free hit counter
Someone please 'splain it to me - opposite sex-only marriage and equal protection - Redneck Clubhouse - Of, By and For Rednecks!

Jaw Jackin' General shootin' the bull topics here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 9th, 2013, 10:02 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default Someone please 'splain it to me - opposite sex-only marriage and equal protection

For the government be it the states or the feds, to allow marriage licenses to be issued only to opposite sex couples, seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

It's like having the law to issue drivers licenses only to males.

Neither license is a right...

I believe state laws limiting marriage license issuance to opposite sex couples only is unconstitutional - no government entity should be involved at all.

Where have I erred?
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #2  
Old April 9th, 2013, 10:37 PM
Vel's Avatar
Vel Vel is offline
Senior Member
Space Invaders Champion Breakout Champion Bejeweled Blitz  Champion Bejeweled 2 Champion Bejeweled® 2 Action Champion Classic Breakout Champion Medieval Archer Champion Air Blobs Easy Champion Hexed Champion Ancient jewels 2 Champion Bejeweled 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,481
Likes Given: 885
Liked 975 in 783 Posts
Vel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder View Post
For the government be it the states or the feds, to allow marriage licenses to be issued only to opposite sex couples, seems to violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

It's like having the law to issue drivers licenses only to males.

Neither license is a right...

I believe state laws limiting marriage license issuance to opposite sex couples only is unconstitutional - no government entity should be involved at all.

Where have I erred?
Let me preface by saying that I'm not sure what my opinion is on same sex marriage. For the most part, I really don't care what other people do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The only part of the issue that troubles me is the slippery slope that government sanctioned changes in the definition of marriage will certainly bring. That said, my guess on why marriage laws don't violate equal protection is because all people have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage laws are not based on love. You don't have to love someone to marry them.
  #3  
Old April 9th, 2013, 10:42 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vel View Post
Let me preface by saying that I'm not sure what my opinion is on same sex marriage. For the most part, I really don't care what other people do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The only part of the issue that troubles me is the slippery slope that government sanctioned changes in the definition of marriage will certainly bring. That said, my guess on why marriage laws don't violate equal protection is because all people have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Marriage laws are not based on love. You don't have to love someone to marry them.
What we have is a limiting action, discrimination based on gender. Whether there's "love" is a moot point.

Right?

This is why I believe government shouldn't be involved in it at all, shouldn't be sanctioning any of it, and also shouldn't be giving unequal benefits and tax breaks for example, to married couples.

But to the existing statutes, IF the government is going to sanction marriages, the 14th Amendment prohibits gender bias under equal protection.

THIS is the argument the pro same sex marriage forces should be using, not the "civil rights" crap they're spewing.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #4  
Old April 9th, 2013, 10:47 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vel View Post
Let me preface by saying that I'm not sure what my opinion is on same sex marriage.
And here, you bring up a very important point even if unintentional. I am for same sex marriage, but AGAINST gay marriage. There's a distinction between the two.

People shouldn't have to declare themselves homosexual in order to marry a same sex partner. This requirement would create a new, protected class and that is unconstitutional as well.

The militant "gay marriage" forces want it that way - homosexuals-only club for same sex marriage. The more moderate forces, don't. They just want to be able to marry their same sex partner, no orientation questions asked.

That's the view I support as well.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #5  
Old April 9th, 2013, 11:08 PM
Vel's Avatar
Vel Vel is offline
Senior Member
Space Invaders Champion Breakout Champion Bejeweled Blitz  Champion Bejeweled 2 Champion Bejeweled® 2 Action Champion Classic Breakout Champion Medieval Archer Champion Air Blobs Easy Champion Hexed Champion Ancient jewels 2 Champion Bejeweled 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,481
Likes Given: 885
Liked 975 in 783 Posts
Vel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder View Post
What we have is a limiting action, discrimination based on gender. Whether there's "love" is a moot point.

Right?

This is why I believe government shouldn't be involved in it at all, shouldn't be sanctioning any of it, and also shouldn't be giving unequal benefits and tax breaks for example, to married couples.

But to the existing statutes, IF the government is going to sanction marriages, the 14th Amendment prohibits gender bias under equal protection.

THIS is the argument the pro same sex marriage forces should be using, not the "civil rights" crap they're spewing.
If the statute for marriage violates the 14th by only permitting gender to marry opposite gender, then does it not also violate the 14th by disallowing sibling marriage or polygamous marriages?
  #6  
Old April 9th, 2013, 11:47 PM
Midnight Marauder's Avatar
Midnight Marauder Midnight Marauder is offline
Registered Beer User
Asteroids Champion 007 Everything or Nothing Champion 9-Ball Champion Bombing By Night Champion Flash Pacman Champion Carmageddon Champion Gotham Punch Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Where the Buffalo Roam
Posts: 8,198
Likes Given: 7,681
Liked 2,904 in 2,354 Posts
Midnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant futureMidnight Marauder has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vel View Post
If the statute for marriage violates the 14th by only permitting gender to marry opposite gender, then does it not also violate the 14th by disallowing sibling marriage or polygamous marriages?
Indeed it is a question that should also come before the courts.

