or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › SF Judge: "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SF Judge: "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples - Page 3  

post #81 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
addabox:

If I were you I would edit that post and calm it down.

I agree with some of your points about what dmz says (obviously), but you're going way overboard. He is very respectful and calm in manner and tone. You should meet him on his level and not escalate this into a flame war. He's earned that respect.


MarcUK:

What does that have to do with anything?

dmz's never adressed the issue of whether it is the physical act of homosexuality that is repulgent to him, or whether there is another reason? Is it a problem to penetrate an arse , or is it only same sex arse penetration that is wrong? can a plastic penis be used? can I use one on myself? does this mean I go to hell? the bible doesn't guide here so is it still wrong?
post #82 of 276
Lay off, guys. Groverat is right. dmz has been very cool in this thread, and he's still just got a few areas of misguidance to work out, but it's clear he's making an effort. This kind of name calling will make him think "the other side" are all dicks and he'll stop listening completely and thus never learn anything.

One reason Fellowship has grown so much is that we generally (though not always, I admit) showed him respect as we explained things in a logical manner.

dmz really appears to be listening.
post #83 of 276
Thread Starter 
The education works both ways. Guys like dmz and Fellowship definitely provide an insight into the common Christians' mind that escapes attention as loud-mouthed zealots dominate the public consciousness.

This board should be about mutual respect, even for those with beliefs/ideas we do not share.

Now let's all hug and get back to the topic at hand.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #84 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
addabox:

If I were you I would edit that post and calm it down.

I agree with some of your points about what dmz says (obviously), but you're going way overboard. He is very respectful and calm in manner and tone. You should meet him on his level and not escalate this into a flame war. He's earned that respect.

Done.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #85 of 276
However, manner and tone go only so far when it comes to bigotry. Some might even argue that the cloak of "reasonableness" does more harm than just outright hate speech.

For instance, I could post that I thought that America's troubles stem from enfranchisement of blacks, given their demonstrable inferiority to the white races. I might cite "research" or "scripture" or "philosophy" to bolster my claim.

I might observe that economic woes of black communities spoke to their inability to manage their own affairs, or control their bestial impulses, or to simply perform at the level required in the modern world.

I need not ever come on hard and racist. I could acknowledge that those that disagree had some good points, and that perhaps the tide of race mixing was inevitable. I could evince all due compassion for the plight of these sub-humans, and wish that they might one day evolve into something better.

Wouldn't make the crux of my belief any less repellent.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #86 of 276
Thread Starter 
I understand exactly what you mean, but I don't think dmz is cloaking anything. I think he's extremely honest and presents exactly what he thinks.

He may be wrong about what he thinks (we all are) or he may simply have a different opinion, but he doesn't seem to be playing games.

Even racists (which dmz is not even on the same level as) deserve respectful dialogue if they are honest, polite and forthright with their speech.

Past that, angry rhetoric profits no one.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #87 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I understand exactly what you mean, but I don't think dmz is cloaking anything. I think he's extremely honest and presents exactly what he thinks.

He may be wrong about what he thinks (we all are) or he may simply have a different opinion, but he doesn't seem to be playing games.

Even racists (which dmz is not even on the same level as) deserve respectful dialogue if they are honest, polite and forthright with their speech.

Past that, angry rhetoric profits no one.

I completely agree that dmz is telling us what he thinks.

However, I would respectfully suggest that the difference between "racist" and "has a different viewpoint in re the legitamcy of gay civil liberties" is about 20 years of progress.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #88 of 276
Here's an argument against it: The people don't want it in this country by a margin of about 60 to 40. How about that? Oh, wait....you didn't think of that because most liberals believe the courts are the ultimate authority...not the voters.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #89 of 276
Thread Starter 
I asked for logic, not circles.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #90 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I asked for logic, not circles.

Care to address the point?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #91 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's an argument against it: The people don't want it in this country by a margin of about 60 to 40. How about that? Oh, wait....you didn't think of that because most liberals believe the courts are the ultimate authority...not the voters.


