Said Ted Olson.
Here's something Rush Limbaugh said in the middle of his monologue about the Prop 8 opinion:
The left uses issues such as gay marriage as battering rams to wreck the US Constitution and that's what's going on here. ... Well, the Democrats who are cheering this ruling, overturning California's Prop 8, are not really cheering gay marriage. They want gays to believe that they are. They are cheering and they are giving standing ovations to this judge for weakening the US Constitution, for ripping it to shreds, because that is the objective of the American left....
The Constitution was written to deemphasize the power of federal governments. Our Founders had fled tyranny. They certainly didn't set up tyranny when they founded this country with the Constitution. But the left -- the Marxists, socialists, progressives, whatever you want to call them -- want tyranny and they want to be in charge of it. The Constitution stands in their way. So this judge is being cheered ostensibly for recognizing homophobia in the heterosexual community for thousands of years.I like Rush enough to believe that when he got to this part of his monologue, he knew he'd become incoherent. If you don't want the majority's idea of morality imposed on everyone, you need individual rights that courts enforce against the will of the majority. The Constitution limits what can be imposed on individuals. It limits the federal government, and — with the 14th amendment — it limits the state.
Thousands of years of discriminatory homophobia has led to gay people not being allowed to marry, and this judge (finally someone enlightened) has come along and seen it. Wrong. They are cheering the fact that this judge has rammed the Constitution with a battering ram. These are the same Democrats who have either remained silent or openly advocated the building of a mosque where Sharia law is the word of Allah at Ground Zero. Now, Sharia law not only bans gay marriage, it bans gays. Permanently. So why in the world would leftists who are cheering a judge who has just said that Prop 8, voted on by seven million Californians is unconstitutional because of decades -- generations, thousands of years -- of homophobia and discrimination practiced by heterosexuals...?
Posts
454 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 454 Newer› Newest»How does phil answer a question? By asking a question.
(I do not like wasting my time)
That's funny.
@phil
Against my better judgement (I do not like wasting my time)
Sorry, phil, I only got this far on your comment. You do realize that you're posting on a blog during normal business hours, right? Even if you work 2nd or 3rd shift, there's a whole lot non-wasteful things you could be doing with your time, wouldn't you say?
Now, I'll go and read the rest of your decadent, affluent, waste of time...
Against my better judgement (I do not like wasting my time) I will humor you without wasting too much of my time.
You STILL are dodging the question.
If marriage is a fundamental right that includes same sex marriage, what is your argument against polygamy, polyandry or group marriage.
Or, are you for legalizing those fundamental rights as well?
Yes or no and why?
The second argument is that the rights of any children that you might have, that is, their rights not to be potentially mutated, trumps.
Whether your gene pool is small because your spouse is closely related, as in incest, or your gene pool is small because everybody in it is more-or-less ralated, as for the Amish and for Ashkenazic Jews, is immaterial. The state could mandate genetic counseling as a condition of marriage as it used to require VD testing.
If marriage is a fundamental right that includes same sex marriage, what is your argument against polygamy, polyandry or group marriage.
It still doesn't matter that polygamy is illegal, and that SSM advocates aren't asking for something is illegal? If all you polygamist lovers on the right want multiple partner marriages, you need to change the law first!
Scott M.,
"In hindsight, he was the lesser of two evils over Kerry, but that's another thread."
You couldn't tell that up front? Really??? I'm not sure I'd go around admitting that in public...
See if I have this straight.
The law says marriage is between a man and a woman. But then court says no it's between any two adults.
The law says you can only have one spouse. And you say the court will uphold this law how and why?
garage,
Then the question is: can you stop these laws from being declared unconstituional?
Please, yes or no.
Phil, you are still avoiding answering the question put to you. Now you are, wasting ample time I might add, doing the blogging equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and chanting.
Apparently marriage is marriage is marriage. Please explain to me how the number two is more valid, more legal, or better for society than the number 3 or 4. I haven't seen you do so yet.
Making the assumption that I'm against gay marriage by asking you this question or pestering your precious time in general would be false at the outset.
First, I am a business owner. Any time I waste here I have to make up with getting my work done inorder to keep my business functioning and my employees happy. :>
Allen S., I can not help it that you are dumb. I was trying to be nice in my response to you. Gays/lesbians and the marriage between them are not the same as polegamy and prositution any more than they is a comparison to legalizing drugs.
It is sad to what degree you will contort your arguments to justify your bigotry. Luckily the Supreme Court will not seriously entertain such intellectually weak and down right nasty arguments.
Which one of you want to tell Ann Althouse that one of hers sons is the equal of a prostitute and should be treated as such?
...and you wasted more time by multiple postings in multiple threads. All of the copy-pasting can't be good for your business' bottom line.
It's not the same because I said it's not the same! If it were the same, then that would make me uncomfortable, and I don't like that! Why can't you just understand that they're not the same?
Phil, Garage, do you really have absolutely no idea how courts analyze these things?
Does anyone else find it odd that most of the far left liberals here claim they are business owners? There was Jeremy and now Phil and they love the govt and rules and more and more regulations. Yum Yum they can't get enough of Big Govt up their butt 247.
You know "traditional marriage" has only been around a few decades anyways. Let's evolve a failed institution by getting committed gays into it.
Never once did I say that gays and the marriage between them are the same as polegamy and prositution.
I've tried to ask you two simple questions:
Should prostitution and polygamy be illegal?
lysalovelyredhead wrote:
I think we could argue that those things are natural for us to do (getting into traditions that pre-date history), while a human having sex with an animal is so unnatural that, in absence of its ability to communicate a response, it should be assumed that the animal would not consent (or that the animal should be considered unable to consent by nature of its animalism, similar to the situation of a mentally retarded person or under-aged person- no matter how much they indicate consent, they are not deemed fit to give it.)
You're arguing against bestiality based on traditions, and a morality based on social norms. Which is a big no no. Because who is to really say what is socially normal? Society? Not to proponents of gay marriage. THere the implication is you can't legislate morality. IF that were so, you really couldn't make a moral case against something like bestiality.
But even the consent argument is weak as we own animals wihtout their consent (slavery?) and we eat animals without their consent (and as Morrisey once said "No, No, No Its Murder!"). Now if we are going to sanction killing animals for sustenance it's kind of hard to make a logical case against sex with animals, since at the most basic level, killing is worse than sex, and unless we assume that animals like to be killed it's obvious that were they to be able to give consent they'd say no. But that doesn't matter to us.
Now as far as sex is concerned - did you ever have a dog hump your leg? Might one construe that since the dog is humping one's leg that it's horny and that perhaps it's open enough to sex with other species since it's trying to use your leg as its sex partner.
Lyssa,
Lets see how this court analysis this case. I will bet you not one dissenter will rely on the polygamy/prostitution/bestiality canard that is so popular among the Limbaugh crowd.
A.W.,
No, sun, it is ridiculous to say that official recognition of marriage—even straight marriage—is a fundamental right. Not everything is in the constitution just because you want it to be there.
That's your opinion - which you are fully entitled to. My point remains - that the Supremes have assumed juristiction of that question and decided that marriage is indeed a "basic civil right". You can begin some kind of movement to change that - but until you are successful - that is *settled*.
Given that - there is no reason to deny gays a basic civil right, especially given Lawrence which ruled on gay humanity,( in its way.)
These are NOT conjecture. The case of gay marriage is on a most probable course to the Supreme Court - where, imo, it will be upheld - meaning gays will marry other gays if they choose.
I think that Olson and Boise have it exactly right and they will prevail.
The fact is when conservatives try to equate gays with polygamists, bestiality and other such pablum it offends the moderates. Most moderate people view gay people as normal now.
Alex, you and phil are making that assumption. I see no one else doing it.
Fact is most people recognize straight & gay as both normal. Bestiality, polygamy is NOT considered normal by th mainstream.
The fact is when conservatives try to equate gays with polygamists, bestiality and other such pablum it offends the moderates. Most moderate people view gay people as normal now.
So...now you're equating polygamy with bestiality? See I can do it too.
I'm not against gay marriage. The liberal bloggers here can't seem to get that through their apparently thick skulls. I want one, just one, to explain to me how two gay people getting the state to recognize their marriage while excluding three gay people getting their recognized. Or three straight people...it doesn't matter.
The point is that all of the arguments that the SSM advocates use against one man/one woman are exactly what the polygamists can use.
If marriage is not one man/one woman, then why is more true to describe it as only two people?
garage mahal said...
phil said...
Alex said...
I blame Scott M and his 8/9/10 9:46 AM comment.
Fact is most people recognize straight & gay as both normal. Bestiality, polygamy is NOT considered normal by th mainstream.
Jumping the shark a bit early in your comments today, aren't you? This entire discussion hinges on the fact that 8 million people disagree with you and one person behind a bench doesn't.
As we've discussed here ad nuaseum, what the "people feel" has no bearing on the judiciary.
Furthermore, Alex, I'll point to something FLS mentioned earlier. Interracial marriage was extremely fringe at one time. I suppose you would be on the side arguing against that too?
garage mahal wrote:
It still doesn't matter that polygamy is illegal, and that SSM advocates aren't asking for something is illegal? If all you polygamist lovers on the right want multiple partner marriages, you need to change the law first!
We're not asking to make polygamy legal. We're asking the proponets of gay marriage why they think polygamy is illegal, if they think society is right to prevent it and when society does prevent it, are they discriminating against those who are engaging in it?
We're trying to find out what YOU think, since you guys are the ones arguing marriage on the grounds that society can't fundamentally restrict marriage.
A good anti joke:
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because judicial restraint really does not mean anything anymore with this Prop 8 reversal, this is an example of federal overreach, and the separation of power issues are making me colicy.”
Oh yeah, what Chapman said.
Seems to me that the challenge is to either make a rights argument or a power argument.
