Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if you have such a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause equally protects every classification of person under the sun, then how is it equal the unmarried have no way of claiming the rights, privileges and protections the married can? Why can't a person jointly file their taxes with their roommate and claim Social Security survivor benefits etc. That's inequality .
Room mates are not prohibited from getting a legal civil marriage and filing taxes together or claiming SS benefits once married. Go on down to the court house and get that marriage license, fill it out, have it witnessed and then file it. You don't have to even live together to get legally married.
If there was legislation prohibiting roommates to marry, you’d have a point. Since there’s not, you don’t.
That's basically the same argument that there was no legislation preventing gays to marry.
My point is if Equal Protection provides every status or classification of person the same protections then why do you have to be of married status to be equally protected?
Look they cited the equal protection clause, which by the way doesn't speak to sex, male and female, either. There was no sex based inequality in original marriage, males and females could freely marry. The only inequality arguably was a sexual orientation based inequality. Marriage was an arrangement catering to heterosexuals. But there was no Constitutional or law requiring sexual orientation equality.
The Court can word it however it wants with its sex -based logical fallacy, but it effectively created gay sexual orientation as a class to be protected.
You don't agree with the ruling, which is fine, but why pretend that others don't understand it?
Where is the logical fallacy here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Are people being willfully obtuse? It’s not that hard a concept. If Bill and Sue can marry each other, but Joe and Jim cannot then that’s discrimination based on sex. Simple and clear.
You need to read it again.
"this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex based inequality on marriage"
What even is a sexual orientation if you are not making a sex based judgement to begin with?
Again, if a male can't marry a male and a female can't marry a female, then there is no unequal treatment based on one's sex. The sexes are treated exactly equally the same. It's based on heterosexuality or sexual orientation. It's fallacious and intellectually dishonest for those Justices to claim it's based on the person's sex.
Besides, it's debatable to begin with the Equal Protection really addresses and requires things like sex based equality of laws. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would though.
Guess live and let live is too much for some people...
They all ruled unanimously not to hear Kim Davis's case. The two judges just wrote that in their dessents. What might happen is that they allow clerks with Religious objections to not be forced to marry folks, but someone else will then do it. Thousands of gay's have wed since 2015, so it's going to be a sticky slope if they invalidate those marriages. They can even go to mixed racial marriages if they wanted. Those protections could be stripped. Well see what happens.
So if you have such a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause equally protects every classification of person under the sun, then how is it equal the unmarried have no way of claiming the rights, privileges and protections the married can? Why can't a person jointly file their taxes with their roommate and claim Social Security survivor benefits etc. That's inequality .
You don't want to answer how it is the Equal Protection clause supposedly equally protects the class of sexual orientation but not marital status, do you ?
Again, if a male can't marry a male and a female can't marry a female, then there is no unequal treatment based on one's sex. The sexes are treated exactly equally the same. It's based on heterosexuality or sexual orientation. It's fallacious and intellectually dishonest for those Justices to claim it's based on the person's sex.
Besides, it's debatable to begin with the Equal Protection really addresses and requires things like sex based equality of laws. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would though.
All your example shows is both men and women suffering discrimination based on sex. If Bob can marry Jane, but not Jim why not? Because Bob is the same sex as Jim. That’s the issue not that it’s “fair” if both sexes are discriminated against equally.
Besides, most every state was moving to write laws to accommodate same sex marriages.
I should very much like to see a citation for that.
Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona and California had specific bans on same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas,Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida and North Carolina had specific bans on both same-sex marriage and civil unions in their state constitutions.
Michigan and Virginia even banned contracts between same-sex couples that would provide the benefits of marriage. (Some pointed out that Virginia's statute could be argued to ban any contract between two people not married to each other. I guess they got a little overeager, but hey - gotta show those gays who's boss.)
None of those states could pass a law to accommodate same-sex marriage without violating their state constitutions. I think "most every state" can only very generously be described as an exaggeration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.