Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[phillybear 366]

First of all, horse focking shouldn't even be on the table because a horse cannot verbally consent to having sex, and abuse of animals is largely considered criminal activity. You could use the same argument that we have a Constitutional right to beat our dogs. We don't. It's dumb and has no bearing on the discussion at all.

 

Where do your feelings fall in line with retards and autistics that do not have the ability to express their consent to have sex? When they bump uglies, is it automatically rape? Why does your opinion of what a consenting adult have to pollute everybody else's opinion?

 

I want to know where the line you draw is in regards to your bigotry and narrowmindedness.

[SUXBNME 1,594]

Where do your feelings fall in line with retards and autistics that do not have the ability to express their consent to have sex? When they bump uglies, is it automatically rape? Why does your opinion of what a consenting adult have to pollute everybody else's opinion?

 

I want to know where the line you draw is in regards to your bigotry and narrowmindedness.

Retards having sex: A Haiku

 

Retards having sex

Helmets can get in the way

To stop, spray with hose

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Where do your feelings fall in line with retards and autistics that do not have the ability to express their consent to have sex? When they bump uglies, is it automatically rape? Why does your opinion of what a consenting adult have to pollute everybody else's opinion?

 

I want to know where the line you draw is in regards to your bigotry and narrowmindedness.

Since you can only score with corpses, those in a coma, quadraplegics, or retards, I don't think that you can objectively comment.

[gocolts 300]

Since you can only score with corpses, those in a coma, quadraplegics, or retards, I don't think that you can objectively comment.

That doesn't half bad as a movie plot.

[drobeski 3,061]

Since you can only score with corpses, those in a coma, quadraplegics, or retards, I don't think that you can objectively comment.

Necrophobe

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

That doesn't half bad as a movie plot.

I have the copyright.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Necrophobe

Au contraire. You can marry them. Just don't fock them.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Where do your feelings fall in line with retards and autistics that do not have the ability to express their consent to have sex? When they bump uglies, is it automatically rape? Why does your opinion of what a consenting adult have to pollute everybody else's opinion?

 

I want to know where the line you draw is in regards to your bigotry and narrowmindedness.

 

Well she is engaged to Gettnhuge...

[phillybear 366]

Since you can only score with corpses, those in a coma, quadraplegics, or retards, I don't think that you can objectively comment.

 

Taters gotta tate.

[phillybear 366]

Well she is engaged to Gettnhuge...

 

Nicely played.

[jerryskids 7,053]

Well she is engaged to Gettnhuge...

 

[gocolts 300]

Well she is engaged to Gettnhuge...

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I should have explained myself better. Under the EPC you cannot discriminate against someone specifically because of the trait. It is unconstitutional to say you cannot marry that person because they are black. The prohibition is solely based on a suspect classification and it is front and center in the prohibition. With polygamy, I don't think it would fall under the EPC clause, because you are not saying you can't marry that person because you are mooslim, it is saying you can't marry more than one person period. Which is why I think that discussion, if it ever happened, would be all about the First Amendment, not the Fourteenth or the EPC. And I think it's pretty accurate to say that, even though I am by no means an expert in Constitutional Law.

 

I think the legal distinction would go a little more like this:

 

To bring an equal protection challenge, you first have to show that you are "similarly situated" to a group that is treated differently.

 

A woman wanted to marry another woman is "similarly situated" to a woman who wants to marry a man.

 

But a woman who wants to marry another woman and five other men? It's easier to say that woman isn't similarly situated, because we've really changed the scenario quite a bit. Rather than comparing one person who wants to marry another person of the opposite sex to one person who wants to marry another person of the same sex, we're comparing one person who wants to marry another person to one person who wants to marry a whole bunch of people.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Wasn't talkin bout you, was talking bout the anti gun wackos, and yes all of them have used it many times.

Not linking it, tired ...Benadryled out had allergic reaction to new med.

