Since. [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 12:50 AM

Where it provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws. If the law allows one group to be married, it seems pretty clear to me that expressly depriving another group of that right (just because we don't like the way they live their lives) is a denial of equal protection.

For crissakes, you'll let any swinging dick, hetero felon to get married, but heaven forbid that two guys or two women who've never done a single thing wrong in there lives have the same right.

Not even. Equal protection laws do allow equal acces to all citizens. But it's basis is on race and gender and origin. Orientation is a choice and behavior and not benign. Gays do not have a fundamental right in marriage. TO recieve strict scrutiny for gays you must prove that gays have been historically denied that privelege and that they cannot do anything about it to circumvent it. Up till now have they made a ruckus. If marriage by definiton is between man and woman, then then you cannot give that right to homosexuals since they dont meet the criteria of man and woman. Marriage is not a tool to marry entity a to entity b. it is strictly between man and woman. Just like the court cannot give equal reproductivce rights to man because it's only the woman that springs the seed.

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 12:52 AM

You cannot use the eQUAL PROTECTION LAWS TO marry your mother, or father. (sorry to dissapoint Manny.)

Drachen

11-09-2005, 02:20 AM

People need to quit focusing on the word marriage because obviously the state cant sanction any marriage be it straight gay bestial or otherwise. Their one and only resposibility in this matter is civil unions, and gay people should be looking into pushing their rights to civil unions. The fact that Texas just defined marriage as one man and one woman really should bring about one possible response: complete and total apathy (because I dont know of anyone who belongs to the Church of Texas, so who cares how they define it). As long as civil unions are in tact they could define chicken as yellow since no one is taking communion at their church. Now if gays want to get married, go talk to the methodists, catholics, baptists, etc.

IcemanCometh

11-09-2005, 02:36 AM

we need to now focus on keeping the ######s from marrying our pure white women.

Hook Dem

11-09-2005, 09:58 AM

we need to now focus on keeping the ######s from marrying our pure white women.
A racist that likes to point fingers at everyone else. Does not understand the definition of "mirror".

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 10:05 AM

Lets not even end it there. THe constitution grants rights to citizens. what exactly is a citizen? A citizen can be an armadillo or an amoeba(sarcasm). Why dont we put forth initiatives to define the legal meaning of "Citizen".

I thought a "citizen" was any white, land-owning male.

That is how the term used to be defined.
________
Web Shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 10:07 AM

we need to now focus on keeping the ######s from marrying our pure white women.

There used to be laws that defined any interracial relationship as illicit sex and not a marriage. Since illicit sex was illegal, interracial marriages were illegal.

These didn't violate equal protection because they applied equally to everybody. Blacks couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry Blacks.
________
KINKYsubxxx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/KINKYsubxxx/)

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 10:40 AM

Not even. Equal protection laws do allow equal acces to all citizens. But it's basis is on race and gender and origin. Orientation is a choice and behavior and not benign. Gays do not have a fundamental right in marriage.

Whoever told you that the Equal Protection Clause applies only to fundamental rights or only to suspect classes told you wrong. The Constitutionality of any discriminatory law can be challenged on equal protection grounds. In reviewing a law on that basis, there are different levels of judicial scrutiny, which reflect the degree to which certain groups are in need of protection and the utility of the law in question.

You're right inasmuch as laws that discriminate based on race are subject to strict scrutiny. But so are laws that limit fundamental rights. And, curiously, the right to marry someone who will marry you has been deemed a fundamental right.

Strict scrutiny essentially supposes that the challenged law is unconstitutional, and requires the government to identify a compelling interest that the law is meant to accomplish and to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieving that interest.

It's why laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were struck down as, ahem, violative of the equal protection clause (because there is no compelling interest in prohibiting the races from marrying).

It's also why laws prohibiting things like incest and bigamy in the marriage context will always survive equal protection challenges (because there is a compelling interest in prohibiting the deleterious scientific and social effects of both practices and a ban on such marriages does not chill the individual right to marry in the first instance).

But equal protection challenges aren't limited to cases in which strict scrutiny applies. Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, for example, are reviewed using what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government to set forth an important interest to be achieved by the law and show that the separate classification of a gender is substantially related to the achievement of that interest. The same test applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has struck down laws after conducting reviews applying intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, a constitutional challenge to the recent amendment to the Texas Constitution doesn't depend on sexual orientation being a suspect class and it likely doesn't depend on the application of strict scrutiny, despite your contentions above.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 11:15 AM

But equal protection challenges aren't limited to cases in which strict scrutiny applies. Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, for example, are reviewed using what is called intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government to set forth an important interest to be achieved by the law and show that the separate classification of a gender is substantially related to the achievement of that interest. The same test applies to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has struck down laws after conducting reviews applying intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, a constitutional challenge to the recent amendment to the Texas Constitution doesn't depend on sexual orientation being a suspect class and it likely doesn't depend on the application of strict scrutiny, despite your contentions above.

I think you could get intermediate scrutiny on this issue, because the issue involves gender discrimination. What important governmental interest could the state put forth as its reason for the ban?
________
Sexyvioleta (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Sexyvioleta)

mookie2001

11-09-2005, 11:18 AM

gtown when you were growing up were you naturally attracted to girls or did you look at little boys, wonder, then girls, weigh pros and cons and then decide to be hetero?