Well 51 % of the counntry was dumb enough to vote for Bush ( they will regret this later ) so what does that say about how smart americans are?

Sorry I just couldn't resist. However Groverat is right this isn't a logical argument. All it says is that they are going along with the rest of the sheep ( which doesn't make it right or logical ). Which brings us to voting for Bush again......
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #92 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Care to address the point?

You don't honestly believe in mob rule do you?
post #93 of 276
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Care to address the point?

The point that is there is off-topic. This thread is about providing a rationale to ban gay marriage, it's not asking about (1) the popularity of such a measure or (2) the mechanisms by which the US makes/judges/enforces law.

You are using sarcastic outrage to mask an attempt to change the subject. I repeat myself a lot on this point because many people here do it a lot.

But I'll play your game because I know that you don't even actually have any grounds for your sarcastic outrage.

I do not believe in the rule of the majority. And thankfully, neither did the framers of the Constitution as they felt it necessary to provide the system you see in effect, with three branches of government all balancing and checking each other.

The Christian conservative desire to destroy the fundamental nature of our government is disturbing. And, ultimately, it will hurt them. They wish to sabotage our Constitution to press a temporary advantage without any concern for any future ramifications.

If you subscribe to the notion that the only thing required to establish/judge/enforce law is the will of the majority what then would you say if the majority decided it needed to withhold from you your basic rights as a citizen?

Judges judge law, that's what they are supposed to do. To want to throw that out because you don't like the result (and are unable to provide an actual logical reason as to why said judge is wrong) is childish.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #94 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's an argument against it: The people don't want it in this country by a margin of about 60 to 40. How about that? Oh, wait....you didn't think of that because most liberals believe the courts are the ultimate authority...not the voters.

Shawn answered this question correctly. Read his response.

Do you honestly believe civil rights law is intended to protect only the majority?
post #95 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You don't honestly believe in mob rule do you?

Actually we all do because if enough people did vote and the Constitution were amended it could read almost anything.

Amendment 28- Zeldar the Space Monkey is now Supreme Ruler.

Now I'm only about 40 posts behind.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #96 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually we all do because if enough people did vote and the Constitution were amended it could read almost anything.

Amendment 28- Zeldar the Space Monkey is now Supreme Ruler.

Now I'm only about 40 posts behind.

Nick

You do know amending the Constitution requires much more than a simple majority, right?

We have a system of representative government in Congress and it works pretty well these days to ensure that there is no "winner takes all" effect, unlike the Executive branch.

There is no way a "no gay" amendment will pass. Even the ERA couldn't pass.
post #97 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You do know amending the Constitution requires much more than a simple majority, right?

We have a system of representative government in Congress and it works pretty well these days to ensure that there is no "winner takes all" effect, unlike the Executive branch.

There is no way a "no gay" amendment will pass. Even the ERA couldn't pass.

I didn't say simple majority. I responded to Shawn's claim that mob rule couldn't occur. It is patently false and in fact the fact that we have two amendments both initiating and then removing prohibition show this.

I don't really understand what you are doing besides picking at posts for no good reason. Are you somehow claiming that 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4's of the states while being a Supermajority still wouldn't be called "mob rule?"

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #98 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's an argument against it: The people don't want it in this country by a margin of about 60 to 40. How about that? Oh, wait....you didn't think of that because most liberals believe the courts are the ultimate authority...not the voters.

Microsoft windows has 95% market share, mac OSX has 2%.

By your logic, Microsoft Windows is better than Mac OSX.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #99 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't say simple majority. I responded to Shawn's claim that mob rule couldn't occur. It is patently false and in fact the fact that we have two amendments both initiating and then removing prohibition show this.

I don't really understand what you are doing besides picking at posts for no good reason. Are you somehow claiming that 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4's of the states while being a Supermajority still wouldn't be called "mob rule?"

Nick

First of all, 2/3 of both houses will never support a no gay amendment. Never. Read my lips.
post #100 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
First of all, 2/3 of both houses will never support a no gay amendment. Never. Read my lips.

You're evading the point. The reality that whether you care to call it a supermajority, or a mob it is still what decides the rules. The question isn't if the mob would support this.