If it's a rights argument, tell us the legal rule that permits homosexual "marriage" but not polygamous "marriage", incestuous marriage, or marriage with minors. Rules about current illegality, lack of efforts to change law, or the viewpoint of the majority don't count.
Why not? Because those are tools of power arguments, which is basically using the tools of politics and democracy to get enough powerful people on your side to change the rules. That's fine too, but if you go that route, don't use terms like "civil rights" or "equality" or "fairness" in anything but a rhetorical context or else you're going to get hammered.
Both are legit methods. Pick one. Shifting back and forth between the two suggests that neither is a winner on its own.
that the Supremes have assumed juristiction of that question and decided that marriage is indeed a "basic civil right". You can begin some kind of movement to change that - but until you are successful - that is *settled*.
Given that - there is no reason to deny gays a basic civil right,
Then please explain why YOU want to deny the polygamists this very same basic civil right?
Either it is a civil right extended to all.... without discrimination, according to you and the Supreme Court evidently, or it is not.
If it isn't a basic civil right, then why don't the people have the ability to choose what is legal and what isn't?
Which is it?
And btw. I AM really self employed so I can screw around all I want at work.
Realize further that gay people want the state of California to acknowledge the relationship with the one they love with the title of marriage -- the title "civil union" is somehow insufficient. The court case is merely quibbling over a word.
As I pointed out, marriage is a union of complementary beings, which SSM can never be. So the word just doesn't fit. Judge Walker argues that SSM should be allowed because gender equality means that men and women are interchangeable within a marriage, so one's mother is indistinguishable from one's father.
Phil, here is the intersection of "gay marriage is a right" and "polygamy follows":
(1) Marriage tradition for thousands of years, opposite genders, monogamous. This is discarded, and can no longer be enforced in law, in order to accomodate gay marriage.
Polygamists say: ditto.
(2) I should be able to marry whomever I want:
Polygamists say: ditto.
(3) If you try to enforce existing marriage law, it infringes on me, and you're only doing it because you disapprove of my lifestyle. We're adults, commited to each other, and this is a voluntary union.
Polygamists say: ditto.
(4) It's only fair, considering the historical mistreatment we've suffered.
Polygamists say: ditto.
The point is, Phil, you've made their argument for them. I guess you can say "not my problem," but it is a problem. You can claim there's no imperative for gay marriage advocates to respond to this, but if they don't, it doesn't reassure anyone that they've seriously considered the long-range consequences of this societal change.
At least when legislators change a law, there's been deliberative effort to codify the ramifications ahead of time.
@sunsong:
Given that - there is no reason to deny gays a basic civil right, especially given Lawrence which ruled on gay humanity,( in its way.)
That decision was based on a right to privacy. Marriage is not a private act. It's a public act, with a public document.
@Alex:
The fact is when conservatives try to equate gays with polygamists, bestiality and other such pablum it offends the moderates.
Polygamy is the norm in may countries in Africa & the Middle East. The only reason polygamy (bigamy) is illegal here is the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage, societal norms, protection of children, marital assests, etc.
If none of these can be cited as a reason to oppose the basic civil right of marriage for anyone to marry anyone, than it can't be cited for polygamy either.
Let's look at these situations:
Don is living with Ron; they love each other and want to get married, so the state should acknowledge their relationship.
Bill is living with Jill; they love each other and want to get married, so the state should acknowledge their relationship even though Jill is already married to Phil.
Ron is married to Mon(ica) but falls in love with Don. Shouldn't the state acknowledge his opposite-sex marriage as well as his same-sex marriage?
Lyssa
> Bestiality: A harder case. I would buy that the animal can’t consent; therefore, it falls under animal rights (if such a thing exists) or animal cruelty.
Well, that is all well and good for personal morality, but the Supreme Court has had it pretty clear that the non-personhood of fetuses deprives the state of any right to protect them.
At its core the court did not make sense in Lawrence, and is not making sense here.
Phil
> Against my better judgement (I do not like wasting my time) I will humor you without wasting too much of my time.
You say that being gay is not the same as polygamy. Okay so what is the principled difference cognizable by a court?
Ditto with animal cruelty. If you are allowed to do whatever you want as long as no person is hurt (without their consent), then what person is harmed by animal cruelty?
Ditto with gay incest. If its not the same, then it should be easy tell me a principled difference between gay marriage and gay incestuous marriage.
Scott M wrote:
The fact is when conservatives try to equate gays with polygamists, bestiality and other such pablum it offends the moderates. Most moderate people view gay people as normal now.
So what youre saying is whatever the moderates say is acceptable is acceptable? Why do the moderates get to determine what is socially acceptable, and who are the moderates? My guess would be the moderates in your mind are the ones who are for gay marriage. If they are against gay marriage, then they couldn't possibly be moderate. So again, this boils down to those who favor gay marriage...favor gay marriage. Why would you expect otherwise.
Also, are the moderates who are ok with gay marriage but find polygamy to be an abomination, bigots? You seem to think polygamy is akin to bestiality, are you a bigot? Are you aware that polygamists are adults who pay their taxes and have petitioned the govt for marriage? Why is denying them rights under law ok, but denying gays not ok?
Can we call you a bigot or does bigotry only apply when moderates are in agreement?
Either it is a civil right extended to all.... without discrimination, according to you and the Supreme Court evidently, or it is not.
There is an actual case that will, in a couple of years, - more likely than not- , be before the Supreme Court. That is NOT conjecture. That is a concrete fact.
Whether or not other suits will follow is not known. It is nothing but conjecture to discuss those, imo.
You are free to conjecture and speculate all you want to, of course.
However, it does not interest me to join you.
It's ok to be bigoted against polygamists. IT's easy in fact. There are no political downsides.
If courts serve a counter-majoritarian purpose of protecting minorities' rights, then shouldn't they protect despised polygamists' rights most of all?
jr565, I didn't write that. I was responding to it.
So what youre saying is whatever the moderates say is acceptable is acceptable?
Because they are the swing voters on every issue. Right now they are for SSM. Also Republicans keep pushing against SSM at their own peril. 25 and younger support full gay rights by 90-10. Look at how huge the 18-29 went for Obama!
FLS - in fact the courts only protect the most popular minorities, not the most despised ones like polygamists. Let's face it - Mormons are never going to get mainstream approval!
If you are for Gay marriage and not for this....explain why.
@DBQ
Here is my explanation. States have statutes that describe the process by which two people can be legally married. There is no good reason to deny this legal process to two people of the same sex.
The reason behind anti-bigamy laws is different. So, I can support anti-bigamy laws and still think that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Because they are the swing voters on every issue. Right now they are for SSM. Also Republicans keep pushing against SSM at their own peril. 25 and younger support full gay rights by 90-10. Look at how huge the 18-29 went for Obama!
Second shark jumped. You do know that there's a state in this country called California. They had a big vote. The majority of those voters went for Prop 8 in a big way. Embarressingly enough, so did a majority of the black vote. And "Look at how huge" the black vote "went for Obama!"
The reason behind anti-bigamy laws is different. So, I can support anti-bigamy laws and still think that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Or, more popularly,
Step 1: collect underpants
Step 2: ...
Step 3: PROFIT!
Scott - while it's true that blacks are largely anti-gay right now that will eventually go away. Fact is, this country will get more and more hostile to check-pants Republicans over time! Every day passes by and another "outrage" to Christian sensibilities! I'm lovin it.
Brian,
That decision was based on a right to privacy. Marriage is not a private act. It's a public act, with a public document.
Dear God, I feel like I'm in Ground Hog Day here - just saying the same thing over and over :-)
The Supreme Court has ruled on two cases: Loving and Lawrence
Due to their rulings on those two cases [they're may be more :-) ] - ie that marriage is a basic civil right and that gays have a basic human right to their sexuality -
Based on those two rulings - there is, imo, no reason to deny gays the same right to marry the person of their choice as everyone else has.
It is my belief that the Supremes will uphld Walker on this.
The burden of proof is on the bigots to justify why rights should be stomped on. Gay rights is the default MORAL position!
"Because they are the swing voters on every issue. Right now they are for SSM. Also Republicans keep pushing against SSM at their own peril. 25 and younger support full gay rights by 90-10. Look at how huge the 18-29 went for Obama!"
And polyamory is gaining ground among that demographic as well. If you had asked the mainstream what they thought of SSM 50 years ago, you would have been scoffed at and dismissed just as quickly as those asking about polygamy are now.
The amount of ducking and dodging on these very easy-to-answer questions here is enough to make a leftist's head spin.
You know... I get the feeling that we're supposed to be thinking that Ted Olson is maybe right about the Right to Marry Who the Hell You Want is in the constitution, and certainly the bit at the link is supposed to present his little "put it to a vote" as a slam dunk...
... but then read the comments.
Oh. Dear. God.
Alex
It's good to see that you, a bigot, keep up with other groups and their bigotry. Good luck with that.
And simply putting an exclamation point behind "Gay rights is the default MORAL position!" doesn't make it so. Capitalizing moral gets you close, though.
The fact is right now SSM is enjoying huge popularity among the 18-29 demographic. Given another 20 years it will be 100% support.
Scott - just admit that you hate gay people. That's what the FMA-crowd is really all about - their hate.
"Would you like your right to free speech... put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?"
That's pretty much what happened when the Bill of Rights was first passed, was it not? Just fewer states back then.
@ScottM
Although I normally find South Park references very persuasive, I am unconvinced that anti-bigamy laws have no rational basis.
What is the reason behind anti-bigamy laws? Seriously.
For millenia, marriages have included one (or more) men plus one (or more) women. Not gay rights activists say that the essential of marriage is not the man-woman bond but the number two. I'm not getting it.
Triangle
:) I was pointing out that you said they were different, but didn't expand on why...which is about 2/3 of the purpose of the comments on this thread. Trying to figure out why they are different and how someone can argue for one, but against the other.
Alex wrote:
The burden of proof is on the bigots to justify why rights should be stomped on. Gay rights is the default MORAL position!
