Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9
Proposition 8 ruled "unconstitutional"; ...sets up Supreme Court battle
Topic Started: Feb 7 2012, 10:09 AM (2,438 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Here's a good discussion of why Scotus may not hear it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/prop-8-supreme-court-may-not-hear-california-gay-marriage-case.html
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 12:04 PM
Dave Spelvin
Feb 8 2012, 11:50 AM
Quote:
 
Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike.
This is misleading.

I just searched the CA constitution and it doesn't specifically mention the right to marry anywhere. It reiterates (in Article 1, Section 7) that a person has the right to equal treatment under the law (life, liberty, pursuit, etc...) and references the 14th amendment, but I wouldn't say it guarantees "the right to marry" to homosexuals anymore than it does heterosexuals. I guess the implication is there, though, which the court is responding to.

Still, that means the yes, gay couples had the right to marry before Prop 8, and so did any other type of couple (polygamy, incest, etc), which reinforces the idea that if the court says the restricting marriage to heterosexual couples unnecessarily removes the rights from a group of people, then that would apply across the spectrum of folks who want to marry, no?
You're part right and part wrong. Yes, the CA constitution requires equal protection under the law, which would permit gay marriage, but in no way does this open the door (or start you down a slippery slope, if you prefer) to polygamy and incest. If it were legal in California for a man to marry more than one wife, then it would be legal for a gay man to marry more than one husband. Polygamy isn't legal in California. If it were legal in California for a man to sleep with his daughter, it would also be legal for a man to sleep with his son. But incest isn't legal in California.

The decision makes good sense if you take the court at its word that this is a very narrow decision based on the facts of the case. Fear that it opens any other doors is misplaced.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
To me, redefining a known term opens the door to redefining other known terms. I suppose someday States will begin making up and agreeing with polygamy, but for now I think Dave is right. At least, I don't think anyone can make the argument in the same way. They will have to come at it from another angle.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I had forgotten that this all started with Gavin Newsom in San Francisco.

From Wiki:

Quote:
 
February 12, 2004: Recently elected Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials began issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco, California. Lesbians Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the first same-sex couple to be married. The event was intended to undercut a legal challenge planned by Campaign for California Families (CCF).

March 9, 2004: The San Jose City Council, by a vote of 8-1, agreed to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions for city employees.

March 11, 2004: The Supreme Court of California, headquartered in San Francisco, issued a stay ordering the County of San Francisco to stop performing same-sex marriages pending court review on the legality of the matter. Mayor Newsom agreed to abide by the order. The ruling did not alter a scheduled March 29 San Francisco Superior Court hearing before Judge Ronald Quidachay in which the Campaign for California Families and the Alliance Defense Fund claimed that San Francisco's granting of same-sex marriage licenses was illegal. Quidachay later delayed the hearing pending state Supreme Court action.

May 25, 2004: The state Supreme Court held hearings on the legality of the marriages. San Francisco had wanted its case heard first by lower courts, before juries, rather than by the state Supreme Court. However, the court suggested that San Francisco could file its own suit against the state, and the city launched such a suit that afternoon.

August 12, 2004: The state Supreme Court released its decision, exactly six months after the first same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco. The court ruled unanimously that the City and County of San Francisco exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. In a 5-2 decision, the court also declared all same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco to be void, while expressing no opinion on the constitutionality of marriage restrictions.

May 26, 2009: The state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but did not overturn previous same-sex marriages.

August 4, 2010: federal judge Vaughn R. Walker declared the ban unconstitutional but stayed his ruling pending appeal.

August 6, 2010: Both sides submitted legal briefs to Judge Walker arguing for or against a longterm stay of the ruling.

August 7, 2010: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had vetoed same-sex marriage legislation on two earlier occasions, and Attorney General Jerry Brown both filed motions with Judge Walker, urging him not to stay his ruling any longer. Lawyers representing Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote, "The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the court's judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California".