As for the the other side point that will be brought up, the mob doesn't have to be right, doesn't have to be rational, doesn't have to fill in the blank here for whatever you want to bring up. When the mob decided they wanted the national voting age to be 18, it became 18. If the same size mob decided they wanted it to be 40 or 13 and amended the Constitution, that would be the age.

Since said mob can amend the Constitution it is by virtue of simple reasoning what does establish the rules including entirely new rules.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #101 of 276
Thread Starter 
Let me know when you're done with the easy, off-topic arguments, I've got some questions I've asked a few times I'd like answers to.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #102 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
That's not the point. The truth is that this court trumps all others up to this point in time. So the decisions of other courts is moot except where it applies to this decision.

Actually I haven't researched this, but usually a court can only rule on a matter within its jurisdiction. The article linked even mentioned that several other cases and appeals at similar levels are making their way through the courts. It will obviously work its way up to the California Supreme Court.

Quote:
I'm certainly not taking that right away from you, personally. Why are you so afraid of letting other people believe differently than you do? As far as the state goes, no, the state does not have the right to define words as they see fit, by ballot or otherwise, when such a definition would have the effect of being discriminatory. As long as there is language in the law that gives certain rights to people who marry, defining marriage in a discriminatory way is unconstitutional, and it is not the right of the state to do so.

You are an odd bird at times Ton. Why do you suggest that I am afraid of letting people believe differently than myself? I've never suggested that people aren't free to believe what they want. As for the state and definitions, you are quite simply wrong on that matter. The state defines words and phrases all the time. If anything we as a society suffer fom a sort of hyper-rationalization because we really do believe we can write it all down and squish even the spirit of understanding into a box called the written word.

The state medically emancipates twelve year olds on certain procedures. That means they discriminate against eleven year olds and also in that they do not allow all procedures, just select ones. In claiming they can't do this, you prove my point. In claiming that the state cannot define marriage you have made it impossible to govern because the state no longer has the right to even use common language and have it understood.

Quote:
And if legal definitions lead to discrimination we are worse than in chaos, we are actually doing something that is actively harmful.

It depends on the situation. The state requires child molesters to register where they are living and report it to state authorities. They do not require this of me, nor would they of you. It is a very good form of discrimination.

You really should start thinking, and stop applying words as absolutes.

Quote:
I ask again: Who is telling you what your definition is? Your definition can be different from the state's definition, and no one can stop you. Now, before you throw in another strawman, this does not compare to you say, redefining "murder" or "theft". You defining marriage as between a man and a woman and acting on that definition does not limit or affect anyone else but yourself. Go ahead, tiger. Act on your belief. I'm not stopping you.

What you have said quite plainly is that the state does not have the right to define words in ways that are discriminatory. When it defines theft, it does it in a manner that excludes other acts from being called theft. You claim that basically this can't happen. I've claimed that is nonsense. In defining marriage, the state excludes certain things from being called marriage. This is permissable regardless of what you want to declare or imagine.

Quote:
Non-sequitur to the ultimate degree. What a ridiculous, and irrelevant argument.

It is very relevent because words have meaning. I mean if they didn't why not simply tell people applying for the license to call themselves a man and a woman. Gee I guess it has something to do with that definition of a man that excludes women from being called men, and likewise the definition of men which happens to exclude women from being called men.

But the state can't use those words because they obviously discriminate and exclude people.

Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly. Let the law deal only with civil unions, remove any mention of the word "marriage" from the law, and allow individual churches and non-governmental ministers and justices of the peace the right to their own definition of the word "marriage", and the right to marry whomever they want (even polygamists, family members or children, since it wouldn't matter in terms of the law).

You can't possibly agree with this. I mean that would have to mean you hate gay people because any deviation from orthodoxy is only because of stupidity and hate.

Oh wait, I don't apply silly reasoning like that.

I would be happy to see more ways of forming legal unions.