So then, you're a bigot when it comes to polygamy and are allowing rights to be stamped on. The burden of proof should be on you to explain why.
Or are you denying that polygamous couples have rights?
synova: I think the only problem with bigamy is the secrecy -- you shouldn't represent yourself as single when you already have a spouse -- it's unfair to the new spouse.
Where the new spouse knows what s/he is getting into is a completely different situation.
I'll say it once more for you, Alex. I care not a whip about people marrying whoever they please, assuming they are legally adults and consenting to do so.
Please tell me where I have erred in that opinion.
"Not" should be "Now"
Polygamy is the norm in may countries in Africa & the Middle East. The only reason polygamy (bigamy) is illegal here is the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage, societal norms, protection of children, marital assests, etc.
Widespread polygamy was not practiced by Native Americans (at least in California) except at the topmost level.
In 1769 the Spanish explored Alta California and discovered San Francisco Bay by land.
Miguel Costansó was an engineer along and wrote a diary which was translated into English here's what he wrote about polygamy and what might have been indigenous gay population.
Polygamy is not permitted among these people; the chiefs alone possess the right to take two wives. In all of their towns there was noticed a class of men who lived like women, associated with them, wore the same dress, adorned themselves with beads, earrings, necklaces, and other feminine ornaments, and enjoyed great consideration among their companions. The want of an interpreter prevented us from ascertaining what kind of men they were, or to what office they were designed; all suspected however, a sexual defect or some abuse among those Indians.
From The Discovery of San Francisco Bay. The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770
Sunsong
> That's your opinion - which you are fully entitled to. My point remains - that the Supremes have assumed juristiction of that question and decided that marriage is indeed a "basic civil right
No, they have not. That passage was ambiguous.
> Given that - there is no reason to deny gays a basic civil right, especially given Lawrence which ruled on gay humanity
Yes, that was the holding. That gay people were human. (rolls eyes)
> These are NOT conjecture. The case of gay marriage is on a most probable course to the Supreme Court - where, imo, it will be upheld - meaning gays will marry other gays if they choose.
Well if according to you the right to marry, combined with humanity = right to marry, then I expect they will legalize gay incest, too, right?
Garage
> It still doesn't matter that polygamy is illegal, and that SSM advocates aren't asking for something is illegal?
Um, gay marriage is illegal in most states. Was illegal in California prior to this ruling.
Or do you mean that people having sex with multiple partners is illegal? Like if a guy has two live in girlfriends? Because actually Lawrence was read to make that legal.
Triangle Man wrote:
Here is my explanation. States have statutes that describe the process by which two people can be legally married. There is no good reason to deny this legal process to two people of the same sex.
Sez you. And those for traditinional marriage say otherwise (Though many also support civil unions for gays).
The reason behind anti-bigamy laws is different. So, I can support anti-bigamy laws and still think that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
Why does the reason behind the laws being different matter? The point is, by denying people the right "to marry" aren't you fundamentally depriving people of what you say is a right. What then is marriage? IT's the proponents of gay marriage arguing that marriage needs to be modified because you can't discriminate against people wanting to get married? So then how could you argue that you can discrminate against people who want to be in bigamist relationships, since by making that illegal you are, in your own words, depriving them of a right.
@Synova:
Generally, anti-bigamy laws were designed to protect families inheritances. Hence the legal recognition of the 1st marriage, but no subsequent marriages (unless divorce is granted first). Also important in a time when women couldn't work, or had few assets, had dependent children, and were dependent on their husbands.
@ScottM
What I should have said...perhaps...is that demonstrating that there is not a rational basis to prohibit gay marriage does not require the basis of anti-bigamy laws be addressed.
Once the concept has been accepted that homosexual life in society deserves equal treatment to heterosexual life , then all opposition to gay marriage is finished no matter what arguments we make from here on. Since homosexual acts had been universally proscribed as crimes until a few years ago, this never came up before. Finding that it is unconstitutional to enact any standard in the legislature that is a morality based law leads to striking down all opposition to gay marriage.
Gay people want marriage to be redefined to include same-sex relationships.
Sy
> What is the reason behind anti-bigamy laws? Seriously.
Historically i think it was felt to be very debasing of women. Owen Lovejoy, a major congressional abolitionist (his brother Elijah was murdered defending his presses from an anti-abolitionist mob), equated the two as "twin pillars of barbarism" in a famous speech. it was felt that polygamy in reality typically meant one man, multiple women. likewise plantation owners were darkly spoken of having plantation harems and dozens of children--some white, some mixed--running around.
fls wrote:
synova: I think the only problem with bigamy is the secrecy -- you shouldn't represent yourself as single when you already have a spouse -- it's unfair to the new spouse.
BIgamists are forced into the closet due to their shame and do to societies bigotry and hatred towards their lifestyle. If society weren't so bigoted then bigamists could be open about their lifestyles. And you can't legislate morality. So therefore, those arguing that a bigamist should be denied a basic right (the right to marry in a fashion that a bigamist wants to) are in fact bigots
Prostitution belongs in a different category than polygamy or polyandry or polyamory. Prostitution belongs in whatever category of things where one sells one's body... selling blood or selling kidneys or other organs or renting out one's womb for profit or, probably, even taking money from the people who adopt your baby.
"It still doesn't matter that polygamy is illegal, and that SSM advocates aren't asking for something is illegal?"
Polygamy didn't stand up to the Constitutional prohibition against forbidding the practice of religion, which is a pretty high standard. Since polygamy is common across the world and in History, why was it considered so terribly bad that the need to make it illegal outweighed an explicit Constitutional Right?
Or was it really just religious oppression in violation of the Constitution?
Is there any reason *at all* to suggest that the present illegality of marriages of more than two people could stand up to Constitutional scrutiny on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, never-mind the 14th?
So in order for homosexual marriage to be found a constitutional right, its proponents need to come up with arguments that will prevent other groups, not involved in this dispute, from using similar legal arguments to try to argue that their idea of marriage should be granted constitutional protection? The polygamy "argument" is the most blatant red herring, yet all opponents of same-sex marriage act like it somehow destroys the proponents' argument.
On a very basic level of argument, you can look to one of the major issues at play in this case - whether asking for same-sex marriage is the creation of a new right, or the request to join in on the current right. Certainly, there are arguments that people make about it being a new right (i.e. people saying "They can still have a state-sanctioned marriage, just only with a person of the opposite sex.") Personally, I think that argument is ridiculous, but it at least makes some degree of sense. It would be much harder to fit the framework of polygamous marriage into the existing right. (i.e. No one, whether same sex or opposite sex, has the right to marry more than one person.) Thus, arguing that polygamists are not asking for a new right is much more difficult than for same-sex marriage.
But again, in the context of this constitutional challenge, it isn't their job to prove that other people might use similar arguments when arguing for something else. They made the case that this would not be a "new right" and that there was no rational basis for banning same-sex marriage. I and Judge Walker believe they made that case, you don't. Perhaps a higher court will agree with you, or maybe they'll agree with me. If the strongest argument that you can make is a slippery slope where groups of people might use similar legal arguments to advance their cause, your argument is not very strong.
Sunsong wrote:
"Due to their rulings on those two cases [they're may be more :-) ] - ie that marriage is a basic civil right and that gays have a basic human right to their sexuality -"
I don't think not allowing for gay marriage deprives -people the right to their sexuality. That's ludicrous.Are gay people not gay now, they can only become gay when they get married. Or is society telling them they can't engage in gay behavior?
Perhaps it's important for those who say that marriage is a right to lay out what that right entails because if you say to me that marriage is a basic civil right, then everyone has those rights. So if someone, say a polygamist says he has a basic right to be married, does that mean that he has a basic right to be married in a polygamist marriage?
"The polygamy "argument" is the most blatant red herring, yet all opponents of same-sex marriage act like it somehow destroys the proponents' argument."
Wrong answer. It destroys Judge Walker's argument. Which is the gist of these last few threads on the topic.
There are much better arguments for SSM than the illogical garbage Walker produced.
Is there any reason *at all* to suggest that the present illegality of marriages of more than two people could stand up to Constitutional scrutiny on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, never-mind the 14th?
I don't know, were all the polygamous marriages shotgun weddings?
w.v. statisms
Bleh... First Amendment...
Makes it worse anyhow.
@James
Thanks to James for taking the time to at least craft a well thought out response to the main question at hand and doing so without dripping hyperbole all over it.
To the thrust of your argument, though, and bearing in mind I cannot speak for anyone else here, this isn't a slippery slope issue.
I...Don't...Care...If...Gay...People...Get...Married.
Demanding rational visa vi polygamy isn't a tactic. It's an honest question that just about everyone vocally or otherwise overtly in favor of SSM seems ill-equipped to deal with. Or, at least, answer without throwing personal attacks of bigotry all over the place.
The question at hand is, if you're going to redefine something, how can you exclude other based on the same set of argument you (meaning SSM advocacy) used in the first place?
The "it will be too hard" argument you posit falls short as well, I believe, simply thinking back to how hard it was going to be integrate schools and just about every other public venue. That, in a great many people's minds, was a towering sheer cliff of difficult.
I think the easiest retort to the polygamy crowd would be to ask, "where's the limit?" If marriage can be said to be between consenting adults that want the same recognition, why not 20 of them? I've not seen one person mention this yet.
lol, Synova.
I really felt like I was missing something crucial about that 2nd Amendment remark.
But again, in the context of this constitutional challenge, it isn't their job to prove that other people might use similar arguments when arguing for something else.
Incest and polygamy are mere incremental changes to marriage as we know it, compared to SSM, which kicks one gender out altogether.
James wrote:
"No one, whether same sex or opposite sex, has the right to marry more than one person.) Thus, arguing that polygamists are not asking for a new right is much more difficult than for same-sex marriage."
