Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #670 on: February 09, 2008, 10:48:35 PM »



h i l i ar y      c l i n t o n...more bush????








aye am an iambic independent indigo...i3


Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #671 on: February 09, 2008, 10:51:54 PM »
^ interesting to think about

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #672 on: February 09, 2008, 10:57:58 PM »
If you were really lucky, he'd have called you an ugly skank too!



Dammit shitfucker. I never win.

(Hopefully this resolves his lingering uncertainty about whether I use profanity. No "seems" about it, y'all. I even use it in class. You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her drink.)


RoloPolo's gender has not been revealed.

Dishraggi's parents must be proud of her/its trailer park habits.  Their money has been well spent.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #673 on: February 10, 2008, 06:45:48 AM »
If by "conduct" you mean whom one loves (consensually) and designates as a committed partner...then no.

how do you decide what conduct is legitimate as a basis for unequal treatment? 

also, gender discrimination does not (has not) trigger(ed) strict scrutiny, so you still don't win there.

Addressing your second point first... Go back and read a little more carefully. You asked two different questions. 1. "so can we treat people differently based on their conduct?" - I said "no, if by conduct you mean...." And then I said why -  because it's discrimination based on gender/sexual orientation. I didn't say anything about strict scrutiny being applied. We've already had this conversation and both agreed that the Rational Basis Test more than likely will be applied to laws that discriminate based on gender/sexual orientation. Bottom line, whatever type of scrutiny would be applied, it's discrimination.

This brings us to your first question. A "legitimate government interest" coupled with law that is actually tailored to that interest is grounds for the government to discriminate against a group of people. This is why judicial review (whether strict scrutiny, something in between, or the Rational Basis Test is applied) - to make sure it meets those standards.

You keep using the word "conduct" as if one's behavior solely defines their sexuality. People aren't gay/straight/bi because of their physical behavior. I think you would agree (presuming you aren't gay) that you probably were straight from childhood/early adolescence before you did anything "physical" to demonstrate that. If men in prison, who have always identified as straight and will likely do so once they leave, have sex with other men does that make them gay? Or a woman who knows she's a lesbian but is pressured by society/family to marry a man and lead a seemingly "straight" life... does that make her straight? Point being - you can't define sexuality by "conduct" because that implicates sexuality is solely defined by your physical behavior. It's not - one's sexuality is about desires, emotions, attractions, mental connections, and love in addition to physical behavior (sometimes). People always want to make this about sex and I think anyone in any relationship with any sexual identity knows there's A LOT more to loving someone/dating someone and their sexual identity than who they sleep with. It's just the same for people who are gay. There is a huge intrinsic/emotional quality to one's sexual identity that is too often conveniently ignored for the purposes of justifying discrimination against people who are gay. (and I'm not saying that's what you're doing troublemaker...just that in general this is the route that is taken)  

EDIT: Because it's a lot easier to say , we're discriminating against what you do than it is to say we're discriminating against who you are.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #674 on: February 10, 2008, 07:54:22 AM »
People aren't gay/straight/bi because of their physical behavior.

your problem will not be convincing me of this.  your problem will be convincing people who want to discriminate against the LGBT community of this. 

as for gender discrimination, okay let's not try to use strict scrutiny.  is there an important government interest and is the discriminatory legislation reasonably designed to further that interest?  well that depends on how you define important government interest now doesn't it?  this test is a lot easier to meet than strict scrutiny.  people can talk legislation through this test if they're so inclined.  and i think the current court is so inclined.

I think we're just going back to an earlier argument about what the legitimate government interest is. Some claim the interest is "promoting/rewarding" relationships that procreate. And my response to that was, if this is the legitimate government interest then the law isn't reasonably designed to further that interest. People who are barren/sterile, don't want children, or are past the age of child-bearing shouldn't be given marriage licenses either. That would be reasonably designed to meet that interest. You can't say the reason you're being denied is because "you can't procreate" (which is another discussion in itself) and then allow other groups who 100% can't/won't procreate to be afforded those rights.

Problem is, I only have your word for your sexual orientation. Skin color? Nope. Heritage? Nope. Gender? Nope. Behavior? Yes. hmmm Straight? well it's a bit obvious we were made that way.

Huh?

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #675 on: February 10, 2008, 08:13:05 AM »
I think we're just going back to an earlier argument about what the legitimate government interest is. Some claim the interest is "promoting/rewarding" relationships that procreate. And my response to that was, if this is the legitimate government interest then the law isn't reasonably designed to further that interest. People who are barren/sterile, don't want children, or are past the age of child-bearing shouldn't be given marriage licenses either. That would be reasonably designed to meet that interest. You can't say the reason you're being denied is because "you can't procreate" (which is another discussion in itself) and then allow other groups who 100% can't/won't procreate to be afforded those rights.

just because legislation isn't perfectly designed to further the interest doesn't mean it doesn't further it.  that kind of narrow design is only required for strict scrutiny.

It's not even reasonably designed to meet that interest. The ability/intent to procreate is not and has never been a requirement by any means to get a marriage license. You can't then deny one group by saying you "can't procreate" (which again is a whole other discussion b/c people who are gay can procreate) and then allow millions of others who 100% can't either to have those rights. That is not reasonable.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #676 on: February 10, 2008, 08:36:28 AM »
It's not even reasonably designed to meet that interest. The ability/intent to procreate is not and has never been a requirement by any means to get a marriage license. You can't then deny one group by saying you "can't procreate" (which again is a whole other discussion b/c people who are gay can procreate) and then allow millions of others who 100% can't either to have those rights. That is not reasonable.

i would be cautious about using the "has never been" argument in general.

so you're saying that the government restricting marriage to heterosexual couples does not substantially further the government interest of creating relationships that lead to procreation?  more to the point, that it cannot be seen as doing so?  (it doesn't matter what we believe so much as how people can spin it.)

i need to go back and find the exact wording for EP and gender.

also, we're only working with one theoretical "interest" here.  people can throw out others.

May substantially further the govt interest, but is not reasonably designed to do so, since a plan reasonably designed to further that interest would also say that menopausal women, among others, cannot be given marriage licenses. 

What's the other interest? Preventing the official sanctioning of the yucky? That's not going to fly. I'm at a loss for others.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #677 on: February 10, 2008, 09:57:48 AM »
The benefits given to marriage should remain because of the government's legitimate interest in supporting stable families. Stable families mean more stable children & productive citizens. Homosexual relationships are generally unstable & a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems. Of course, with a 50% divorce rate, marriages are pretty unstable currently.

The rational basis test applies, until the court states otherwise. It meets the test because it supports stable families as it's designed to.

If homosexual activists showed that they have somewhere near a 50% long-term relationship rate & produced children who became productive citizens, maybe support for their unions would materialize.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #678 on: February 10, 2008, 10:07:59 AM »
Homosexual relationships are generally unstable & a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems.]

Excuse me?

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #679 on: February 10, 2008, 10:16:15 AM »
Homosexual relationships are generally unstable & a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems.]

Excuse me?

Your excused.