Why the logic in saying there is a "Right" to Gay marriage doesn't hold up

[CIAagent11]

Where those laws have been challanged, they haven't stood up. It's not about mob rule, it's about the rule of law. The law does not allow for discrimination based on gender. It's that simple.

It's exactly mob rule if pressure groups cant intimidate judges into putting their opinion into law.
If they do so, I will concede to having no argument. We will have lost democracy.
Until that happens, there is no right, so the vote on 8 counts.

 

[jgarden]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 15 (guaranteed equality rights)

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
**********************************************************
Rights under section 15 include racial equality and sexual equality. In its jurisprudence, it has also been a source of gay rights in Canada. These rights are guaranteed to "Every individual," that is, every natural person.

..... The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 had guaranteed the "right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law." Equal protection of the law is a right that has been guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution since 1868.

Section 1. 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 .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

The Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of the equality guarantees in Section 15 is designed to prevent the "violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political and social prejudices, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration." (Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada, [1999])

The Supreme Court of Canada has placed an emphasis on "substantive equality" rather than "formal equality."
Formal equality can overlook personal differences,
Substantive equality focuses on "the impact of the law on different groups of individual ..... requires that there be an equal impact on the person affected by the law."

 

[NotreDame]

I'm not depriving them of any liberty, that another group has.
Im depriving them of the liberty to force their minority opinion about this right on the majority.
Every gay male is free to marry a woman and every gay woman is free to marry a man.
There is no discrimination based on sexual preference.

Yes, you are depriving them of liberty, you are depriving them of the liberty to marry. Other groups have the liberty to marry but this group does not.

In addition, you need a history lesson as it pertains to rights in this country. Right exist to protect the minority from the majority! What you characterize as keeping a minority from forcing its opinion onto a majority can be appropriately characterized as a majority oppressing a minority! Yes, what else can we properly call your remark of, "I am depriving them of the liberty to force their minority opinion about this right onto the majority." We can translate this as, "Instead, what I am advocating is forcing the majority opinion about this right onto the minority!" This is precisely what you are doing here. You are forcing the majority opinion onto a minority. Can you justify this action? Can you justify a majority forcing its opinion onto a minority?

In addition, as I said in my prior post, there is discrimination on the basis of gender, and the Equal Protection Clause protects against certain kinds and types of gender discrimination. I repeat what I stated in my prior post below.

Same sex couples assert they are being discriminated against on the basis of "gender" and "gender" is a protected class under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. If a state discrminates on the basis of gender, then it must justify its laws under what is called an "intermediate level of scrutiny." Intermediate level of scrutiny requires the state to show the gender classification serves an important state interest and the classification is substantially related to serving the interest.

Here, the state is examining the gender of the people seeking to get married, and asserting on the basis of gender, whether someone can or cannot be married. Hence, laws prohibiting same sex couples from marrying are based on a classification of gender. Ergo, this classification must be justified under the standard announced above.

Of course this ignores the other Equal Protection argument under the 14th Amendment. Strict Scrutiny is applied to state laws which discriminate on the basis of a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, regardless of the gender of those involved, then the state is discriminating and in doing so burdening a fundamental right and under the Equal Protection Clause this means strict scrutiny is applied. Good luck surviving a strict scrutiny analysis.

 

[AirPo]

It's exactly mob rule if pressure groups cant intimidate judges into putting their opinion into law.
If they do so, I will concede to having no argument. We will have lost democracy.
Until that happens, there is no right, so the vote on 8 counts.

But that's exactly what prop 8 was.

But now it's being challanged under the rule of law.

 

[NotreDame]

CIAgent 11, are you referring to the U.S. Constitution, California Constitution, or both?

 

[CIAagent11]

I am starting to wonder if you even know what you are trying to say. Marriage is a legal contract. How can you ask which legal contracts "count as equal privilege to heterosexual marriage"? We are only talking about one contract here, so how can you start questioning now?

So you stating your opinion as fact so makes it true, okay.
It's so self-evident that marriage is not between a man and a woman, that you don't even need any reasoning why everybody else has been wrong about it for all these years.
You saying this legal contract between a man and a woman also being between a man and a man, makes it true. Just like that.

Also the last sentence is horrendous. Can you clarify?

No, unfortunately it is not. By the way, the above sentence is not grammatically correct either.

Quit making up insults about my grammar. Why would you even mention it if it isn't meant to convince? If it is meant to convince, it's an argument.
An argument about the opponent is an argumentum ad hominem.
Two fallacies at once. Red herring fallacy.

That would be ad hominem. Pointing out my Islamic faith makes me wrong is a personal attribute. Your poorly developed arguments are not personal attributes.

Doh! But concluding from my spelling to my personal attributes, and from there to me being wrong is not.
Red herring fallacy.

Yes, it very much does.

Red herring fallacy.

1. It does not matter.
2. It does not matter.
3. You just make stuff up.
4. It does not matter.
5. Red herring fallacy.

 

[CIAagent11]

The Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of the equality guarantees in Section 15 is designed to prevent the "violation of essential human dignity and freedom through the imposition of disadvantage, stereotyping, or political and social prejudices, and to promote a society in which all persons enjoy equal recognition at law as human beings or as members of Canadian society, equally capable and equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration." (Iacobucci J. in Law v. Canada, [1999])

The Supreme Court of Canada has placed an emphasis on "substantive equality" rather than "formal equality."
Formal equality can overlook personal differences,
Substantive equality focuses on "the impact of the law on different groups of individual ..... requires that there be an equal impact on the person affected by the law."

This is about overturning prop 8 in California.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, if this is about Proposition 8 in California, then you may have a viable argument. The constitution here would be the California Constitution and the California Constitution can be amended by the people to take away or add rights.

I am not entirely persuaded your argument was about proposition 8 because your initial post is entirely a 14th Amendment argument and I have sufficiently addressed your 14th Amendment claims.

 

[CIAagent11]

Yes, you are depriving them of liberty, you are depriving them of the liberty to marry. Other groups have the liberty to marry but this group does not.

No I'm not. Nobody is. Everybody has the right to marry.
I want to deprive them of the non-existing right of re-defining marriage as they wish.

"Instead, what I am advocating is forcing the majority opinion about this right onto the minority!"

I am advocating to force the majority opinion about this right onto the minority, because thats how the <staff edit> vote turned out.
The minority is not right, just for being the minority.
If opinions are equal, the majority vote cannot be overturned.

In addition, as I said in my prior post, there is discrimination on the basis of gender, and the Equal Protection Clause protects against certain kinds and types of gender discrimination. I repeat what I stated in my prior post below.

So everybody has the right to whatever he wants?

 

[CIAagent11]

Well, if this is about Proposition 8 in California, then you may have a viable argument. The constitution here would be the California Constitution and the California Constitution can be amended by the people to take away or add rights.

I am not entirely persuaded your argument was about proposition 8 because your initial post is entirely a 14th Amendment argument and I have sufficiently addressed your 14th Amendment claims.

I am in favor of every state deciding for itself.
States or countries where the majority wishes to have gay marriage should do so.
California does not.
It's not an option to go with democracy only as long as one likes the outcome.

 

[jgarden]

14th Amendment

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.

******************************************************************
One would have thought that a nation, that from its inception has recognized a "wall of separation" between church and state, would atill find itself legally bound by what constitutes a "church wedding."

There Canadian government addressed 2 distinct issues.
1. The state defintion of "marriage," based The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15) - the "union of 2 persons"
2. The church definition of "marriage" which is based on Biblical interpretation - the union of a man and a woman."

 

[CIAagent11]

******************************************************************
One would have thought that a nation, that from its inception has recognized a "wall of separation" between church and state, would atill find itself legally bound by what constitutes a "church wedding."

There Canadian government addressed 2 distinct issues.
1. The state defintion of "marriage," based The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15) - the "union of 2 persons"
2. The church definition of "marriage" which is based on Biblical interpretation - the union of a man and a woman."

Yes, yes, please. I'm not saying that gays should not have equal rights.
I'm saying that they cant pick and choose what those rights are.
A man not being allowed to marry a man has nothing to do with his sexual preference.

 

[King Nebuchadnezzah]

Yes, yes, please. I'm not saying that gays should not have equal rights.
I'm saying that they cant pick and choose what those rights are.
A man not being allowed to marry a man has nothing to do with his sexual preference.

Did you read what you wrote? How about we get gov't out of marriage PERIOD and get rid of all the tax deductions and benefits that discriminate against gays, and single folks. Had the not gov't stuck its intrusive head in religious affairs, this would not even be an issue.

Better yet, why should gays have to pay to subsized the chosen lifestyle of married heterosexual couples yet can't enjoy any of the benefits that goes along with have their money taken?

 

[jgarden]

This is about overturning prop 8 in California.

Why the logic in saying there is a "Right" to Gay marriage doesn't hold up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont think the logic in saying there is a "right" to Gay marriage holds up.
It doesn't even have anything to do with religion or it being immoral or not.

Short version: It's not your right under the constitution to get what you want.

