I'd like you to address my previous post, Debra.
Debra you obviously have some issue deep at heart that troubles you and makes you say mean things to complete strangers. Your need to always be right, regardless the cost, is understandable, but I think unecessary. So, you can leave your strawman and ad hominem arguments at home.
"Your comments below are nothing more than ill-informed opinions unsupported by any facts or reference to any authority"
Really, I thought that by citing Loving v. Virginia, which I have read and which I understand. I have even read the cases it cites in designating marriage as a right. I have even read the cases that followed it, which discuss whether marriage even is a right. I even cited them. You fool no one with statements like this. And, you provide no citations or references for your own statements.
"Loving dealt with MARRIAGE."
As you said yourself, "The Court in Loving never considered whether or not the Loving marriage was "consummated." " Loving did not deal with marriage. It dealt with the criminlization of miscegenation. Its reference to marriage as a right was dicta, meaning not a part of its ruling. Prior to 1966 the supreme court never was asked nor did it rule that marriage was a right. It alluded to such, but always in dicta. If you want the citation for that, go to Fundamental Principles of Family Law, Second Edition, Lynn D. Wardle, page 58.
The court there never held that the choice was a fundamental right. It said, in dicta, "the fredom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and canot be infringed by the State." (Id. p. 61). This is not the same as "the choice of whom to marry resides with the individual." If anything, the court said, "the choice of which race to marry resides with the individual." To expand this dicta to mean that we have to accept SSM is beyond the intention and context of the court.
I never said that the Loving court considered whether it had been consummated, as you fallaciously state. I said, "Loving considered a consummate marriage." Thus, the court presummed that the marriage was consummated, as required by Virginia and Washington DC, where they were actually married.
There are many married homosexual couples in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut that have "consummated" their marriages.
No, there are not. Homosexuals cannot consummate their marriage by performing a procreative act. This is the meaning of consummation. Not that the act results in procreation, but that the person is able to perform the act. And, generally, a marriage performed for an 80-year old on his death bed may be challenged for several other reasons (capacity being one of them).
Marriage is a fundamental right....Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.
Where is your citation for this one? Because you are confusing several issues of Constitutional Law. When refering to Equal Protection and discrimination, the courts use that test ONLY when the class is "SUSPECT", or meets three criteria. In re Marriage Cases waived the most important one, immutable characteristic, simply because religion cannot be discriminated against and it is not an immutable characteristic. This is because *everybody with me now* religion gets its own Constitutional provision protecting it from discrimination. (In re Marraige Cases, p. 842; Cal Const Art 1 Sec 4). Religion has never been subject to Equal Protection analysis. That analysis is preserved for unconsidered distinctions, such as race. Gender doesn't even that get kind of scrutiny. It gets intermediate scrutiny. Other classifications get rational basis review, which means that the gov only has to have a rational basis for distinguishing along the lines it does (age falls under this category). So, please, again, I implore you to only refer to the law when you know it. Otherwise, you spread bad information for everyone to see. I'm really tryign to save you from yourself, as much as everyone else from your mistaken information.
As far as I can tell, I am in agreement with you on this one though. But I can't help but think that your analysis is lacking. You see, you assume that the state has no interest in preserving marriage. But it does. In fact, the CA SC even says it, several times, in the In re Marriage Cases. In fact, it is one of the most compelling of state interests. And this law is narrowly tailored to preserving that definition: it is exactly the same. You, however, lack a compelling interest in extending the definition. Yes, perhapos a good one, but one that lacks proper analysis.
How can you look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?
Marriage for heterosexual couples vs. Civil Unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples. That's separate and unequal.
Where are your citations for these conclusions? First of all, how is it seperate? How is it unequal? And, as we will get to later, how are the relationships equal?
That's like saying if freedom of speech was a fundamental right, then the state could never punish defamation or fighting words.
That's kinda my point, right? Look, we know that speech is fundamental because it is specifically provided for in the Constitution. Other rights have been read into the Constitution (both Fed and State), but in the end, none of them are universal. I never said that speech wasn't fundamental or universal, I simply said that the right to marry is not universal. And you helped me out by pointing out that even ones we hold so dear, like speech and religion, are not entirely protected. So, why is it that we can abridge speech, but not marriage? Why is it that speech, the first right, is less protected than marriage? You seem to take that stand, but I don't. I think marriage has its limits, just like speech.
mandates compulsory attendance under the penalty of law
I just want to clarify this one, and its no big thing. State's cannot mandate public school attendance. They can mandate school attendance, but not public school attendence. (Prince v Mass; Wisconsin v. Yoder; Pierce v Society of Sisters).
Education at public expense is not a right.
Where is your citation for this one? Because, as far as I can tell, this is not true for most jurisdictions. (American Jurisprudence, Schools, Sec. 242). It is interesting though. While there is a compelling interest in having state run schools to educate the public, it has not created a fundamental right. Yet, the compelling state interest in marriage and in preserving it somehow rises to that level of fundamental right, so much so that it cannot be infringed for any reason. Not even to protect the very definition that was used when the right was first uttered.
The government must serve and protect ALL the people--EVERYONE--even disfavored classes of people.
That is true to a point. I wonder if you would fight this hard to protect the class of people who believe in a "mythology." Or, would you use their beliefs against them? Would you persecute them for their faith? Would you condemn them to secondary class status? Oh, wait, I think you already have. So, I know your answers to those.
But to answer the assumption posed in your unverified statement: I think the government should protect every class of citizen. In fact, I even said that: Homosexuals deserve to have their relationships recognized. But, going back to your whole "necessary and compelling" analysis: it is not necessary to call those relationships "marriages" to achieve that goal of protection. Giving them something that is worthy of their distinctly and fundamentally different relatinships satisfies that goal perfectly.
Finally, you get to my "unsupported conclusion." But, for one, I don't see you supporting yourself in refuting my little analogy. And, for another, you failed completely to grasp the concept. Look closely, and you will see that I specifically refered to the couples. And I ask you to please refute the conclusion that a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple will be biologically similar. Because if you have one man and one woman compared to two men or two women, you will have obvious differences between the two groups. I guess I could use some sources to proove that to you, but I would have thought that high school bio helped you figure that one out.
And as for the other -logicallies, well, I have to rest on the same common sense source. If you can refute the fact, then you have really done something tremendous.
Finally, I am sorry that you failed to see how I followed my own advice. I feel strongly, perhaps just as strongly as you do about your cause, that marriage should be preserved, and has been. I expressed my respect for homosexuals by saying they deserve respect and something that reflects their relationships. I expressed respect for their rights, and I agree with Fam Code 297.5 which grants them equality. I wonder, however, how you have shown any respect.
All I ask is that you stop the claims that Prop 8 violates the constitution, because it doesn't. (And here's my proof) Similar amendments have been enacted in 30 states, and some even go further in not even allowing Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. None of these has been found unconstitutional, even under federal analysis. The one court that was asked that question said it does not violate the US Constitution (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 8th Circ 2006) Yes, arguments can be made, but do not confuse an argument for fact.
Please, just understand that we do not think that this is an equality issue, because homosexuals have an equal system for their relationships. One that grants them just as much respect, rights, benefits, and obligations as I will have with my fiancee. I understand that you don't want to see that, but that is how I see it. I think it is fair, equal, and proper. And so do 6.8 million other Californians, 29 other states, and most of the world (only six countries in the world allow same-sex marriage: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005) and the US (2003). (Fundamental Principles of Family Law, supra, p. 118).
I leave you with a great quote by Gen. Colin Powell: "Skin Color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (Id., at 116).