Well as it currently stands, no one is allowed to marry a person of the same gender as themselves, so gays ARE asking for a new right. Just as no person is allowed to marry more than 1 person. Yet, of course, you could say it's unfair as heterosexual men or women wouldn't want to marry the same sex. But by the same token , people who aren't polygamists have no reason to marry more than 1 person, so aren't put out by the law stating only 2 people can be involved in a marriage, whereas polygamists are.
Is marriage a civil right whereby the person wanting to marry defines it, or is it one based on societies determination of what a marriage is?
GMay - boiled down to the basics, Judge Walker's ruling states that proponents of Prop 8 showed No rational basis for not allowing SSM. That is, he ruled that Prop 8 supporters could not even show the amount of "harm" that would be prevented by this proposition to even pass the lowest level of scrutiny. A slippery slope argument, stating that other groups of people in the future will use similar legal arguments as the plaintiffs here in support of their case, does not "destroy" that ruling, unless you have a very different definition of "destroy" than I.
Scott M
I get your argument. You've been beating the same drum beat for days now and it's beginning to bore us. Can you take it to the next level?
Do you really expect that:
A) Groups in favor of polygamy will rush to court [if they haven't all ready]?
B) Judges all over the country will soon allow polygamy?
C) Anarchy will reign supreme and then a huge hole will open up on the surface of the Earth and people will begin falling into hell?
James, so explain how the argument of majority moral sentiment not being sufficient to ban something can not be equally applied to polyamorous relationships.
Other than public disapproval, the "ick factor", there is nothing.
"It's different because I say it is different" is not an argument.
Marriage is explicitly and arbitrarily limited in a variety of ways that vary by culture and code. To say that it's a "right" that everyone has is ludicrous except that everyone has the right to follow the arbitrary rules whatever they are.
If the Constitution forbids the arbitrary limitations on marriage based on public morality, by what means does the arbitrary limitation of "two" remain in force?
"We don't want to deal with the legal complexities of multiple party divorces" isn't a good enough reason to deny a Constitutional right.
Is marriage a civil right? Does that mean people can marry whoever they want? Who defines marriage:
"I really felt like I was missing something crucial about that 2nd Amendment remark."
After a hearty "Oh, crap!" I had a good laugh about the shotgun wedding remark. ;-)
Matt wrote:
Do you really expect that:
A) Groups in favor of polygamy will rush to court [if they haven't all ready]?
B) Judges all over the country will soon allow polygamy?
There have been cases of polygamists rushing to courts to overturn the ban on polygamy. And as time goes on there will be more and more. If gay mariage becomes the law, I can certainly see polygamists and their lawyers making the exact same case that gays do.
But the question is for you Matt. You seem to think that polygamist have no right to marry who they want, and that society has every right to deny them this 'fundamental rigtht". If tomorrow there were a case involving polygamists versus the govt, would you stand with the govt or with the polygamists?
Who defines marriage:
The state. That's why my grandparents would have been looking at seven and a half years in the Big House had they moved to Cheeseland. So they never did.
But what's wrong with the Laboratories of Democracy model? Let gays move to states that let them marry each other.
Look, it's not a red herring argument for me or even a slippery slope argument... I'd be just *fine* if my Wiccan friend could legally marry all of her spouses and have a recognized domestic arrangement.
The thing is... IF this is what the Constitution requires then this is what the Constitution requires. Period.
It doesn't matter of Mormons and Wiccans line up at the courts to demand their rights or not. The argument "that won't happen because there just isn't a large enough lobby to push it" is a blatant argument *against* this as a Constitutional ruling. What that argument does is state outright that it's not a matter of Constitutional principle but a matter of political whimsy. And that's pretty sad.
Have the courage of your convictions.
Scott M
I get your argument. You've been beating the same drum beat for days now and it's beginning to bore us. Can you take it to the next level?
Do you really expect that:
A) Groups in favor of polygamy will rush to court [if they haven't all ready]?
No.
B) Judges all over the country will soon allow polygamy?
That depends on how high a theoretical case would go, wouldn't it?
C) Anarchy will reign supreme and then a huge hole will open up on the surface of the Earth and people will begin falling into hell?
Yes, but not because of something as banal as SSM/polygamy.
BTW, when this gets to the Supreme Court the plaintiffs better have an answer for polygamy and incestuous marriage, because considering the future consequences of their ruling is much of what the Supremes do.
@Matt
289 comments and still going would seem to indicate people aren't as bored as you seem to believe. Is that the blogging equivalent of "move along, nothing more to see here?"
Fred4Pres:
Mosque at Ground Zero opposed by Muslim who mother died that day there
I am just helping out A.W.
By using Maureen Dowd logic, this mother has absolute moral authority because her sone died. She's the Cindy Sheehan of anti mosque sentiment.
Matt,
It's not a question of people rushing to have polygamy legalized, but what will happen when the first instance of it being brought in front of a court will the outcome be.
What if the judge in the first polygamy court challenge is a Muslim, who was from a country that allows the practice. Do you not understand the implication? Do you realize that the judge in this SMS case is gay?
jr565
I have never said that polygamists have no right to marry. That is not my argument. I personally don't care.
The question I would post back to you is what harm do you see in SSM or for that matter polygamy? But remember if you make an argument against polygamy you cannot turn and make the same argument against SSM. Because they are not the same thing.
I just think many of you here are playing an academic game. You seem to think Judge Walker's ruling opens marriage up to polygamy.
I say that argument is getting into sillyville because ultimately no matter what ruling Judge Walker came to someone out there would start yelling about slippery slopes. Opponents always do that. The left does it, the right does it, religious groups do it, parents do it.... It's boring.
JR - one of the reasons I cringe a little when I hear the "yes, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else" is the way that reasoning could be applied to marriage laws that all of us would agree are unconstitutional. An interracial marriage ban - "We're not preventing any person from marrying, they just have to marry someone of the same race, just like everyone else in the state. Interfaith marriage bans - "We're not preventing any person from getting married or practicing the religion of their choice, they just have to marry someone in their own religion, just like everyone else in the state."
Of course, I recognize that this cringe, taken to its endpoint, would also encompass ideas like polygamy. The truth is, its a very tricky issue. I am not an expert on polygamy, like I assume most people here are not, so no, I cannot stand here and give you a "rational basis" that I know would be verified (or verifiable) by the evidence.
My point is, it is not the job of SSM proponents to also be experts on the possible arguments for and against polygamy. Personally, I don't believe a slippery slope argument about polygamists using similar legal arguments is enough of a rational basis to deny SSM. You might disagree. But I've never seen a legal requirement that states that in order to win on a constitutional challenge, you must show that other groups, completely unrelated to you, will not use a similar argument. If the polygamists do make that argument in the future, it is up them to try to show that there is no rational basis for the law, and it is up to their opponents to show that rational basis. Judge Walker and I believe that Prop 8 supporters did not make this showing.
"I just think many of you here are playing an academic game."
It's called a dispassionate lack of wishful thinking.
The horror!
Since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We’re not talking about a new right here… We do not permit discrimination, inequality. That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens. It’s not judicial activism when judges do what the Constitution requires them to do, and they follow the precedent of previous decisions of the Supreme Court. - Ted Olson
From the Fox News interview
Alex wrote:
n fact the courts only protect the most popular minorities, not the most despised ones like polygamists.
Ah so the courts themselves are bigoted. Guess it must suck to be an unpopular minority, versus a popular one. I guess all things being equal that all things aren't equal after all.
Noted, Sunsong, but We do not permit discrimination, inequality.
Isn't it discrimination in favor of relationships with only two spouses? Inequality for those with more?
Thanks for the quote, sunsong.
I see no reason why a father can't marry his 18 year old daughter using Ted Olson's reasoning.
AllenS - so who would you accept as a judge in this case? Would an Evangelical Christian that believes homosexuality is immoral and a choice have less potential bias in this case? Who exactly would not be able to recuse themselves in a gay marriage case? With this logic, it would apparently have to be an asexual blob that has no opinions on the morality of sex.
James,
There is no rational basis for a ban on polyamorous marriages.
The moment that marriage becomes something that can not be arbitrarily limited by law according to majority sentiment, then it can't be arbitrarily limited by law according to majority sentiment.
But it's pretty sad, really, to figure that as long as you get your thing, that what someone else might do with the ruling doesn't matter. It's a attitude of "I don't care what I break to get what I want" and it's lame.
The Constitution and the Law doesn't care and the Constitution and the Law have to be applied equally. That's the rule.
This sort of "I get the Constitution and you don't!" thing is supposedly the problem, isn't it? If so, why use that as your primary argument to discount the range of consequences of a change from marriage as an arbitrarily limited government endorsement to a "right" that can't be denied?
James,
My point is, it is not the job of SSM proponents to also be experts on the possible arguments for and against polygamy.
Thank you for articulating that. And for doing it so well :-)
AllenS - so who would you accept as a judge in this case? Would an Evangelical Christian that believes homosexuality is immoral and a choice have less potential bias in this case? Who exactly would not be able to recuse themselves in a gay marriage case? With this logic, it would apparently have to be an asexual blob that has no opinions on the morality of sex.
That was my first thought the morning this thing broke as well. The only thing that takes the spit out of the whole deal is a gay judge ruling for Prop 8 or visa versa. In any regards, I suggested getting asexual former mayor Ed Koch to hear the case, but he's not returning my calls.
The short version is that it doesn't really matter what the judge's persuasion is because the reverse would be equally unpalatable...excepting perhaps that 7 million anti-Prop 8 people didn't come out and win the vote in the first place.
Where is the proof this judge is gay?
James,
The voters of CA made a decision. It should not have been challenged. The challenge should have been rejected, until other issues such as polygamy, prostitution, father/daughter marriages were considered before some judge with a chip on his shoulder or a cock up his ass was brought in to decide this.
Make a constituional argument, James why a father marrying his 18 daughter should be considered illegal.
AllenS said...
What if the judge in the first polygamy court challenge is a Muslim, who was from a country that allows the practice. Do you not understand the implication?