I have no problem with gays marrying btw...just think the ones screaming and crying about it are selfish attention starved ass pipes who'll never be satisfied

 

I think you are confusing the slippery slope argument with a question about where the limits of a certain right lie.

 

I can't speak for other people, but I have never said that because you can own a rifle means you'll be able to own a bazooka. That would be a slippery slope argument.

 

What I have said, and what you seem to be picking up on, is that your second amendment right obviously can't be absolute otherwise you could own a bazooka. So perhaps the second amendment allows you to own a rifle, but where does that right end? Does it extend to handguns? Semiautomatic weapons? Assault weapons? Bazookas? Anti-aircraft cannons? That isn't a slippery slope argument, I'm merely trying to figure out where the line is on the right.

[KSB2424 3,172]

I think the legal distinction would go a little more like this:

 

To bring an equal protection challenge, you first have to show that you are "similarly situated" to a group that is treated differently.

 

A woman wanted to marry another woman is "similarly situated" to a woman who wants to marry a man.

 

But a woman who wants to marry another woman and five other men? It's easier to say that woman isn't similarly situated, because we've really changed the scenario quite a bit. Rather than comparing one person who wants to marry another person of the opposite sex to one person who wants to marry another person of the same sex, we're comparing one person who wants to marry another person to one person who wants to marry a whole bunch of people.

IGW, thank you for actually being able to objectively look at this tangent topic (if this ruling may set any precedents) regarding this SC case on its own merit instead of freaking out like others.

 

I merely thought it was an interesting sidebar to the overall discussion. Apparently most around here cannot have two streams of thought going in one thread. I'm surprised they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

IGW, thank you for actually being able to objectively look at this tangent topic (if this ruling may set any precedents) regarding this SC case on its own merit instead of freaking out like others.

 

I merely thought it was an interesting sidebar to the overall discussion. Apparently most around here cannot have two streams of thought going in one thread. I'm surprised they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

It's a fair question. I don't think it will be a problem but certainly rulings can have implications down the road. Griswold v Connecticut begat Roe v Wade, for example.

[DankNuggs 305]

Loving dolls is a trait. Arguably as immutable as anything else if you watch the show taboo.

 

Homo is only as immutable as the current public sentiment about it, no more no less

[Bishop82 61]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus have two dads?

 

He turned out OK if you ask me.

[Mungwater 601]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus have two dads?

 

He turned out OK if you ask me.

 

He had a father and a step dad

[Bishop82 61]

He had a father and a step dad

I stand corrected.

[nikki2200 4]

IGW, thank you for actually being able to objectively look at this tangent topic (if this ruling may set any precedents) regarding this SC case on its own merit instead of freaking out like others.

 

I merely thought it was an interesting sidebar to the overall discussion. Apparently most around here cannot have two streams of thought going in one thread. I'm surprised they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[Mungwater 601]

I stand corrected.

 

And not to mention he was a convicted of crimes and given the death penalty at 33..

[nikki2200 4]

Loving dolls is a trait. Arguably as immutable as anything else if you watch the show taboo.

 

Homo is only as immutable as the current public sentiment about it, no more no less

 

No... loving dolls is not an immutable trait and loving dolls would not be considered a suspect classification.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that certain kinds of government discrimination are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny. The suspect classification doctrine has its constitutional basis in the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it applies to actions taken by federal and state governments. When a suspect classification is at issue, the government has the burden of proving that the challenged policy is constitutional.

 

The concept of suspect classifications was first discussed by the Supreme Court in korematsu v. united states, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944). The Court upheld the "relocation" of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast during World War II, yet Justice hugo l. black, in his majority opinion, stated that

 

all legal restrictions which curtail the Civil Rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

 

Though it is now widely recognized that no compelling justification existed for the relocation order and that racial prejudice rather than national security led to the forced removal of Japanese Americans, Korematsu did signal the Court's willingness to apply the Equal Protection Clause to suspect classifications.

