Gay Marriage split

[_Rollo Tomasi]

C.I. is a lawyer and should understand the legal fallacy of his position. In CA, for example, the supreme court found that sexual orientation was a type of "protected class." Therefore, the gov't had to show a "compelling interest" in denying gays the fundamental right to "marry" whoever they chose. The CA supreme court found the gov't failed to meet this burden, which is why the 'separate but equal' treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals when it came to marriage/domestic partnership under CA law was held unconsitutional. Had the court found the gov't had a lesser burden (In other words, that sexual orientation was not a protected class), then it would have been easier for the gov't to show its "right to be unfair" when it came to marriage was legal.

Why is sexual orientation a type of "protected class" in the first place? That strikes me as odd. Being a nerd isn't a protected class (although I would have loved special protection for it during my elementary and jr. high days).

In CA it's called a "suspect classification," and, according to the CA supreme court, "[t]he defining characteristic [for a suspect classification] must (1) be based upon an 'immutable trait'; (2) 'bear no relation to [a person's] ability to perform or contribute to society'; and (3) be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship,' manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities." The court found the second and third requirements were no-brainers when applied to gays and lesbians. The first requirment, "immutable trait," was a bit tougher because there wasn't much law and it was more a scientific issue; in the end, the court essentially punted on the issue, holding that "immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes." Specifically, the court pointed to "religion" as an accepted suspect classification even though one's religion is clearly not an immutable trait (this bb sure proves that). Although it did not decide the immutablility issue, the court was leaning toward finding sexual orientation was an immutable trait: "Because a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment."

Can nerds meet this same standard? I don't know, but I don't think we can compare the discrimination suffered by nerds and homosexuals.

by the way, the quotes above were taken from the CA supreme court's decision in In re Marriage Cases.

[_TAK]

We are talking about equal rights.. not a check.
Marriage rights granted by the state are not limited to just child rearing and custody. It’s every legal aspect of two people living and dying together.

If marriage is a positive aspect in society – then why would you want to limit something positive?

Probably because I don't think homosexual marriage is a positive aspect of society.

Marriage is in many ways a check. Tell a couple with only one spouse working that they can't claim married on their income tax return. They'll lose money.

I am sure many people 50 years ago ( or today..) do not think mixed marriages is a positive aspect of society and use the same arguments..

As to taxes.. my guess is you are not married...

Have you heard of the marriage tax penalty? Its real! Most married people actually pay more in taxes than if they were both filing single.

[_The Nehor]

We are talking about equal rights.. not a check.
Marriage rights granted by the state are not limited to just child rearing and custody. It’s every legal aspect of two people living and dying together.

If marriage is a positive aspect in society – then why would you want to limit something positive?

Probably because I don't think homosexual marriage is a positive aspect of society.

Marriage is in many ways a check. Tell a couple with only one spouse working that they can't claim married on their income tax return. They'll lose money.

I am sure many people 50 years ago ( or today..) do not think mixed marriages is a positive aspect of society and use the same arguments..

As to taxes.. my guess is you are not married...

Have you heard of the marriage tax penalty? Its real! Most married people actually pay more in taxes than if they were both filing single.

Yes, I'm aware but the marriage tax penalty mostly only hits hard relationships where both spouses are working.

About mixed marriages, can you show statistically that there is less fidelity in them? A decreased likelihood of childbearing?

[_EAllusion]

The upside is that CI is a something of a broken record on this subject, so you might be able to find past conversations in which he was confronted on arguments he is likely using now.

I spoke with him concerning homosexual marriage on a few occasions. Here is one exchange:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/72 ... ml?page=14

(Good luck figuring out which unregistered is me!) :p

[_TAK]

We are talking about equal rights.. not a check.
Marriage rights granted by the state are not limited to just child rearing and custody. It’s every legal aspect of two people living and dying together.

If marriage is a positive aspect in society – then why would you want to limit something positive?

Probably because I don't think homosexual marriage is a positive aspect of society.

Marriage is in many ways a check. Tell a couple with only one spouse working that they can't claim married on their income tax return. They'll lose money.

I am sure many people 50 years ago ( or today..) do not think mixed marriages is a positive aspect of society and use the same arguments..

As to taxes.. my guess is you are not married...

Have you heard of the marriage tax penalty? Its real! Most married people actually pay more in taxes than if they were both filing single.

Yes, I'm aware but the marriage tax penalty mostly only hits hard relationships where both spouses are working.

About mixed marriages, can you show statistically that there is less fidelity in them? A decreased likelihood of childbearing?

Both spouses working is the norm in society. Should they be penalized?

Your suggestion that Gays may be less faithful or less fruitful and therefore less deserving is ridiculous.

How about we accept them/ and let them normalize into society as equals with equal rights.

[_asbestosman]

In CA it's called a "suspect classification," and, according to the CA supreme court, "[t]he defining characteristic [for a suspect classification] must (1) be based upon an 'immutable trait'; (2) 'bear no relation to [a person's] ability to perform or contribute to society'; and (3) be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship,' manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities."

Then are physical and mental disabilities considered "suspect classifications"? Both fail test (2) because both have some impact on a person's ability to perform (that is not to say that the physically handicapped are unable to make contributions like Steven Hawking or the mentally handicapped like John Nash (schizophrenia), but it is more difficult for them to contribute labor and sometimes other things).

[_EAllusion]

The upside is that CI is a something of a broken record on this subject, so you might be able to find past conversations in which he was confronted on arguments he is likely using now.

I spoke with him concerning homosexual marriage on a few occasions. Here is one exchange:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/72 ... ml?page=14

(Good luck figuring out which unregistered is me!) :p

Yeah. Pent (CI) uses his veteren's benefits argument in that exchange. He gets worked over pretty good on that thread. Yay me.

EA: Atheist blowhard.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In CA it's called a "suspect classification," and, according to the CA supreme court, "[t]he defining characteristic [for a suspect classification] must (1) be based upon an 'immutable trait'; (2) 'bear no relation to [a person's] ability to perform or contribute to society'; and (3) be associated with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship,' manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities."

Then are physical and mental disabilities considered "suspect classifications"? Both fail test (2) because both have some impact on a person's ability to perform (that is not to say that the physically handicapped are unable to make contributions like Steven Hawking or the mentally handicapped like John Nash (schizophrenia), but it is more difficult for them to contribute labor and sometimes other things).

I don't really know, but #2 would seem to get in the way, as well as perhaps #3. I don't believe this has been recognized in CA as a "suspect classification."

[_The Nehor]

[quote="TAK"
Both spouses working is the norm in society. Should they be penalized?

Your suggestion that Gays may be less faithful or less fruitful and therefore less deserving is ridiculous.

How about we accept them/ and let them normalize into society as equals with equal rights.[/quote]

No, I'd like to see the marriage tax removed but that is a separate issue.

I don't think so.

I do accept them in that I accept that they exist and that while their activities are mostly against the law in most states those laws are no longer enforced. I don't think this is an equal rights issue. It's people clamoring for rights that are typically tied to many responsibilities that the people in question are unable to take on (children) or largely unwilling to take on (monogamy). If I saw any indication of a shift here I'd reconsider. I don't.

[_asbestosman]

I don't really know, but #2 would seem to get in the way, as well as perhaps #3. I don't believe this has been recognized in CA as a "suspect classification."

But are the disabled a type of "protected class?" If I understand correctly, sexual orientation and relition are "suspect classifications" and suspect classifications are a type of "protected class"