georgeob1 wrote:Some here argue that the government has no right making any distinctions among people or the choices they make in their lives. This is manifestly contrary to the facts and an absurd bit of semantical trickery.
Government makes and acts on distinctions among people every day in numerous ways ---
Fact: Government makes distinctions every day in numerous ways.
So what? Your statement proves NOTHING.
The only thing that is absurd is that you somehow think this fact is both the starting point and the ending point. In your over-simplistic view, you claim that the government makes distinctions all the time -- case closed.
This only demonstrates YOUR lack of sophistication and knowledge. The case is far from closed. If you were paying attention, then you would know that all distinctions (or classifications) are subject to the following framework:
When the government makes distinctions or classifications based on a suspect class, the government must have a compelling interest in doing so. The means used to serve that compelling interest must be necessary and narrowly tailored.
When the government makes and enforces a law that infringes upon a fundamental right, the government must have a compelling interest in doing so. The means used to serve that compelling interest must be necessary and narrowly tailored.
When the government makes distinctions or classifications based on a quasi-suspect class, the government must have an important interest in doing so. The means used to serve that important interest must be substantially related.
For all other laws, the government must have a legitimate interest. The means used to serve that legitimate interest must be rationally related. Arbitrary and capricious laws are unconstitutional.
Quote:Government makes and acts on distinctions among people every day in numerous ways --- criminals and the innocent; people who earn more than $178 thousand per year and who are subject to a 33% income tax and people who make less and are taxed at a lower rate; people enjoying long-term capital gains and those who don't; people eligible for Social Security & Medicare benefits and those who are not; people in "protected" groups because of age, race, disability or other factors and those who must go through their lives "unprotected"; the list could go on for pages. These distinctions are of all kinds - some involving choices people make, others arising from who or what they are or even where they live.
So what? You haven't proven anything. What does social security have to do with same-sex marriage? The fact that the government makes distinctions all the time doesn't mean that ALL OF ITS DISTINCTIONS are constitutional. Some may be constitutional; some may be unconstitutional. You have to put each and every one of these purported distinctions through the analytical framework. Each distinction either survives or fails constitutional scrutiny on its own merits.
If you don't understand that fundamental concept of the law, there is absolutely no hope for you to develop your powers of reason and logic. If you cannot intellectually grasp that point A is the starting point and then you move to point B, there is no hope for you.
Merely stating the government makes distinctions all the time proves NOTHING.
Quote:That government has the interest, the right and ability to make distinctions among people who enter into contracts, and concerning their treatment of their children is obvious and beyond dispute.
The government may have an interest in the welfare of children -- so what? Again, you don't expand your intellectual capacity beyond the obvious.
The government does not have complete authority to do anything it wants to do simply because it proclaims an interest. There are certain lines that the government may not cross. This is a basic concept that you haven't figured out yet.
Quote:A government distinction between homosexual unions and unions between men and women is based on natural fact and likely social consequence. There is no basic right violated by such distinctions (unless perhaps one is also prepared to argue against affirmative action, the graduated income tax, and many other basic elements of our society.)
You have no understanding at all. You think all distinctions are the same; but they are not.
The distinctions you attempt to make between homosexual and heterosexual relationships based "natural fact" (what the hell is that?) and "social consequence" (again, what do you mean? moral disapproval?) are arbitrary and capricious. The distinctions are not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest. The distinctions are not necessary or narrowly tailored to serve any compelling governmental interest. The distinctions infringe upon the fundamental right to marry and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Quote:This whole argument put forward by Debre Law is contrary to analogous facts and consistent thinking. It is sophistry.
You can't compare an individual's fundamental right to marry with a taxpayer's obligation to pay taxes. Your analogy makes no sense at all.
According to you, because the government makes some constitutional distinctions . . . then all distinctions are constitutional. You are wrong. The fact the courts have repeatedly struck down laws as unconstitutional proves that you are wrong.
Your entire argument is based on the fact that "the government makes distinctions all the time." I can show you where the government has made distinctions time and time again that were declared unconstitutional. But, you know that. You're just trying to blow smoke up our behinds. And that blows your entire argument to shreds.
Quote:It is not traditional marriage that is directly associated with the litany of social ills enumerated by Debra Law, but rather the absence of it and the many assaults on it by adverse social & economic factors. What she proposes would add yet another stress to an already seriously stressed institution on which we all depend in one way or another. This aspect of her argument defies common sense and is laughably absurd.
If two homosexuals get married in Massachusetts . . . how is that going to cause your traditional marriage to fall apart?
You're stating a conclusion without setting forth any substantiating facts.
Same-sex marriage is not an assault upon traditional marriage. If a husband and wife can't make their marriage work -- that problem has nothing to do with the fact that other people are getting married. The failure of a marriage lies on the shoulders of the people involved in THAT marriage.
What are you going to tell your wife? "Honey, the State of Massachusetts allowed Jim and Joe to get married. I find that to be an assault upon our marriage and now we have to get divorced." GET REAL!
You can't blame the homosexuals for the problems you're having in your own marriage. Where is your common sense?