 

Strict Scrutiny of a suspect classification reverses the ordinary presumption of constitutionality, with the government carrying the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result. Although strict scrutiny is not a precise test, it is far more stringent than the traditional Rational Basis Test, which only requires the government to offer a reasonable ground for the legislation.

 

Race is the clearest example of a suspect classification. For example, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 198 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967), scrutinized a Virginia statute that prohibited interracial marriages. The Court noted that race was the basis for the classification and that it was, therefore, suspect. The Court struck down the law because Virginia failed to prove a compelling State Interest in preventing interracial marriages. Legislation discriminating on the basis of religion or ethnicity, as well as those statutes that affect fundamental rights, also are inherently suspect. The Supreme Court has not recognized age and gender as suspect classifications, though some lower courts treat gender as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class

 

So the question here is whether or not homosexuals can be considered a suspect class and whether or not the government is discriminating against them, and if they are, do they have a substantial state interest as the basis for the discrimination.

 

IGW already pointed out the equality aspect of the clause, meaning that the circumstances must be equal and a group is not allowed to do something because of a specific immutable trait and no other reason. i.e. You cannot marry that person because he is black. And in the case of gay marriage, you cannot marry that person because he is a man.

 

I really don't think it will come down to this at all this time around, but this would be the argument for gay marriage if it were ever to be broadly ruled on by the SCOTUS. And polygamy or any other sexual fetishes do not apply because it needs to be an equal circumstance. One group isn't being allowed to marry multiple people and one group is not. No one can marry multiple people, so there is no discrimination.

 

It's obviously not a slam dunk decision by any means and I don't think the SCOTUS is going to take that leap of labeling homosexuals a suspect class and broadly declare gay marriage a constitutional right. It looks like they are going to toss Prop 8 and I think they will shiit can DOMA without a broad ruling on gay marriage as a whole. The issue with DOMA is the federal government is saying it is up to the states to determine the legality of marriages within their states, but then the federal government doesn't recognize the marriages.

[gemynd 0]

So a simple question for those who support any two consenting adults getting married---would you support any 3 (or any group size) of adults to get married, as long as all 3 were consenting to it?

 

Your answer should be "I'm fine with it. Why should they be denied the right to marry?" or "Of course. It would be discrimination if we don't allow it" Otherwise, you're left arguing against the same policy you are arguing for when debating vs. the anti-ghey marriage side.

 

Yes, I support the right of consenting adults to take more than one spouse if they want. I do not see a problem with that. However, this is not a question of discrimination. The laws against polygamy apply to everyone, not just one minority. That does make a difference. The same applies to the whole brother marrying sister argument I read earlier in this thread. That applies to everybody as well, not just to a minority.

[DankNuggs 305]

No... loving dolls is not an immutable trait and loving dolls would not be considered a suspect classification.

 

 

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class

 

So the question here is whether or not homosexuals can be considered a suspect class and whether or not the government is discriminating against them, and if they are, do they have a substantial state interest as the basis for the discrimination.

 

IGW already pointed out the equality aspect of the clause, meaning that the circumstances must be equal and a group is not allowed to do something because of a specific immutable trait and no other reason. i.e. You cannot marry that person because he is black. And in the case of gay marriage, you cannot marry that person because he is a man.

 

I really don't think it will come down to this at all this time around, but this would be the argument for gay marriage if it were ever to be broadly ruled on by the SCOTUS. And polygamy or any other sexual fetishes do not apply because it needs to be an equal circumstance. One group isn't being allowed to marry multiple people and one group is not. No one can marry multiple people, so there is no discrimination.

 

It's obviously not a slam dunk decision by any means and I don't think the SCOTUS is going to take that leap of labeling homosexuals a suspect class and broadly declare gay marriage a constitutional right. It looks like they are going to toss Prop 8 and I think they will shiit can DOMA without a broad ruling on gay marriage as a whole. The issue with DOMA is the federal government is saying it is up to the states to determine the legality of marriages within their states, but then the federal government doesn't recognize the marriages.

Suspect classes are based on current public opinions and sentiments. DOMA passed constitutional snuff at the time...

