Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Pyrrho]

...

You have worded it for your particular purposes.  Think of it this way:

1. Can a female person marry a man = yes
2. Can a male person marry a man = no.

Here we have a female person allowed to do something a male person in not allowed to do.

3. Can a male person marry a woman = yes
4. Can a female person marry a woman = no

Here we have a male person allowed to do something a female person is not allowed to do.

So we have discrimination.

To use your language:

Now if we posit the question devoid of the discriminatory qualifier the answer must be the same otherwise it violates equal protection clause:

5.  Can a person and woman get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)
6.  Can a person and a man get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)


Edited to add:


Or if you prefer this wording:

7.  Can a person and a person get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)

The organization you propose serves as a way to determine discrimination according to gender, but not according to orientation (as evidenced by the stripping of gender as the qualifier and not of sexual orientation).

Yes.  It is discrimination based on gender.  Since marriage does not require actual sexual activity, it is not, in itself, about sexual orientation.

 Under the example you provide male person and female person are both permitted and prohibited from doing the same thing.

No they are not.  Male persons are prohibited from marrying male persons, but female persons are not prohibited from marrying male persons.  So there is not the same prohibition for both.

Also, female persons are prohibited from marrying female persons, but male persons are not prohibited from marrying female persons.  So, again, there is not the same prohibition for both.

 Which is marry a person of the opposite gender and not marry one of their own gender.  This is not a violation of equal protection in regards to gender (which serves as your qualifier).  Furthermore, when stripping out the qualifier you must strip from all parties not just the first party.

That makes no difference.  Here it is again, with the qualifier specified and then striped from all parties:

1. Can a female person marry a male person = yes
2. Can a male person marry a male person = no.

Here we have a female person allowed to do something a male person in not allowed to do.

3. Can a male person marry a female person = yes
4. Can a female person marry a female person = no

Here we have a male person allowed to do something a female person is not allowed to do.

So we have discrimination.

To use your language:

Now if we posit the question devoid of the discriminatory qualifier the answer must be the same otherwise it violates equal protection clause:

5.  Can a person and a person get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)

[Anima]

[robvalue]

I appreciate your explanations

If anyone brings "it makes Jesus cry" in here though there will be rambunctious activities.

[The Grand Nudger]

The primary benficiaries of affirmative action has been white women who are classified as minorities under the women class though there is not much history of white women be under privileged. 

....wait.......what!?!  I think those white women who had to wait to get the right to vote...for half a century longer than a black man...might disagree....

[Anima]

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that recounting the woes of african americans will actually help to argue that women were not under privileged, that they do not have that history - and no one claimed that african americans weren't under privileged...so.......  

I have to ask..was that part of a copy paste from the courts or was it your personal insight?
(the initial comment, I mean..)

[Esquilax]

[Anima]

[The Grand Nudger]

The point was simply to say that affirmative action was intended to foster racial integration of African Americans who have suffered and been far more under privileged than Anglo Women who have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action due to over inclusiveness. That was the point being made.

.
....lol, good god I'm just glad that it was you, and not some part of a supreme court transcript....  

[Tiberius]

Regarding the equal protection argument. A violation of equal protection is made most apparent by considering the qualifier and then removing it to see if the answer remains the same. For example as regards to racial discrimination on marriage:

1. Can a white man and white woman get married = yes
2. Can a black man and black woman get married = yes
3. Can a white man and black woman get married = no
4. Can a black man and white woman get married = no

Now if we posit the question devoid of the discriminatory qualifier the answer must be the same otherwise it violates equal protection clause:

5. Can a man and woman get married = yes/no (violates equal protection)

Applying the same method to a sexual orientation qualifier:

1. Can a straight man and straight man get married = no
2. Can a gay man and gay man get married = no
3. Can a straight man and gay man get married = no
4. Can a straight woman and straight woman get married = no
5. Can a lesbian woman and lesbian woman get married = no
6. Can a straight woman and lesbian woman get married = no

Again we ask the question without the qualifier. If the answer is the same than there is no violation of equal protection:

7. Can a man and man get married = no (does not violation of equal protection)
8. Can a woman and woman get married = no (does not violation of equal protection)
9. Can the same gender marry = no (does not violation of equal protection)

There is no violation of equal protection.

Your second example doesn't count all the combinations properly. In the first example, the underlying assumption was that men were marrying women, and so that was fixed, but the race of the person(s) involved was the aspect being combined. So you have four people: white man (wm), white woman (ww), black man (bm), black woman (bw). If we count all the combinations, without applying the assumption that only men can marry women, then we get the following:

1. wm marries wm = no
2. wm marries ww = yes
3. wm marries bm = no
4. wm marries bw = no
5. ww marries ww = no
6. ww marries bm = no
7. ww marries bw = no
8. bm marries bm = no
9. bm marries bw = yes
10. bw marries bw = no

If you apply the assumption that only men can marry women, then we can remove 6 of these and you get the original set you came up with:

1. wm marries ww = yes
2. wm marries bw = no
3. ww marries bm = no
4. bm marries bw = yes

So yes, the inequality is clear when it is just about men marrying women and the inequality aspect being measured is sexuality.

In your second example, you don't count this correctly. Like the first example, you have four people: straight man (sm), straight woman (sw), gay man (gm), and gay woman (gw). If we count all the combinations, we get the following:

1. sm marries sm = no
2. sm marries sw = yes
3. sm marries gm = no
4. sm marries gw = yes
5. sw marries sw = no
6. sw marries gm = yes
7. sw marries gw = no
8. gm marries gm = no
9. gm marries gw = yes
10. gw marries gw = no

The only problem is, this time we aren't making an assumption that only men can marry woman. In fact, that is the specific aspect we are trying to measure for an inequality, so it makes no sense to remove any of the options like you did. You removed the four instances where a man was marrying a woman, regardless of their sexuality, which are the only four instances where there was a "yes" (because in all circumstances, men can marry women, even if the man is gay and the woman is straight, or both the man and the woman are gay, etc.). By removing these instances, you are hiding the obvious inequality that presents itself.

Just as there was an inequality where only white men could marry white women, and only black men could marry black women, so there is an inequality where only men can marry women.