Yeah, the implications are the case would not get further than that judge's courtroom. There is just no way the Supreme Court would allow polygamy. Who knows what states might want to adopt it. But for the sake of argument let's say polygamy became the law of the land. Would it matter? I think jealousy would be the biggeest issue.
Do you realize that the judge in this SMS case is gay?
So? He is also a Libertarian who was appointed by Reagan and then by Bush. And his first nomination was defeated by Nancy Pelosi because he made a ruling which opposed the use of the term 'Gay Olympics'
"Isn't it discrimination in favor of relationships with only two spouses? Inequality for those with more?"
Of course it is.
"I see no reason why a father can't marry his 18 year old daughter using Ted Olson's reasoning."
I don't either.
Not if marriage is a fundamental right as Olson is saying it is. It can only be one of two things. It can be a fundamental right that requires an extreme proof to show compelling State interest that can not be met in any less invasive manner OR it is not a fundamental right and can be limited according to public sentiment.
Either/Or
Not "and".
James, I heartily disagree. If you're going to make constitutional arguments claiming that A is like B, then you need to be prepared to explain why B is not like C. If you're arguing that the line is drawn in the wrong place, then you need to be prepared to argue why your new line is drawn in the right place. Otherwise, you're just showing that you're interested in a power play to make sure you get what you want.
The charge, incidentally, is not to establish the pros and cons of polygamous marriage. It is to cite the principles that distinguish same-sex marriage from polygamous marriage. Hand-waving the question away doesn't help much.
Convincing Judge Walker of something it seems that he already believed is no great hurdle. Convincing people who aren't already in the camp is the trick.
I am trying to understand how this ruling which limits the enforcement of laws based on a certain set of moral principles rather than a concept of individual rights is an attack on the constitution.
This decision makes it difficult to criminalize behavior if the only basis for the law is the activity is considered immoral by the majority. Thus, until very recently, polygyny was tolerated in Utah. But I think the state often regulates based on moral as Scallia wrote in his dissenting statement for Lawrence V Texas: "... Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation." Yes the state is very interested in regulating morals while preserving rights, and therein lie the contradictions?
"There is just no way the Supreme Court would allow polygamy."
WHY NOT?
I'm serious. Why the heck not? Because you said so?
Why is this so obvious to you that it doesn't even have to be defended? On what possible grounds will the Supreme Court not ever allow polygamy?
AllenS
some judge with a chip on his shoulder or a c**k up his a** was brought in to decide this
Well we know who's homophobic.
I don't doubt that you also thought that the nullification of the sodomy laws would lead to a slippery slope of fathers legally being able to have sex with their daughters. Hasn't happened. And won't.
Synova resorts to capital letters which is basically where I found myself in the last thread on this topic and, coincidentally, roughly about the same time of the day...
Why is this so obvious to you that it doesn't even have to be defended? On what possible grounds will the Supreme Court not ever allow polygamy?
Apparently, judging by what some of the commentators have said, it won't ever be allowed on the same basis as interracial marriage, desegregation in schools, etc.
Synova said:
"There is no rational basis for a ban on polyamorous marriages.
The moment that marriage becomes something that can not be arbitrarily limited by law according to majority sentiment, then it can't be arbitrarily limited by law according to majority sentiment."
Really? Based on this ruling, you are willing to concede that there is no rational basis for banning polyamorous marriage?
There are plenty of angles you can take, just that if you're not an expert, you don't know if the findings will back you up. Potential for forced marriages/ abuse. Problems of consent, where one party may not actually want a polygamous marriage but fears what will happen if they don't give consent. Problems with the probate/inheritance system when there are multiple wives and families.
Do you or I know whether or not these and other arguments will withstand the evidence? I don't. Like I said, I have absolutely no expertise in the area. That is up to the people supporting and opposing polygamous marriage to argue over.
The truth is, in the case of SSM at issue here, when they got to the point of rational basis, the Prop 8 supporters simply did not have a good argument. They argue that it will harm "traditional" heterosexual marriage, but provide no backing for that argument. They argue that it will harm the children, but didn't show any evidence of this, besides using studies about how completely unrelated policies like no-fault divorce impact the children involved. Thus, their last argument standing is the slippery slope argument. A tricky issue, but not a rational basis for the outcome of this case.
BTW, if we care at all about being accurate... I haven't noticed anyone arguing for or against polygamy.
When did that happen?
I'm so glad my wife and I got married when we did. As so many people have informed me, gay marriage means hetero marriages are threatened.
Just to think how seriously in peril my relationship with my wife would have been if gays had been allowed to marry when we were married. I'm so sorry for all the hetero couples who will never again be able to enjoy the kind of love and relationship that my wife and I have. Those filthy, selfish gays.
"I see no reason why a father can't marry his 18 year old daughter using Ted Olson's reasoning."
Except for consanguinity. No rational basis for that?
Heck, in Wisconsin he could give his permission for her to marry at age 16.
phx,
Who said that this would harm your marriage?
Synova
Polygamy WHY NOT?
You're funny. Nice game you play. I'm guessing you were pretty good on the high school debate team.
You're arguing against bestiality based on traditions, and a morality based on social norms. Which is a big no no.
Jr565, I think you read me as trying to support Vaughn’s ruling. I don’t; I was arguing that the equal protection clause could support a right not to have gay sex criminalized, a la Lawrence, although not on the logic of the Lawrence majority. I agree with those saying that it’s absurd to suggest that morality and (to some degree) societal norms play no role, although here I'm focused on biological drivers, as they are more concrete.
I addressed why that argument is different from eating animals (the same would hold for animal slavery). Is killing worse than sex, when we are talking about animals? Given that our biology drives us to eat meat, I’m arguing no.
did you ever have a dog hump your leg? Might one construe that since the dog is humping one's leg that it's horny and that perhaps it's open enough to sex with other species since it's trying to use your leg as its sex partner.
I addressed this as well in my response to A.W. If a mentally retarded person or child makes a pass at you, you are required to turn it down, because they are not mentally able to consent to sex, regardless of how they may show that they want it. Animals are even less able to consent.
James said: "GMay - boiled down to the basics..."
A little disingenuous don't you think? What specifically did Judge Walker say? If simply saying "there is no rational basis" would have been sufficient, then that's all he would have said. But that's not the case is it?
Let's take a quick look:
"Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with
marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States."
In his appeal to those who "widely regard" marriage in this light, he conveniently omits the inarguable fact that marriage has been a historically (not just widely regarded) heterosexual institution. Then he strangely turns to history:
"WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS AN INTEREST IN
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS
42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human
history. The concept of an identity based on object desire;
that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with
someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex
(homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late
nineteenth century."
However same sex marriages have little, if any historical precedent. Many societies throughout history widely regarded the subject not even up for discussion. There is no argument over whether or not homosexual relationships have happened. Heterosexual polygamy and incestuous marriages have far more documentation than same sex marriage.
So, using the judge's logic (or illogic such it is), there is no rational basis for keeping adult incest and polygamy illegal. Because we must remember what the judge also said:
"[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation..."
So yes, given the judge's "reasoning" I'd say that the polygamy/incest question destroys his logic. But then, I guess we may in fact have differing opinions on the meaning of the word "destroy".
James said...
GMay - boiled down to the basics, Judge Walker's ruling states that proponents of Prop 8 showed No rational basis for not allowing SSM. That is, he ruled that Prop 8 supporters could not even show the amount of "harm" that would be prevented by this proposition to even pass the lowest level of scrutiny. A slippery slope argument, stating that other groups of people in the future will use similar legal arguments as the plaintiffs here in support of their case, does not "destroy" that ruling, unless you have a very different definition of "destroy" than I.
========================
1. THis was a judge that tried to apply courtroom evidentiary procedures and "making a case" to the voting process. It is not the responsibility of advocates and opponents of a law to "make a legal case" why - say - they want speed limit set at in 1000 feet of a school. Or those who oppose it to make a cogent legal case to voters that dropping the limit from 40 to 35 would save no lives and is not worth the economic cost of traffic delays.
Saying the vote is bounded by evidentiary rules is saying the vote is irrelevant and should directly be submitted to a judge instead to decide. (Much as many judges want to grab that power, it usurps democracy!)
2. If the legal argument and process to bar society from "moralizing" in law sexual relationships between consenting adults - that will directly lead to having to legalize other sexual relationships as a matter of course. It is not a hypothetical slippery slope - it is direct, foreseen legal consequences. Much as Scalia warned Kennedy and O'Connor they were once again acting as idiots and gay anal sex being OK in Lawrence v. Texas would directly lead to judges legalizing gay marriage, prostitution, polygamy, and perhaps eventually bestiality if issues of animal consent worked against "moralizers".
Well, Scalia was right about gay marriage..and numerous polygamy lawsuits seeking to overturn the voters are now in the docket.
Make a constitutional agrument, Matt, why polygamy should be illegal. Use all the Ted Olson quotes you want.
@Matt - we're well into the 300's. I call bullshit on your "bored" statement.
James said...
Potential for forced marriages/ abuse. Problems of consent, where one party may not actually want a polygamous marriage but fears what will happen if they don't give consent. Problems with the probate/inheritance system when there are multiple wives and families.
Just insert gay for polygamous for starters. Then explain to me how parenting rights are going to apply when two women are married and one has a baby, only then to divorce.
The problems you cite aren't insurmountable and only require a set of codified guidelines. I know, I know...our judiciary has never done anything like that with any other issue.
Synova
I did. I asked if polygamy is allowed, and this whole kerfluffle has been over the sanctity of the number 2, where does it end and why there? If it becomes legal to marry up to 5, why not six? Why not 20?
"Potential for forced marriages/ abuse."
Exists in any case and is why we have age limits on marriage and laws about age of consent for sex.
"Problems of consent, where one party may not actually want a polygamous marriage but fears what will happen if they don't give consent."
Consent is already required by law. People are already bullied.
"Problems with the probate/inheritance system when there are multiple wives and families."
