Common Sense
Rookie
- Nov 2, 2010
- 915
- 44
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #121
those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)
these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.
on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.
What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?
Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.
have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.
on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.
per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502
6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.
6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.
now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.
"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."
then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""
and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"
Last edited: