Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[Asclepias]

Yes, you can. Unless of course you are a believer in unconstitutional actions as long as they agree with your worldview.

What a fucking fascist twat you are.

No I believe if you can place a law on the books that is unconstitutional then people will challenge it to the supreme court. Dont get frustrated because this does not work in your favor.

Restricting marriage contracts to a man or a woman is not unconstitutional, neither is a State changing the contract to include homosexual couples. The constitution is neutral on the topic of marriage, thus it devolves to the State Legislatures to determine the confines of the contract.

You should look up the Equal Protection Clause. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[martybegan]

No I believe if you can place a law on the books that is unconstitutional then people will challenge it to the supreme court. Dont get frustrated because this does not work in your favor.

Restricting marriage contracts to a man or a woman is not unconstitutional, neither is a State changing the contract to include homosexual couples. The constitution is neutral on the topic of marriage, thus it devolves to the State Legislatures to determine the confines of the contract.

You should look up the Equal Protection Clause. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then so is banning plural marriage, right?

And gay people do have equal protection. they can marry any opposite sex person they want, just like the rest of us.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your points are all valid,

On this we agree.

but in the end the same arguments that gay marriage as a right supporters use are still valid in this case, IF, you want to treat equal protection as some immovable object that DEMANDS same sex marriage be recognized, even if the State in question does not want to.

Appeal to Extremes

"Logical Form:

If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X)"

What you are doing is apply the Extreme Fallacy. If "X" is true, the "Y" must be true while ignoring that there are other reasons for "Y" to be false.

Not having a compelling government interest to warrant that Same-sex Civil Marriage should be denied based on gender based on a 1:1 model, does not mean that there are not compelling government reasons as to why Civil Marriage between 1:N ("1:N" being database speak for "one to many") should not be available.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Your points are all valid,

On this we agree.

but in the end the same arguments that gay marriage as a right supporters use are still valid in this case, IF, you want to treat equal protection as some immovable object that DEMANDS same sex marriage be recognized, even if the State in question does not want to.

Appeal to Extremes

"Logical Form:

If X is true, then Y must also be true (where Y is the extreme of X)"

What you are doing is apply the Extreme Fallacy. If "X" is true, the "Y" must be true while ignoring that there are other reasons for "Y" to be false.

Not having a compelling government interest to warrant that Same-sex Civil Marriage should be denied based on gender based on a 1:1 model, does not mean that there are not compelling government reasons as to why Civil Marriage between 1:N ("1:N" being database speak for "one to many") should not be available.


>>>>

its the same argument, all you are doing is drawing the line at 1:1 instead of where I am drawing the line at M:W. Moving the line to N:N:N etc is the next logical progression if Equal protection trumps all, which is what YOU may not be arguing, but is the argument used by most supporters of same sex marriage.

 

[Asclepias]

Restricting marriage contracts to a man or a woman is not unconstitutional, neither is a State changing the contract to include homosexual couples. The constitution is neutral on the topic of marriage, thus it devolves to the State Legislatures to determine the confines of the contract.

You should look up the Equal Protection Clause. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Then so is banning plural marriage, right?

And gay people do have equal protection. they can marry any opposite sex person they want, just like the rest of us.

Banning plural marriages is also wrong.

Gay people don't have equal protection. They cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice. Heteros can.

 

[WorldWatcher]

its the same argument, all you are doing is drawing the line at 1:1 instead of where I am drawing the line at M:W. Moving the line to N:N:N etc is the next logical progression if Equal protection trumps all, which is what YOU may not be arguing, but is the argument used by most supporters of same sex marriage.

It may be the next logical step for YOU. But the reality is that if/when challenged in court they are two completely different scenarios.

RE: SSCM - there is no compelling government reason for treating infertile same-sex couples (who in many states are not allowed to Civilly Marry) differently than infertile different-sex couples.

RE: Polygamy - there is a compelling government interest in that it would be impossible to manage 1:N Civil Marriages as contrasted to the current 1:1 Civil Marriages. SSCM already fit with the scope of existing laws dealing with two parties in the system(s).​

What is obvious is that polygamy, bestiality, child marriage - they are all simply attempts to "poison the well" as it were for the discussion of dealing with consenting adult couples.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

its the same argument, all you are doing is drawing the line at 1:1 instead of where I am drawing the line at M:W. Moving the line to N:N:N etc is the next logical progression if Equal protection trumps all, which is what YOU may not be arguing, but is the argument used by most supporters of same sex marriage.

It may be the next logical step for YOU. But the reality is that if/when challenged in court they are two completely different scenarios.

RE: SSCM - there is no compelling government reason for treating infertile same-sex couples (who in many states are not allowed to Civilly Marry) differently than infertile different-sex couples.

RE: Polygamy - there is a compelling government interest in that it would be impossible to manage 1:N Civil Marriages as contrasted to the current 1:1 Civil Marriages. SSCM already fit with the scope of existing laws dealing with two parties in the system(s).​

What is obvious is that polygamy, bestiality, child marriage - they are all simply attempts to "poison the well" as it were for the discussion of dealing with consenting adult couples.


>>>>

Bestiality and child marriage are not the same as poly marriage. There are issues of consent with both of them. Poly marriage is far closer to same sex marriage as there is legal consent among all parties.

And there is a reason for treating them differently, they are different.

 

[martybegan]

You should look up the Equal Protection Clause. Banning gay marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment.

Then so is banning plural marriage, right?

And gay people do have equal protection. they can marry any opposite sex person they want, just like the rest of us.

Banning plural marriages is also wrong.

Gay people don't have equal protection. They cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice. Heteros can.

Then they should create their own contract and name it what they want. They can even model it on marriage. If they get that, then the only reason they would still want marriage is the name, and hence acceptance by others that they are married.

And thank you for showing the slippery slope argument has veracity.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And there is a reason for treating them differently, they are different.

OK, here is your shot. Please articulate a secular legal argument for a government compelling government interest as to why like situated members of society, in this case - tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.


Go...


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

And there is a reason for treating them differently, they are different.

OK, here is your shot. Please articulate a secular legal argument for a government compelling government interest as to why like situated members of society, in this case - tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.


Go...


>>>>

Because one set is man/woman, and the other set is not. Marriage has always been predicated on opposite sex couples, regardless of the result of childbirth. Your premise is based on the error that they are the same, and they are not.

The same sex couple is free to appeal to the legislatures to set up their own contract matching marriage, or for the legislature to to modify the marriage contract. If successful more power to them.

But there is no compelling argument to force a State to modify the marriage contract issued by that State via judicial fiat. One does not have the right to force the State to modify a contract that is perfectly fine for its intended purpose, and can easily be replicated via legislative action.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And there is a reason for treating them differently, they are different.

OK, here is your shot. Please articulate a secular legal argument for a government compelling government interest as to why like situated members of society, in this case - tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.


Go...


>>>>

Because one set is man/woman, and the other set is not. Marriage has always been predicated on opposite sex couples, regardless of the result of childbirth. Your premise is based on the error that they are the same, and they are not.

The same sex couple is free to appeal to the legislatures to set up their own contract matching marriage, or for the legislature to to modify the marriage contract. If successful more power to them.

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.

But there is no compelling argument to force a State to modify the marriage contract issued by that State via judicial fiat. One does not have the right to force the State to modify a contract that is perfectly fine for its intended purpose, and can easily be replicated via legislative action.

The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

 

[Asclepias]

Then so is banning plural marriage, right?

And gay people do have equal protection. they can marry any opposite sex person they want, just like the rest of us.

Banning plural marriages is also wrong.

Gay people don't have equal protection. They cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice. Heteros can.

Then they should create their own contract and name it what they want. They can even model it on marriage. If they get that, then the only reason they would still want marriage is the name, and hence acceptance by others that they are married.