 

Trying to make this an absolutist argument is incorrect. This is Overton window stuff. no more, no less.

 

As stated before marriage of any kind is not a rights issue, its a public policy issue. Everything should be civil unions and let church/religion deal with marriage.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

No... loving dolls is not an immutable trait and loving dolls would not be considered a suspect classification.

 

 

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class

 

So the question here is whether or not homosexuals can be considered a suspect class and whether or not the government is discriminating against them, and if they are, do they have a substantial state interest as the basis for the discrimination.

 

IGW already pointed out the equality aspect of the clause, meaning that the circumstances must be equal and a group is not allowed to do something because of a specific immutable trait and no other reason. i.e. You cannot marry that person because he is black. And in the case of gay marriage, you cannot marry that person because he is a man.

 

I really don't think it will come down to this at all this time around, but this would be the argument for gay marriage if it were ever to be broadly ruled on by the SCOTUS. And polygamy or any other sexual fetishes do not apply because it needs to be an equal circumstance. One group isn't being allowed to marry multiple people and one group is not. No one can marry multiple people, so there is no discrimination.

 

It's obviously not a slam dunk decision by any means and I don't think the SCOTUS is going to take that leap of labeling homosexuals a suspect class and broadly declare gay marriage a constitutional right. It looks like they are going to toss Prop 8 and I think they will shiit can DOMA without a broad ruling on gay marriage as a whole. The issue with DOMA is the federal government is saying it is up to the states to determine the legality of marriages within their states, but then the federal government doesn't recognize the marriages.

 

The interesting part, though, is that if you rule DOMA is unconstitutional because it infringes on the province of the states in regulating marriage, then doesn't that make it harder to eventually say that all states must allow ghey marriage? You can't say it's a state issue on the one hand and then declare a blanket federal rule on the other.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Yes, I support the right of consenting adults to take more than one spouse if they want. I do not see a problem with that. However, this is not a question of discrimination. The laws against polygamy apply to everyone, not just one minority. That does make a difference. The same applies to the whole brother marrying sister argument I read earlier in this thread. That applies to everybody as well, not just to a minority.

 

 

As to the legal stuff. I don't think I support polygamy although I haven't given it a ton of thought.

[nikki2200 4]

Suspect classes are based on current public opinions and sentiments. DOMA passed constitutional snuff at the time...

 

Trying to make this an absolutist argument is incorrect. This is Overton window stuff. no more, no less.

 

As stated before marriage of any kind is not a rights issue, its a public policy issue. Everything should be civil unions and let church/religion deal with marriage.

 

According to the SCOTUS in Loving, marriage is considered a Constitutional right.

 

I also don't know what you mean about making this an absolutist argument. Are you saying what I typed was incorrect? I was explaining the flaws in the "slippery slope" discussion and what is being laid out on the table for this particular case and the discrepancy between this case and what type of precedent it would set for something such as polygamy, which is none.

 

I'm not making the argument, I'm just discussing the facts. Because I've actually read the transcripts and know a little about it.

 

But if you want to just talk in philosophicals about this setting a precedent for other behavior we consider depraved without regards to the legal aspects of this or what the case actually is... OK.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

The laws against polygamy apply to everyone, not just one minority. That does make a difference. The same applies to the whole brother marrying sister argument I read earlier in this thread. That applies to everybody as well, not just to a minority.

Who is the minority in question?

[DankNuggs 305]

According to the SCOTUS in Loving, marriage is considered a Constitutional right.

 

I also don't know what you mean about making this an absolutist argument. Are you saying what I typed was incorrect? I was explaining the flaws in the "slippery slope" discussion and what is being laid out on the table for this particular case and the discrepancy between this case and what type of precedent it would set for something such as polygamy, which is none.

 

I'm not making the argument, I'm just discussing the facts. Because I've actually read the transcripts and know a little about it.

 

But if you want to just talk in philosophicals about this setting a precedent for other behavior we consider depraved without regards to the legal aspects of this or what the case actually is... OK.

I was getting at the immutability aspect of it. I don't think the slippery slope arguments are strong at all.

[nikki2200 4]

The interesting part, though, is that if you rule DOMA is unconstitutional because it infringes on the province of the states in regulating marriage, then doesn't that make it harder to eventually say that all states must allow ghey marriage? You can't say it's a state issue on the one hand and then declare a blanket federal rule on the other.

 

 

Yea. I think that is exactly what is going to happen and I'm not sure we will ever see a federal law on gay marriage. One of the justices, maybe Roberts, was annoyed yesterday basically asking why the administration wasn't attempting to make constitutional legislation instead of punting the whole thing for the SCOTUS to decide, and he had a point. I don't this we will or should see federal legislation on this. As far as I know, all other marriage laws are at the state level. What is absurd, is a couple being legally married in their state, and their marriage not being recognized by the federal government.

 

If it ever does become a national issue with the SCOTUS ruling on it, I think it would be more along the lines of someone bringing a case against a particular state in which gay marriage is not legal and at that point they would be forced to make the decision on the constitutionality of such a law. It could have happened with Prop 8, but it looks like that one is going bye bye.

[parrot 789]

- substantial state interest as the basis for the discrimination.

 

This is the part of the process that people miss or choose to ignore when talking about other scenarios like incest, and, to a lesser extent, polygamy. The state can make a completely different argument in regards to these arrangements relative to gay marriage.

[nikki2200 4]

I was getting at the immutability aspect of it. I don't think the slippery slope arguments are strong at all.

 

Well the SCOTUS has typically been pretty stringent on when they apply the suspect classification concept, and I'm not sure they will ever apply it to homosexuals. But that is the argument on the table right now.

[gemynd 0]

Who is the minority in question?

 

That would be homosexuals. I understand that to make that argument, you have to accept that you can discriminate based on sexual orientation. Essentially, this whole debate is concerning that question.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Well the SCOTUS has typically been pretty stringent on when they apply the suspect classification concept, and I'm not sure they will ever apply it to homosexuals. But that is the argument on the table right now.

I am not sure it is. Their decision on this will in no way set precedent for gay anything. That much you can bank on.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

That would be homosexuals. I understand that to make that argument, you have to accept that you can discriminate based on sexual orientation. Essentially, this whole debate is concerning that question.

It isn't. Same-sex marriage is not gay marriage. Some will argue that it is a trivial distinction, but the word "homosexual" will never appear in any law. The law will and must be open to all. Therefore it is a bit of a stretch to single them out as being denied a right based on sexual preference.

[nikki2200 4]

This is the part of the process that people miss or choose to ignore when talking about other scenarios like incest, and, to a lesser extent, polygamy. The state can make a completely different argument in regards to these arrangements relative to gay marriage.

 

Well in the Prop 8 hearing, the state was trying to claim that their "interest" was that of procreation, for which he got mocked.

 

I would think the state would have a much stronger case when talking about such things as polygamy.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Well the SCOTUS has typically been pretty stringent on when they apply the suspect classification concept, and I'm not sure they will ever apply it to homosexuals. But that is the argument on the table right now.

 

They don't necessarily have to find homosexuals a suspect class to rule DOMA or Prop 8 an equal protection violation. The minimum level of scrutiny is rational basis and an argument could be made that there is no rational basis. I think that's what Kagan was getting at when she read the congressional report saying the purpose of DOMA was to express "moral disapproval" of homosexuality.

[drobeski 3,061]

Did they get their fill of look at me attention yet ?

[wiffleball 4,797]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus have two dads?

 

He turned out OK if you ask me.

 

No, you're forgetting one: Steve Guttenberg.

 

Understandable, he never really could command the screen like Ted Danson and Tom Selleck.

 

How wierd would it be if they wrote Jesus' life story and called it 'The Danson Bible'?

 

'Guttenberg' was a nice gesture.