Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Au Contraire!

The defense might have said something to that effect in their preamble but when pressed to evaluate the relevance, this was the net effect of that position:

At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage adversely affects that interest. Doc #228 at 21. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," id, but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor. my answer is: I don't know. I don't know."


I have read the case as it happens and while they may have made noises about the procreation argument (which is all you have left and which I will technically concede was an "argument made at the trial"), when pressed on the relevance of the argument, they rapidly conceded that there was no proof that there was any. They gave it up on the spot. If they were that convinced it was a, nay the, most valid argument available do you think they would have so easily acquiesced given its potential as the saviour of their case?

Gays getting married won't stop fertile straights from having children (in or out of wedlock), neither will known and identically situated infertile straights have any effect on the birth rate.

 

Ah! so you did read it, but thought you would lie about it to make your point.

 

In both the Prop 8 and DOMA cases the government vigorously defended the law and lost. Not only were the two respective District Courts convinced that a violation of the 14th Amendment was clearly evident in both cases the California Attorney General's and US Attorney General's offices were also convinced that the evidence was so overwhelming that there were no grounds for appeal. An appeal logically requires grounds for the appeal and valid grounds for appeal simply don't exist related to either case.

Of note the judge in the DOMA case was not a homosexual and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a challenge based upon the sexual orientation of Judge Walker and rejected it. It is a failed argument just as the "potential to procreate" argument has been tossed out by the Courts as being irrelevant as it is not a justification for violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Same-sex marriage does not infringe upon the Rights of opposite-sex marriage and there are no justifications for discrimination against same-sex couples under the law. That is what the Courts have determined after all of the arguments have been presented. In the appeals of both Prop 8 and DOMA there are no arguments that haven't already been presented to support these discriminatory laws that haven't already been presented and rejected in the initial decisions. The decisions are going to stand all the way to the Supreme Court and the DOMA laws, whether at the State or Federal level, are going to be ruled unconstitutional. There are no grounds for these laws that can be rationalized as grounds for the well documented discrimination they create.

 

You dont have a clue as to what you babble on about. Just make the (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along.



Attorney General Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit, saying that Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment and should be struck down.[9][21] Governor Schwarzenegger took a more neutral path,[19] saying that he supported the lawsuit because the Proposition 8 conflict asks "important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination". None of the state officials named in the suit sought to defend the law in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger

 

I stand corrected and kudo's to then Attorney General Brown as obviously he was correct in his determination that Prop 8 was unconstitutional which was confirmed when the case was heard in the 9th District Court. Why should the government spend money to defend a state constitutional amendment passed by ignorant and bigoted California voters that clearly violates the 14th Amendment? It would have been a waste of the taxpayers money.

 

Just making the (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along. The 9th circuit did no such thing.

 

Yep, nowadays it is easier to defend special rights, then rights of people.
No wonder all Western world is in the economic crisis. People who are inherently stupid rules.

 

Homosexual marriage isn't destroying society (Western or otherwise). The right of homosexual people to marry one another, ought to be defended as any other.

Greed is what we will find (historically speaking) to be at or near the center of the "economic crisis" we are all witnessing today. It is just a matter of time, before greed is properly highlighted as the poison it is.

 

Stupidity or dishonesty of rulers as well as their followers plays a major role.
Conceptually, gay marriage is a complete nonsense.
Of course it can exist in the society, but only under different name (e.g. as part of welfare for homosexual couples) but in no way it can be equalized with marriage.
In free society any license and regulation have to have some legitimate purpose.
For ten thousands of years, marriage had one and only one identifiable purpose. The purpose was to provide responsible parents for future citizens.
I am not sure what has happened with people that they have completely lost their mind so they are not capable to understand obvious.

 

Except that the people do not have the "right" to deny a group of people basic rights (basic because they are geared towards 97% of the population). The Supreme Court has already established in two cases that provisions of the 14th Amendment (and arguably much higher scrutiny) apply to gay people.(*)

 

Supreme court did not establish that marriage applies to gay people.
SCOTUS has established that your claim has no merit.

 

scotus established marriage is a basic civil right. civil rights can't be denied based on race, religion, or GENDER.

 

Bar the "presumption of paternity" show me a provision of marriage law that can't apply to ANY two people.

Faulty logic because it DOES exist under that name in 6 US state, DC, and about 10 countries worldwide. It is as real as any other law - and as the law is purely a human construct (as well as marriage) there's nothing invalid about it.

The purpose of it is to allow freedom in the only practical way possible. Calling something which contains the EXACT same provisions something else (so as not to offend other's egos) is wrong and obviously amounts to "separate but equal" which is unconstitutional. You have to call a spade a spade - anything else is silly. There NO demonstratable reason to call marriage between same-sex couples anything but that. It's just a name as far as your side is concerned - yet the implications of denying such equality are significant.

Kids have parents regardless. I don't follow your logic. And besides that to claim that this is the ONLY identifiable purpose of legal marriage is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. If procreational ability had EVER been (or more accurately still was) a requirement of marriage in US law you'd have had a strong argument indeed - and in fact the entire push for SSM would have been significantly more tricky to accomplish. But other than extrapolation of what you assume marriage has historically meant, the reality is that you do not have a solid legal standing.

???

You could copy and paste that comment and make people believe its from the opposition side of any endeavour for equality, from women's suffrage to the civil rights movement.

I just can't comprehend how you would think people have gone insane over 'allowing' gay people to call their legal union which is identical to marriage - a marriage. I think it's you who has completely lost perspective.

 

No but they have established in two cases that the 14th Anendment's due process clause applies specifically to gay people. Even Scalia said in his dissent of Lawrence V. Texas that it potentially sets the stage for striking down the bans on SSM.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

 

Marriage between a man and a woman is a Constitutional right,because

Not marriage and butt sex with your boyfriend.

 

Yet not all heterosexual couples can procreate, so it is overreach and not congruent with the idea of "equal protection" based on the argument put forward.

 

Your silly logic has been addressed repeatedly by the courts.

 

Actually "butt sex with your boyfriend" is a Constitutionally protected Right under the 14th Amendment based upon the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

In the 6-3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas where he stated,

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/6/26/110004.shtml

So even in their dissent the three Supreme Court Justices most likely to opposed declaring DOMA (and mini-DOMA) laws unconsitutional they acknowledged that the laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were already on shaky ground almost 10 years ago when Lawrence v. Texas was decided. With the clear cases of adverse discrimination established related to California Prop 8 and DOMA it is hard to believe that these same Justices will be able to rationalize how the violation of equal protection under the law of same sex couples is not a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I actually anticipate a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court that DOMA and the mini-DOMA's in the states are unconsitutional. The evidence of unequal treatment under the law is simply too overwhelming to ignore by any Justice on the Supreme Court.

 

It's not at all silly and clearly both rulings were dismissive of the reality. I've already shared my thoughts on those.

 

Dont be silly. 14th amendment applies to all citizens.

 

Yet those who can't or won't procreate marry everyday.

Sorry, your argument on procreation is still bunk.

 

But you know possibly as well as I do that a higher level of scrutiny has been applied by the Supreme Court in both cases than what due process normally entails.

And if gender can apply as has already been established by SCOTUS, then the argument that marriage discriminates by gender/sexuality may easily stand.

 

Your silly logic has been addressed repeatedly by the courts.


Quote:
In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

Quote:
Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

 

Nice, doesn't really make much difference.

Over inclusiveness is fine. Guess gays should be able to marry.

Look at that, there is no reason a couple should have to prove the ability or willingness to procreate. You just proved that nicely for me. So homosexuals need neither prove ability nor willingness to procreate.

You keep destroying your own argument.

Keep up the good work.

 

Youve been arguing for a month that marriage limited to heterosexuals is unconstitutional because its over inclusive, including sterile couples that cant procreate.

You evidently dont yet comprehend my and the courts arguments. What youve quoted is Baker v Nelson. Supreme court precedent upholding the constitutionality of limiting marriage to a man and a woman, and youve interpreted it as deciding precisely the opposite of what they did.