The LA Times, of all places, editorializes: "California's top public lawyer and its chief executive have an obligation to defend the laws of the state whether they like them or not, and that includes Proposition 8." Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown: Do your job. Defend Prop 8. Read more.
11 Comments
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott did his job. When Texas's marriage amendment was struck down by a family court, to the extent it denied the divorce procedures to same-sex couples "married" in other states, as a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, he appealed . The Texas 5th Circuit fully reversed the ruling of the family court.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County , 450 U.S. 464.
The appellant claimed that California’s statutory rape law, to the extent that it punished underage boys for having consensual sex with underage girls, but not underage girls for having consensual sex with underage boys, was impermissible discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The appellant also claimed that, if this sort of discrimination was permissible because the state has an interest in preventing teenage pregnancy (procreation), the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it prohibited consensual sex with prepubescent girls who were incapable of becoming pregnant, and did not allow the defense that contraceptives were used or that pregnancy for some reason was impossible.
The Supreme Court upheld the law in full, thus rejecting all of the appellant’s arguments on the merits. The reason for upholding the law was that the state had an interest in punishing underage boys for having consensual sex with underage girls, while exempting from punishment underage girls for having sex with underage boys, because the purpose was to prevent teenage pregnancy. And not only that, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that this law would be unconstitutional to the extent that it would punish statutory rape in cases where teenage pregnancy was for some reason impossible, even though the purpose of laws against statutory rape was to prevent teenage pregnancy.
Thus, if a statutory rape law that punished underage boys for having consensual sex with underage girls, but not underage girls for having consensual sex with underage boys, was justified against an equal protection challenge because of the possibility of procreation, even though the law prohibited such conduct in cases where procreation was for some reason impossible, then a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman is justified against an equal protection challenge because of the possibility of procreation, even if the law includes unions where procreation was for some reason impossible.
Michael - The major flaw in your argument is that while the state may indeed have a legitimate interest in preventing procreation among minors, it does not have a legitimate interest in preventing a LACK of procreation among adults. Also, procreation is not the only purpose of civil marriage.
So, it happened: males are discriminate against women. We knew it would have happened, and it happened.
But it has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation within a stable family unit.
And Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333, (a decision upholding a law, which prohibited polygamists, and advocates of breaking anti-polygamy laws, from voting, from any constitutional or legal objection) a compelling government interest was provided.
\
Not just that.
The law in question in Michael M. punished underage boys for consensual sex with underage girls, but not underage boys for consensual homosexual conduct with other underage boys. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"But it has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation within a stable family unit."
OK, that's one of the state's interests in providing civil marriage. That goal can and will be achieved by continuing to offer civil marriage to procreating opposite sex couples. Prohibiting civil marriage between persons of the same sex does not encourage procreation within a stable family unit. Providing civil marriage to persons of the same sex does not interfere with that state interest nor does it discourage procreation within a stable family unit. Furthermore, extending marriage rights to gay couples does promote stability within their families. This attempt to validate denying marriage rights to same-sex couples by stating the benefits of opposite sex marriage is like trying to justify a ban on green apples by stating the health benefits of red ones. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not the same as outlawing opposite sex marriage. Banning same-sex marriage does nothing to further society's goal of encouraging procreation within stable families. This is an undeniable reality which court after court after court has acknowledged.
And exempting underage girls from prosecution for statutory rape does nothing to further society's goal of preventing unwed teenage pregnancy.
Exempting consensual homosexual conduct between two underage boys from the definition of statutory rape does nothing to further society's goal of preventing unwed teenage pregnancy.
Like the Eight Circuit in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning ? Or the Texas 5th Circuit in In the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. ?
Don't forget the Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles in New York state.
And in fact, the legalization of SSM does get in the way of encouraging procreation within stable families. It is the official recognition of the view that marriage is only about the romantic and/or sexual fulfilment between adults while the procreation of children and raising them with a mother and father is an irrelevant byproduct. With the relevance of children divorced from the institution of marriage, the number of marriages decline, illigitamacy rises along with the crime rate and poverty as is the case in the Netherlands and Scandinavia who have had SSM far longer. Why tie yourself to one person if marriage isn't about children?
The government would also be encouraging and promoting an unhealthy lifestyle that has shown to be the most efficient in the spread of STDs like HIV/AIDS and syphilis.
Based on science and factual evidence, NY Judge Robert S. Smith, found that limiting marriage to couples of the opposite sexes was based on legitimate societal goals, primarily the protection and welfare of children. It could well be argued, he said, that children are better off raised by a biological mother and father, rather than by a gay or lesbian couple.
"The law in question in Michael M. punished underage boys for consensual sex with underage girls, but not underage boys for consensual homosexual conduct with other underage boys. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
Hell, it sound impossible... is it the world coming to an end?
"Banning same-sex marriage does nothing to further society's goal of encouraging procreation within stable families. This is an undeniable reality which court after court after court has acknowledged. "
Oh, yeah: they said the same with divorce: "divorce won't hurt stable couples".
We just saw what happened.
Let's stop them.