Extra Stout

11-09-2005, 11:43 AM

I think you could get intermediate scrutiny on this issue, because the issue involves gender discrimination. What important governmental interest could the state put forth as its reason for the ban?
The direction I would go would be to argue the governmental interest in maintaining marriage as a unique heterosexual lifelong intimate relationship because of the obviously much higher likelihood of generativity, notwithstanding the existence of non-generative marriages.

Continued generativity in the absence of committed lifelong heterosexual relationships as the usual social construct has a notably deleterious effect on society, as can be observed in certain socioeconomically disadvantaged subcultures.

With regard to the generativity issue, while there certainly are exceptions gay marriage proponents might point out, such as adoption, artificial insemination, and so forth, that does not change the underlying reality of the greater ease with which heterosexual partners in general can conceive via natural means, and the state interest in maintaining the social construct of marriage.

The state then has to demonstrate the deleterious effect on the institution when it its heteronormativity is taken away, when partners are no longer husbands and wives. I don't think that is so difficult.

Where the state would go too far is if it denied the rights and privileges allotted to married couples to those in other kinds of committed relationships which constitute a household. There is no compelling state interest I can think of to deny custody or guardianship rights, medical visitation, Social Security benefits, inheritance, etc.

And if it is substantially more difficult for commiited lifelong partners in a household to secure those benefits, then I think you have a problem with equal protection.

But the problem is not with marriage itself per se.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 11:44 AM

I think you could get intermediate scrutiny on this issue, because the issue involves gender discrimination. What important governmental interest could the state put forth as its reason for the ban?

they're all child molesters, haven't you heard? read your bible--it's somewhere in there about gays being bad. I don't really know but my preacher told me. why would he lie? he reads the bible every day. the bible says not to lie. ipso factso, gays are bad.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 11:52 AM

they're all child molesters, haven't you heard?

Are you talking about preachers or about homosexuals?
________
apartments for sale Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 11:57 AM

Are you talking about preachers or about homosexuals?

ZING!

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 11:58 AM

ZING!

HayOhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
________
Peak Towers Condominium Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

Extra Stout

11-09-2005, 12:12 PM

Does anybody want to address my substantive points, or are you more comfortable going on assuming I'm a gay-bashing Neanderthal?

Because in Neanderthal, my post can be translated:

Unga-bunga. Grunt. Marriage, unga-bunga. Me like bang woman. Me no like stay. Me no wanna take care kid. Me wanna leave go bang more woman. Me wanna sleep under tree during day. Snort.

Me no care what happen to kid. That woman problem. Me wanna bang more woman and sleep under tree. Unga-bunga.

Me find woman with kid and food. She weak. I take food and eat cause me strong. Baby hungry. Me no care. Baby die.

Woman say me no bang if me no stay. Grunt. Unga-bunga. Me no wanna stay but me wanna bang. Snort. Me strong. Woman weak. Me rape woman and leave. Me get what me want. Me strong.

Only baby me see grow up when man stay. Me no care. Me out for me.

Me no see many other Neanderthal no more. Grunt. Where they go?.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 12:14 PM

MeLTdowN!!!!

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 12:23 PM

1) Continued generativity in the absence of committed lifelong heterosexual relationships as the usual social construct has a notably deleterious effect on society, as can be observed in certain socioeconomically disadvantaged subcultures.

2)The state then has to demonstrate the deleterious effect on the institution when it its heteronormativity is taken away, when partners are no longer husbands and wives. I don't think that is so difficult.

1) So your solution is to deny those children have same-sex parents the comfort and security that comes along with those parents being married. You just noted the deleterious effects of such a scenario.

2) I am not aware of any studies showing that the children of same sex parent are maladjusted or demonstrate characteristics of being harmed by their parents situation

3) You are gay-bashing bigot
________
Pattaya Heights Condos (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

SpursWoman

11-09-2005, 12:39 PM

gtown when you were growing up were you naturally attracted to girls or did you look at little boys, wonder, then girls, weigh pros and cons and then decide to be hetero?

:lol

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 12:50 PM

The direction I would go would be to argue the governmental interest in maintaining marriage as a unique heterosexual lifelong intimate relationship because of the obviously much higher likelihood of generativity, notwithstanding the existence of non-generative marriages.

Continued generativity in the absence of committed lifelong heterosexual relationships as the usual social construct has a notably deleterious effect on society, as can be observed in certain socioeconomically disadvantaged subcultures.

With regard to the generativity issue, while there certainly are exceptions gay marriage proponents might point out, such as adoption, artificial insemination, and so forth, that does not change the underlying reality of the greater ease with which heterosexual partners in general can conceive via natural means, and the state interest in maintaining the social construct of marriage.

The state then has to demonstrate the deleterious effect on the institution when it its heteronormativity is taken away, when partners are no longer husbands and wives. I don't think that is so difficult.

Where the state would go too far is if it denied the rights and privileges allotted to married couples to those in other kinds of committed relationships which constitute a household. There is no compelling state interest I can think of to deny custody or guardianship rights, medical visitation, Social Security benefits, inheritance, etc.

And if it is substantially more difficult for commiited lifelong partners in a household to secure those benefits, then I think you have a problem with equal protection.

But the problem is not with marriage itself per se.

