Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
I read most of the California decision on same-sex marriage.
Apparently not or you wouldn't be making arguments that the decision specifically contradicts.
quote:
Its relevant to the claim that the arguments against inter-racial marriage are the exact same as the arguments against same sex marriages, which they're not as I've explained.
Except you haven't. Every single argument you have put forward I have rewritten simply by taking out the words referring to the sex/sexual orientation of the people involved and replacing them with words referring to the race of the people involved.
If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
The law didn't specify that marriage had to be between the same race.
Let's not play dumb. Yes, it did. White people can only marry other white people. How is that not defining marriage as between the same race?
You did read the in RE and Loving v. Virginia cases, did you not? They went into that exact argument and found it to be disingenuous.
There's no point in me posting it here for you to read because you admit that you don't actually read the posts that are directed toward you. Thus, you will have to do it for yourself and I will continually ask you if you have read them until YOU can quote the relevant portions here.
I am not here to do your homework for you. I have already quoted the relevant passages and given you all the reference material you need to go look it up for yourself. I can't make you read my post and since you admit you won't, why on earth should I do the extra work?
quote:
It said that whites couldn't marry non-whites, which is a restriction based on race, ergo it's unconstitutional.
And current law says that gays cannot marry other gays (let's not play dumb and have you respond with talk of a gay man and a lesbian), which is a restriction based on sexual orientation, ergo it's unconstitutional.
Or are you saying that Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas were wrongly decided?
quote:
Defining marriage as between the different sex does not discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation (although the California Supreme Court does think that it does)
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You claim to have read the opinion and yet you still persist with the idea that restricting marriage to only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants?
Prove to us you read the decision. What, specifically, did the in RE case say with regard to how to handle cases based upon race, sex, and sexual orientation? That is, during argument, plaintiffs tried to make a point (among others) that the laws against equal marriage were a form of discrimination based on sex, not sexual orientation.
What, precisely, did the California Supreme Court ruling say in response to that point? They mention a great number of cases specifically referring to the difference between "sex discrimination" and discrimination based upon "sexual orientation," the references going back 30 years.
quote:
so it is not unconstitutional in the same way that the racial restriction are.
So you're saying that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?
The law overturned in Lawrence v. Texas only criminalized non-penis/vagina sex when the participants were of the same sex. The Supreme Court overturned this law not as an example of discrimination based upon sex but rather as an example of discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided?
quote:
Now, I have read the California decision on same sex marriage.
Prove it. Quote me the relevant passage in the in RE case where they discuss how the law discriminated not on the basis of sex but rather on the basis of sexual orientation.
I'll even give you a hint: It's in the second half of the decision.
quote:
They concluded that according to their constitution gays have a right to same sex marriages.
And thus you show that you didn't read the decision at all. That is precisely what they did not conclude. There is a direct statement in the decision by the Court regarding the claim made by the lower court that what was being sought by the Plaintiffs was a right to "same-sex" marriage.
That was rejected. The Court directly stated that what was being found was not a right to "same-sex" marriage but rather a right to "marriage," just like what was already found in the Loving and Perez cases, and thus it cannot be abridged based upon the sexual orientation of the participants.
quote:
They can do that if they want too. It does, however, open up the law to polygamy and incestual marriages as being a constitutional right as well. But whatever.
Huh? How did that enter into it? How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy and incest while mixed-sex marriage does not?
Be specific. Perhaps you can do what Nemesis Juggernaut can't: Explain why it is the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of raping your infant son and his dog.
quote:
I still maintain that DOMA is not unconstitutional.
All the courts who have ever looked at the question have disagreed with you.
Are you saying Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas were wrongly decided? Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
There is no right to "interracial marriage" or "same-sex marriage." There is only a right to "marriage."
Fundamental rights, such as marriage, cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation.
So how could it possibly be constitutional to restrict marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what DOMA was specifically designed to do?
You did read the Congressional debate on DOMA, didn't you? You were given the names of specific people to look up. You've done your homework, haven't you?
quote:
If a state, or the federal gov., wants marriage to mean, for them, something different than "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice", then they are free to do so. In this case, marriage could mean the union of one man and one woman.
So Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution means nothing? If Nevada wanted to, they could simply declare all marriages performed anywhere by anyone to be null and void from the moment you step across the border and thus, a person who is "married" and thus subject to the legal restrictions of marriage with regard to financial responsibility (joint property and obligations to debt, for example) simply needs to go to Vegas, drain the accounts, and there's nothing anybody could do about it? The marriage license that was issued by Texas isn't any good? Nevada is allowed to simply ignore the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states?
That's your argument?
quote:
Each state can make their own decision.
So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? The Supreme Court should not have intervened in the laws of the state of Virginia and forced them to recognize the legitimacy of the marriage license that was issued by the District of Columbia?
"That DC chose to define it a different way doesn't mean that everyone has to define it that way," right? Virginia had every right to restrict marriage on the basis of the race of the participants and if DC wanted to go against the grain (over 70% of the population felt that interracial marriage was wrong at the time), then that's their problem. Why should Virginia be forced to live with DC's decision?
That's your argument?
quote:
Also, the argument that "marriage" as defined in 1000+ federal laws is defined as between one man and one woman, and for the reason of maintaining that definition to keep the laws themselves from being effectively altered, that marriage be kept as between one man and one woman is still sound.
So "separate but equal" is constitutional?
That's your argument?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2