Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment.
Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM
DOMA (and homosexual marriage) is not an equal protections issue, no matter how many people try to claim it is. A hetrosexual and a homosexual have the exact same marriage privledge (it is not a "right" anyways). That is the definition of equal rights.
Just like a building with stairs is equally accessible to the handicapped and the able-bodied, because both of them can choose to walk up the stairs.
Homosexuals are not physically incapable of heterosexual marriage, after all. It denies their liberty of conscience, and offers few benefits in exchange for great discomfort and anxiety, but they are as legally and physically capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex as I am of sticking my hand in a blender. The issue is that it is patently discriminatory to say some consenting adults but not others may enter into a valid legal contract, that the same legal agreement can be valid OR invalid solely on the basis of sex.
I note once again that a better analogy would be to saying, "gun bans are not discriminatory because they affect owners and non-owners equally."" As I said to Burr, justifying a law by saying those unaffected by it are equally affects is nonsense. It continues to fascinate me how those on opposite sides of the gay marriage issue will quickly and deftly swap rationales on guns. BOTH sides simultaneously and totally flip-flopping is an amazing testament to cognitive dissonance. 2' />
Of course marriage is a right. It confers socioeconomic benefits and civil acceptance on the union of a couple.
That does not make it a right; the need for ancillary laws defining marriage privileges and protections demonstrates how little standing it has as an inalienable right. A drivers license confers socioeconomic benefits and civil acceptance, too, but that gives no one a RIGHT to one. However, the Equal Protection Clause requires all state laws equally apply to everyone under their jurisdiction, whether or not those laws pertain to rights. The critical RIGHT here is to equal protection under the law, not marriage; a state arbitrarily (i.e. without cause) granting some people drivers licenses but not others would violate the Equal Protection Clause every bit as much, even though there is no constitutional right to a drivers license. US law does not allow declaring competent adults second class citizens.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 19/10/2012 at 04:22:00 PM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
- 902 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
- 522 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
- 570 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
- 634 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
- 647 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
- 228 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
- 583 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
- 581 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
- 470 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
- 577 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
- 628 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
- 666 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
- 251 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
- 715 Views
Not really
19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
- 637 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument.
19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM
- 589 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment.
19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM
- 518 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
- 548 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
- 257 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
- 248 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
- 621 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
- 628 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
- 533 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
- 262 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
- 243 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
- 230 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
- 243 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
- 552 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
- 513 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
- 589 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
- 672 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
- 252 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
- 506 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
- 481 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
- 502 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
- 653 Views
It was only a matter of time.
19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
- 557 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
- 715 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
- 626 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
- 597 Views
There is no right being denied...
19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
- 559 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
- 619 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
- 685 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
- 512 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
- 572 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
- 463 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
- 583 Views