Long version: Same sex marriage activists say, that because heterosexuals have the right to marry, gays should too, their version of it. Gays are simmilarly situated to heteros and should have the rights to equal privileges.
The 14th amendment protects gays against descrimination, wether it should, I will not comment on here, let's accept that for the sake of the argument.
That leads to gays having the right to equal privilege, which is fine. We should not discriminate against any group in a republic.
Gays do have the right to traditional marriage. Which is a right nobody wants to take from them.
The right they don't have is demanding something else, than what the simmilarly situated group, they demand to be equal to, gets.
So gays have (1) a right to traditional marriage.
And (2) a right to be with the person they love.
There is no basis for a right to connect those two into a right to same sex marriage.

Someone demanding same sex marriage instead of traditional marriage as an equal privilege is like me demanding the state to buy me a new car as part of my traditional marriage, because I declare that to be my right.
It's completely the same. Same sex marriage and getting a car both cost the state money. Both are demanding an alternative to what a simmilarly situated individual (heteros) wants as my equal privilege (marriage).
The only difference is, that nobody will take me seriously, because I don't have a screaming pressure group behind me.

**********************************************************
With all due respect, your thread is about "Why the logic in saying there is a "Right" to Gay marriage doesn't hold up."

You make no reference to Prop 8 until post 11 (page 2).

The Canadian example is relevant because it addresses the right of "gays" to a legally recognized wedding, but also allows churches the right to refuse to conduct or recognize "same sex" weddings.

 

[jgarden]

Yes, yes, please. I'm not saying that gays should not have equal rights.
I'm saying that they cant pick and choose what those rights are.
A man not being allowed to marry a man has nothing to do with his sexual preference.

You merely have 2 definitions of marriages - a state marriage and/or a church marriage.

France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Japan and Russia are examples of nations where it is actually necessary to be married by a government authority separately from any religious ceremony.

 

[CIAagent11]

Did you read what you wrote?

Yes. You make the assumption, that because we should grant equal rights to gays, these rights should include what they want.
It's falsely connecting two arguments into one.
(1) Should gays be descriminated against? No.
(2) Should gays have the right to define marriage as wat they want? No.

Would you say that being able to marry has anything to do with sexual preference?
It does not. Everyone is equal before the law.
One sexual preference happening to want something else than they have the right to, does not make it descrimination if they dont get it.

How about we get gov't out of marriage PERIOD and get rid of all the tax deductions and benefits that discriminate against gays, and single folks. Had the not gov't stuck its intrusive head in religious affairs, this would not even be an issue.

Better yet, why should gays have to pay to subsized the chosen lifestyle of married heterosexual couples yet can't enjoy any of the benefits that goes along with have their money taken?

Your opinion. Who are you to force it on those that voted otherwise?

 

[CIAagent11]

**********************************************************
With all due respect, your thread is about "Why the logic in saying there is a "Right" to Gay marriage doesn't hold up."

You make no reference to Prop 8 until post 11 (page 2).

Okay.
I make the argument that individual countries and american states should vote on what they want.
Those that are in favor, fine. Those that arn't should have the right to do so.
Democracy should not be ignored because one doesnt like the outcome.
This turning out in favor of gay marriage in some places, does not give anyone the right to take the right of those who voted against it in a few american states.

 

[CIAagent11]

With all due respect,

With respect... You are the first one who says something like that.
In this very thread I have by implication been called stupid, bigoted, simple-minded, narrow-minded, and some guy keep making comments about my commas.
How does the gay marriage crowd even pretend to have the moral high ground when being this unfair for bringing up any question?
I thought the most horrible thing you can do to an bad idea, is let someone speak it out.

 

[AirPo]

Yes. You make the assumption, that because we should grant equal rights to gays, these rights should include what they want.
It's falsely connecting two arguments into one.
(1) Should gays be descriminated against? No.
(2) Should gays have the right to define marriage as wat they want? No.

Would you say that being able to marry has anything to do with sexual preference?
It does not. Everyone is equal before the law.
One sexual preference happening to want something else than they have the right to, does not make it descrimination if they dont get it.



Your opinion. Who are you to force it on those that voted otherwise?

Actually it's the anti gay marriage folks who are trying to redefine marriage. The state definatoin that is.

 

[jgarden]

Okay.
I make the argument that individual countries and american states should vote on what they want.
This turning out in favor of gay marriage in some places, does not give Californians the right to take the right of those who voted against it in a few american states.

**********************************************************

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enforcement of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90&#37; of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

The Canadian government tried that strategy, but when provincial supreme court decisions in 8 of 10 provinces and 1 of 3 territories (90% of the nation's population) legalized same-sex marriage, it was forced to act.

It is unrealistic to have 50 different state definitions of what constitutes a legally recognized "marriage" in America.