Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

And once again, dixon pretends he just can't figure out the reason why gays and lesbians would like to marry one another. It's true that according to the law, the sexual orientation is immaterial, because courts cannot read minds. But when ALL same-sex marriages are between people of same-sex orientation, and everybody involves testifies to this, I guess you have to be as dishonest as dixon to pretend it's irrelevant.

 

Maybe he should ask his sister?

 

REALLY bizzarre interpretation of my statements

 

Prop 8 limits marriage to a man and a woman. It does not discriminate against gays. I will quote what Dixon said to elaborate on this arguement.

 

That was something you imagined in a delusion. The challenge was

But this has become pointless. If You people can convince yourself that "male... and... female", means a male and a male, a female and a female or a male and a female, I wont be able to convince you that marriages between two people of the same sex were prohibited everywhere in the US, from 1776 to 2004.
But a beautiful demonstration as to how truely deluded you must be in order to maintain your views.

 

Silly, the case didnt prohibit anything. The statute that dated from Minnesotas territorial days did that.

 

I know what his argument is, and I know for a fact the only thing Mormons wanted to accomplish with Pro 8 was to save gays from the eternal damnation of being marriage while gay.

 

Prop 8 was voted for by the citizens of California. Not that many Mormons in California. Why they wanted it enacted has little relevance to why California enacted prop 8

 

Actually it does discriminate against homosexuals- that is exactly what the Federal Court decided, and that the Appellate Court upheld, and that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to over-rule.

- - - Updated - - -

However the LDS poured money into the election campaign from out of state.

 

Prop 8 never mentions sexual orientation. It's possible for a homosexual to marry somebody of the opposite sex, for convenience reasons. The law does not discriminate against gays.

 

Actually it does discriminate against homosexuals- that is exactly what the Federal Court decided, and that the Appellate Court upheld, and that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to over-rule.

Judge Vaughn R. Walker's conclusion, page 135:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently ... prohibiting the official defendants [state of California] from applying or enforcing Proposition 8..."


On the judge's findings on why the state has an interest in fostering marriage, pages 67-71: [updated 3:52 p.m.]

34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents. ...

35. The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:

a. Facilitating governance and public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units....

b. Developing a realm of liberty, intimacy and free decision-making by spouses...

c. Creating stable households...

d. Legitimizing children ...

e. Assigning individuals to care for one another and thus limiting the public's liability to care for the vulnerable ...

f. Facilitating property ownership...

36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status. Marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs. ...

37. Marriage creates economic support obligations between consenting adults and for their dependents. ...

38. Marriage benefits both spouses by promoting physical and psychological health. Married individuals are less likely to engage in behaviors detrimental to health, like smoking or drinking heavily. Married individuals live longer on average than unmarried individuals....

39. Material benefits, legal protections and social support resulting from marriage can increase wealth and improve psychological well-being for married spouses....

40. The long-term nature of marriage allows spouses to specialize their labor and encourages spouses to increase household efficiency by dividing labor to increase productivity....

41 . The tangible and intangible benefits of marriage flow to a married couple’s children....

 

As far as I can tell, your statement is that there are no laws that prohibit gays from marrying, only laws that prevent them from marrying one another. But of course, the reason they wish to marry one another is because they are gay! If you can't figure that out, try reading SFJeff's quote from the court decision. If you STILL can't understand it, I recommend a course in remedial thinking.

 

Text of proposition 8 shows that claim to be demonstrably false.

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Marriage between two homosexuals of the opposite sex is not prohibited and marriage between two heterosexuals of the same sex would be prohibited. Doesn't single out gays.
He had to twist the facts to try and make the case fit within the reasoning of the Romer case.

Here's an example of legislation singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of privilege.

Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships .......

Prop 8 doesn't single out gays.

 

Like I said, REALLY bizzarre interpretation of my statements.

You read MY statement again.

"And there still are no laws that prohibit gays from marrying. Only laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Their sexual orientation is of no concern."

 

Yes, while continuing treating any other couple excluded from marriage DIFFERENTLY. Unequal, by design.

 

So. The Mormons from out of state still didnt get a vote. And besides, these motivations that Goldwater attributed to the Mormons, he made them up. They have absolutely nothing to do with the motivations of the Mormons. Geez you people are gullible.

 

How many times does this argument have to be refuted? Is that really all you've got?

In the case of interracial marriage bans, it was possible for a black man to marry somebody of the same race, just as a white man could marry someone of the same race. Therefore, no discrimination, right? No. The discrimination is irrefutably clear.

 

Let's read it together, OK?

Any law that prevents gays from marrying one another, is a law that prevents gays from marrying. Period. No ambiguity, no devious misinterpretation. No dishonesty. Come on now.

EXCEPT of course that only those whose orientation is toward the same sex, wish to marry those of the same sex. So their sexual orientation is not only "of concern", it is crucial, fundamental, unavoidable. Any law that limits marriage to a man and a woman, effectively prohibits gays from marrying. Period. PLEASE be honest. Only once, just to show you can do it.

 

No it didn't. There was no prohibition until that case.

 

No, Prop 8

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Not even a mention of sexual orientation

Virginias interracial marriage law

If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony

Discrimination on the basis of race. The discrimination is irrefutably clear, as opposed to invisible in the case of Prop 8

 

Prop 8 specifically discriminated against gays.

 

Sexual orientation had nothing to do with prop 8. It's possible for 2 heterosexuals of the same gender to marry each other (for tax benefits probably), and Prop 8 didn't allow that. Prop 8 also allowed gays to marry the opposite gender.

 

Prop 8 allowed a gay person to marry somebody of the opposite gender for convenience reasons.

 

Prop 8 specifically singled out gays.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman/red herring