And thank you for showing the slippery slope argument has veracity.

No they shouldn't create their own contract. We already have one. Marriage.

The slippery slope argument in this issue only works when we get rid of the words consenting adult.

 

[martybegan]

OK, here is your shot. Please articulate a secular legal argument for a government compelling government interest as to why like situated members of society, in this case - tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple should be treated differently tax paying, law abiding, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.


Go...


>>>>

Because one set is man/woman, and the other set is not. Marriage has always been predicated on opposite sex couples, regardless of the result of childbirth. Your premise is based on the error that they are the same, and they are not.

The same sex couple is free to appeal to the legislatures to set up their own contract matching marriage, or for the legislature to to modify the marriage contract. If successful more power to them.

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.

But there is no compelling argument to force a State to modify the marriage contract issued by that State via judicial fiat. One does not have the right to force the State to modify a contract that is perfectly fine for its intended purpose, and can easily be replicated via legislative action.

The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

 

[martybegan]

Banning plural marriages is also wrong.

Gay people don't have equal protection. They cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice. Heteros can.

Then they should create their own contract and name it what they want. They can even model it on marriage. If they get that, then the only reason they would still want marriage is the name, and hence acceptance by others that they are married.

And thank you for showing the slippery slope argument has veracity.

No they shouldn't create their own contract. We already have one. Marriage.

The slippery slope argument in this issue only works when we get rid of the words consenting adult.

Then why doesn't the same sex marriage movement include their poly-amorous brethren in the discussion? Because they know it would lose them their margin of support.

and the marriage contract does not apply to them, unless modified by the legislatures in question. there is no constitutional mandate to force states to do it by judicial fiat.

 

[Asclepias]

Because one set is man/woman, and the other set is not. Marriage has always been predicated on opposite sex couples, regardless of the result of childbirth. Your premise is based on the error that they are the same, and they are not.

The same sex couple is free to appeal to the legislatures to set up their own contract matching marriage, or for the legislature to to modify the marriage contract. If successful more power to them.

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.

But there is no compelling argument to force a State to modify the marriage contract issued by that State via judicial fiat. One does not have the right to force the State to modify a contract that is perfectly fine for its intended purpose, and can easily be replicated via legislative action.

The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

There is a compelling reason. The 14th amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.



The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

There is a compelling reason. The 14th amendment.

And I keep saying, its not equal because they two types of couples are NOT equal.

 

[Asclepias]

Then they should create their own contract and name it what they want. They can even model it on marriage. If they get that, then the only reason they would still want marriage is the name, and hence acceptance by others that they are married.

And thank you for showing the slippery slope argument has veracity.

No they shouldn't create their own contract. We already have one. Marriage.

The slippery slope argument in this issue only works when we get rid of the words consenting adult.

Then why doesn't the same sex marriage movement include their poly-amorous brethren in the discussion? Because they know it would lose them their margin of support.

and the marriage contract does not apply to them, unless modified by the legislatures in question. there is no constitutional mandate to force states to do it by judicial fiat.

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue against gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

 

[Asclepias]

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

There is a compelling reason. The 14th amendment.

And I keep saying, its not equal because they two types of couples are NOT equal.

Doesnt matter what you say. The 14th amendment disagrees.

 

[martybegan]

No they shouldn't create their own contract. We already have one. Marriage.

The slippery slope argument in this issue only works when we get rid of the words consenting adult.

Then why doesn't the same sex marriage movement include their poly-amorous brethren in the discussion? Because they know it would lose them their margin of support.

and the marriage contract does not apply to them, unless modified by the legislatures in question. there is no constitutional mandate to force states to do it by judicial fiat.

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

There is a compelling reason. The 14th amendment.

And I keep saying, its not equal because they two types of couples are NOT equal.

Doesnt matter what you say. The 14th amendment disagrees.

It actually doesn't, your side has just been able to find judges who shit on the constitution when they see fit.