weird.

laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected

“Inference” — as in, we don’t have evidence, but we THINK it might be this.

“Inevitable” — or, to use another logical fallacy, “everybody knows”. Of course, they didn’t bother themselves with evidence — just “inference” that they “knew” this was the case.

What this makes obvious is that the justices wanted to strike the law down — so they invented a reason. Roe v. Wade all over again.

And then, my favorite, which chad not surprisingly left out:

Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. They can obtain specific protection against discrimination only by enlisting the citizenry of Colorado to amend the state constitution or perhaps, on the State’s view, by trying to pass helpful laws of general applicability.

In other words, they have to get people to vote in their favor. The horror!

What Romer does that is particularly pernicious is this: it establishes that voters have no right to change their constitution, and that tiny little groups can arbitrarily have thrown out any provision they don’t like on the basis of their not having enough votes to overturn it naturally.

However, given Walker’s history and bizarre behavior since getting this trial — since when does a judge break Federal law trying to get things televised? — it leads one to conclude that he is not one of those people and is instead trying to use his position to push gay-sex marriage to the detriment of the constitutional rights of others.

Actually, this is what I stated.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. The ability of voters to amend their own constitution IS.

Now, gay-sex marriage supporter chad, please show us where in the constitution of the state of California or in the Federal constitution it explicitly states that marrying whatever sexual partners you choose is a right.

Meanwhile, I will be happy to show you the sections that state clearly that the voters may amend their own constitution.

Why do you oppose the right of voters to amend their constitution, chad? Better yet, why do you deny this right, when it is clearly established, in writing, in the constitution?

you argued that a majority is permitted to use the law to affirm its hatred for a minority (in the parlance of romer v. evans, a “politically disadvantaged group). as a matter of constitutional law, you are WRONG.

Indeed it is permitted. For example, voters have enshrined laws prohibiting pedophilia, plural marriage, rape, and all sorts of other things that truly affirm their hatreds of such behavior. This is clearly, according to the parlance you have stated, discrimination against a “politically disadvantaged group”.

And then we see the typical spin of a gay-sex marriage supporter when confronted with what his movement supports and endorses.

you have erroneously attributed views to me that i never endorsed. to be clear, you brought the aclu into this discussion. i never advocated their views on same sex marriage or polygamy. nor did i ever scream that religion was an improper basis for imposing restrictions on marriage.

Of course you endorsed them, chad. You tried previously to claim that you thought sex with children, child marriage, and plural marriage were harmful. Then, when confronted with the fact that the ACLU and the vast majority of the other groups involved in pushing gay-sex marriage support such things, you supported and endorsed their reasoning. Indeed, you even beclowned yourself in the process, demonstrating that you would spin to protect the fact that the ACLU endorses the practice of plural marriage and hilariously arguing that Proposition 8 said something it clearly did not.

Now that you’ve been confronted with the fact that Proposition 8 says nothing of the sort and that your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters openly endorse the practice of plural marriage and demand that laws preventing it be overturned, you start to backpedal. Nope. Own up to it and cope with it. Certainly you can condemn the gay-sex marriage movement and the ACLU for endorsing and supporting plural marriage, can’t you?

I guess he figures that if he uses the [SHIFT] key it makes his arguments true.

I don’t see the flaws in his post or his links. Can’t say the same for yours though.

you argued that the right to amend a state constitution is unfettered. as a matter of constitutional law, you are WRONG.

you argued that a majority is permitted to use the law to affirm its hatred for a minority (in the parlance of romer v. evans, a “politically disadvantaged group). as a matter of constitutional law, you are WRONG.

you reject arguments that gays and lesbians are a “minority” or a politically disadvantaged group for the purposes of equal protection analysis. your naked assertion is directly contradicted by romer v. evans, where the court overturned a state constitutional amendment targeting gays and lesbians. another instance where you are WRONG.

you asserted that the ACLU’s arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are the same as their arguments in favor of polygamy. but the very links you provided directly countermand your assertion. once again, you were WRONG.

you insist that the equal protection clause must compel us to strike down laws prohibiting, amongst other things, sex with children. again, this is an absurdly formalistic conclusion. the absurdity is demonstrated by the obvious fact that since romer was handed down in 1996, not once has it been used to strike down a single law regarding sex with children. on this point, you are WRONG.

you have erroneously attributed views to me that i never endorsed. to be clear, you brought the aclu into this discussion. i never advocated their views on same sex marriage or polygamy. nor did i ever scream that religion was an improper basis for imposing restrictions on marriage. going forward, i will not feel compelled to respond to arguments that you pull out of your ass. on this simple matter of reading comprehension, you are WRONG.

you argue very forcefully for your views, but you don’t seem familiar with the subject matter. ignorance and indignation is seldom a good mixture. i used to think you were a strident and caustic conservative. now, after reading your incoherent and foaming-at-the-mouth comments, i realize you’re just bat-shit crazy.

“…laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. ‘if the constitutional conception of equal protection of the laws means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.’”

and the court’s central holding: “we must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. this colorado cannot do. a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Since you cited Romer v. Evans, I looked at the decision. I see nothing in the language of Romer that suggests the motives of the initiatives sponsors have any relevance at all as to whether it is constitutional.

I would note that in Romer, the initiatives authors were not even parties in the litigation and the decision is silent about who they are or what their professed motives might be.

If I overlooked some language in the decision, perhaps you can point me to it.

Which means you don’t have an answer.

Black people do not as a rule wake up one day and will themselves to turn white. Women do not as a rule turn around and decide to instantly become a man. But so-called “gays” and “lesbians” regularly have sex with and marry individuals of the opposite sex — which would in theory turn them from minority member to non-minority.

The only protected class status that comes anywhere close to the fluidity of sexual orientation is religion — and religion has a specific enshrined status as such within the Constitution.

Proposition 8 says nothing of the sort. It simply states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Furthermore, the ACLU’s argument is hilarious. It is stating that not allowing people to marry “demeans them” and that the law should not demean “anyone”. Therefore, since laws against child marriage, plural marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like “demean” the people who want to practice them and also violate “equal protection”, the ACLU and you apparently both believe they should be struck down as well.

re-read that, nd30. their support for polygamy is based on the establishment clause of the first amendment, not the equal protection clause.

Perhaps you ought to read instead, chad.

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

You tried to argue the ACLU’s viewpoint that people should be free to advocate plural marriage. But what you left out is the fact that the ACLU also wants struck down laws that penalize and/or prohibit its practice.

The problem is, chad, that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are simply lazy. You can’t win over the voters, so you try to override them. You can’t win votes, so you demand that people be stripped of the right to vote. It is beyond ironic to watch you and the ACLU argue that religious belief is a perfectly-valid justification for voting to legalize plural marriage, which you were previously claiming is a danger to society, but scream and insist that it is not a valid reason to vote to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

the aclu’s opposition to prop 8, in other words, is grounded in the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

their position on polygamy is quite different. again, from the link you provided: “Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment…”

re-read that, nd30. their support for polygamy is based on the establishment clause of the first amendment, not the equal protection clause.

your insistence aside, these are obviously very very different arguments, with entirely different constitutional antecedents.

the rest of your response is pure obfuscation. again, you should probably read romer v. evans before you opine on it or how it impacts the prop 8 trial.

Incorrect.

As heroes of the gay and lesbian community like “Bishop” Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey have demonstrated, they are perfectly capable of marrying and having sex with those of the opposite gender; they simply prefer the same.

In the same way, pedophiles are perfectly capable of marrying and having sex with adults; they simply prefer children. Similarly, polygamists are perfectly capable of marrying and having sex with one individual; they simply prefer multiple ones.

Your sexual preferences do not make you a minority. You refuse to acknowledge that because it completely undercuts your demands for special treatment and for marriage to be redefined for your convenience so that you can marry to whatever you’re sexually attracted.

moreover, we prohibit child marriage, sex with underage children and polygamy not simply because of animus, but because the demonstrable harms they impose on children and society.

Unfortunately for that argument, the supporters of gay marriage freely admit that they support and endorse plural marriage.

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

The ACLU is using the same arguments for plural marriage that they use for gay-sex marriage.

and your slippery slope argument is just silly. you conflate a minority (gays, lesbians et al) with behavior (sex with children, polygamy, child marriage). the equal protection clause is not used to normalize criminal behavior–it’s used to ensure that the minority is not denied legal protections. your argument, that we must necessarily legalize sex with children if we prevent a majority from codifying its hatred into a state constitution, is absurdly formalistic.

moreover, we prohibit child marriage, sex with underage children and polygamy not simply because of animus, but because the demonstrable harms they impose on children and society. i think that a good argument can be made that the “yes on 8″ campaign was motivated by animus towards gays and their rationalizations (e.g., protecting children) are pretextual canards.

you don’t seem familiar with the case i’m talking about. maybe you should read it.

“Sure people are entitled to self government, when their betters allow it.”

Again, chad, put your money where your mouth is. State that the Supreme Court should strike down laws against polygamy, child marriage, and sex with underage children because doing so denies the protection of the law to a minority, is a violation of equal protection, and is done out of moral disapproval and animosity towards said groups who want to practice such.

You have stated that people have no right to vote for limits on marriage. Apply it. Can’t you do that?

So then the Supreme Court should strike down laws against polygamy, child marriage, and sex with underage children because doing so denies the protection of the law to a minority, is a violation of equal protection, and is done out of moral disapproval and animosity towards said groups who want to practice such.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. The ability of voters to amend their own constitution IS.

No, I’m not surprised at all. I think we can agree to disagree, since I doubt one side will convince the other the merit of their arguement. I do think something will be eventually constructed, I’m hoping for fred through the legislative process.