Gay Marriage Legal in California

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

ffs, you guys troll so hard on semantics its shameful.

Before 15th amendment- widely recognized that blacks couldn't vote, and clearly started that way when the constitution was ratified.

After the 15th amendment- blacks could vote

It's not trolling, it's the same thing we have been saying for years. If you target a minority group when making laws (be they affirmative action or "allowing" gays to marry or whatever else) you are SEPARATING them from society, not including them.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Simius

It doesn't really matter if a non-polygamist wants to marry multiple people. They aren't allowed to. Polygamists are treated exactly the same way, regardless of if they want to marry multiple people they aren't allowed to. That isn't discrimination any more than speeders not being legally allowed to speed is discrimination.

That's a ridiculous argument, one that's been made before in a slightly different fashion.

Non gay people aren't allowed to marry the same sex either, so it's not discrimination to tell gay people they can't get married.

It's completely ridiculous.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's not trolling, it's the same thing we have been saying for years. If you target a minority group when making laws (be they affirmative action or "allowing" gays to marry or whatever else) you are SEPARATING them from society, not including them.

How can you say that if the law is written to give them equal rights in our society they previously didn't have?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by motivez

That's a ridiculous argument, one that's been made before in a slightly different fashion.

Non gay people aren't allowed to marry the same sex either, so it's not discrimination to tell gay people they can't get married.

It's completely ridiculous.

It is discrimination to tell males that they aren't allowed to marry someone due to their gender, however.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

How can you say that if the law is written to give them equal rights in our society they previously didn't have?

They had equal rights according to the law before. The constitution never said "except blacks" or "except women." The courts allowed it to happen up until that time, and they could have put a stop to it just as easily as they allowed it.

Nothing prevented the courts from standing up for the rights of Americans despite their minority status

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's not trolling, it's the same thing we have been saying for years. If you target a minority group when making laws (be they affirmative action or "allowing" gays to marry or whatever else) you are SEPARATING them from society, not including them.

affirmative action is 11tybillion times different. Also in case you two hadn't noticed, judicial decision is exactly what happened here.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

affirmative action is 11tybillion times different. Also in case you two hadn't noticed, judicial decision is exactly what happened here.

Then cool

I was under the impression they were writing it in a law.

[seangone]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's not trolling, it's the same thing we have been saying for years. If you target a minority group when making laws (be they affirmative action or "allowing" gays to marry or whatever else) you are SEPARATING them from society, not including them.

That doesn't make any sense. So if a law was previously written to discriminate and separate one from from another, a law later passed to change this previous law it's a separation?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by seangone

That doesn't make any sense. So if a law was previously written to discriminate and separate one from from another, a law later passed to change this previous law it's a separation?

None of our laws were written to exclude anyone American. Read the constitution, find me a passage that excludes any American from voting or whatever, and I'll buy you a Coke.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

None of our laws were written to exclude anyone American. Read the constitution, find me a passage that excludes any American from voting or whatever, and I'll buy you a Coke.

I'll take my coke pls.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

[Simius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I'll take my coke pls.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

That wasn't actually about who can vote and who can't vote or even how much their vote is worth if they could. That was about how much weight a slave counted towards determining how many representatives each state was allotted.


That all said. There were plenty of laws prohibiting blacks and women from voting back then. They were just state laws and the constitution at the time wasn't interpreted in a way that made those laws unconstitutional.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Simius

That wasn't actually about who can vote and who can't vote or even how much their vote is worth if they could. That was about how much weight a slave counted towards determining how many representatives each state was allotted.


That all said. There were plenty of laws prohibiting blacks and women from voting back then. They were just state laws and the constitution at the time wasn't interpreted in a way that made those laws unconstitutional.

A new law wasn't needed to destroy the racist state laws. The framework already existed. The 3/5th's clause had to be repealed, but besides that, nothing further was needed besides the existing wording being upheld at the bench.

Racist laws in states were not constitutional, and therefore invalid.

But the new racist laws such as affirmative action are even worse because we live in a society that needn't be racist, but racism is perpetuated in this way... by the government who meant to abolish it!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Really? So the amendment that allowed blacks to vote was a hateful, bigoted vote you would not support?
States recognizing interracial marriage, bigoted.
How about the allowing black men to serve in white regiments in the military? Truman was such a bigot for that one.

No.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

It is discrimination to tell males that they aren't allowed to marry someone due to their gender, however.

That's because you don't consider "individuals who hold the desire to marry multiple people" to be a distinct group within society. You do, however, seem to agree that gender and race are worthy of categorization.

Sounds to me like it's not discrimination insofar as the loose aggregate of individuals toward whom the collective is compunctious meet Simius's arbitrary qualities worthy of whatever gang title he deems worthy. In other words, you're claiming it's not discrimination because whatever individual characteristics you've deemed worthy of categorization have not been met.

Quite a winning argument you're championing there: "Nobody is discriminated against because I say so."

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

That doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. The ONLY proper way to ensure equality is to abrogate government from the institution of marriage.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

How can you say that if the law is written to give them equal rights in our society they previously didn't have?

Marriage isn't recognized as a right at all in America. People have a tendency to conflate rights and privileges in this country, so to make this short, I'm just going to point out that requiring permission via licensing (i.e., marriage license or drivers license) to do an otherwise free action (i.e., marrying or driving devoid of government permission) effectively reduces that action to a privilege and no longer a protected right.


I, personally, recognize marriage as a right that ought to be protected by the government, which is why there ought not be any restrictions on it in the slightest, and which is also the reason there ought not be any special privileges (e.g., tax breaks or "spousal benefits") afforded to individuals that engage in a government-sanctioned marriage. It is because I recognize marriage as a right, and not a privilege, that I am in favor of entirely abdicating the legal institution of marriage. Its sheer existence is discriminatory in and of itself. Defenders of it are in no position to claim advocacy of minority rights because they are uninterested in defending the rights of the smallest minority: the individual.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's because you don't consider "individuals who hold the desire to marry multiple people" to be a distinct group within society. You do, however, seem to agree that gender and race are worthy of categorization.

Actually, if you follow my argument I am saying people shouldn't be categorized by gender or race. Hence laws that do so (segregation... not allowing females to marry females... etc) should be rewritten/abolished so there is no categorization by race or gender. The 15th amendment did a good job of that. It eliminated the categorization by race when determining who can and who cannot vote. The CA supreme court also did a good job since they did the same thing regarding gender and marriage.

Sounds to me like it's not discrimination insofar as the loose aggregate of individuals toward whom the collective is compunctious meet Simius's arbitrary qualities worthy of whatever gang title he deems worthy. In other words, you're claiming it's not discrimination because whatever individual characteristics you've deemed worthy of categorization have not been met.

Yeah. I suppose if I was arguing that we should categorize people into groups and then decide who can and cannot marry who your summary of my argument would be spot on. Too bad my argument is the exact opposite.

Quite a winning argument you're championing there: "Nobody is discriminated against because I say so."

And don't you forget it.