has been struck down. all of these "precedents" have been overturned in modern times. but they have history going back thousands and thousands of years. should we reinstate these precedents into modern times or what is correct in the courts to strike these down as discriminatory?

See this case Law: Loving vs. Virginia 1963

This is what the defendants of banning interacial marriage said:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

It then took until 1967 for the US Supreme Court to find the following:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

There is your legal precedent for allowing gay marriage. you will notice that nowhere in the ruling does it describe marriage as only afforded to the straight, or define it as man and woman.

 

[martybegan]

before prop 22 there was no definition. and neither the us constitution nor the california state constitution stated this.

morality aside, (meaning whether or not you like gay people) please point me to where it is legal to discriminate against a certain group of people? which is the core issue here. is it legal to treat a certain group of people differently in the eyes of the law? i have yet to hear a viable argument as to this issue.

although the issue here is the term marriage, but underlying argument has to do with the "right" to marry. now if you feel that this is not a fundamental right, then we also have to look as the idea that we can restrict straight people from marrying as well. thus marriage licenses for anyone could conceivably be denied by the state for any reason. simply using the "historic" argument or child bearing argument has been struck down in several courts. we should the law be allowed to treat gay couples differently that straight couples?

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

Segregation was a precedent at one time....

Women not being allowed to own property was a precedent at one time....

Child labor was a precedent at one time....

Legal precedent isnt absolute, but it is desgined to take effort to overturn. For example Roe V. Wade probably only still exists as case law because of the effect of precedent.

I know your response is some formal/informal logical fallacy, ingnoratio elenchi or red herring i think.

 

[Common Sense]

it depends on how you want to use the word discriminate. Felons are discriminated against by not being able to vote or posses firearms. People under 16 are discriminated against by not being able to drive. Men are discriminated against by having no say in the choice to abort a fetus or not. Women are discriminated against in certian army specs. All of these are perfectly legal forms of discrimination.

There are plenty of marriage restrictions other than what sex you are, or who you like to bugger. There are blood test requirements, age requirements, incest prevention regulations, Polygamy/andry preventions, etc.

The big question boils down to the oldest of legal concepts. Precedent. The precedent in this country and most of the western world has been a marriage contract has been between a man and a woman. (singular.) Western law is the basis of our legal system. The very fact that same sex marriage advocates are attemping to change that is acceptance by them that the original rules and laws do not allow for it, or else they wouldnt be fighting for it now. (a little chicken/egg, i know.)

Segregation was a precedent at one time....

Women not being allowed to own property was a precedent at one time....

Child labor was a precedent at one time....

Legal precedent isnt absolute, but it is desgined to take effort to overturn. For example Roe V. Wade probably only still exists as case law because of the effect of precedent.

I know your response is some formal/informal logical fallacy, ingnoratio elenchi or red herring i think.

there was no roe v. wade precedent. it was landmark, just as many other things in history have been. its ignorant to say that roe v wade exists only as precedent. it exist because it is the foundation of allowing abortion. im sure there are many pro lifers who would like to see roe v. wade overturned. (but in your argument, there is not precedent to overturn it)

now your using the precedent argument only to support your claims and not any others. and legal precedent is not solely used to overturn, it is also used to support and defend. you can also overturn precedent if you can show just cause or that the precedent eliminates something fundamental such as a right.

 

[martybegan]

Segregation was a precedent at one time....

Women not being allowed to own property was a precedent at one time....

Child labor was a precedent at one time....

Legal precedent isnt absolute, but it is desgined to take effort to overturn. For example Roe V. Wade probably only still exists as case law because of the effect of precedent.

I know your response is some formal/informal logical fallacy, ingnoratio elenchi or red herring i think.

there was no roe v. wade precedent. it was landmark, just as many other things in history have been. its ignorant to say that roe v wade exists only as precedent. it exist because it is the foundation of allowing abortion. im sure there are many pro lifers who would like to see roe v. wade overturned. (but in your argument, there is not precedent to overturn it)

now your using the precedent argument only to support your claims and not any others. and legal precedent is not solely used to overturn, it is also used to support and defend. you can also overturn precedent if you can show just cause or that the precedent eliminates something fundamental such as a right.

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

 

[Common Sense]

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

that doesn't make any sense.

"without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned"

this sentence basically says that you want to be able to use older laws to overturn newer laws.

