Got any photos of a rabbit to go with that? Fucking idiot. :rolleyes:
I love it when people starting flinging around legal theories that they don’t actually understand. The argument about gay marriage isn’t about “disparate impact.” Here’s a cite briefly explaining what that is.
It’s even a stretch to claim that prohibitting gay marriage is gender discrimination. (The linguistically correct term is actually “sex discrimination” but I’ve given up on that particular crusade.) Anyway, the real issue is whether sexual preference is a protected class. Trying to back door it as gender discrimination isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.
So get the issue out there and deal with it squarely. The real argument ought to be 1) Being married is a Good Thing for people to be. 2) Gays are people ergo, 3) Being married is a Good Thing for gays to be. The combination of self-righteous posturing and bogus argument causes serious eye-rolling in the 60%+ of the great unwashed who currently oppose gay marriage. If everyone keeps barreling down this track, the U.S. is going to end up with gay version of Plessy v. Furguson that’ll slam the door for fifty years or more.
It may not technically fit the denotative definition of “disparate impact” but if it walks like a duck and quacks, it’s a duck.
And pray, tell, how is it such a “stretch” to claim that authorities are engaging in gender discrimination by prohibiting a man from marrying a man while permitting him to marry a woman? Again, quack, quack.
It just shows that the mentally challenged can succeed. And keep practicing, maybe one day they’ll let you in a courthouse.
If you don’t mind, I’ll change this up a bit:
- Being married is a Good Thing™
1a) The government acknowledges this, and supports significant financial and societal benefits to married people. - Gays are people and have a right to benefit from governmental programs just as Straights do.
2a) Allowing Gays to benefit from marriage does not infringe on the rights of Straight citizens in any way, shape, or form. - Ergo, gays should not be barred from enjoying the substantial benefits of marriage
nisobar: this method of legal argument may be viscerally satisfying, but what’s your goal? As both Truth Seeker and schplebordnik have correctly explained, disparate impact isn’t a cognizeable theory when dealing with marriage laws. There is no case law whatsoever in support of your “Quacks like a duck” theory.
On the other hand (although I don’t agree with the approach) there is some strong case law using the theory of substantive due process, and some slightly weaker case law using equal protection as a basis for analysis.
Do you believe that you have discovered a novel legal approach to the issue, and, if it only were heard by a court somewhere, it would be instantly adopted? Or are you merely saying, “I wish the law were this way instead of that way!”
- Rick
It seemed to convince the Hawaii supreme court…
Oh, and as for Cecil’s undated and outdated column, he clearly states that he is discussing only monkeys, not all of the animal kingdom.
Get over it.
For what it’s worth I agree with you. Female speaking here.
Men shouldn’t be forced to have children anymore then men do. Stupidest thing I ever heard, “well he shouldn’t have had sex then”. Isn’t that exactly the kind of mentality we’re trying to get away from?
This would be hard to enforce, I acknowledge. “Your honor, he wanted the baby.” “No I didn’t. I never did.”
Any ideas how?
Given that there’s a million threads going around about this subject, I don’t want to start a new one; I’ll just use this one to ask the present lawyers a question I have about the San Francisco case.
Two groups have sued SF to stop the issuance of gay marriage licenses. My question is, why do these groups have standing in this case?
Daniel
Ah, I see now that nisosbar was pitting those damn fuckheads. :rolleyes:
Go to hell. Where did he state that he was pitting Fundamentalist Christians (in the OP), O wise one?
For the same reason gay people are scrambling to get the licenses.
Marriage is a public, not private, act. If it were solely a private act, there would be no license, no legal case, and no aggrieved party.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
With all due respect, obviously.
I’m interested in hearing a legal opinion on the subject. Just as obviously, they DO have standing; I just don’t understand why.
Daniel
IANAL, but my understanding is that the plaintiffs are claiming to have standing as citizens of the state of California. They are claiming that the issuance of the licenses does them harm of some sort. I haven’t read the filings (although I’d like to except my blood pressure is already high enough on this issue) so my statement is gleaned from the various news reports.
- No problem. As long as they’re straight they can legally marry, whether they want to have sex or not. No discrimination.
- Again, no discrimination. They may not find a person who wishes to marry them, but if they do, and are straight, they can do it.
- Which differs from “marriage” in what way? There is no legal requirement to have sex or abstain in a marriage and there are no legal barriers to marriage based on physical disability or relative level of interest in sex.
There is however a barrier to marriage based on the gender of one’s chosen mate. That’s discrimination.
I prefer the much more important American tradition of equality.
I guess my question is, how are they claiming that this does them any harm? On its face, such a claim seems specious; the fact that they’ve gotten as far in court as they have suggests there must be at least some plausible merit to their claim. But for the life of me I can’t figure out what it is.
Daniel
But there are other barriers to marriage, as I said above. Not all of them are legal. The civil union benefit could be used by any of these people to constitute a household.
What about an elderly brother and sister who want to live together and have hospital visitation rights? They’re certainly not allowed to get married, and certainly won’t want that.
And, as I stated in another thread, a marriage does connotate a sexual relationship. If it didn’t, grounds for divorce like adultery, impotence and pregnancy by another man at the time of the marriage would be meaningless.
Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
There have been multiple filings and none of them appear to be online. So I don’t know what the exact assertion of harm is.
Try this:
A woman has a baby, the man wants it, financial responsbility to both.
A woman has a baby, the man doesn’t want it, financial responsibility to both
A woman doesn’t want the baby, the man doesn’t want the baby. Abortion
A woman doesn’t want the baby, the man does want the baby. Abortion.
Proposal:
If a woman, who doesn’t want her child, is capable of delivering with undue physical harm to herself (health of the mother clause) and the man wants the child, he should be able to pay for the costs of pregnancy and birth and then be able to adopt his child as a single parent.
“Mental Health” of the woman doesn’t count (ie: ridicule for out-of-wedlock pregnancy - which isn’t much a ridicule thing these days anyway).
I’ve never understood why a man is financially responsible for his child (regardless of his desire for it) because it is his by biology but has no rights toward that same child.
For the record, so this isn’t a complete hijack of the OP, I support Gay marriage on principle. Marriage, to the Feds, should be nothing more than a tax status. However, if my Christian church wants to refuse to marry same-sex couples, then I support that too.
The holy sacrement of marriage should be different than the federal definition of marriage. Perhaps all marriages, from a government point of view, should simply be called “Civil Unions” to make a distinction between the religious definition and the secular definition.