Quote:
That's a question of ethics, not law. As such, selective abortion for a non-disability, like gender, left-handedness, eye coloror sexual preferencewould never be accepted as ethical and such selective abortions would be illegal (just as gender selective abortions are illegal in many places around the world, where there would be a problem with gender skew). No question about it. This would not be allowed in a civilized country.

This is a nice thought, but the reality is that the practices occur and even if they passed a law claiming you couldn't do it, you can't have abortion on demand and then stop people from having them at the same time.

Are we suddenly going to start asking women WHY they are having an abortion now and stop them and their body from having one if they state an answer we don't agree with?

Good luck.

Quote:
I disagree. And am I really to believe that you want homosexuality to become more widely accepted? Oh, please. How noble of you.

I'm a pretty accepting person. I mean I think I even said in another thread of this issue that I would be the flower girl for my homosexual uncle if he were to be civilly unioned. Regardless of what people here want to believe, my views are between libertarian and conservative on a number of issues. In fact I find the people here who most often make claims about others and their tolerances are those who should do some looking in the mirror themselves. There are a number of issues where my circle of acceptance has been cast wider than those who claim they are progressive and correct on all matters.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #103 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The thread is growing fast and trumpt is in demand, but I would like to re-request an answer to these two questions:

How does allowing homosexuals to marry hinder promotion of biological couplings that promote children and the continuation of society?

Do you really believe that there is no basis to believe that adults make any better informed decisions that adolescents?

Thanks.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:

Could you answer my first question please?



An idiot at 12 is an idiot at 30, I'm not disputing that, but they aren't the same idiot. For the most part, and this is uniform across cultures and times, people are more capable of handling life decisions as they get older. Of course, as they get old this tapers off but can you honestly say that you could take a 13-year-old you, plug him into your current life and there would be no negative consequences?

You're being fatuous and making jokes because you seemingly want to avoid answering the rational questions put to you.

tonton:

If you don't want someone to wiggle do not give them wiggle room. This thread should be about the rationale behind disallowing homosexual marriage, nothing else. You are allowing it to get off-topic by playing the game. If you stop playing the game they are going to have to answer the question or ignore you.

Hey, can't help it if I can't post fast enough. You were so nice in the first post and so impatient in the second. I didn't skip you!

In response to your first question I'm not sure you can prove the hinderance per se because that is trying to prove a negative action. At least that is the way I read it.

How do I prove smoking hindered your life expectancy? On an individual basis this is hard, but with overall statistics it becomes easier to associate causation.

We could claim that most government actions in the area of relationships have lowered the birth ratio. We can't prove direct cause, but we can see the overall trend.

Don't know if that helps.

As for the second question, I don't believe many adults make any better informed decisions than many adolescents. Of course I deal with this general population on a daily basis and they pretty unwilling to read or think on much. They seem to gain information mostly by word of mouth and generally act on it the same way.

That isn't how I act, or even how you act, but I run into plenty of folks who go to Ralph the car salesman and get ripped off just like their brother did because they were referred by the dumbass brother. I don't see many adults acting with much more cognition than I would assign to a teenager by any stretch.

Now as for your question about whether I could take a 13 year old and plug him into my life with no consequences, no I couldn't. However there are also a whole hell of a lot of 50 year olds I couldn't plug into my life without consequences either. The best we could come up with is a ratio at best and then we would have to prove how that ratio should allow use to discriminate using the law.

You claim that people are more capable of handling life decisions as they get older. I ask you how do you know this is so? Most people just try to handle what life gives them and really don't get any say in the matter. Most simply have more tools available to access for problems in terms of material things but that doesn't mean the decisions would be different or better because of age. It simply means that by living longer, they own more and have more to use for their problems.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #104 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I could accept this compromise, as long as the state also stops providing marriage licenses to heterosexuals only. Is that what you meant to imply? Let marriage be a religious ceremony performed as various religious organizations see fit.

No meant that they would be offered in tandem and that as time progresses and attitudes change, marriage would likely be come even more of an anarchism.

We have these anarchisms all over our law books even now. Some town's lawbook has some nonsense about parking cows on main street during rainy season. This moves the rights forward without arguing people through their own past.