Boo freaking-hoo. Hasn't stopped divorce yet and won't any time soon.
This are bull-shit objections, James. It would make as much sense to outlaw SSM on account of some of the people might be into BDSM and that's coercive and unhealthy and we don't like it.
(I fully expect you to point out that BDSM is equal opportunity at which point I reply... yeah, and coercion only happens with polygamy? Thanks for proving my point.)
Phil said: Lets see how this court analysis this case. I will bet you not one dissenter will rely on the polygamy/prostitution/bestiality canard that is so popular among the Limbaugh crowd.
I'm not sure what Limbaugh has to do with anything (is he making that argument? I've not heard), but certainly the SCOTUS members that vote agaist upholding this decision will consider the polygamy/prostitution/bestiality canard. ("Rely" tends to be somewhat subjective when it comes to reading opinions.)
This exact argument was used in the dissent in Lawrence. Scalia (I don't recall who else joined) explained that this is exactly why these matters should be decided by the legislature and not the courts. Legislatures can draw arbitrary lines while courts must follow their rulings to the logical extreme or show why the logically extreme circumstances are different ("they just are because we don't like them" is not a good reason).
Do you really not understand this?
phx wrote:
I'm so glad my wife and I got married when we did. As so many people have informed me, gay marriage means hetero marriages are threatened.
Just to think how seriously in peril my relationship with my wife would have been if gays had been allowed to marry when we were married. I'm so sorry for all the hetero couples who will never again be able to enjoy the kind of love and relationship that my wife and I have. Those filthy, selfish gays.
Similarly, would your marriage be hurt if your neighbor was married to a horse (unless the horse got out and trampled someone), or his daughter or 10 wives?
"I did. I asked if polygamy is allowed, and this whole kerfluffle has been over the sanctity of the number 2, where does it end and why there? If it becomes legal to marry up to 5, why not six? Why not 20?"
Thank you Scott. But is that an argument for or against polygamy or polyamory? I suppose I don't automatically see that as an argument against polygamy because you haven't said that polygamy is good or bad.
James did finally suggest that polygamy leads to coercive, nasty behavior that people need to be protected from. I've certainly heard those arguments made persuasively about the unreformed Mormons. Also, of course, when patriarchs can have half a dozen wives, what do the young men do? It's socially unstable to have huge numbers of wives for each man. But I hadn't seen anyone making those pro or con arguments about polygamy.
Mostly it was just the assumption that *of course* the Supreme Court would never ever allow such a thing. I don't think anyone has explained why that is so yet.
A.W. said > Bestiality: A harder case. I would buy that the animal can’t consent; therefore, it falls under animal rights (if such a thing exists) or animal cruelty.
Well, that is all well and good for personal morality, but the Supreme Court has had it pretty clear that the non-personhood of fetuses deprives the state of any right to protect them.
Not exactly. The states can protect the "potential life" at certain stages with certain restrictions, that is just outweighed (at some stages) by the rights of the mother. (I completely disagree with Roe and Casey, but that's another argument.)
At its core the court did not make sense in Lawrence, and is not making sense here.
I've got no disagreement with you there. I'm arguing what I would (probably) find if I had been deciding Lawrence, which is that there is a right not to have gay sex criminalized based on equal protection.
Synova said...
Also, of course, when patriarchs can have half a dozen wives, what do the young men do? It's socially unstable to have huge numbers of wives for each man.
Make prostitution legal.
lysalovelyreadhead wrote:
Is killing worse than sex, when we are talking about animals?
Given that our biology drives us to eat meat, I’m arguing no.
Our biology drives us to eat, but there are plenty of vegitarians in the world who never touch meat. our biology drives us to sex, but there are infinite ways to feed that drive. Regardless, though, we never ask the cow we are about to eat if we can cut his throat and eat him. Nor do we ask our pets to live with us. We simply do what we want/need.
When I said is killing worse than sex, I meant for the animal. Just because we have a biological necessity to eat doesn't mean that the animal will like being eaten.
James
I have to tell you there is no need to have a realistic debate with Synova or Scott M. We know this ruling only refers to SMS. But they claim they are convinced this ruling will lead to polygamy becoming the law of the land. They want us to admit they are right and that the ruling can ONLY mean how they interpret it. They have no proof but then turn the tables and say we have to prove them wrong.
Then, if we agree about the polygamy argument, they want to take it to the next level. They want us to believe this ruling will lead to fathers marrying their 18 year old daughters. Then they want us to believe the ruling will lead to people being able to marry their dogs, their farm animals, monkeys in the forest or their refrigerators.
They are playing a game because they don't like the ruling. It's what lawyers and academics do. It can be fun but understand it is a game.
Scott M: "Just insert gay for polygamous for starters. Then explain to me how parenting rights are going to apply when two women are married and one has a baby, only then to divorce."
Really Scott? You think issues of consent in SSM would be even comparable to the issues involved in marriages involving 3 or more? While you can see what happens with forced marriages in the polygamous sects, have you ever seen a similar problem in same-sex relationships?
As to how parenting rights will be decided if it's two lesbians with a child as opposed to a man and women - exactly the same. Best interests of the child, and the numerous factors the courts use today in making that decision.
Now imagine a situation for a polygamous marriage (for this example, lets say 3 women and a man) completely dissolve and all parties go their own way. Let's say wife 1 is the only one who had any children during the marriage. If polygamous marriage is treated equally to 2 person marriage, then the biological mother would not be presumed to have the best interests.
(After all, in traditional marriage, a child born into a marriage is, for the sake of the law, considered the biological child of the married couple. Even in the face of a paternity test from a wife's lover, the husband is still considered the biological father). So how does this calculation work out - are all 4 spouses considered the biological parents in the eyes of the law? Does that mean the true biological mother has the same stake in the custody proceedings as the other two women? In the case of the lesbians, yes, you can make a similar argument that one isn't really a biological parent, but that is not an issue in heterosexual marriages where the father isn't truly the biological parent.
I shall profer this: prostition is no different than a man having many women as wives, and a woman having many men to provide her with money to support herself.
The over educated rational positivists first made a great Constitution into a living Constitution, and now into a Constitution that is deadly to traditional human social order that always came from a religious morality we found in the Bible. Throw that away and that human social order is thrown away with it. All we will have left to govern ourselves by is looney government using swat teams to and enforce myths such as arresting people for breathing out more than their share of CO2 into government owned air.
Note: That bit about biological parents with a child born into the marriage (even if the husband was not the real father) may also have the caveat of the husband holding out the child as his own. I cannot remember that bit.
Nobody is taking anything to the next level, Matt. Tell us why polygamy should be illegal. Find a constituional reason why. Once again, use Ted Olson's reasoning. This should be easy. Try not to change the subject.
"However same sex marriages have little, if any historical precedent. Many societies throughout history widely regarded the subject not even up for discussion. There is no argument over whether or not homosexual relationships have happened. Heterosexual polygamy and incestuous marriages have far more documentation than same sex marriage."
What seems to have happened, historically, is that a legal fiction was invented that one party was publicly accepted as living as the opposite sex. So, for example, a woman might dress and act and carry on as a man and everyone would pretend she was a man, and she'd have a wife.
I haven't heard of historical evidence of SSM without a community nod to this sort of polite deception.
In any case, of course, polygamy (usually just two wives instead of one) or polyandry (more rarely than polygamy) and absolutely marriages of first cousins and siblings are more common than not in History.
Shorter Matt:
I can't formulate a logical reponse, so those guys are jerks.
"We know this ruling only refers to SMS."
We do?
Why?
This is what neither you nor James want to address. A *constitutional* ruling applies to everyone. Does "Loving" only apply to interracial marriage? Does "Lawrence" only apply to gay sex? Did any of the supposed 14 rulings cited by Olson apply to SSM specifically?
Then why does he cite them?
"This ruling only applies to SSM" is one of the most moronic... seriously... it had to have hurt to type it, like all of reason and rationality screaming as it died a horrible death.
Neither of you will even attempt to explain why this ruling is limited to SSM. You just *know* it.
AllenS
I'm not a lawyer so I am not going to lay out a constitutional argument. But, personally, I don't care if polygamy became the law of the land.
Now, your response will next be for me to make a constitutional argument against fathers marrying their 18 year old daughters.
Hence, you will take it to the next level. It is an argument that cannot be won because you think this ruling means more than SSM.
Therefore this ruling really means [to you] that people can marry dogs because there is no constitutional argument against it.
How can anyone debate someone who thinks that? Seriously.
"Legislatures can draw arbitrary lines while courts must follow their rulings to the logical extreme or show why the logically extreme circumstances are different."
This distinction is what Matt calls "a game."
Dogs are different (and horses and goats) because dogs and horses and goats are not protected by the Constitution *therefore* the Legislature can *still* make arbitrary rules about them.
Now... was that so hard?
The 18 year old who wants to marry her dad? Not the same.
I'm not a lawyer either. My point is this. What shall be considered legal. You don't have to be a lawyer to answer that. If you'll accept polygamy then why not accept fathers marrying their 18 year old daughter. It's not the next level. It's what shall we consider legal. Because when we come down to the nitty-gritty it's all about morality. Where does morality start? Where does it end? If you're willing to accept what you've so far accepted, how far will you go. Since I've obviously, gotten you to accept polygamy why not incest if that incest is between two consenting parties?
Synova
Where does the ruling say anything about polygamy?
How would you reword the ruling so it only allows SSM?
Or are you just flat opposed to SSM and think polygamy is fine?
Synova: "This ruling only applies to SSM" is one of the most moronic... seriously... it had to have hurt to type it, like all of reason and rationality screaming as it died a horrible death.
[My emphasis. Just because I like that line.]
Barring some serious game-changing civil disorder in the interim, I give it 10 years, tops, before we have legalized polygamy shoved down our throats by some judge.