August 12, 2010: Judge Walker scheduled to lift his stay on this date for marriages to resume during the appeals process; the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals intervened to prevent same-sex marriages from resuming.

November 17, 2011: The California Supreme Court ruled, in Perry v. Brown, that sponsors of Proposition 8 have the right to defend the initiative in court, allowing the case to be heard in the 9th circuit of appeals.

February 7, 2012: A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, 2-1, that the ban on same-sex marriage in California is unconstitutional. [71] While being carefully stated as pertaining to California only, none-the-less the principle of stare decisis will be cited in attempts in other states to overturn any existing bans. A 2-week stay accompanied the ruling and opponents of gay-marriage have promised to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Friday
Senior Carp
Hey, if 5 killer whales can sue SeaWorld for slavery, who's to say that marriage won't ever be possible?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.

For some reason the discussion sounds somewhat different from that.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Kincaid
Feb 8 2012, 10:24 AM
Quote:
 
Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State,


How did they obtain the ability to marry in the first place? Was that from a judge's decision?
Come to think of it did a judge rule that straights could marry?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Not quite.

Did you know that outlawing polygamy was a condition set by Congress, before they would allow Utah to apply for statehood?

Therefore...depending upon the social mores of the time, the slippery slope argument does make sense.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Feb 8 2012, 07:18 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Not quite.

Did you know that outlawing polygamy was a condition set by Congress, before they would allow Utah to apply for statehood?

Therefore...depending upon the social mores of the time, the slippery slope argument does make sense.
Polygamy is an obvious thing to outlaw. Without legal boundaries, the powerful men will hoard the women. This is the human condition, and clearly how we evolved and how the best genes propagated, but it wouldn't make for good societies these days, presumably. Sexually frustrated men don't integrate well.

There is no such problem with gay marriage.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:14 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
Yes, except the debate isn't about the effects on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, it's about defining what exactly marriage is. That's what the constitutional amendment was about, almost in an absurdly simple wording akshully...it simply stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, and a majority of voters passed it into law. So the question wasn't about the effect, it was about the definition. I think that "logical" line makes sense drawing it at the 1-man 1-woman level. Any sooner (e.g. skin color) wouldn't be as logical, and any later (e.g., same-sex couples) would set a precedent for all forms of marriage groups.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
There's also a clear tendency in polygamous societies for women to be exploited and mistreated, simply because of the polygamy. As far as I can tell this tendency doesn't exist in same-sex marriages.

This slippery slope argument is really old and tired. One can apply it to any changes anybody wants to make, in order to prevent anything from ever changing. For example, hand-gun ownership will lead to people wanting to own heavy machine guns, and then hand grenades, and eventually people will have personal nuclear bombs.

Either gay marriage is right, or wrong. You can't say it should be prevented just because it would lead to something wrong being permitted at some point in the future.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John D'Oh
Feb 8 2012, 07:36 PM
Either gay marriage is right, or wrong. You can't say it should be prevented just because it would lead to something wrong being permitted at some point in the future.
I disagree with this line of thinking. One might think something is wrong, while still voting for it to be legal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:39 PM
John D'Oh
Feb 8 2012, 07:36 PM
Either gay marriage is right, or wrong. You can't say it should be prevented just because it would lead to something wrong being permitted at some point in the future.
I disagree with this line of thinking. One might think something is wrong, while still voting for it to be legal.
Why?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:35 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:14 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
Yes, except the debate isn't about the effects on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families,
That's how most arguments against gay marriage are framed, and for good reason. Appealing to purely verbal/conceptual logic and bypassing tangible effects is pretty weak justification for an opinion that would deprive real live human beings of something that has a real tangible effect on them.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:35 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:14 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
Yes, except the debate isn't about the effects on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, it's about defining what exactly marriage is. That's what the constitutional amendment was about, almost in an absurdly simple wording akshully...it simply stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, and a majority of voters passed it into law. So the question wasn't about the effect, it was about the definition. I think that "logical" line makes sense drawing it at the 1-man 1-woman level. Any sooner (e.g. skin color) wouldn't be as logical, and any later (e.g., same-sex couples) would set a precedent for all forms of marriage groups.
You could hardly be more wrong about this. The question isn't about the definition of marriage, even though the amendment defines it. The question is whether the result of the amendment -- the law in action -- is discriminatory and the court said it is, in fact, discriminatory. And there is no question that they are correct. Clearly, if two men or two women cannot marry and enjoy the same protections and benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples, the amendment discriminates against homosexuals.

