Drawing a Line In the Sand

Your arguments are like water-buckets, with screens in the bottom.

 

You offered your personal, baseless opinions. The fact that you can quote case law doesn't mean that you actually understand it. It is you OPINION that the quote you supplied demonstrates what you assert. You were mistaken in that opinion and in your understanding of what the words mean in the context provided.

This is nothing more than you pretending that the words of the case mean what you want them to mean. They don't, you're still wrong, and it's still your mistaken opinion.

What's telling here is that you dismiss my points as "baseless opinions" without bothering to address their content. We know why - it's because you can't - because you know I'm right and you're wrong. So instead you make personal attacks and try to act all superior.

You aren't fooling anyone.

 

What was there to address? The quotes from the case were more than sufficient to refute your silly claims.

 

Obviously not, and dismissing them as "silly claims" just reinforces the perception that you're incapable of addressing my points. I'm not going to repeat them just so you can dismiss them a second time without addressing them.

You have a choice: Go back to the post in question and this time address my points - or don't, and thereby cement your growing reputation as being incapable of defending your case.

 

Usually, at most, I point out the strawmen. I dont address them

Never claimed it was the only factor. Just that it was neccessary factor in the Perry v. casse. It is what they relied upon to come to their decision regarding gays

Cant imagine where you would have goten that idea. Another strawman?

 

More exerpts from the case. It is only the denial of marriage to homosexuals that the court held to violate the constitution. Not the denial of same sex marriages.

 

There was no strawman. This is just more avoidance on your part.

Splitting hairs. It is not true that this is what they relied upon to make their decision. It is true that it was a factor in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply. You're acting as if there was no analysis apart from determining whether gay people had been the targets of animus.

No, just an observation gleaned from your own statements and the tone thereof.

 

1) Unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses - not because of animus.

2) Permanently enjoined application and enforcement of Proposition 8.

And what does Proposition 8 do? It prohibits the marriages of same-sex couples, not just gay couples.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. It's very clear that the court held the law to be unconstitutional in its entire application, not just against gay couples.

Which of course doesn't mean that you can marry your brother, because that restriction comes from a separate law having nothing to do with Proposition 8.

Thanks for supplying the link that proves you were talking out your ass.

 

You dont have a clue. Strike down Prop 8 and In re Marriage becomes the statement of law in California and marriage is only extended to homosexuals, like it was before prop 8. Because Californias law was held to discriminate against homosexuals because they held that Californias law was limited to heterosexuals specifically to discriminate against homosexuals. There was no intent to discriminate against siblings, so no violation of the constitutional rights of siblings.

 

Malarkey.

You are mixing things here that are unrelated. The prohibition against sibling marriage has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Proposition 8.

Could siblings marry before Prop 8? No. Did Prop 8 prevent siblings from marrying? No. Therefore, there is no test of the law with regard to siblings arising from the Prop 8 case - they are already prohibited by way of a separate law. Therefore, opening up marriage to same-sex couples in no way overrides the existing prohibition against siblings marrying. Nor would it allow an adult to marry a child of the same sex. Nor any other thing prohibited by the marriage laws. Removing any one of those prohibitions has no effect on the other prohibitions.

Not true. What is true, is that the plaintiffs were able to show that the purpose of the law was to express animus toward homosexuals by targeting their due process and equal protection rights. That is not a legitimate purpose.

You are confusing the means for defeating the law with its effect. That effect is summed up in the final paragraphs which you avoided because they don't support your assertions.

It is a falsehood that marriage was extended only to "homosexual couples" before Prop 8 as well. It's plain from the language of the proposition what it prohibits:

That effectively prohibits ALL same-sex marriages, not merely those of homosexuals. Overturning it therefore allows any same-sex marriage not already prohibited in separate law, which is unaffected.

Same-sex siblings could also be homosexual. The overturning of Prop 8 would not allow homosexual same-sex siblings to marry either. They're still prohibited under separate law.

Your opinion is not compatible with the facts of this matter. You are wrong. You cannot defeat the clear wording of Proposition 8, nor of the final paragraphs from the decision at the district court overturning it in its entirety, not merely for "homosexual couples".

 

Ill wait here while you grasp about for strawmen.

 

You were effectively and thoroughly handed your ass. You know it, and it's why you won't respond to the refutation of your false assertions. Instead you'll just dismiss it as "silly", or call the people issuing the smackdown "clueless", or post one-liners about non-existent strawmen.

Tiresome in the extreme.

 

LOLOLOL!!!! Here it is again

I count 7 statements of fact, ALL which no one has claimed otherwise. A pathetic grasp for refuge in a strawman followed by your little victory dance in this post.

 

At least you acknowledge that they're statements of fact. Of course you just ignored the rest of the post.

Those statements were not strawmen. They were a delineation of the facts, that when coupled with the portion you ignored, serve to illustrate that you are lying about the ruling only applying to gay couples, and reveal your schtick about sibling marriage to be a red herring.

How do you like your crow served?

 

The second half was as lame as the first. For instance I say that

and you reply

???? You are simply restating what I just said

 

Nope. I realize the difference may be too subtle for you, but there is one. The issue is not that it discriminates against homosexuals, but that its purpose is to express animus, and that it advances no compelling government interest, is not a narrowly tailored remedy, etc. Who it targets is secondary to this.

The point being, law discriminates between classes of dissimilarly situated people on a regular basis. When that discrimination targets the rights of similarly situated people in order to express animus while advancing no legitimate interest, that's a problem, and it's the situation we have before us with Proposition 8.