 

[bodecea]

Legal precedent isnt absolute, but it is desgined to take effort to overturn. For example Roe V. Wade probably only still exists as case law because of the effect of precedent.

I know your response is some formal/informal logical fallacy, ingnoratio elenchi or red herring i think.

there was no roe v. wade precedent. it was landmark, just as many other things in history have been. its ignorant to say that roe v wade exists only as precedent. it exist because it is the foundation of allowing abortion. im sure there are many pro lifers who would like to see roe v. wade overturned. (but in your argument, there is not precedent to overturn it)

now your using the precedent argument only to support your claims and not any others. and legal precedent is not solely used to overturn, it is also used to support and defend. you can also overturn precedent if you can show just cause or that the precedent eliminates something fundamental such as a right.

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

So, how are you with the legal precedent of Loving v. Virginia that says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right?

 

[martybegan]

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

that doesn't make any sense.

"without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned"

this sentence basically says that you want to be able to use older laws to overturn newer laws.

From Wiki Pedia

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally.[2]

What it means is that once a case is determined at the highest court, it takes a far greater reason to overturn it, compared to if the case was arguing some new point of law.

As for R v W, once the supreme court ruled as it did in 73, overturning it would take far greater reasoning than the arguments used to put it into place.

 

[Common Sense]

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

that doesn't make any sense.

"without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned"

this sentence basically says that you want to be able to use older laws to overturn newer laws.

From Wiki Pedia

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally.[2]

What it means is that once a case is determined at the highest court, it takes a far greater reason to overturn it, compared to if the case was arguing some new point of law.

As for R v W, once the supreme court ruled as it did in 73, overturning it would take far greater reasoning than the arguments used to put it into place.

exactly, and you wouldnt be able to argue history or precedent before Roe V Wade. It would required a new legal argument that shows abortion is not protect under the right to privacy.

 

[martybegan]

there was no roe v. wade precedent. it was landmark, just as many other things in history have been. its ignorant to say that roe v wade exists only as precedent. it exist because it is the foundation of allowing abortion. im sure there are many pro lifers who would like to see roe v. wade overturned. (but in your argument, there is not precedent to overturn it)

now your using the precedent argument only to support your claims and not any others. and legal precedent is not solely used to overturn, it is also used to support and defend. you can also overturn precedent if you can show just cause or that the precedent eliminates something fundamental such as a right.

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

So, how are you with the legal precedent of Loving v. Virginia that says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right?

Loving overruled restrictions on interracial marriages. The current judges are the ones stretching it to include same sex marriage. If the justices at the time wanted to include same sex marriage why didnt they include it in the ruling?

 

[Common Sense]

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

So, how are you with the legal precedent of Loving v. Virginia that says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right?

Loving overruled restrictions on interracial marriages. The current judges are the ones stretching it to include same sex marriage. If the justices at the time wanted to include same sex marriage why didnt they include it in the ruling?

because the issue at hand was interracial marriage not same sex marriage. it also confirmed that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to all. (not just reserved for straight people)

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

direct text from the Loving v. Virginia supreme court decision.

are you saying you disagree with Loving in that interracial marriage should have been banned? or are you disagreeing that marriage is not a fundamental right?

if you agree that marriage is a fundamental right, (as afforded in Loving v. Virgina) then i ask again how you can restrict that fundamental right to one group of people?

 

[bodecea]

You misunderstand me. Roe v. Wade i agree was a landmark decison (although in my opinion a wrong decsion, we can have another topic on that), what I am trying to point out is that without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned by now.

So, how are you with the legal precedent of Loving v. Virginia that says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right?

Loving overruled restrictions on interracial marriages. The current judges are the ones stretching it to include same sex marriage. If the justices at the time wanted to include same sex marriage why didnt they include it in the ruling?

Funny...I don't see where it says in the ruling that Interracial Marriage is a fundamental right....just that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[martybegan]

So, how are you with the legal precedent of Loving v. Virginia that says that Marriage is a Fundamental Right?

Loving overruled restrictions on interracial marriages. The current judges are the ones stretching it to include same sex marriage. If the justices at the time wanted to include same sex marriage why didnt they include it in the ruling?

because the issue at hand was interracial marriage not same sex marriage. it also confirmed that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to all. (not just reserved for straight people)

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

direct text from the Loving v. Virginia supreme court decision.

are you saying you disagree with Loving in that interracial marriage should have been banned? or are you disagreeing that marriage is not a fundamental right?

if you agree that marriage is a fundamental right, (as afforded in Loving v. Virgina) then i ask again how you can restrict that fundamental right to one group of people?