That's not the end of it, of course. As a society, we discriminate all the time -- people convicted of crimes lose their freedom for however long they're in the cooler, people under 18 can't vote or under 21 can't drink, people born outside the US (with limited exceptions) can't be elected president, etc. But there are important public policy reasons for these. The courts insist on really convincing reasons before they will permit discrimination. So what exactly is the public policy that prohibits same sex couples who are consenting adults from entering into a loving relationship and calling it marriage?
- Because it grosses out some people? Thin gruel when compared with the benefit to society of stable relationships.
- Because some preeminent religions frown on it? Our government is not supposed to pick sides in religious debates. If it did what the Bible said only because it's what the Bible said, wouldn't that be tantamount to accepting Judaism or Christianity as the national religion? What if it picked the Bible today and some day it picked a book you didn't like as well?
- Because allowing gays to marry diminishes heterosexual marriage? I've heard this one and it makes no sense to me.
- Because marriage has something to do with procreation? Not true in a goodly number of straight marriages among the elderly, the infertile and those who would prefer not to have children.
- Because marriage means a bond between a man and a woman? This is all well and good, except that allowing these benefits only to straight couples discriminates against an entire class of people who are prohibited from enjoying the same status. As yet, no one has come up with a rational, irreligious reason for such discrimination.

And if you've read this far, 89, please stop bringing up polygamy and incest until you can deal rationally with what I wrote about them above. Throwing around these words isn't an argument. One would think that you'd been watching Sean Hannity without your bs filters on high.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:53 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:35 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:14 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
Yes, except the debate isn't about the effects on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families,
That's how most arguments against gay marriage are framed, and for good reason. Appealing to purely verbal/conceptual logic and bypassing tangible effects is pretty weak justification for an opinion that would deprive real live human beings of something that has a real tangible effect on them.
I can't speak to how most arguments gay marriage are framed, I can only speak to mine. Furthermore, I'm not denying there would be real tangible effects on those effected by the law, I just think the line should be drawn somewhere otherwise this debate is going to go on [sandlot]FOR-EV-VER[/sandlot] until such a line is drawn. And when it is, it will affect those not within the definition in a real and tangible way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 09:44 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:53 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:35 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:14 PM
The 89th Key
Feb 8 2012, 07:04 PM
LadyElton
Feb 8 2012, 06:26 PM
It is just like people arguing about letting whites and blacks marry.
Honestly, not a bad analogy, except I think it's "logical" to draw the line at heterosexual couples which is the fundamental/natural way of procreating as a species, whereas a similar logical line can't be drawn at skin color, so I think that's a different discussion.
Except that if gay marriage has no negative effect on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families, that "logical" dividing line becomes exactly as meaningful as the line between different skin colors.
Yes, except the debate isn't about the effects on the efficacy of straight marriage to promote good families,
That's how most arguments against gay marriage are framed, and for good reason. Appealing to purely verbal/conceptual logic and bypassing tangible effects is pretty weak justification for an opinion that would deprive real live human beings of something that has a real tangible effect on them.
I can't speak to how most arguments gay marriage are framed, I can only speak to mine. Furthermore, I'm not denying there would be real tangible effects on those effected by the law, I just think the line should be drawn somewhere otherwise this debate is going to go on [sandlot]FOR-EV-VER[/sandlot] until such a line is drawn. And when it is, it will affect those not within the definition in a real and tangible way.
Regardless of whether it's easy to know where the line is best drawn, it is always easy to know who's on one side of it and who's on the other. Your favorite line puts homosexuals on the opposite side of the line from heterosexuals, my favorite line wouldn't.