I think the way this will play out, eventually, is not too far off from what you propose. As an advocate, I would imagine the government would set up the strawman argument that is the need for reproduction and the achievement of that goal by limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The problem with that argument is one of practicality, I think. If the government's interest was in assuring reproduction, granting marriage licenses to one man and one woman only assures that the mechanism is in place; it doesn't ensure that it will or can be put to that use. I mean, if government's important interest is in assuring propagation of the species, it would be antithetical to that interest to grant marriage licenses to one man and one woman who are either not interested in reproducing or not capable of reproducing. Thus, even if assuring propagation of the species is an important governmental interest (and I'm sure it is) the limited definition of marriage is not substantially related to achieving that interest. After all, infertile, heterosexual men can marry barren, heterosexual women. That sort of heterosexual marriage (from the standpoint of the articulated governmental interests) is indistinguishable from the prohibited homosexual marriage. I think establishing a substantial relationship between prohibiting same-sex marriages to furthering the governmental interest in reproduction would be a bit of a logical leap.

Cant_Be_Faded

11-09-2005, 12:54 PM

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 01:02 PM

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a fucking dipshit dude

A goat can marry a panther? That's crazy.

Animals don't get married. :rolleyes
________
AnalQueen cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/AnalQueen)

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 01:06 PM

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a fucking dipshit dude

It's just like voting. First the women want to vote, then the Blacks, where does it end?

Should my dog be allowed to vote? My cat? What if they elect another dog or cat? I'll be damned if I am going to let some bitch or pussy be the President of the United States.
________
DeluxeKarra (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/DeluxeKarra)

Drachen

11-09-2005, 01:20 PM

It's just like voting. First the women want to vote, then the Blacks, where does it end?

Should my dog be allowed to vote? My cat? What if they elect another dog or cat? I'll be damned if I am going to let some bitch or pussy be the President of the United States.

Mr. Peabody has always been so informative and taught me so much.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 01:25 PM

A goat can marry a panther? That's crazy.

Animals don't get married. :rolleyes

In some cultures, you can only marry panthers. I forget where, but I read about it.

JoeChalupa

11-09-2005, 01:27 PM

^^or better yet. Quit being a moron by implying that every one that opposes gay marriage hates gays. You have no basis for your views.

You mean like those who imply that everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion?? :rolleyes

Extra Stout

11-09-2005, 01:34 PM

1) So your solution is to deny those children have same-sex parents the comfort and security that comes along with those parents being married. You just noted the deleterious effects of such a scenario.
I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional institution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

2) I am not aware of any studies showing that the children of same sex parent are maladjusted or demonstrate characteristics of being harmed by their parents situation
You're assuming that's what I was saying. You're wrong.

To summarize a little more, I'm saying we need to maintain marriage as an institution into which heterosexuals are expected to enter, because of the ease with which they can create children (in general), rather than a choice.

As for other relationships: family, yes, marriage, no.

3) You are gay-bashing bigot
Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume you know you've lost to me.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 02:03 PM

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume you know you've lost to me.

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume that you are either too egotistical or too humorless to realize that I was joking.

Quit taking yourself so seriously.
________
Paxil lawsuit information (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 02:23 PM

I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional institution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

To insinuate that two people committing to spending their lives together and caring for one another somehow undermines the social construct of marriage and minimizes the notion of responsibility among males in society is ridiculous. If you truly believe that marriage between two heterosexuals is essential to keeping a society intact, we should criminalize divorce or make it harder to get.

The whole idea of marriage as a life-long commitment for the purpose of raising a family is a concept that is fading from society. And this has nothing to do with homosexuals or gay marriage. People are no longer afraid to be looked down upon by society for getting a divorce or maintaining unmarried status. If you ask me this is a good thing. The whole idea of spending your life with another person is not for everyone.

Also, you're a gay-bashing bigot.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 02:40 PM

In some cultures, you can only marry panthers. I forget where, but I read about it.

Hell, just dating Panthers can be dangerous. Just ask Rae Carruth's girlfriend.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 03:01 PM

I think that's a red herring. Legal recognition of a particular family as a "marriage" has nothing to do with how comfortable and secure children feel.

If they have parents, caregivers, etc., who love them and care for them and STAY together, how they file their taxes is irrelevant.

But anyway, my biggest concern is the ongoing erosion of the traditional institution of marriage. My concern with this shift from the traditional idea of marriage being a lifelong, committed relationship between a man and a woman which creates the basic framework for the care and upbringing of children when they have sexual relations, to this new idea of marriage being any kind of intimate relationship between any willing partners.

See, I don't think that the predominance of marriage in a society is automatic. I think it exists as a social construct, and I believe it came about to condition the man to go against hius biological propensity for multiple sexual partners, and instead to care for the needs of a single woman, and for the children he produces by sexual relations.

Caring and nurturing are more natural for the woman, because it's in her biological makeup. For the male, it has to be conditioned.

In the days before the welfare state, if this didn't happen, you wouldn't have much of a civilization. I know there have been variations on the theme, but in general the vast majority of societies that have survived have maintained this basic family model, where a man and a woman get married.

Now with the welfare state, we've had somewhat of this luxury not to be bound rigidly to these "rules," so to say, to maintain our society. It's possible for the man to shirk his responsibility to his family and bolt, or even beyond that, either for the man or the woman just to have casual sex with no responsibility whatsoever. If there's a kid, the state picks up the tab, or we abort the fetus. For the affluent parts of our society, we can get by OK. We can have almost endless motility in our relationships because we have the resources to clean up the messes we make.