The consistent libertarians will just shrug and say "So what?"; those of the type here exasperating Synova will by then have absorbed the Revised Correct Thinking and commenced scolding any dissenters for their backwardness and bigotry.
@Matt:
Hence, you will take it to the next level. It is an argument that cannot be won because you think this ruling means more than SSM.
Therefore this ruling really means [to you] that people can marry dogs because there is no constitutional argument against it.
How can anyone debate someone who thinks that? Seriously.
I think the same way about people who think if Prop. 8 prevails, making state law paramount over SSM, that the next thing is the bigots will bring back anti-miscegenation laws, seperate drinking fountains, segregated schools, etc. I exaggerate, but not by much.
Even the notion of a father marrying his daughter is LOGICALLY not that farfetched. For one, if they are of age they meet the age requirements. Also, they are male and female. Providing their is consent they are both rational adults. And who defines a family?
The proponents of gay marriage, in their zeal to promote gay marriage have suggested that family is not that important. someone could have two mommies or two daddies, or there could be a single mom or what have you. Considering family is basically in flux, what if a father and daughter are happy to have sex and be married. Are they not entitled to their "absolute right". Can anyone, especially those saying family can be anything argue LOGICALLY that this couple shouldn't have rights. Of course you could MORALLY, but the father daughter marriage would certainly pass the Olson test logically.
And any objections to this marriage would have to be moral ones, based on assumptions of what a family is "supposed to be" (fathers shouldn't be having sex with their daughters).
How would you reword the ruling so it only allows SSM?
Or are you just flat opposed to SSM and think polygamy is fine?
You conveneniently ignored changing the law at the state level. Or the fact that gays in California have domestic partnerships now.
Something else I wonder: when a lesbian couple beats each other up, how do they know which one to let into the battered women's shelter?
And every biological child requires a third party, so would not all SSMs potentially be polygamous unions?
I would like to nominate this thread as the longest and most boring that has ever graced the internets from this blog.
And if you gay guys can ever get married I hope your marriages will be the same.
All the best.
Your pal
Trooper.
Most incoherent comments thread EVAH!
The kooky cons are clearly in disarray.
BTW, love Scott M dispenses with the bigotry quite early today:
In the fullness of time, given that I believe this particular djinni is out of yon bottle, I believe it's going to be fairly commonplace to have gay men on their seventh or eighth marriage (civil union, whatever). I think it's as inevitable as tattooed, and pierced senior citizens at rock concerts.
I see your true colors, shining through.
Don't ever give it up, guys. Hang on to the last dying defender of each and every one of your bad ideas.
Scott M: The problems you cite aren't insurmountable and only require a set of codified guidelines. I know, I know...our judiciary has never done anything like that with any other issue.
And it's not like any society has ever managed to come up with a body of law governing polygamous families. It's inconceivable!
And if you gay guys can ever get married I hope your marriages will be the same.
Lol.
Thanks for seeing through the bullcrap, Troop!
Why can't so many of the rest of you guys have his common sense?
it's not like any society has ever managed to come up with a body of law governing polygamous families.
We could always start with Sharia law.
I also think some of my examples with, namely the probate system and divorce/custody proceedings, show one way to distinguish SSM and polygamous marriages, based on Walker's decision.
He made a big point in asserting that the plaintiffs here were not asking for a new right, but the extension of the existing right to them. You may not agree with this statement, but when you compare just the logistics of SSM and polygamous marriage, you can see a pretty large distinction.
In the case of SSM, the definition of who can marry has changed. Beyond that, however, has anything else changed? There is no need to amend anything else - inheritance works in the same way as it does with straight spouses, divorce and custody/child-rearing decisions work the same way. Tax law, etc. Everything about SSM is completely identical except for the sexes of the spouses.
When you get to polygamous marriage, the entire system would have to change. A whole new system for probate issues if a spouse dies without a will. New laws concerning divorce and child custody when you have multiple spouses fighting over the same things, to avoid situations where the other spouses have the same rights as the people who actually were the parents. And certainly other things that I am blanking on right now.
You can say that these problems would not occur in the case of brother and sister marrying. You have a point. If we ever get to the point where a substantial portion of society suddenly decides that there is nothing wrong with incest and fight for incest rights, then we may have a problem. Somehow, I just don't see that happening. And as I said before, in this case, it was not the job of SSM to provide the rational basis against allowing incest or polygamy (though it certainly would have been useful in cutting off just about the last objection anyone can think of). It was the job of the Prop 8 supporters to provide a rational basis for SSM. They failed.
Anytime you want to school anybody on this comment board about constitutional law or try to reason what Ted Olson was thinking go ahead and try, York. Otherwise, don't bore the rest of us with your boredom.
Why can't so many of the rest of you guys have his common sense?
the legal arguments pro and con suck.
ugh, that last bit should have been "rational basis against SSM
Most incoherent thread here EVAH!
The kookiest of the cons are clearly in disarray.
And I see Scott M. dispenses with the bigotry early this morning:
In the fullness of time, given that I believe this particular djinni is out of yon bottle, I believe it's going to be fairly commonplace to have gay men on their seventh or eighth marriage (civil union, whatever). I think it's as inevitable as tattooed, and pierced senior citizens at rock concerts.
I see your true colors shining through.
Keep it up, guys. Fight 'til the last dying defender of each and every one of your truly bad ideas.
I'm a little late, Mr. Olson, but don't I recall that Fox News' right to "free speech" is a fundamental, enumerated right expressed in the First Amendment?
OTOH, I don't seem to recall the enumeration of any right to same sex marriage. And, clearly, Judge Walker's ruling is not the law of the land just yet.
The analogy sucks as does the analogy to interracial marriage for reasons that ought to be obvious, even to the lefty trolls who lurk here.
I find myself inclined to agree with Paladian and others who think the government should butt out. Nevertheless the pretext that we are seeing interpretation rather than redrafting of the Constitution does get tiresome.
Maybe that explains Limbaugh's excesses on the topic.
God bless you too Chief Bald Eagle.
Sorry to commit bore-us interruptus.
Carry on!
the legal arguments pro and con suck.
If Olson hadn't reminded every Fox viewer that the SCOTUS had upheld marriage as a fundamental right 14 times previously, maybe I'd be more inclined to see your point.
It was the job of the Prop 8 supporters to provide a rational basis for SSM.
Acckkk, he confused me.
If you remember your Con law, it's the job of the Prop 8 opponents to prove no rational basis for SSM prohibition exists.
Matt wrote:
Where does the ruling say anything about polygamy?
How would you reword the ruling so it only allows SSM?
Or are you just flat opposed to SSM and think polygamy is fine?
You're talking about MARRIAGE. So, if you argue marriage is a fundamental right then doesn't every one have that right? The next question is who decides what a marriage is and how are you defining what marriage means.
We're asking you about other types of marriage and whether they should not be defined as absolute rights based on your assertations that states can't discriminate against those wanting to be married..
Whether or not you don't care about polygamy, the point is based on YOUR logic, wouldn't society have to allow it?
Don't worry about what the courts will do, or whether they would throw it out. Your're arguing for expansion of marriage to include gays based on a specific principle. Expand your -principle to include other marriages. Is the point still valid?
Is the principle valid when it includes polygamy,polyamory, incestual couples etc, or even animals. Not to say that people are going to rush to courts to marry their dogs. In principle though, what is the objection to people marrying their dog?
You might find that the principle you are basing the need to expand marriage is a pretty flimsy one. We are simply calling on you to defend the principle.
marriage as a fundamental right
Marriage is a fundamental right, but so far, SSM is not.
I can tell how desperate someone is when they resort to hoping that the gummint will sooner overturn the right to civilly recognized marriages than to gay civil marriages.
For the principled libertarians, like Palladian and Freeman, that's one thing. But when backwards defenders of sodomy laws like Dingleberry Tumbleweed start spouting that stuff, we know it's just lippy nonsense and that this crowd's getting desperate.
Calling SSM marriage would not make it so, any more than calling the dog's tail a leg (in Lincoln's story) would make it a five-legged dog.
Never thought I'd see Trooper play that card. Nor did I think I'd ever see Ritmo Brasileiro come to his defense.
Ritmo, construct an argument that would allow SSM while still shutting the door to incestuous marriages and polygamy, other than "the resulting bureaucracy would be ponderous." Getting those black kids into the white schools was time-consuming, too -- that didn't justify the status quo of segregation.
Marriage is a fundamental right, but so far, SSM is not.
And you add this insignificant element, SSM, in... why? On what grounds?
I don't recall American society prior to this time grappling with the idea that homosexuals were people with fundamental rights, let alone discussing them openly, let alone looking at any of the evidence amply available to them on the phenomenon since 1980.
It's the same argument as denying free-speech on the internet since such a thing didn't exist in the 18th century. Even 7 Nachos would probably know enough not to try that bullshit.
Ritmo, construct an argument that would allow SSM while still shutting the door to incestuous marriages and polygamy, other than "the resulting bureaucracy would be ponderous." Getting those black kids into the white schools was time-consuming, too -- that didn't justify the status quo of segregation.
Ummmm... here's one: When homosexual couples unite in matrimony, it doesn't result in a higher incidence of retardation or other illness.
And that's just one. I'll get around to your other silly example when I find what coherence you saw in presenting it.
I don't recall American society prior to this time grappling with the idea that homosexuals were people with fundamental rights
I remember American society prosecuting and jailing those who had same-sex sex. You may recall Bowers v. Hardwick, in which Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed out the long history of criminally sanctioned acts of homosex.
And even now, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent, the majority in Lawrence v. Texas did not apply strict scrutiny, indicating that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right.
When homosexual couples unite in matrimony, it doesn't result in a higher incidence of retardation or other illness.
Wait! Andrew Sullivan has a wife? Who knew?
OK, we'll require incestuous couples to adopt, or employ a surrogate or sperm donor, as same-sex couples must.
jr565
This ruling is not my ruling. It is Judge Walker's ruling. And note that the polygamy interpretation is only one that is being used by people who are opposed to SSM. Notice no one [that I know of] who praises the ruling is saying it will open the floodgates to other marriages like polygamy, etc.
