California's Proposition 8

[iNow]

In this case, though, the discrimination would be reversed. The governemnt gives Down's Syndrome people more of my money, as extra help. I am not against this, but I thought it would be a good example. Perhaps a better example is people who's genetics predispose them to criminal behavior: they have many of their rights restricted.

You are missing the key difference demonstrated in my post above regarding the Establishment Clause, and the discussion which took place in context of the Lawrence v. Texas case.

 

There is a legitimate secular reason to treat people with Down's Syndrome differently under the law. There is, however, no legitimate secular reason to apply state rights differently based solely on ones sexuality. To do so is an attempt to invocate morality with no reasonable secular purpose, which stands in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause in our constitution.

 

So, even if I grant you that the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply here (which I don't, but let's just say I did), your argument still doesn't hold up.

 

 

 

And, since you are being pedantic, the state is not denying homosexuals from having a heterosexual marriage, and does not allow heterosexuals to have a homosexual marriage, ie they are the same in the eyes of the law.

Honestly, mate. I feel like breaking your damned nose every time you say this. I don't quite know what point you're trying to make, nor how your statement is supposed to argue against the equal protections clause or the fair faith and credit clause.

 

Perhaps another poster can pick up on this point. I don't know how to argue against it right now without lobbing invenctives. I feel I've made some very strong points which remain to be refuted.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well what happened was this:

 

You: Two men can't have a baby, so that's a clear difference.

They: Wrong, they can adopt. (Clearly a logical error in the first word, but surely a reasonable point.)

You: Are you saying two men can have a baby? (Clearly you know full well what they said, and you're throwing that first word's technical incorrectness back in their faces in order to prove a point.)

 

That's called making two wrongs a right. It didn't work, we straightened it out, and now we're moving on. If you want to talk about it further, send me a PM.

 

Check out the second question in that triplet. That one deals with the surrogate parents or adopted children situation.

 

You are missing the key difference demonstrated in my post above regarding the Establishment Clause, and the discussion which took place in context of the Lawrence v. Texas case.

 

There is a legitimate secular reason to treat people with Down's Syndrome differently under the law. There is, however, no legitimate secular reason to apply state rights differently based solely on ones sexuality. To do so is an attempt to invocate morality with no reasonable secular purpose, which stands in direct opposition to the Establishment Clause in our constitution.

 

So, even if I grant you that the Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply here (which I don't, but let's just say I did), your argument still doesn't hold up.

 

 

Honestly, mate. I feel like breaking your damned nose every time you say this. I don't quite know what point you're trying to make, nor how your statement is supposed to argue against the equal protections clause or the fair faith and credit clause.

 

Perhaps another poster can pick up on this point. I don't know how to argue against it right now without lobbing invenctives. I feel I've made some very strong points which remain to be refuted.

 

The point being that law applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. If the law had said that homosexuals can't have gay marriage, but heterosexuals can have gay marriage, then it would be clearly unconstitutional.

 

The reason you are getting angry, I presume, is because you believe that gays have a right to gay marriage, and therefore the above would be trampling their rights.

[iNow]

And, since you are being pedantic, the state is not denying homosexuals from having a heterosexual marriage, and does not allow heterosexuals to have a homosexual marriage, ie they are the same in the eyes of the law.

 

Okay, here's the achilles of your point.

 

This thread is not about whether or not the law restricting homosexual marriage is applied equitably to all citizens. The thread is about the law itself, not it's application.

 

The question of this thread is whether or not the law restricting people of the same gender from being legally recognized by the state is discriminatory, and whether it is in line with the Equal Protection Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Establishment Clause.

 

You are trying to shift the discussion, to displace the topic.

 

It's not about whether the law restricting people of the same gender from marrying is applied equally to all people, it's about whether or not the law itself causes discrimination, thus running counter to equal protection and establishment. Nobody is arguing that the law itself is not applied equitably, we are arguing that the law is itself implicitly inequitable.

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, here's the achilles of your point.

 

This thread is not about whether or not the law restricting homosexual marriage is applied equitably to all citizens. The thread is about the law itself, not it's application.

 

The question of this thread is whether or not the law restricting people of the same gender from being legally recognized by the state is discriminatory, and whether it is in line with the Equal Protection Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the Establishment Clause.

 

You are trying to shift the discussion, to displace the topic.

 

I'm pointing out that it is applied equally, even if the effects are not equal. I will leave it up to you to show that the intention of the law is discrimination on invalid grounds.

 

It's not about whether the law restricting people of the same gender from marrying is applied equally to all people, it's about whether or not the law itself causes discrimination, thus running counter to equal protection and establishment. Nobody is arguing that the law itself is not applied equitably, we are arguing that the law is itself implicitly inequitable.

 

I'd say that proposition 8 is non-discriminatory on the grounds that it is simply defining marriage. (Then it would be all the laws about marriage that are discriminatory)

[Pangloss]

You both were doing so well, and you went and threw it away. Oh well, on we go.

 

But some good points raised on both sides in this thread.