Regardless of where the line is, heterosexuals will be on one side of it, and some other definable categories will be on the other. That's how such a law must be written.

If homosexuals were allowed to marry, I think you'd find much much much much much much much (much) less disagreement about those other categories than exists about homosexuals.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Dave Spelvin
Feb 8 2012, 09:35 PM
You could hardly be more wrong about this. The question isn't about the definition of marriage, even though the amendment defines it. The question is whether the result of the amendment -- the law in action -- is discriminatory and the court said it is, in fact, discriminatory. And there is no question that they are correct. Clearly, if two men or two women cannot marry and enjoy the same protections and benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples, the amendment discriminates against homosexuals.

That's not the end of it, of course. As a society, we discriminate all the time -- people convicted of crimes lose their freedom for however long they're in the cooler, people under 18 can't vote or under 21 can't drink, people born outside the US (with limited exceptions) can't be elected president, etc. But there are important public policy reasons for these. The courts insist on really convincing reasons before they will permit discrimination. So what exactly is the public policy that prohibits same sex couples who are consenting adults from entering into a loving relationship and calling it marriage?
- Because it grosses out some people? Thin gruel when compared with the benefit to society of stable relationships.
- Because some preeminent religions frown on it? Our government is not supposed to pick sides in religious debates. If it did what the Bible said only because it's what the Bible said, wouldn't that be tantamount to accepting Judaism or Christianity as the national religion? What if it picked the Bible today and some day it picked a book you didn't like as well?
- Because allowing gays to marry diminishes heterosexual marriage? I've heard this one and it makes no sense to me.
- Because marriage has something to do with procreation? Not true in a goodly number of straight marriages among the elderly, the infertile and those who would prefer not to have children.
- Because marriage means a bond between a man and a woman? This is all well and good, except that allowing these benefits only to straight couples discriminates against an entire class of people who are prohibited from enjoying the same status. As yet, no one has come up with a rational, irreligious reason for such discrimination.

And if you've read this far, 89, please stop bringing up polygamy and incest until you can deal rationally with what I wrote about them above. Throwing around these words isn't an argument. One would think that you'd been watching Sean Hannity without your bs filters on high.
Alright, to "deal rationally" with what you wrote earlier about polygamy and incest (both being currently illegal, which I'll take your word on since I haven't looked up the law), couldn't one follow the precedent that this current court decision has made (in saying that the currently-illegal gay marriage is unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment) and also take their case to court arguing that it's unconstitutional for incest and polygamy to be illegal? Or at the minimum, unconstitutional for polygamy and incest to be illegal in such a general blanket fashion? For example, should it be illegal for a 18 year old grandson to have relations with his 80-year old grandma who is no longer able to have kids (and thus no genetic risks)? I'd argue it's unconstitutional for that to be illegal. I'd also argue that it's clearly unconstitutional for polygamy to be illegal.

So...disregard the current illegalities (INCLUDING any new gay marriages, which is currently illegal under california law) and let's look at the precedent this court is setting and the rationale this court is giving and tell me honestly, would it not equally apply to other forms of currently-illegal unions?

Equality is inevitable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:28 PM
Polygamy is an obvious thing to outlaw. Without legal boundaries, the powerful men will hoard the women. This is the human condition, and clearly how we evolved and how the best genes propagated, but it wouldn't make for good societies these days, presumably. Sexually frustrated men don't integrate well.
If it's mutually consenting and mutually advantageous, then what right does the government have to interfere?

You seem to be assuming that the authority of government includes limiting human freedom for some abstract ideals of social engineering -- let's commoditize women and make sure the goods are spread around.

But if you're in the game of playing "what are the consequences", maybe it would inspire the shiftless to get to work and earn money to be more marketable to women -- it could just as easily spur a massive economic revival in America as discontent. :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Horace
Feb 8 2012, 09:52 PM
Regardless of whether it's easy to know where the line is best drawn, it is always easy to know who's on one side of it and who's on the other. Your favorite line puts homosexuals on the opposite side of the line from heterosexuals, my favorite line wouldn't.