There is a reason for this. It is because some people are freaked out about gay marriage and so their only argument is, 'Oh My God it means we can now marry [fill in the blanks]."
If polygamy cases come along then so be it. Let the judge and the courts at the time deal with those on seperate rulings. At this point if someone thinks this particular ruling leads some to think polygamy is okay then let them try. I predict the cases will get thrown from court. Maybe that is just my opinion. But most of the 360 some odd comments on this blog post are opinions.
I remember American society prosecuting and jailing those who had same-sex sex. You may recall Bowers v. Hardwick, in which Chief Justice Warren Burger pointed out the long history of criminally sanctioned acts of homosex.
And even now, as Scalia pointed out in his dissent, the majority in Lawrence v. Texas did not apply strict scrutiny, indicating that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right.
Ohhhhh....! And I'm sure this must mean that if hombre (Dingleberry Tumbleweed) had his way, the BUTTHOLE POLICE FORCE would be back on the scene! Looking in people's assholes for evidence of the sort of horrible violations that consensual sodomy must somehow represent.
Whatever. I'll let you get lost in the boring legal details while the rest of us allow common sense and the accumulated real-life evidence work its way through the brains of the thinking members of society.
ritmo -- You asserted that gays had fundamental rights. But if gays don't have the fundamental right to have sex with each other, how would they have the fundamental right to marry each other?
Lawrence v. Texas is irrelevant. Marriage has nothing to do with the allowance of this sex act or that sex act.
In one or another of the straggler states by 2003, even a heterosexual sodomy law was still somehow on the books.
But if gays don't have the fundamental right to have sex with each other, how would they have the fundamental right to marry each other?
Already answered (and apparently anticipated) above. A single type of act does not have to cover "sex" (in all its acts) generally.
Do you really find this game-playing fun? Or is it the subject matter?
James: When you get to polygamous marriage, the entire system would have to change. A whole new system for probate issues if a spouse dies without a will. New laws concerning divorce and child custody when you have multiple spouses fighting over the same things, to avoid situations where the other spouses have the same rights as the people who actually were the parents.
Is there something intrinsic to the constitutional right to marry that requires the existing system of inheritance, custody, etc.? No, because this does get revised and rewritten, and it varies by state.
You're going to deny, say, Muslims, their constitutional right to marry as their religion permits because outdated laws, which were based on the majority European/Christian population's cultural and moral beliefs, didn't take into account changing religious demographics and a more culturally diverse population?
I admit that your approach here is novel: "We can reject the claim that anybody could demand that they be allowed to exercise a constitutional right, if writing up the law to cover it would get complicated". (Hey, can we apply that reasoning not only to constitutionally mandated rights but to constitutionally sanctioned duties? Because, frankly, paying the federal income tax can be a byzantine pain in the ass, no?")
Historically all sex acts per os et per anum were prohibited sodomy, leaving not much for same-sex couples to do on their honeymoons.
Thinking about it, marriage was traditionally consummated by an act of PIV intercourse. Absence of consummation is still grounds for annulment. Just another bit of law that will have to be changed for double P or double V couples.
I just heard on the news that girls are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages. Some as early as 7. Perhaps it's time to redefine what it means to be a child.Is it possible that our restrictions on behavior of kids is based on our outdate moral code and not based on a childs actual mental state? How is this determination made, and is it wrong for society to deny basic rights to children who are already mature? And if they mature younger, maybe we can lower the age of marriage so that you can marry ten year olds.
former law student wrote:
Thinking about it, marriage was traditionally consummated by an act of PIV intercourse. Absence of consummation is still grounds for annulment. Just another bit of law that will have to be changed for double P or double V couples.
This might work for lesbians though. Can the penis be made of plastic? Would PIV intercourse with a strap on constitute consummation?
Keep putting hormones in their food and water supply, jr., and you'll get there. Sexual maturity at earlier and earlier stages before intellectual maturity I suppose wouldn't be a problem for some.
Matt:Notice no one [that I know of] who praises the ruling is saying it will open the floodgates to other marriages like polygamy, etc.
Pace Mandy Rice-Davies, well, they wouldn't, would they?
Ritmo wrote: I can tell how desperate someone is when they resort to hoping that the gummint will sooner overturn the right to civilly recognized marriages than to gay civil marriages.
Is Ritmo's animus overriding his already marginal analytical ability or is this just another straw man? "Overturn the right to civilly recognized marriages?" "Desperate?" Wh-a-a-t?
Ritmo, otra vez: But when backwards defenders of sodomy laws like Dingleberry Tumbleweed start spouting that stuff ....
Defending Texas against dogmatic overgeneralizing by a juvenile leftist hardly amounts to defending sodomy laws.
Somebody's been skipping his homework in critical thinking.
Ritmo wrote:
Keep putting hormones in their food and water supply, jr., and you'll get there. Sexual maturity at earlier and earlier stages before intellectual maturity I suppose wouldn't be a problem for some.
THe point was, the only reason you can't marry a 10 year old now is because society/the state is determining that that is wrong. They set the rules regarding conduct allowed between adults and kids. It's not that kids are incapable of entering contracts or relationships. But is this right? Can society do this?
What if someone said they wanted to marry a 9 year old who is very mature for her age (maybe she is a prodigy who got to college - a doogie howser type) AND they argue that in their culutre and their religion, marrying 9 year olds is quite normal. Can the state deny them marriage on religoius grounds? Can they deny them on the grounds that the child is harmed, even if the child says he isn't harmed?
IF the answer is yes, then this goes back to the question of marriage and marriage restrictions.
Society could place restritcions on number of participants, or the sex of the participants or age of participants. Correct? If so, then the only real objection you have is that you don't agree with the restriction. YEt the argument SEEMS to be that society can't make the restrictions on marriage in the first place.
@jr565: If you expect a coherent answer from Ritmo, you'll have to dumb that down a bit more.
I said: If you are for Gay marriage and not for this....explain why.
@DBQ
Here is my explanation. States have statutes that describe the process by which two people can be legally married. There is no good reason to deny this legal process to two people of the same sex.
The reason behind anti-bigamy laws is different. So, I can support anti-bigamy laws and still think that people of the same sex should be able to get married.
@Triangle Man.
So your expanation is I have no reason. I don't support polygamy and I have no reason for not supporting it. Because I said so is your reason?
Your explanation falls pretty short.
Defending Texas against dogmatic overgeneralizing by a juvenile leftist hardly amounts to defending sodomy laws.
Keep up the defense of Texas, Tex. I suppose that if someone's got to speak up for a state's right to be so stupid as to pursue butthole policing all the way to SCOTUS - as only a state as backward as Texas decided to do, it's got to be you. Even though the rest of the country recognizes that embarrassing debacle for precisely what it was.
What Dingleberry (or perhaps, "Captain of the Proctology Police") declines to mention is that he conflated my defense of Lawrence with "embracing sodomy".
Since it's impossible for him to act like a grown-up, I'm not surprised that he refuses to confine his ridiculous tantrums to the appropriate thread.
Those that support gay marriage making the argument that you can't limit marriage and that marriage is an absolute right, fume whenever these alternate examples of restricted marriages are brought up. They say that i'ts not the point, and they aren't talking about them, therefore it's wrong to make comparisons. When i fact it's exactly the point. The point is, the whole principle being argued is flawed, and I don't even think proponents of gay marriage believe it.
But, Matt, Ritmo, AL, any of you, please admit that IN PRINCIPLE the idea that we/society CAN'T restrict marriage would also mean that we couldn't restrict marriage in those other cases. Proponents of gay marriage are arguing the principle, so why can't they defend the principle.
Using the logic of proponents of gay marriage,can they find any reason to restrict bigamy, incestual marriages, harems or marriage between people and inanimate objects (as silly as that may sound) OR are they simply arguing that in the particluar case (gay marriage) they don't agree that gender should be an issue.
Those are separate arguments. One of them is defenisble, the other is simply arguing generalities and then screaming "Bigot" whenever someone points out that the generalities suggested are, in fact, absurd.
And note that the polygamy interpretation is only one that is being used by people who are opposed to SSM. Notice no one [that I know of] who praises the ruling is saying it will open the floodgates to other marriages like polygamy, etc.
Note: I am not opposed to SSM... I could give two shits whether they get married or not.
Note: The people who are saying that polygamy and polyandry (my personal favorite) are the ones who want to close the barn door after they let the gay marriage horse out.
Either marriage is a fundamental basic civil right for every consenting adult, no matter what form that marriage takes, or it is NOT a basic civil right.
Which is it????
Why can't I marry two or more men if we all agree? Why can't I marry two men and another woman?
Right now, given the amount of work that needs to be done around here, the cost of living going up, company coming and I hurt my back so I can't bend over (really).....I would appreciate all the extra companionship, extra money, extra lovin' (/wink) share the burdens and loving support and all that.
Isn't this my basic civil right? The pursuit of happiness and all? Do you want to deny us (hypothetically people...hypothetically) our sexuality, our life style or OUR BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS???
Give me reasons that forbid polyandry or polygamy that isn't similar to that given for the illegality of same sex marriage.
Do it or declare yourself a fucking hypocrite.
Seven Machos wrote:
The reason we extend tax benefits and various other benefits to married people is because we want people who are going to be having sex to have a corporate unit that has proven over time to benefit children and we want the transfer of property to those children to be smooth and predictable.
What other interest does the state have in marriage?
Then tell me why the state should privilege Newt Gingrich's third marriage, or Larry King's eighth?
Now this is an epic meltdown.
Slater was later arrested at his home in Belle Harbor, Queens by Port Authority officials. He was found by police in a sexual embrace with his partner, sources said.
I do not want to be judgmental, but the mean things said about the Prop 8 judge must have prompted this.
Either that or it is Bush's fault.
Post a Comment