But look at the not-so-affluent parts of our society, and it's been a disaster, even with legalized abortion. Legitimate families are the exception, not the rule. And we aren't raising children in a manner that gives them much of an opportunity to get out of the vicious circle.

Now I know to liberals the solution is just to throw lots of money at these folks to make up the difference. But I think that grossly oversimplifies the depth social infrastructure to make those dysfunctional communities functional again. And the basic unit of infrastructure that is missing is the FAMILY.

Nevertheless, in these elite circles, we're still moving forward, changing the concept of these commitments from personal responsibility to personal choice, because we have the luxury of doing so.

Sending that message to the society at large I think is potentially catastrophic. I still want marriage to connote the responsibility that a man has to his wife and children, actual or potential, because without it, I think that a lot of men simply won't get married and we'll be much worse off for it. It will get more and more difficult and expensive to pick up the pieces.

So, I don't begrudge any people their relationships. Two women or men want to spend their lives together? More power to them. They want to raise kids? Terrific, loving committed parents are an asset to us, no matter what walk of life they come from. A family is a family. The relationship makes the family more than the blood does. If people wanted the state to recognize their household as a family, I don't see a problem with that. Because that's what it is.

But keep your hands off marriage. The traditional heteronormative understanding of it serves a critical purpose for the greater good, and if we keep screwing with it, I think our society, especially the middle and lower classes, will be much worse off. We've done enough damage already.

It's obvious that the social construct of marriage is not necessary to encourage procreation. People would procreate whether marriage existed to it didn't. The drive to procreate is natural and does not need the assistance of marriage. That being that case, the benefits of marriage are not biological, they are, as you say, sociological. If this is the case, why does the gender of either party matter? Your argument is that it keeps people responsible and that this responsibility is essential to our society. Again, I ask, aren't there means of keeping people responsible other than oppressing a minority? There has to be.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 03:25 PM

^^prove where a society lasted becuase of a wasted social structure in rasing children.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 03:27 PM

^^prove where a society lasted becuase of a wasted social structure in rasing children.

I don't even know what this means.
________
Pearl50 cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/pearl50)

mookie2001

11-09-2005, 03:28 PM

LOL
i was thinking the exact same thing

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 03:29 PM

so, essentially, conservationists like gtownspur are adamant in gays not marrying, because WHERE DOES IT END??? a goat can marry a panther then!! oh no!!!

it'll ruin our society!

you're a fucking dipshit dude

And Your a fucking dick splint! Seems like you couldnt realize that i was using extremes to prove a point. WHat it really boils down to is this, defining marriage is irrelevent since statue laws already exist. YOu cannot have multiple partners in a marriage, or can you marry your own sibling. The people have spoken.. THey want to ban gay marriage.

mookie2001

11-09-2005, 03:30 PM

THey want to ban gay marriage
in a state where gay marriage was already...banned...

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 03:50 PM

^^so quit massaging your clit and stop bitchin, notinings changed.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 03:57 PM

^^so quit massaging your clit and stop bitchin, notinings changed.

Is this the compassionate conservative side or the christian side of you?
________
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 04:28 PM

^How bout your liberal tolerant hot air touting everyone else in the country as bigoted.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 04:30 PM

Yeah Peabody. How dare you not tolerate intolerance. I thought you were open-minded.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 04:31 PM

^How bout your liberal tolerant hot air touting everyone else in the country as bigoted.

Once again, if you do not realize it was a joke, even after I posted that I was joking, there is nothing I can do to help you.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 04:40 PM

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 04:45 PM

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

Since you've resorted to this, I can only assume that you are either too egotistical or too humorless to realize that I was joking.

Learn how to read dipshit.
________
Pattaya property (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 04:48 PM

Even after you posted you were joking? Did you type that post on a parallel universe?

I called you on it and exposed the liberal twink you are. Plain and simple.

I think he's got you there, Peabody. Nobody should ever think that gtown is too intolerant to not tolerate intolerance.

I mean, look at his toleration of those who disagree with him.

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 04:48 PM

To insinuate that two people committing to spending their lives together and caring for one another somehow undermines the social construct of marriage and minimizes the notion of responsibility among males in society is ridiculous. If you truly believe that marriage between two heterosexuals is essential to keeping a society intact, we should criminalize divorce or make it harder to get.

The whole idea of marriage as a life-long commitment for the purpose of raising a family is a concept that is fading from society. And this has nothing to do with homosexuals or gay marriage. People are no longer afraid to be looked down upon by society for getting a divorce or maintaining unmarried status. If you ask me this is a good thing. The whole idea of spending your life with another person is not for everyone.

Why stop at 2 people? If 3 people find a way to love each other who are we to judge?

Also, you're a gay-bashing bigot.

Well, I'm fairly apathetic about how people choose to fuck, so hopefully you won't come with this knee jerk response.

I also fail to see how what XStout wrote is tantamount to 'gay bashing'.

Mr. Peabody

11-09-2005, 04:51 PM

Why stop at 2 people? If 3 people find a way to love each other who are we to judge?

Well, I'm fairly apathetic about how people choose to fuck, so hopefully you won't come with this knee jerk response.

I also fail to see how what XStout wrote is tantamount to 'gay bashing'.

:bang :bang :bang :bang
I wish you all would read all the goddam posts before posting. When I called him a gay-bashing bigot, it was a joke (which I stated) and in response to his post where he said that people assumed he was gay-bashing.

