That’s like saying something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has a bill like a duck, has feathers and markings like a duck and has webbed feet like a duck but this other finder of fact does not have to conclude we are looking at a duck.
With logic like that you can do anything you want. Why even have a trial? Just let the judge opine the way he/she wants and be done with it. :rolleyes:
Well, it’s a fact that nothing in written California law states that procreation is the purpose for the state’s recognition of marriage.
For fun add in any woman who has reached menopause is SOL if she wants to get married if procreation is the purpose for marriage.
no, you don’t. it’s not an equal protection problem that some 13 year olds are mentally and physically developed enough to drive a car, for example. it’s not a relevant counter to a finding of Rational Bases that those bases cannot exist in certain scenarios.
correct. the law doesn’t need to facially explain “here are the reasons we’re passing this law”. Rational review places the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate the impropriety of the law - the states don’t need to say nothin. Which is probably why the courts will start to supply a rational basis, almost in passing, in their opinion that sets out that the plaintiff has failed to establish their burden.
is that an important government interest?
You only have an Equal Protection problem if the level of scrutiny is above rational basis. That’s the problem with the law right now - officially courts only give rational basis review, but unofficially they sometimes give sexuality cases a higher level of scrutiny. As they should, but first some precedent needs to change.
i think you’re being deliberately difficult. The fact that an animal is a duck, the fact that LA is south of SF, is a far different type of fact than “Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage.”
you have a trial because that’s how it works - the parties either stipulate to the facts, or they try their best to convince a particular finder of fact (be it a jury or a judge, in a bench trial) that these are the facts.
let’s put it this way - findings of facts don’t have precedential value for subsequent cases (involving non-litigants). why do you think that is?
Then it’s now your job to explain the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple’s ability to capacity to start a family and a homosexual couple’s ability to start a family.
Which the plaintiff clearly accomplished.
In other words, you’re saying that judges are permitted to make up whatever purpose they want. If that’s not what you’r saying, then what is the process for reviewing whether the judge’s assigned purpose is correct or incorrect.
According to Bricker, it’s not a requirement that there be an important government interest. Any purpose will do. Not that procreation is any more important to the government than buttsecks.
Why move the discussion to domestic partnerships here? We can talk about that but I was quoting you saying one judge (finder of fact) deemed that marriage was not about procreation but another may look at the same set of evidence and conclude differently.
I am saying that is impossible for another finder of fact to do that without being willfully blind and immune to rules of logic and clear evidence to the contrary. The evidence is clear, California has never made marriage about procreation…that is as true a statement as LA being south of San Francisco is. If they can look at the evidence and deem that California in fact has made marriage about procreation then they can pretty much magic up any rationale they like out of whole cloth thus obviating the need for a trial…the facts do not matter to them.
Bricker was saying under rational basis the facts are unimportant (not trying to misrepresent you out of context Bricker…feel free to elaborate if this wrong). So we can say that marriage has never been about procreation. Doesn’t matter apparently and it doesn’t matter that, factually, same-sex couples can in fact procreate and that many hetero couples cannot.
All that is beside the point apparently. Facts are meaningless, the state says marriage is about procreation, state says same-sex couples can’t procreate, marriage is about procreation thus same-sex couples cannot marry. QED…end of discussion.
Again, why have a trial?
Do you have specific finding of fact from the decision that you take issue with?
no, it’s not. I will say it again - it is not a relevant counter to a finding of rational bases that those bases do not exist in a certain case.
take a discriminatory law: giving a 15% tax credit to those who have children versus those who don’t. Do you think it is now my burden to explain why this is not violative of the equal protection clause if you demonstrate that Bill Gates doesn’t need the tax break for his kids because he’s rich?
No, I’m saying that judges will probably fill-in a rational interest if the meanderings of the case dictate it. There’s no “correctness” or “incorrectness” about the “assigned purpose” (other than it being legally sufficient; it’s either a legitimate governmental interest or it’s not, as a matter of judicial opinion)
respectfully, bricker is wrong then if that’s really his conclusion. I doubt that it is
FYI, the correct word is “legitimate” not “important”. apologies
So then why did the Golden State pass laws creating the establishment of marriage?
I’m not taking issue with the ruling per se. I’m taking issue with the fact that it’s an unfair task to request that you write a polar opposite conclusion of law without being able to craft the findings of fact.
Let me give a very simple scenario. State X has contributory negligence (i.e. if the plaintiff in a car crash is even 1% responsible for his injuries, he can’t recover). The finding of fact is that Plaintiff A was 5% responsible for his injuries. The conclusion of law is that Plaintiff cannot recover. No one can arrive at an opposing conclusion of law based on the finding of fact. However, if your finding of fact is different…
The conclusions of law are massively influenced by the findings of fact and the way they are couched.
The test is that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. If a judge found that there was a legitimate government interest in encouraging anal sex, then that would be relevant in determining if a law related to encouraging anal sex based the rational basis test. However, it wouldn’t be relevant to determining whether this law passes that test.
So until someone passes a law that says, for instance “Only gay marriages are recognized in California”, your proposed scenario isn’t really relevant.
Marriage has almost always been an economic arrangement as far as the state is concerned (e.g. inheritance laws which will prefer a spouse to, say, your second cousin twice removed).
Continuing my response to Diogenes (two posts up):
In other words, finding a rational basis can only work in the law’s favor. The fact that the judge can “make up the purpose of marriage” (as you put it) when applying the rational basis test illustrates the fact that “rational basis” is not a very high bar for a law to overcome. That’s why we need such things as “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny”.
I disagree.
Why are polygamy and bigamy banned, then?
and, fwiw, Walker disagrees with you:
Its a fundamental right, both sides agreed with this.
so it’s your assertion that the State of California has to have marriage laws on its books? 
um, no.
(ugh, egregious misuse of you’re!)
Bricker, can you explain what purpose rational basis review serves? What would be a law that could possibly fail that test, if made up bullshit reasons are allowed under it?
That’s not analogous. You’re talking about individual excepions to a broader purpose. What you need to expalin is why there is any difference at all between infertile heterosexual coupls as a group, and same-sex couples as a group. What reason exists to disallow recognition of marriage to same-sex couples that does not exist equally for non-fertile or post menopausal heterosexual couples?
No, I’m saying that judges will probably fill-in a rational interest if the meanderings of the case dictate it. There’s no “correctness” or “incorrectness” about the “assigned purpose” (other than it being legally sufficient; it’s either a legitimate governmental interest or it’s not, as a matter of judicial opinion)
Post #176.
Who decides whether a judge’s assigned purpose is “legitimate?”