 

LOLOL!!!! Like I said, you are just rerstating what Ive said. Here is my original statement youve been whinning about ever since made it.

 

It didn't "only" hold that. It held that the law, which bans ALL same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional, and ordered that it be enjoined from enforcement.

False framing. It wasn't a contest between anti-gay animus and procreation. It found that the law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples as a means to an end - expressing animus toward homosexuals. No doubt you'll complain that this is just a restatement, but it's really a correction of your attempt to falsely frame this as gay vs. straight .

The plain fact is that the law doesn't limit marriage to persons sexually interested in the opposite sex. It simply specifies two participants of opposite sexes (one man and one woman). In striking down that restriction, the court did not extend marriage only to persons sexually interested in the same sex. It broadened it to couples not comprised of opposite sexes; in other words same-sex couples.

What I glean from this is that you have zero interest in a factual representation of the situation. I don't buy for a second that you're merely being sloppy in your description of it, using "heterosexual" as synonmous with "opposite sexes". We know from your past arguments that you do make a distinction between "sexual couples" and those who aren't sexually interested in each other. So it's no accident that you're saying the law "only held" something about "homosexuals". Doing so when you obviously know better is dishonest.

This is where it really gets laughable. Sibling marriage has no relevance to the case at hand because it's prohibited by a separate law. You're bringing it up in the context of talking about the Prop 8 case is a complete red herring.
You're only doing so in a very lame attempt to "prove" your lie that the Prop 8 case only benefits homosexuals. It's very clear that it benefits ANY same-sex union not otherwise prohibited by a separate law. If you want to overturn the ban on sibling marriage, that would have to be a separate case challenging a different law with its own set of facts to be argued.

The prohibition against brothers marrying might be found unconstitutional without having to show that the ban exists as an expression of animus. On the other hand, it might be upheld as constitutional despite being able to show animus. It's a dissimilar situation from unrelated same-sex and unrelated opposite-sex couples marrying.

You are trying to make it sound like the case somehow addressed the issue of brothers marrying each other when that was not the issue before the court. You're only reason for bringing it up at all is to misstate the outcome of the case as only benefiting gay people (and not same-sex siblings) when in point of FACT, the ruling strikes down a law that is framed using gender not sexual interest, and in doing so would make it legal for unrelated persons of the same sex to marry - whether or not they are "homosexual".

You can holler "strawman" and "restatement" all you like. It wont' fool anyone into believing that the ruling in the Prop 8 trial only declared the law unconstitutional in application to homosexuals that are "sexual couples". That wasn't the outcome. The fact that same sex siblings still can't marry doesn't prove your falsehood that it was only applied to homosexual "sexual couples". They can't marry because they're banned by a separate law and the court has not found them to be similarly situated to unrelated couples.

I see no benefit in continuing to re-argue these same points, unless it be to further illustrate your blatant dishonesty.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-lesbian-rights/211645-drawing-line-sand-18.html#post4621717

There's the false claim you made in the post linked to above it. So don't even try to weasel out of this by claiming that I'm setting up strawmen when my arguments have been aimed at disproving that claim, which they've successfully done. You just refuse to admit that you were mistaken, or that you lied, or to acknowledge the clear facts.

Concede already. The Prop 8 decision did not extend marriage "only to GLBT couples".

 

Aaaaand they held it to be unconstitutional because it excluded homosexuals. Unconstitutional because it was intended to discriminate against homosexuals.

Nope, before prop 8 traditional marriage was only extended to homosexuals. Read In Re Marriage. It also held that only the discrimintation against homosexuals was unconstiotutional.

I provided a long series of quotes from the case that show that it was the discrimination against homosexuals that was unconstitutional. Dont interpret your inability to comprehend with my dishonesty

 

Your silly, uninformed declarations of fact are meaningless next to the quoted text from the case that demonstrates my claim.

 

Misplaced emphasis. You're so negatively obsessed with homosexuality that you can't see the forest for the trees. Naturally the fact of they're being targeted for discrimination based on the characteristic of homosexual orientation provides the context in which the animus is examined. But it's the law's basis in animus, its failure to advanced a compelling interest, etc. that makes it unconsitutional, not the fact that this animus was directed toward homosexuals.

The portion I've bolded in the quote from you above is false. From the In Re: Marriage decision:

The above is what matters - the effect of the ruling. It is very clear that the ruling on In Re: Marriage extended legal marriage recognition not "only to homosexuals", but to same-sex couples.

You provided a long series of quotes that examine the issue of the law being founded in animus first and foremost, with homosexuals as the target of that animus. However, that does not determine the effect of the ruling. You don't just get to ignore the last paragraphs of the ruling just because they disprove the lie you're spinning.

Don't interpret your inability to comprehend the clear ruling of the court as meaning the rest of us are similarly disabled.

 

The facts are neither silly nor meaningless. The text you quoted doesn't include the effect of the ruling. When we take into account the final directions of the court with regard to how the law may or may not be applied, it becomes clear that your quotes don't demonstrate what you've claimed.

It remains true that the California Supreme Court's ruling in In Re: Marriage and the District Court's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger both would extend marriage to same-sex couples, not GLBT couples exclusively as you've falsely claimed.

Face the facts, Dixon. Your claim is clearly refuted, and engaging in endless repetition won't make you right.

As I see it, you can either concede or continue to make an ass of yourself by spouting disproved falsehoods. Your choice.

 

We had several months of the application of the law, that was only extended to homosexual couples. After all, it was the discrimination against homosexuals that was deemed unconstitutional, not discrimination against couples of the same sex.