It is much like race. Race doesn't exist. It is an anarchism. Civil rights policy that is forward looking in this area now, especially in California, is starting to attempt to remove the category of race. All these folks living in parts of the country that might still be 90+ percent white can't understand this, but when you live in California it is easy to see and understand. People are already having to check four or five boxes just to define themselves. You get another generation down the road and it will be impossible to manage.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #105 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes but the tendency is for people to grow in wisdom as they get older. I'm almost 52 now and I shudder at some of the dumb things I did even in my 30's. Wisdom doesn't come with just experience. It also comes with time to put it all in perspective. Only time will do that. Otherwise you won't truly understand what's happened and how it impacts you. You can have too many adult experiences at a young age and it can be damaging because you don't have time to put it all togther. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.

This isn't the point. The point is would the almost 52 year old you be allowed to use the law to discriminate against the 30 year old you on the basis of the fact that you are not wise enough yet?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #106 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
No meant that they would be offered in tandem and that as time progresses and attitudes change, marriage would likely be come even more of an anarchism.

Hmmm.. an anarchism sounds like a real laugh riot, but I think you are thinking of an anachronism. Shop teachers probably don't need to know that, though....
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #107 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Hmmm.. an anarchism sounds like a real laugh riot, but I think you are thinking of an anachronism. Shop teachers probably don't need to know that, though....

That or people who are typing ten replies while having people complain that they are still another ten behind...

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #108 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's an argument against it: The people don't want it in this country by a margin of about 60 to 40. How about that? Oh, wait....you didn't think of that because most liberals believe the courts are the ultimate authority...not the voters.

There are many cases of the majority opinion having been overturned for what people gradually come to realize is a discriminatory policy, eg. slavery and a woman's right to vote. The consitution goes to great lengths to protect the minority from the majority. Our court system is part of that protection.
post #109 of 276
I've yet to see an argument against gay marriage rights, that wasn't used as an argument against civil rights in the 1950's - including majority opinion, and protection of "traditional values".
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #110 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
There are many cases of the majority opinion having been overturned for what people gradually come to realize is a discriminatory policy, eg. slavery and a woman's right to vote. The consitution goes to great lengths to protect the minority from the majority. Our court system is part of that protection.

Actually those are terrible examples because in both instances you cited, the Constitution was amended.

Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment.

Women's sufferage was enacted with the 19th amendment.

What you have shown is the exact opposite of that which you desired to prove.

Great job!

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #111 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I've yet to see an argument against gay marriage rights, that wasn't used as an argument against civil rights in the 1950's - including majority opinion, and protection of "traditional values".

It's easy to argue against it because it isn't a right. It is a licensing issue. The state can take my driver's license away or deny my right to drive. They can determine the criteria for it.

I do not need a license to hold an opinion or speak. I do not need a license to get an abortion, to avoid unreasonable searches, to vote, to have a speedy trial, etc.

Marriage is the same sort of issue. It is a licensing issue.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #112 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The state can take my driver's license away or deny my right to drive. They can determine the criteria for it.

Sure, they can take it away from you - if you've violated laws which clearly outline loss of license as a penalty. They can't just arbitrarily deny licenses to all gay people, or all black people, or all blue-eyed people, or all sinners.

Sorry, but that's a pretty bad analogy.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #113 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually those are terrible examples because in both instances you cited, the Constitution was amended.

Slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment.

Women's sufferage was enacted with the 19th amendment.

What you have shown is the exact opposite of that which you desired to prove.

Great job!

Nick

Huh? Before slavery was abolished nationwide via constitutional amendment, slavery was certainly illegal in many states.

More directly analogous: before women's suffrage was passed nationwide, there were certainly many states which allowed women the right to vote.

Because the constitution did not preclude such things, states already had the right to pass state laws that were non-discriminatory.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CALIFORNIA IS DOING.

Lack of a law allowing something does not mean that thing is not allowed. There is no national law that tells you explicitly that you have the right to drive a car. But you do it, don't you?

We've had this discussion before about the teenage medical procedure privacy issue. And you made the same fallacious assumption that we may only do what we are told we may do. That's total BS. We can do whatever we want to do, as long as we are not told we can't do it.