For the same reason there are age limits for voting, obtaining a driver license, and etc - age discrimination certainly - the states do have leeway for public health and safety. The slippery slope argument forgets that everything is case by case - the unintended consequences don't automatically just happen. You said it best earlier, as long as no one else is hurt what's the problem.
__________________
Could it be that I could be the cowboy in that mystery who died so long ago in that El Paso sand?
  #7  
Old April 10th, 2013, 12:06 AM
Vel's Avatar
Vel Vel is offline
Senior Member
Space Invaders Champion Breakout Champion Bejeweled Blitz  Champion Bejeweled 2 Champion Bejeweled® 2 Action Champion Classic Breakout Champion Medieval Archer Champion Air Blobs Easy Champion Hexed Champion Ancient jewels 2 Champion Bejeweled 3 Champion
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,481
Likes Given: 885
Liked 975 in 783 Posts
Vel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud ofVel has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder View Post
Indeed it is a question that should also come before the courts.

For the same reason there are age limits for voting, obtaining a driver license, and etc - age discrimination certainly - the states do have leeway for public health and safety. The slippery slope argument forgets that everything is case by case - the unintended consequences don't automatically just happen. You said it best earlier, as long as no one else is hurt what's the problem.
There is an excellent article at Redstate right now that makes some valid points out some potential problems. One of which will be, if we redefine marriage then we will also need to redefine parent. It's an interesting read.

Gay Marriage: About the Children Whether We Like It or Not | RedState
  #8  
Old April 10th, 2013, 12:57 AM
MJH's Avatar
MJH MJH is offline
Don't Tell Me What To Do
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 35
Likes Given: 3
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
MJH is on a distinguished road
Default Eat Mor Chikin

Homosexuality is a perversion. It is also against God's plan, which is procreation. Any argument of those facts promotes a godless, immoral society. Where will the line be drawn then? Should brothers and sisters be allowed to marry, or parents to their children? Maybe if enough people like a Facebook page, incest will also be allowed so as not to infringe on the rights of people to lay with whom they choose, as sodomy has been. We've been down this road before in history. It's commonly known as the story of Noah's Arc. These were among the reasons God destroyed the earth, and confused our languages. Does Facebook override the Bible, simply because people agree on things less moral? I don't think so, and anyone who tells me I shouldn't feel this way is violating the same civil rights to try to shut me up as they are trying to use in their favor to make their voices be heard. Chic-fil-A supports traditional marriage; and the gays and liberals try to make them look like hatemongers. Does no one have a right not to agree with gay marriage anymore? Fuck that. If you want to be gay, that doesn't hurt me. If you want my government, and even my church to condone it, that infuriates me.

Last edited by MJH; April 10th, 2013 at 12:59 AM. Reason: typo
  #9  
Old April 10th, 2013, 02:57 AM
moomin's Avatar
moomin moomin is online now
€COM#1
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Freezer
Posts: 6,850
Likes Given: 760
Liked 1,819 in 1,613 Posts
moomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant futuremoomin has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder View Post
What we have is a limiting action, discrimination based on gender.
Which gender is being discriminated against here, exactly?
  #10  
Old April 10th, 2013, 09:04 AM
walruskkkch's Avatar
walruskkkch walruskkkch is offline
They call me MR. Kitty
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Katmandhu
Posts: 6,694
Likes Given: 153
Liked 2,302 in 1,931 Posts
walruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant futurewalruskkkch has a brilliant future
Default

Gender is not sexual orientation. Gays can marry, but to do so they must fulfill the requirements the state puts forward. In this case, marriage is between a man and a woman. That has been the traditional formulation in Western Society and has firm foundation in common law. What the gays want to basically do is redefine the term marriage so that they can use it to describe their relationships as well. The reason for this is what? Mostly to obtain benefits that follow from being considered married by the state. Their are other considerations but this is probably the most important. The question really is, to obtain these other considerations do we really need to re-invent the wheel sort to speak by redefining the term marriage or are their alternate ways of assuring that same-sex couples derive the same State benefits that married opposite sex couples receive.Frankly I think they mostly want to continue the war by the left against Western Society by destroying one of the pillars of it's success, but that is not a view shared by all. Whether this is a case of discrimination I am not sure, not by standard and traditional legal reasoning but then again these days that doesn't necessarily count for much. I would much prefer that the State no longer be involved in the whole process but it has wormed itself into so many connections, priviledges and money transfers in regards to marriage that won't be happening.Look at it this way, all things which are defined discriminate against those who do not meet the definition. When you can meet the definition, but by your own choice decline for whatever reasons, why should you be entitled to the benefits of the condition into which you do not fit the definition? No one is preventing gays from cohabiting. No one is preventing gays from entering contracts to provide for each other. No one is stopping gays from entering other legal means of assuring the benefits of marriage. And if the State wanted to, it could simply say the benefits, under law, provided by marriage, can be applied to any couples so declaring and making contract if it wanted to but this fight is not about that at its base. It is a fight to redefine society and should be looked at in those terms and either accepted or opposed on that basis. Maybe it is time Society, through the government, reorganized itself into something else but it seems to me that you need a far larger concensus on the matter than what exists currently.
__________________


Quote:
“I think it’s unfair. We voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is Trump who won. It is unfair,” Heloïse said.
Gentlemen, he said I don't need your organization, I've shined your shoes
I've moved your mountains and marked your cards
But Eden is burning either brace yourself for elimination
Or else your hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guards.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2000 - 2018 usmessageboards.com all rights reserved