Regardless of where the line is, heterosexuals will be on one side of it, and some other definable categories will be on the other. That's how such a law must be written.

If homosexuals were allowed to marry, I think you'd find much much much much much much much (much) less disagreement about those other categories than exists about homosexuals.
I agree with you completely on this. Of course, I argue there is a natural and logical basis for my "line" being drawn where it is, and perhaps you have your own basis for where you draw your line. On this first part we agree (quite obviously, since we are simply stating facts here).

However, regarding your last point, now you are talking about DEGREES of majority support, which shouldn't sway these constitution-based court decisions. For example, the court said that, despite the 52% who voted in an official election that were in favor of it, the law was "unconstitutional". So it doesn't matter if it's 52% in favor of it or 98% in favor of it (i.e., "much much much much less disagreement about (laws against poly or incest marriage), if such a law breaks the same 14th amendment that Prop 8 breaks, that DEGREE of majority shouldn't affect such a constitution-based decision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Feb 8 2012, 09:35 PM

- Because marriage has something to do with procreation? Not true in a goodly number of straight marriages among the elderly, the infertile and those who would prefer not to have children.
-
It still has to do with the procreation and education of children, whether or not a couple actually conceives.

The reason marriage between people of complimentary sexuality is a legally recognized institution is that it is by nature transgenerational (whether or not every marriage is actually so, is not germane) -- hence society does have a vested and special interest in the stable, permanent and monogamous family for its ongoing existence. There is every reason to assume that in the general case (which is what public policy must always consider primarily) that a sexually mature heterosexual couple is potentially capable of reproduction, and that children are optimally raised and formed by their own parents. How that might translate into specific public policy is a separate question, but there is no doubt that since it takes two haploids to make a diploid, and that only happens between a male and a female, there is a real argument for privileging permanent heterosexual relationships that no other relationship can satisfy.

Quote:
 
- Because marriage means a bond between a man and a woman? This is all well and good, except that allowing these benefits only to straight couples discriminates against an entire class of people who are prohibited from enjoying the same status. As yet, no one has come up with a rational, irreligious reason for such discrimination.


Any legal, financial, insurance, inheritance, visitation, etc rights could easily be solved by creating a legal domestic corporation of any two or more mature consenting adults of any mixture, that in no manner impinges on or competes with society's reasonable promotion of stable, permanent and exclusive heterosexual marriage. Various types of corporations are formed all the time for the pursuit of mutual interests and benefits that are special to the stakeholders.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Feb 8 2012, 09:59 PM
Horace
Feb 8 2012, 07:28 PM
Polygamy is an obvious thing to outlaw. Without legal boundaries, the powerful men will hoard the women. This is the human condition, and clearly how we evolved and how the best genes propagated, but it wouldn't make for good societies these days, presumably. Sexually frustrated men don't integrate well.
If it's mutually consenting and mutually advantageous, then what right does the government have to interfere?
Every right, of course. It exercises such rights all the time. Purely free markets or anarchy devolve to dictatorships and rule by force and fear. Put the fear into someone or hoard the wealth and apportion it to those who please you and you can forge "mutually beneficial agreements" which are purely predicated on what you want and completely regardless of what would be best for everybody at large.

Not for the first time, it occurs to me that some of you should do some thinking about the purpose of antitrust laws. It seems like you're coming from a worldview in which they are a Bad Thing.

Quote:
 
You seem to be assuming that the authority of government includes limiting human freedom for some abstract ideals of social engineering -- let's commoditize women and make sure the goods are spread around.


My intention is to maximize opportunity so that the best can achieve it. In purely lawless environments, power begets power. Law allows talent to beget power. It's why our system of government is evolved compared to Dim Young Ill assuming control of a country from his dimwit dad.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 9