Fuck, he got the joke, but none of you seem to.
________
redhead girl Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/redhead-girls/)

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 04:54 PM

Why stop at 2 people? If 3 people find a way to love each other who are we to judge?

Because the law recognizes that the State can articulate a compelling interest in limiting marriage to two people and that laws so limiting marriage are narrowly-tailored to fulfilling that interest. When that happens, the law says that the State can constitutionally impose that limitation on a fundamental right.

The test for limiting the right of homosexuals to marry one another is one requiring the articulation of an important state interest that the discriminatory law is substantially related to achieving that interest.

Again, what exactly is the important interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman (not necessarily to one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman) and how exactly does limiting same-sex marriages substantially relate to achieving that interest?

I also fail to see how what XStout wrote is tantamount to 'gay bashing'.

I'm with you on that, but understand that Peabody was joking.

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 04:56 PM

Because the law recognizes that the State can articulate a compelling interest in limiting marriage to two people and that laws so limiting marriage are narrowly-tailored to fulfilling that interest. When that happens, the law says that the State can constitutionally impose that limitation on a fundamental right.

Nah. Discrimination. Two is arbitrary.

The test for limiting the right of homosexuals to marry one another is one requiring the articulation of an important state interest that the discriminatory law is substantially related to achieving that interest.

Are homosexuals a protected class?

Again, what exactly is the important interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman (not necessarily to one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman) and how exactly does limiting same-sex marriages substantially relate to achieving that interest?

XStout articulated it above.

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 05:12 PM

Nah. Discrimination. Two is arbitrary.

I presume that to be sarcasm.

Are homosexuals a protected class?

Laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are subject to intermediate judicial scrutiny in equal protection cases. Thus, sexual orientation is a protected status to the same extent that gender is.

Homosexuals aren't in a suspect class, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals aren't entitled to equal protection.

XStout articulated it above.

Sure -- an interest. But I would disagree -- as I posted above -- with the idea that discriminating against homosexuals is substantially related to the achievement of that interest. The mere fact that an important interest exists doesn't justify discrimination.

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 05:19 PM

Two is arbitrary. It is a relic of the past. Open relationships, sharing, threesomes, orgies, etc...are the reality today. Personal relationships are far too varied to set an arbitrary number.

Sure, when Congress gets around to making homosexuals a protected class, then they'd be so.

Homosexuals need not be included to achieve that goal.

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 05:22 PM

Sure, when Congress gets around to making homosexuals a protected class, then they'd be so.

Homosexuals are already a protected class, in the same sense that women or men are a protected class. There's no need for Congress to make them a protected class because they already are a protected class; not a suspect class, but a protected class.

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 05:25 PM

Under federal civil rights law?

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 05:27 PM

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 05:28 PM

MB, i meant FWDT as the one i was talking about not knowing.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 05:45 PM

MB, i meant FWDT as the one i was talking about not knowing.

grovel, grovel

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 05:52 PM

^^You dont even know the meaning of protected class. A protected class has two qualifyers. one is that it has gone through systematic oppression, and two, that the class has not recovered financially and emotionally. Gays only barely fit one of those clauses.

Is that from your extensive experience in reading equal protection cases or is that something that you just made up to justify your position?

Constitutional law recognizes no such thing; you're talking about a suspect class, gtown. But while all suspect classes are protected classes, all protected classes are not suspect classes.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 05:54 PM

Is that from your extensive experience in reading equal protection cases or is that something that you just made up to justify your position?

Constitutional law recognizes no such thing; you're talking about a suspect class, gtown. But while all suspect classes are protected classes, all protected classes are not suspect classes.

that's cool. he thinks the IRS marries people

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 05:55 PM

Under federal civil rights law?

Homosexuals don't have to be a protected class under statutory civil rights law to be a protected class for the purposes of the equal protection clause.

Federal civil rights law deals with the ability of certain groups to impose constitutional requirements on private groups (like employers) to whom the Constitution would not otherwise apply. Those laws are, essentially, constitutional enablers or extensions.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 06:08 PM

when Congress gets around to making homosexuals a protected class, then they'd be so.

that's not the province of the legislature you dolt

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 06:11 PM

that's not the province of the legislature you dolt

In some instances it is -- particularly with extending constitutional and quasi-constitutional protections to private settings.

In other news, Marcus is far from a dolt.

I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I certainly respect his intelligence and the opinions and arguments that he brings to the table; same is true for Extra Stout. Discussion and principled disagreement is always a good thing to me. They disagree but discuss.

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 06:11 PM

As I understand it, Lawrence v Texas did not find that homosexuals were a suspect class under the 14th amendment, only that there was a right to privacy in sexual relations.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 06:12 PM

Marcus is far from a dolt.

I disagree with him on a lot of things, but I certainly respect his intelligence and the opinions and arguments that he brings to the table; same is true for Extra Stout. Discussion and principled disagreement is always a good thing to me. They disagree but discuss.

you're just saying that so he doesn't hand your ass to you on a platter

Marcus Bryant

11-09-2005, 06:13 PM

that's not the province of the legislature you dolt

Quiet. The adults are talking.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 06:20 PM

In some instances it is -- particularly with extending constitutional and quasi-constitutional protections to private settings.

like the civil rights act or the 13th amendment?

regardless, the court is the one who created the tests for scrutinizing EPC claims

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 06:21 PM

As I understand it, Lawrence v Texas did not find that homosexuals were a suspect class under the 14th amendment, only that there was a right to privacy in sexual relations.

I agree that homosexuals are not a suspect class. But that does not mean that they are not a protected class. Again, all suspect classes are protected, but all protected classes need not be suspect classes.

I think Lawrence is different in kind from what I'm talking about. My recollection is that Lawrence is a privacy case. As I recall, Lawrence dealt with whether state law could criminalize homosexual sodomy. The Court, dealing in the privacy context (and tangentially in the equal protection context) said that the State could not intrude upon that sort of a private matter by criminalizing the conduct because individuals have a privacy interest in their own sexual relations, and the State's intrusion upon that interest could be justified only in extraordinary circumstances (rape, incest, child molestation, etc.). There was no compelling interest in criminalizing homosexual sodomy.

The question at hand deals more with the Court's holding in say Romer v. Evans.

spurster

11-09-2005, 06:22 PM

I would largely agree with ExtraStout except for the part about "liberals" being the ones who throw money at problems. It is all too clear that "conservatives" are just as good, if not better, at that skill.

However, there are several trends that will make it difficult to keep "traditional" marriage.

1) Separation of having sex from having children. This assumes we teach something about this somewhere at schools or at home.

2) Separation of being married from having children. Marriage implies children less and less which makes it less imperative for the state to support marriage.

3) Earning power of women. A woman don't need a man anymore to avoid poverty.

FromWayDowntown

11-09-2005, 06:33 PM

I'll go one step further, having been directed back to Lawrence. I'm convinced that this argument is even more nuanced than I had appreciated, because I hadn't really considered the nature of the constitutional protection of privacy interests, including the right to marriage, contraception, and sexual relationships.

The Due Process Clause serves to make marriage a fundamental right, not the Equal Protection Clause. Functionally, this is important because the question in any constitutional challenge will involve two inquiries: (1) is the right to marriage (recognized in Lawrence to be within the purview of the right to privacy) a fundamental or significant right under the Due Process Clause? (I'm fairly certain the answer is that it is fundamental); and (2) does the Equal Protection Clause permit the State to discriminate on the basis of either gender or sexual orientation in determining who may or may not be legally married.

The second inquiry is the point at which intermediate scrutiny comes into play and asks what the State's interests are in discriminating based on gender (which is actually how the law discriminates, I think; the law, again, doesn't prohibit homosexuals from marrying -- it prohibits men from marrying men and women from marrying women, regardless of their sexual orientation), whether those interests are important to the State, and whether the limitation created by the law is substantially related to limitation on individual rights.

In that sense, Marcus, I'd say that Lawrence only goes to the first inquiry and would seem to answer it affirmatively.

Extra Stout

11-09-2005, 06:47 PM

To insinuate that two people committing to spending their lives together and caring for one another somehow undermines the social construct of marriage and minimizes the notion of responsibility among males in society is ridiculous.
Gay marriage, as part of a progression including no-fault divorce, the welfare state, and in the future, plural marriage, is indeed undermining the social construct of marriage. Look at Europe. Look at their demographic time bomb.

If you truly believe that marriage between two heterosexuals is essential to keeping a society intact, we should criminalize divorce or make it harder to get.
I think that our contemporary ideas about divorce indeed do damage marriage. But the breakthrough it creates in women's ability to get out of abusive or neglectful relationships probably outweighs that.

The whole idea of marriage as a life-long commitment for the purpose of raising a family is a concept that is fading from society.
That's exactly what I'm saying. And, ultimately, what I think it will mean is that our society itself as we know it will fade away and be replaced by another that does not make these choices.

And this has nothing to do with homosexuals or gay marriage.
Not by themselves, no. As part of a larger trend, yes.

It's obvious that the social construct of marriage is not necessary to encourage procreation. People would procreate whether marriage existed to it didn't. The drive to procreate is natural and does not need the assistance of marriage.
The drive to procreate does not need marriage. Correct. That's exactly the problem. The man can drop some sperm and leave. The woman doesn't have that choice. She bears the baby.

According to evolutionary psychology, the male maximizes his chances of spreading his genes by moving around to several sexual partners. The female maximizes her chances by attracting a mate that will stay to help rear the child.

Unless the female "wins" out in the evolutionary game, you can't have a civilization. Marriage is the social construct that developed to make sure the woman wins out. We're doing away with it because we have a welfare state to take the place of the male.

For some individuals, this may work out great. But over an entire population, we end up with this huge underclass of single mothers mired in poverty.

If this is the case, why does the gender of either party matter?
Well, because only with a heterosexual couple can sexual intercourse result in the creation of a child. Gay couples have to adopt or resort to AI. People who can do that are likely going to be affluent folks to begin with. And they're going to be very few in number.

For folks not so well off, if there's not some prevailing social customs giving them some suggestions about how to structure their lives and become responsible, then you're going to end up with social chaos and the concomitant poverty. They don't have the experiences and the education to come up with these brilliant ideas about self-determination.

Marriage has for millenia worked very well at creating the kind of familial networks that promote the necessary social infrastructure to maintain civilization and progress into the kind of affluence we consider to be normal life. I don't believe that the welfare state has come anywhere near that level yet, and that this cavalier attitude some of the elite have about the obsolescene of marriage is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Your argument is that it keeps people responsible and that this responsibility is essential to our society. Again, I ask, aren't there means of keeping people responsible other than oppressing a minority? There has to be.I don't see the oppression in maintaining this distinction for the reasons I have stated. To whatever degree this proposition creates real legal obstacles for people's relationships in guardianship or custody or insurance or benefits or what have you, it is unjust. But defining marriages as a particular subset of committed intimate relationships, as a particular kind of family, I don't find to be oppressive.

You know what? With my upbringing and education, I've been equipped with the werewithal to make rational and inductive decisions about marriage. That probably makes me an elite. You're probably elite too. But most people have done it because it is the prevailing social custom. Liberal elites like to break free from these social customs and use their creativity to find new ways of doing things. But when these customs are broken for everyone, for the majority it means chaos, not freedom.

(By the way, our differing opinions on this are a sparkling example of the difference between liberalism and conservatism on the most basic level.)

Now some homosexuals may feel oppressed. Likewise, some transsexuals feel oppressed because they cannot use the restroom that corresponds to their own sexual identity (an actual issue right now in places like SF). However, the social damage to the vast majority of people that would result from accomodating them I think far outweighs their greivance.

Perhaps that is an extreme example, but it's the first one that came into my head.

Extra Stout

11-09-2005, 06:52 PM

To be honest, I really think that marriage ultimately will be a lost cause for black and for Anglo-white America, as well as white Europe.

And the result will be a Latin, largely Catholic United States of America, which really won't be that much different, and a Muslim Europe, which will represent the end of the era of enlightenment and liberalization that began with the Renaissance.

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 07:03 PM

The second inquiry is the point at which intermediate scrutiny comes into play and asks what the State's interests are in discriminating based on gender (which is actually how the law discriminates, I think; the law, again, doesn't prohibit homosexuals from marrying -- it prohibits men from marrying men and women from marrying women, regardless of their sexual orientation), whether those interests are important to the State, and whether the limitation created by the law is substantially related to limitation on individual rights.

That's a good analysis, but neither the TXSupCT nor SCOTUS would see it that way. They would reason that no gender discrimination exist because neither sex is able to do what the other is not.

exstatic

11-09-2005, 07:50 PM

They would reason that no gender discrimination exist because neither sex is able to do what the other is not.
?? Women can marry men, but under this law, men certainly cannot marry men, and the reverse also hold true. Sorry to drive the proverbial truck through the truck-sized hole in your argument...

Oh, Gee!!

11-09-2005, 08:18 PM

?? Women can marry men, but under this law, men certainly cannot marry men, and the reverse also hold true. Sorry to drive the proverbial truck through the truck-sized hole in your argument...

That would be the argument to use for sure.

SCOTUS would see things differently, however. Their logic would be that the same-sex ban treats equally men and women. Men cannot marry members of the same sex and woman cannot marry members of the same sex. It's all in the wording you sly dog

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 10:56 PM

that's not the province of the legislature you dolt
Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

IcemanCometh

11-09-2005, 10:59 PM

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

yeah theres something called the constitution. the last amendment limiting personal freedom was prohibition, that turned out well didn't it?

RandomGuy

11-09-2005, 11:00 PM

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

You might want to read this and try that last bit again... (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

RandomGuy

11-09-2005, 11:09 PM

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

...and when you call somebody a moron, you might want to make sure that your spelling is correct and that your grammar is correct. When you can't do either, you're a moron.

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 11:24 PM

^I type slow. So when i do finish i don't bother checking spelling or grammar. A moron also just pulls shit out of thin air like yourself and declares himself intellectually superior.

RandomGuy

11-09-2005, 11:28 PM

^I type slow. So when i do finish i don't bother checking spelling or grammar. A moron also just pulls shit out of thin air like yourself and declares himself intellectually superior.

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

RandomGuy

11-09-2005, 11:28 PM

Heh, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

gtownspur

11-09-2005, 11:38 PM

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

I'm sorry. I meant "checks and balances". Having a typo is one thing. Calling some one a dolt like OH gee! and not knowing yourself what your talking about is another. But ofcourse your to busy being Oh Gee's unpaid legal attorney. Get a life.

RandomGuy

11-09-2005, 11:48 PM

cat's urine glows under a blacklight.

gtownspur

11-10-2005, 12:01 AM

^^Go to sleep.

RandomGuy

11-10-2005, 12:05 AM

That is the most sensible thing you have said all night. :)

I have some homework to do in the morning.

Thanks and I hope the random facts from Random Guy were randomly interesting.

Spider monkeys like banana daiquiris.

Oh, Gee!!

11-10-2005, 09:36 AM

Yes it is you retard. the supreme court is not the last word in the land. You have a thing called check and balances. GAwd Your a moron!

read the fucking the thread before you start calling people out idiot. I said that classifying the so-called protected or suspect classes for purposes of scrutinizing EPC claims is not within the scope of the legislature. The Supreme Court has its own formula for determining which groups of people qualify for strict (or any other type of) scrutiny.

Mr. Peabody

11-10-2005, 09:51 AM

read the fucking the thread before you start calling people out idiot. I said that classifying the so-called protected or suspect classes for purposes of scrutinizing EPC claims is not within the scope of the legislature. The Supreme Court has its own formula for determining which groups of people qualify for strict (or any other type of) scrutiny.

This is why we have to limit judicial activism. It cannot be the sole province of the court to determine who the protected and suspect classes are.

Before you call out gtown, think about what he said. We do need checks and balances and this judicial activism has to stop.

gtown, I commend you for your wisdom. You words ring as true right now as they did 5 minutes ago when I first read your post.
________
AnitaLX live (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/AnitaLX)

Oh, Gee!!

11-10-2005, 09:56 AM

This is why we have to limit judicial activism. It cannot be the sole province of the court to determine who the protected and suspect classes are.

Before you call out gtown, think about what he said. We do need checks and balances and this judicial activism has to stop.

gtown, I commend you for your wisdom. You words ring as true right now as they did 5 minutes ago when I first read your post.

wouldn't checks and balances mean that the legislature (one co-equal branch) doesn't tell the judiciary (another co-equal branch) how to perform purely judicial tasks, such as interpreting the law and creating tests to scrutinize constitutional claims?

Mr. Peabody

11-10-2005, 10:01 AM

wouldn't checks and balances mean that the legislature (one co-equal branch) doesn't tell the judiciary (another co-equal branch) how to perform purely judicial tasks, such as interpreting the law and creating tests to scrutinize constitutional claims?

Oh, Gee! such an innocent, naive young man.

What "checks and balances" really means is that the Republican-led Legislative Branch and the Republican-led Administrative Branch should get to control the Judicial Branch, as well, in order to keep their activism in check.
________
Live sex webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

Oh, Gee!!

11-10-2005, 10:08 AM

Oh, Gee! such an innocent, naive young man.

What "checks and balances" really means is that the Republican-led Legislative Branch and the Republican-led Administrative Branch should get to control the Judicial Branch, as well, in order to keep their activism in check.

Damn, Peabody. You just took it to a whole new level. Have you been studying under Gtown?

gtownspur

11-11-2005, 12:41 AM

Not even. Equal protection laws do allow equal acces to all citizens. But it's basis is on race and gender and origin. Orientation is a choice and behavior and not benign. Gays do not have a fundamental right in marriage. TO recieve strict scrutiny for gays you must prove that gays have been historically denied that privelege and that they cannot do anything about it to circumvent it. Up till now have they made a ruckus. If marriage by definiton is between man and woman, then then you cannot give that right to homosexuals since they dont meet the criteria of man and woman. Marriage is not a tool to marry entity a to entity b. it is strictly between man and woman. Just like the court cannot give equal reproductivce rights to man because it's only the woman that springs the seed.

You see here dipshit. I know the formula the supreme court uses to interpret as to wether a group is protected or not. That doesn't prove your point. The legislature can interpret what are protected classes when they draft laws for affirmative action and other civil right matters.

FromWayDowntown

11-11-2005, 12:56 AM

You see here dipshit. I know the formula the supreme court uses to interpret as to wether a group is protected or not. That doesn't prove your point. The legislature can interpret what are protected classes when they draft laws for affirmative action and other civil right matters.

Evidence of Constitutional scholarship at its finest.

gtownspur

11-11-2005, 01:22 AM

FromWayDowntown

11-11-2005, 01:42 AM

^^really? i'll give you an example. Asian minorities have had a terrible persecutory past. SOmehow the legislature has chosen to remove them from "protected class" status from affirmative action laws for financial aid.

That's a load of crap. Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws (note: statutory enactments and not instances of Constitutional construction) make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity. Asian minorities are certainly within the protected class who cannot be illegally discriminated against. Try again.

gtownspur

11-11-2005, 01:59 AM

MannyIsGod

11-11-2005, 07:06 AM

:lmao @ Gtown trying to argue law with a fucking lawyer!!!

Priceless!!!

FromWayDowntown

11-11-2005, 10:44 AM

^You obviously have no clue about affirmative action. Affirmative action only helps protected classes. It can discriminate whites and jews from it's priveliges solely because they are a very affluent class. This is what i was talking about when the congressional branch interprets what is a protected class and what is not.

What does affirmative action have to do with deciding whether the Constitution permits a state to discriminate against homosexuals who wish to get married? Again, we're talking about two entirely different subjects. Affirmative action policies were designed to eradicate years and years of racial discrimination by requiring that people be proactive with racial minorities in terms of hiring, admitting, promoting, and other such things.

And certainly, laws that discriminate on the basis of race create suspect classes -- but not because Congress says so. That would make no sense.

If Congress could make laws and decide who was or was not a class worthy of protection, legislative enactments that discriminate would (in theory) never be subject to any sort of judicial review. Courts have developed the suspect/protected class construct to aid them in assessing the Constitutionality of legislative acts.

If you were right, gtown Congress could say "Well, we don't think blacks should be a protected class" and then pass a hypothetical law that blacks couldn't get married or couldn't vote or weren't entitled to some other governmental benefit, and the courts couldn't say anything about it. That's clearly not how the system works.

The various species of classes are intended to balance the legislative power against the protection of minority groups (whether they be racial, economic, religious, or social minorities). The suspect/protected class distinctions basically say that the greater the past history of discrimination, the less likely it is that government can discriminate. Where a particular group has historically been denied the protection of government, if the government wishes to further deny protection or benefits, it must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so.

Certainly, Congress can pass laws with the intent of aiding certain groups over others, and may express its desire to afford greater protection to identified groups. But in the end, whether a group is treated as a suspect class or a protected class or something else is entirely a judicial determination and then only for the purpose of ruling on the Constitutionality of a law.