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

 

[bodecea]

Loving overruled restrictions on interracial marriages. The current judges are the ones stretching it to include same sex marriage. If the justices at the time wanted to include same sex marriage why didnt they include it in the ruling?

because the issue at hand was interracial marriage not same sex marriage. it also confirmed that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to all. (not just reserved for straight people)

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

direct text from the Loving v. Virginia supreme court decision.

are you saying you disagree with Loving in that interracial marriage should have been banned? or are you disagreeing that marriage is not a fundamental right?

if you agree that marriage is a fundamental right, (as afforded in Loving v. Virgina) then i ask again how you can restrict that fundamental right to one group of people?

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

Too bad...the Supreme Court said it is. And as for Procreation...are you saying that Marriage should be denied to those who cannot or will not procreate?

 

[martybegan]

that doesn't make any sense.

"without the concept of legal precedent being held higher than new law it probably would have been overturned"

this sentence basically says that you want to be able to use older laws to overturn newer laws.

From Wiki Pedia

The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally.[2]

What it means is that once a case is determined at the highest court, it takes a far greater reason to overturn it, compared to if the case was arguing some new point of law.

As for R v W, once the supreme court ruled as it did in 73, overturning it would take far greater reasoning than the arguments used to put it into place.

exactly, and you wouldnt be able to argue history or precedent before Roe V Wade. It would required a new legal argument that shows abortion is not protect under the right to privacy.

Agreed. we can save the argument over Roe V. Wade being crap law for another thread.

 

[martybegan]

because the issue at hand was interracial marriage not same sex marriage. it also confirmed that marriage is a fundamental right afforded to all. (not just reserved for straight people)

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

direct text from the Loving v. Virginia supreme court decision.

are you saying you disagree with Loving in that interracial marriage should have been banned? or are you disagreeing that marriage is not a fundamental right?

if you agree that marriage is a fundamental right, (as afforded in Loving v. Virgina) then i ask again how you can restrict that fundamental right to one group of people?

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

Too bad...the Supreme Court said it is. And as for Procreation...are you saying that Marriage should be denied to those who cannot or will not procreate?

I didnt say it, the court did. read thier whole statement. Why would marriage be vital for "existance and survival" unless they meant procreation? Or do you just want to cherry pick the first part?

Again, if it is a "fundemental right" then what makes our incest laws and polygamy/bigamy laws legal?

 

[Common Sense]

I disagree it is a fundemental right. Once we make it that then we have no standing to restrict polygamy, bestiality and people marrying lawn ornaments. Silly, I know, but people WILL sue for these things.

Misogany laws were illegal under the 14th amendment. Also mechanically there is no difference between a interracial op-sex marriage and a same race op sex marriage.

If people want same sex marriage to be legal, they need to do it in a non constitutional way, via convincing people it is the right thing, and legislating it. That way the nutters who want to marry thier blow up dolls will have no viable legal standing. By expanding equal protection past the racial limit of loving v. Virginia you open up a can of worms, as I describle above.

Also note in the judges statement that marriage is "vital for our existance and our survivial." by which he means prorcreation. Do you want to ignore that part of the statement because it suits your viewpoint?

"I disagree it is a fundemental right."

this statement says volumes. with that argument i could stop anyone from getting married for any reason if i had the power. i could argue an old man and a young women shouldnt get married.

it has also already been ruled in a court of law that marriage is not a requirement for child bearing or child raising anymore. you can have a child out of wedlock, as a single parent you can adopt children. the procreation argument that is made is actually a better argument for outlawing divorce, rather than restricting marriage.

if you read back in the thread i make that argument that "while i dont necessarily agree with polygamy or incestuous marriage, there could be a legal argument for them basic upon discrimination"

the argument of bestiality and inanimate objects makes me laugh every time i hear it. seeing as how animals and inanimate object are unable to provide consent to marry as well. you can allow people to sue on this basis, but they will also be thrown out of court. just because you morally disagree with something doesnt necessarily make it illegal.

you have to be able to look at the legal facts and take your emotions out of the equation in order to be objective.