California is allowed to make same sex marriage legal.

Maybe someday, by constitutional amendment, Texas will be required to make gay marriage legal.

That's exactly analogous to the women's suffrage issue.
post #114 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
It's easy to argue against it because it isn't a right. It is a licensing issue. The state can take my driver's license away or deny my right to drive. They can determine the criteria for it.

I do not need a license to hold an opinion or speak. I do not need a license to get an abortion, to avoid unreasonable searches, to vote, to have a speedy trial, etc.

Marriage is the same sort of issue. It is a licensing issue.

Nick

We shouldn't allow gay marriages because it's a licensing issue?
post #115 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Sure, they can take it away from you - if you've violated laws which clearly outline loss of license as a penalty. They can't just arbitrarily deny licenses to all gay people, or all black people, or all blue-eyed people, or all sinners.

Sorry, but that's a pretty bad analogy.

Wrong again because the only time gay people are denied marriag licenses are when they go outside the stated criteria as well.

I have a gay aunt who has been married. Of course she was married to a man whom she later divorced.

There is no where on the license application for marriage where it asks for your orientation. We do not arbitrarily deny licenses just because they are gay. We deny them because of the gender requirement.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #116 of 276
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
We deny them because of the gender requirement.

Gender is a protected class.

Quote:
In response to your first question I'm not sure you can prove the hinderance per se because that is trying to prove a negative action. At least that is the way I read it.

So you offered a rationale for the prohibition of gay marriage that cannot possibly be proven?

And hinderances can be proven and used as a means of constructing law. Driving while intoxicated, for instance.

Quote:
We could claim that most government actions in the area of relationships have lowered the birth ratio. We can't prove direct cause, but we can see the overall trend.

So basically you're admitting there is no logical rationale in restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Glad to see we're on the same page.

Quote:
Now as for your question about whether I could take a 13 year old and plug him into my life with no consequences, no I couldn't. However there are also a whole hell of a lot of 50 year olds I couldn't plug into my life without consequences either. The best we could come up with is a ratio at best and then we would have to prove how that ratio should allow use to discriminate using the law.

Exactly my point. Thanks you.
An idiot at 12 will be an idiot at 50. But that particular idiot will be much more adept at handling his life.
The idiot at 50 who gets ripped off by the car salesman would have, at 12, just spent his paycheck on gummy bears and baseball cards.

There are major changes from teenage years to later adult years. It makes perfect sense to acknowledge that because it is proven fact.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #117 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Huh? Before slavery was abolished nationwide via constitutional amendment, slavery was certainly illegal in many states.

More directly analogous: before women's suffrage was passed nationwide, there were certainly many states which allowed women the right to vote.

Because the constitution did not preclude such things, states already had the right to pass state laws that were non-discriminatory.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CALIFORNIA IS DOING.

Lack of a law allowing something does not mean that thing is not allowed. There is no national law that tells you explicitly that you have the right to drive a car. But you do it, don't you?

We've had this discussion before about the teenage medical procedure privacy issue. And you made the same fallacious assumption that we may only do what we are told we may do. That's total BS. We can do whatever we want to do, as long as we are not told we can't do it.

California is allowed to make same sex marriage legal.

Maybe someday, by constitutional amendment, Texas will be required to make gay marriage legal.

That's exactly analogous to the women's suffrage issue.

You have this exactly ass-backwards. No one has argued that California could not pass a law recognizing gay marriage. The examples you cite prior to Constitutional amendments are again, proving the exact opposite of what you want to prove because they were not brought about by a court decision, but by either popular vote or vote of the legislatures within those states.

You are again proving the exact opposite of what you claim in state that it is exactly what California has done. California has put the issue to a popular vote and decided against homosexual marriage.

You are amazingly bad with the car example. I drive the car because I am licensed. If I drove it without being licensed there are an array of penalties I could face including jail time. Even if I am licensed if I do not drive the car in the manner prescribed by the state I can be prevented from driving again. So the state doesn't just get to decide if I drive, but how I drive as well. You claim I may do it because there is no national law. The law is instead reserved to the states, as is marriage by the way, and the state set clear guidelines that license driving. If those requirements end up discriminating, for example against someone who is blind, drinks too much, or is just irresponsible, the matter isn't overturned in the courts.

You seriously must be lacking in sleep or something. This is possibly the worst reply I have ever read from you. When we discussed the medical emancipation and privacy, I did not argue one could only do what they were told. I argued the exact opposite, they could act as adults and likely go and come as much as they pleased as long as they claimed it related to the area they were granted adult status. The opposite side of that argument being made by folks like yourself was that school could still place demands upon kids and their rights in these areas that they could not place upon adults.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #118 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
We shouldn't allow gay marriages because it's a licensing issue?

The issue wasn't whether we should or shouldn't. The question was since it is claimed as a right, we can't even argue against it. However marriage isn't a right. It is a licensing matter and the state can deny you a marriage license for any number of reasons.

As I stated above, I don't need a license to vote. I do need a license to marry.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #119 of 276
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
s I stated above, I don't need a license to vote. I do need a license to marry.

You have to register and be approved to vote. The only difference is that it isn't called a "license". To restrict basic human rights on semantic grounds is inhuman.

Quote:
However marriage isn't a right.

The US Supreme Court says you are wrong.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #120 of 276
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Gender is a protected class.

It is and both genders are assigned the same requirement here.

Quote:
So you offered a rationale for the prohibition of gay marriage that cannot possibly be proven?

And hinderances can be proven and used as a means of constructing law. Driving while intoxicated, for instance.

No I said it cannot be proven by looking at an isolated, individual case. The driving while intoxicated is consistant with that view. They can arrest you simply for taking an individual action that group statistics have proven give you a higher likelihood of wrecking. They do not have to wait for you to individually wreck and in fact may arrest you even if you made it home safe and harmed no one. Merely taking an action that is shown to statistically increase risk is grounds for the law.

Quote:
So basically you're admitting there is no logical rationale in restricting marriage to heterosexuals. Glad to see we're on the same page.

No, I've claimed that results or perceived results of the effect of a law on everyone is enough to pass a law that effects the individual. The state does not have to prove that I personally will live or die by wearing my seatbelt. A group analysis could simply show an improvement or harm and laws can be passed on that basis.

Quote:
Exactly my point. Thanks you.
An idiot at 12 will be an idiot at 50. But that particular idiot will be much more adept at handling his life.
The idiot at 50 who gets ripped off by the car salesman would have, at 12, just spent his paycheck on gummy bears and baseball cards.

There are major changes from teenage years to later adult years. It makes perfect sense to acknowledge that because it is proven fact.

You actually exactly don't prove your point. As I've stated and you've ignored, proving the level of idiocy isn't grounds for denying based on age alone and is in fact a variable independent of age. I mentioned the ratio aspect of this. You talk about the guy being a better informed idiot at 50 than at 13. The reality though is that there are a certain percentage of people who at 13 would still make a more informed decision than the idiotic 50 year old might ever make in his entire life and we still pass laws against their ability to act.

Taken in the context of driving, there are people who will drive carefully and never get a ticket in their whole life. This likely would be true even if they had been granted their license at 13. There are also people driving, still getting tickets, still getting cited for driving drunk, etc. even though they are 50 and it likely was true even when they were 16 or if they had waited until 20 to get their license.

Just so you understand I'm being a stickler about this individuality here because it relates exactly to my rationale above. The reality is that with age, we will legislate against individual rights because the majority, feels an increase in risk from this group and may deny them the ability to drive until the risk level is what they deem manageable. Understand what I said there, the majority will restrict the individual because of the perceived risk to the group. They restrict the individual even when one individual might show perfect ability to manage this situation and another individual might demonstrate they will continue to muck it up in ever more refined ways througout the course of their life.

It is a sound basis for law but is dismissed here as "mob rule." The "mob rules" on matters of risk all the time. Seatbelts, second hand smoke, etc.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › SF Judge: "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples