# Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/121 "2011-06-16T14:34:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a retarded comparison. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation or an innate characteristic. No one is discriminated against by polygamy bans. “Polygamists” are not a class. Of course, this is incorrect. Polygamists are a class. They are not a _protected_ class for the purposes of Equal Protection analysis. > [@](#): > > You don’t understand the 4th Amendment issue. You possibly mean the Fourteenth Amendment. > [@](#): > > In order to show unequal protection, you have to show that one group is being treated differently than another group. No such distinction exists with polygamy since there is no class of “polygamists.” Completely incorrect. Polygamists are a class. But since they are not a protected class, unequal treatment is constitutional as long as there is a rational basis for the distinction. (United States v. Carolene Products Co.) Under current caselaw, restrictions involving polygamy are, as you suspect, perfectly justifiable under the rational basis test. ETA: mod note now noted. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/122 "2011-06-16T14:38:52Z")
That’s a good stopping pont for the polygamy hijack. Please drop that tangential discussion or take it to another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/123 "2011-06-16T15:06:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, this is incorrect. Polygamists are a class. Incorrect. They are not a class. By definition, polygamists are people who are married to more than one person at the same time. Since this is not legl in the US, then polygamists don’t exist in the US at all, protcted or not. Every citizen of the US is a non-polygamist. There are no subclasses of non-poylgamists being discriminated against. > [@](#): > > They are not a _protected_ class for the purposes of Equal Protection analysis. They don’t exist at all, and it’s not necessary for a class to be stipulated as “protected” to find that they are not getting equal _[iprotection_ > [@](#): > > You possibly mean the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course. It was a typo. I have made the 14th Amendment argument many times on this board and previously in this thread. I know what number it is. > [@](#): > > Completely incorrect. Polygamists are a class. Nope. Polygamists don’t exist in the US. We are a nation of 100% non-polygamists. Laws against polygamy do not draw distinctions between sub-classes of non-polygamists, so there isn’t any discrimation. No class of “polygamists” exists in the US, because polygamy does not exist in the US. ETA Sorry. Didn’t see the mod note. I’ll stop now. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/124 "2011-06-16T16:01:55Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > YogSosoth, your demeaning post does nothing to bolster your claim. As it stands, Walker’s ruling is _not_ the law of the land, nor is it immune from critique. Nor is Walker himself immune. **Dio** and others wanted to conflate the constitutionality of same sex marriage with recusing one’s self, but whatever. The only reason you consider it demeaning is due to your preconceived notions. If you are coming from an objective standpoint, or a factual one, you’d realize that your argumentation of Walker’s decision is from the point of view of someone who doesn’t understand how the law works. As its been explained before, and I’ll simplify my language a bit to re-explain it to you: its better (legally and morally) to let Walker decide on the issue as a gay man than it is to allow challenges to everyone who may be affected by the ruling > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Walker’s ruling (and Wane’s) both derive from legal precedent. What posters in this thread have done is try to address that precedent. If you can’t, then scoot. It has been addressed. The facts are not on your side > [@CitizenPained](#): > > No, I don’t think you understand that some people feel that religion is a mental affliction (like **Dio** ) and some find religion to be as natural as a pull as, say, breathing. I understand it perfect. Those people, and you, are wrong and you refuse to admit it > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Except that one’s sexual orientation is not mundane, and it it were such, then I’m going to form a PAC for the Protection of the Rights of Short Blonds Everywhere. Again, a misunderstanding of my statement on your part. You mistook the target of what I called mundane and switched it for your own benefit. Please re-read what I wrote > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Cite? Your post #89 > [@CitizenPained](#): > > So should we only allow people who are _really truly gay_ to partake in same sex marriages? Is there some kind of litmus test? No, that’s the point. Everyone should be able to marry who they want in terms of gender. > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Can I get married to my best friend if I want her health care benefits? :dubious: (Comedy in cinema aside.) Yes you can. In fact, you can marry someone for a green card, for their money, for their status, for fame, for children, for love, for hate, etc. Nobody has the right to question why you want to get married to a particular person, that is between the two of you > [@CitizenPained](#): > > Because seriously, extending marriage ‘benefits’ to everyone starts to get problematic. Let’s drop this marriage shit all together and live in a land of contracts and business agreements instead. There is nothing to be said for the ‘sanctity’ of marriage, but there is something to be said for its benefit. I question why you put the word ‘benefits’ in quotation marks. Do you not know of the many benefits of marriage? There are hundreds, if not thousands of things, big and little, that you get when you are married. Among the many, a few big ones like hospital visits, inheritance, tax breaks, power of attorney, and spousal confidentiality stand out. These are the things denied to gay couples for years. Why don’t you drop your shit about pretending like this isn’t about simple dislike of gays and violations of your status quo? “Sanctity of marriage” is a catchphrase. It is what you make of it. And if your marriage is so pathetic that a couple of same gendered strangers marrying harms it, then you’re the one that needs to reevaluation your claims, not them. If there is a sanctity of marriage, divorce hurts it a hell of a lot more than gay marriage. Go ban that first before you take on gays because no matter what you do, quoting Gavin Newsom, whether you like it or not, it’s coming. It will be legal in our lifetime ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/125 "2011-06-16T16:15:30Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Yes you can. In fact, you can marry someone for a green card, for their money, for their status, for fame, for children, for love, for hate, etc. Nobody has the right to question why you want to get married to a particular person, that is between the two of you The gist of what you’re saying is right here, but you may want to rephrase two points here. You can question anyone’s marriage for any reason you like, of course, and lots of people do just that. However those opinions don’t carry any legal weight. And from what I understand, green card marriages are illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/126 "2011-06-16T16:24:39Z")
Green card marriages per se are not illegal. However, USCIS may determine that the marriage should not be taken into account for a grant of permanent residency. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/127 "2011-06-16T16:43:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? > There were no laws that stopped black people from getting married, just stopping them from from marrying white people. More to the point, in the Jim Crow South there were no laws preventing black people from riding the bus, going to school, drinking from water fountains, or going to lunch counters. They just weren’t allowed to choose which ones they went to. I think it would be fairly easy to argue that choosing who you get to marry is a more vital right than choosing which seat on the bus you get to sit in - not that we can’t have both rights. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/128 "2011-06-16T18:30:57Z")
> [@gatorslap](#): > > Even if the US Supreme Court does hear the issue of standing, and decide to grant standing to the Prop 8 supporters, the actual case still goes back to the 9th Circuit to rule on the merits, followed by an appeal to the US Supreme Court. I’m sure you knew that, just clarifying. Yes, thank you for the clarification. I skipped over that part. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/129 "2011-06-16T19:12:35Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > The only reason you consider it demeaning is due to your preconceived notions. If you are coming from an objective standpoint, or a factual one, you’d realize that your argumentation of Walker’s decision is from the point of view of someone who doesn’t understand how the law works. As its been explained before, and I’ll simplify my language a bit to re-explain it to you: its better (legally and morally) to let Walker decide on the issue as a gay man than it is to allow challenges to everyone who may be affected by the ruling > > It has been addressed. The facts are not on your side > > I understand it perfect. Those people, and you, are wrong and you refuse to admit it > > Again, a misunderstanding of my statement on your part. You mistook the target of what I called mundane and switched it for your own benefit. Please re-read what I wrote > > Your post #89 > > No, that’s the point. Everyone should be able to marry who they want in terms of gender. > > Yes you can. In fact, you can marry someone for a green card, for their money, for their status, for fame, for children, for love, for hate, etc. Nobody has the right to question why you want to get married to a particular person, that is between the two of you > > I question why you put the word ‘benefits’ in quotation marks. Do you not know of the many benefits of marriage? There are hundreds, if not thousands of things, big and little, that you get when you are married. Among the many, a few big ones like hospital visits, inheritance, tax breaks, power of attorney, and spousal confidentiality stand out. These are the things denied to gay couples for years. Why don’t you drop your shit about pretending like this isn’t about simple dislike of gays and violations of your status quo? > > “Sanctity of marriage” is a catchphrase. It is what you make of it. And if your marriage is so pathetic that a couple of same gendered strangers marrying harms it, then you’re the one that needs to reevaluation your claims, not them. If there is a sanctity of marriage, divorce hurts it a hell of a lot more than gay marriage. Go ban that first before you take on gays because no matter what you do, quoting Gavin Newsom, whether you like it or not, it’s coming. It will be legal in our lifetime **YoGosoth,** you know I’m not arguing against same-sex marriage. At least I hope you know so, since I’ve been posting here for the last several pages and have stated it many times. So why do you try to discredit me by labeling me homophobic? Can you just not reason any other way? Apparently. edit: The government _does_ discriminate against single people or unmarried couples. I can’t imagine you’d argue otherwise, given the points you just stated. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/130 "2011-06-16T19:57:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? Are you serious? You want me to cite that humans are born to reproduce? That it’s an innate and natural characteristic, one so strong that we have to regulate how it’s done? You have a penis, right? And a wife and a daughter? Presumably they spend hours in front of the mirror before special occasions, _preening_ themselves for the opposite sex? And you really think that this trait is designed to limit someone to only one member of the opposite sex? You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just _is_. But the Western world has tried to protect itself from innate biological characteristics for a long time so that we can be the ‘perfect’ human society. We reject things that aren’t like ‘us’: homosexuality (thankfully that’s changing), pre-tech cultures, polygamy, other religions, other forms of law, and so forth. > [@](#): > > There were no laws that stopped black people from getting married, just stopping them from from marrying white people. So? > [@](#): > > This is a retarded comparison. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation or an innate characteristic. No one is discriminated against by polygamy bans. “Polygamists” are not a class. > > If you lack the maturity to sustain a committed relationship, that doesn’t mean you have some kind of innate orientation towards polygamy. I don’t think that recognizing that men and women are not meant for lifelong relationships is in any way immature. But, being **Dio** , you’d like to make it personal. OK. Do you have anything else to stand on? Do you want to maybe [contribute to the debate of monogamy](http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous-0297/) or do you want to fling insults? For militant atheist, you sure do have a thing for small-minded morals. > [@](#): > > You don’t understand the 4th Amendment issue. In order to show unequal protection, you have to show that one group is being treated differently than another group. No such distinction exists with polygamy since there is no class of “polygamists.” Actually, _you_ lack the…well… **I** understand the 4th Amendment just fine. But if you mean 14th, well, [Scalia has something to say about that](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html). (Scalia is in no way my legal hero. But you have to consider that it is not you or I who make and rule on law here.) As a married person, you are a class. Consider your health insurance benefits, your leave of absence benefits, your car insurance premiums, loans, and tax breaks. Saying that _polygamists_ don’t exist is like saying that married gay people in South Dakota don’t exist and are therefore not a protected class. This isn’t an argument about the merits of polygamy, but you can’t fly off the handle on me and not expect some kind of response. \*\* My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. \*\*It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies _and_ a daddy? Men marry women and have mistresses on the side all the time. [Half](http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/13684544/Percentage_of_married_couples_who_cheat) of married couples have a cheater. **Marley** , I am not trying to derail the thread. The thread has been derailed enough as we’re now talking about marriage and not the original Q. But if we’re talking about marriage, it’s only fair to talk about the reasoning behind it - and the reasoning behind legislating it. The same-sex marriage debate forces us to reexamine our views on marriage. Arguments for same sex marriage have been: [ol] [li]You can’t punish someone for what is biologically natural (to them)[/li][li]Married couples get rights that non married couples don’t[/li][li]Gay people will have sex anyway, and legalizing same sex marriage discourages promiscuity (resulting in a decline of STDs and AIDS)[/li][li]Children that are raised by these unions need protection[/li][li]It doesn’t hurt anyone else’s marriage[/li][li]It’s unconstitutional to outlaw it[/li][li]Denying them is a violation of religious freedom[/li][li]Financial benefits[/li][li]Legal protections[/li][/ol] 😉 Polygamy and its related forms is practiced all over the world - including the U.S. Even Israel turns a blind eye to it. If it were so unnatural, it wouldn’t be all over the world in unrelated societies that had nothing to do with each other before meeting. Polygamous marriages existed on US soil before white people ever stepped foot on it. You want to talk about what is natural and how it is wrong for the government to interfere? Well, open up your mind a little. _Jeez_. I’m not making a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Stop freaking out. You’re assuming that something is inherently wrong with group or multiple marriage partners. You sound like a homophobe, actually, what with your ‘immoral’ and ‘unnatural’ arguments. :dubious: _Why_ should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again? For all the reasons I listed? Well, I am, but stop thinking that gays are such a protected class that they become a _special_ class. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/131 "2011-06-16T20:20:07Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > **YoGosoth,** you know I’m not arguing against same-sex marriage. At least I hope you know so, since I’ve been posting here for the last several pages and have stated it many times. So why do you try to discredit me by labeling me homophobic? Can you just not reason any other way? Apparently. > > edit: The government _does_ discriminate against single people or unmarried couples. I can’t imagine you’d argue otherwise, given the points you just stated. The government discriminates against many groups for many reasons. 16 year olds can’t vote and 20 year olds can’t buy beer. You can’t run for Senate in California if you live in Kansas. Priests can’t be compelled to testify about confessions, but bartenders can. **Bricker** or one of the other lawyers can explain it better, but there are several different standards the court uses to determine if discrimination is allowed. For example, racial discrimination, because of the history involved, falls under [strict scrutiny](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny). A law or policy can’t even look like it might be racially motivated without extremely compelling reasoning and must be as narrow and specific as possible. Gender discrimination falls further down spectrum with [intermediate scrutiny](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny). You need to show good cause and that means are related to that cause, but not that it is as narrow and specific as possible. Unprotected classes fall under [rational basis](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis). For this all you have to do is show that the law is rationally related to some legitimate interest. Rational basis is the level that Judge Walker used to reject Prop 8. I don’t want to bring up the polygamy thing again, but a rational basis for limiting marriage to one person is that adding multiple parties increases the complexity of marriage laws (divorce, inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin). That argument does not work for SSM. In fact the only way it really practically impacts governments is that they may have to change some pronouns on forms. Separate thought: I am the only one that finds this challenge to Walker ironic? The argument is that being gay and potentially wanting to marry at some point makes him more biased than a straight person either in a marriage or potentially wanting to marry. But, by that logic no non-gay person has enough interest in the case to have standing. Second separate thought: I wonder if the USSC would ever accept a case like this without standing. I am thinking of the way they accepted Roe v. Wade. Normally the Court will not hear a case if the outcome is no longer directly relevant (in this case it was too late for McCorvey to get an abortion by the time the appeal reached them), but the court decided to hear the case anyway since that would almost always be the case with an abortion case. Could they do something similar with standing? I don’t think they would need to since other states will defend their laws/amendments and I don’t think anyone would say a gay couple wanting to marry would not have standing. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/132 "2011-06-16T20:23:17Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > The government discriminates against many groups for many reasons. 16 year olds can’t vote and 20 year olds can’t buy beer. You can’t run for Senate in California if you live in Kansas. Priests can’t be compelled to testify about confessions, but bartenders can. **Bricker** or one of the other lawyers can explain it better, but there are several different standards the court uses to determine if discrimination is allowed. > > For example, racial discrimination, because of the history involved, falls under [strict scrutiny](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny). A law or policy can’t even look like it might be racially motivated without extremely compelling reasoning and must be as narrow and specific as possible. Gender discrimination falls further down spectrum with [intermediate scrutiny](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/intermediate_scrutiny). You need to show good cause and that means are related to that cause, but not that it is as narrow and specific as possible. > > Unprotected classes fall under [rational basis](http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis). For this all you have to do is show that the law is rationally related to some legitimate interest. > > Rational basis is the level that Judge Walker used to reject Prop 8. I don’t want to bring up the polygamy thing again, but a rational basis for limiting marriage to one person is that adding multiple parties increases the complexity of marriage laws (divorce, inheritance, power of attorney, next of kin). That argument does not work for SSM. In fact the only way it really practically impacts governments is that they may have to change some pronouns on forms. > > Separate thought: I am the only one that finds this challenge to Walker ironic? The argument is that being gay and potentially wanting to marry at some point makes him more biased than a straight person either in a marriage or potentially wanting to marry. But, by that logic no non-gay person has enough interest in the case to have standing. > Second separate thought: I wonder if the USSC would ever accept a case like this without standing. I am thinking of the way they accepted Roe v. Wade. Normally the Court will not hear a case if the outcome is no longer directly relevant (in this case it was too late for McCorvey to get an abortion by the time the appeal reached them), but the court decided to hear the case anyway since that would almost always be the case with an abortion case. Could they do something similar with standing? I don’t think they would need to since other states will defend their laws/amendments and I don’t think anyone would say a gay couple wanting to marry would not have standing. I wasn’t arguing that all discrimination was unconstitutional, nor was I asking for clarification on protected classes. :smack: I was pointing out that **Dio’s** argument is one we’ve all heard before. No need to ‘educate’ me on the obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/133 "2011-06-16T20:54:06Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Are you serious? You want me to cite that humans are born to reproduce? Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it? > [@](#): > > That it’s an innate and natural characteristic, one so strong that we have to regulate how it’s done? You are conflating biological urges with some kind of higer “intention?” Cite that anything is “intended,” and specify who is the “intender.” > [@](#): > > You have a penis, right? And a wife and a daughter? Three daughters. > [@](#): > > Presumably they spend hours in front of the mirror before special occasions, _preening_ themselves for the opposite sex? Over my dead fucking body 🆒 > [@](#): > > And you really think that this trait is designed to limit someone to only one member of the opposite sex? The “norm” for human beings appears to be serial monagmy. Not just one partner throughout a lifetime, but generally one partner at a time. > [@](#): > > You can buck societal norms all you want, but you can’t buck science because you don’t like it. When I say that gays are a biological anomaly, that’s not a mean thing. It just _is_. This is horsehit. There’s nothing “anomalous” about them. It is a normal orientation. Calling it “abnormal” is like calling left-handed people abnormal. Homosexuality is ubiquitous not just among humans, but among mammals and other animals in general. It’s not anamolous in the slightest. Read some fucking literature. > [@](#): > > But the Western world has tried to protect itself from innate biological characteristics for a long time so that we can be the ‘perfect’ human society. We reject things that aren’t like ‘us’: homosexuality (thankfully that’s changing), pre-tech cultures, polygamy, other religions, other forms of law, and so forth. There’s nothing biological about polygamy. Polygamy is a cultural practice, not a characteristic. > [@](#): > > So? So your attempt to say that same-sex marriage bans don’t deprive gay people of rights is specious, fatuous sophistry. Just as with miscegenation laws, they deprive people of being able to marry the person of their choice, absent any rational basis for the government to do so. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that recognizing that men and women are not meant for lifelong relationships is in any way immature. there is no such thing as “meant for” in nature > [@](#): > > For militant atheist, you sure do have a thing for small-minded morals. What the fuck makes me a “militant atheist?” In what way am I “militant?” > [@](#): > > Actually, _you_ lack the…well… **I** understand the 4th Amendment just fine. But if you mean 14th, well, [Scalia has something to say about that](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html). (Scalia is in no way my legal hero. But you have to consider that it is not you or I who make and rule on law here.) > > As a married person, you are a class. Consider your health insurance benefits, your leave of absence benefits, your car insurance premiums, loans, and tax breaks. Saying that _polygamists_ don’t exist is like saying that married gay people in South Dakota don’t exist and are therefore not a protected class. Marriued gay people in South Dakota, in fact, do not exist and therefore cannot be a protected class. _Unmarried_ gay people exist in South Dakota and are a “class,” but unmarried polygamists do not exist, by definition, and cannot eb a 'class." > [@](#): > > My point is one that other liberals have echoed: the argument is largely the same. \*\*It takes a village to raise a child, and if Jenny can have two mommies, why not two mommies _and_ a daddy? I don’t give a fuck about polygamy one way or the other. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. The merits of polyygamy are not germane to the point that polygamy bans don’t discriminate because there is no class of people who are affected by it any more than any other class. _Why_ should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again? [/quote] I don’t care if you’re in favor of it or not. I’m just trying to explain that it’s discriminatory in a way that laws against polygamy are not. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/134 "2011-06-16T20:54:09Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I wasn’t arguing that all discrimination was unconstitutional, nor was I asking for clarification on protected classes. :smack: I was pointing out that **Dio’s** argument is one we’ve all heard before. No need to ‘educate’ me on the obvious. I guess I don’t understand your point about singles being discriminated against. To avoid further hijacking(and the wrath of **Tom** ) I started a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=612735) on the polygamy issue. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/135 "2011-06-16T20:57:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it? Step 1: Open pants. Step 2: Look down. edit: Left-handed people _are_ abnormal. [Medical anomaly](http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2265) **Dio** , if reproduction weren’t an innate desire, then why the fuck to lesbians get sperm donors to have their own children? Duh. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/136 "2011-06-16T21:05:35Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Step 1: Open pants. > Step 2: Look down. This is not an answer to the question. If you can’t cite your claim (and you can’t), just admit it. You asserted that biology has an “intention.” Cite? > [@](#): > > edit: Left-handed people _are_ abnormal. > > [Medical anomaly](http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2265) Left-handedness is not a medical anomaly. Neither is homosexuality. > [@](#): > > **Dio** , if reproduction weren’t an innate desire, then why the fuck to lesbians get sperm donors to have their own children? Duh. Your claim was not that people desire to reproduce, but that they are _intended_ to? Intended to by who? You can’t have intention without an intender. Who is the intender? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/137 "2011-06-16T21:10:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is not an answer to the question. If you can’t cite your claim (and you can’t), just admit it. You asserted that biology has an “intention.” Cite? > Left-handedness is not a medical anomaly. Neither is homosexuality. > > Your claim was not that people desire to reproduce, but that they are _intended_ to? Intended to by who? You can’t have intention without an intender. Who is the intender? Dio, I just cited what a medical anomaly was. Let me guess. Your post is your cite? When will you understand that you don’t get to redefine things because you feel like it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/138 "2011-06-16T21:12:23Z")
Left-handedness is not an example of a medical anomaly. Citing the definition of an anomaly is not a cite. Left-handness does no meet the criteria. There is no anatomical difference between left-handed people and right-handed people. Now, when are you going to explain who that “intender” is? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/139 "2011-06-16T21:13:58Z")
Dio, humans were built to reproduce. It’s not a new concept. Unless you’re under the age of 10, I can’t imagine why you don’t understand. This is backed up by both social and physiological factors. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/140 "2011-06-16T21:15:45Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Dio, humans were built to reproduce. Cite? Built by who? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500.md?page=8)