NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply untrue. The will of the trampling herd is not to be respected just because it is the trampling herd.

Understanble to a point, but in a war sense it is not. If the trampling herd wins there is nothing left for the loser to do but concede.

Also, how does democracy work if it is not the voice of the masses that wins in an election? I understand that the US is not a democracy but rather a republic, but isn't a constitution to be decided upon democratically based on the majority view of the states citizens?

You can buy those in stores nowadays. ;)

In the most conservative states, though, they're called novelty items. :p

Is marriage on the same scale as rights as say, to vote, to free speech or something similar?

Yes.

It's a protected right in Europe, under the ECHR, for example.(Article 12)

But what if the community's belief is that those born into the community must stay?

If that is the community's belief, any that dissent from that belief would be prosecuted as a traitor.

A person that chooses to dissent from that community would find a safe haven with a community of people that disagree with his former community.

You can buy those in stores nowadays. ;)

you said that with some authority there Mur....

If that is the community's belief, any that dissent from that belief would be prosecuted as a traitor.

A person that chooses to dissent from that community would find a safe haven with a community of people that disagree with his former community.Not if said person gets killed while leaving.

Not if said person gets killed while leaving.

Agreed, for the sake of his beliefs he better stay alive.

A person that chooses to dissent from that community would find a safe haven with a community of people that disagree with his former community.

I was wondering how long it would take until the "If you disagree with the majority/me, then leave".

Love it or leave it, only "love" is taken to mean "agree completely".

Heh.

I love this idea of "community" in this fashion, it's such an archaic and anacronistic viewpoint of modern america. It's like we're all living on that freaky island from the Wicker Man

Oy veh. You make terrific points, Andaras, but you make them with such patently stereotypical rhetoric that very few will ever listen to you for longer than it takes to laugh. I'm nobody's expert, but it seems to me that you'll convince far more people if you tone down the Marx-speak and just speak English. But that advice is worth less than the photons and electrons cost to transmit it.

Funny thing to me is, how many people who aren't of the bourgeois, universitied elite would have the time to read Marx and even understand what he's talking about?

I was wondering how long it would take until the "If you disagree with the majority/me, then leave".

Love it or leave it, only "love" is taken to mean "agree completely".

Heh.

I am not sure I follow you here. When does the majority become one person? The only way I can think of is if a person has such influence to direct the majority. The only way that can be accomplished successfully with out there being a revolution is to have the people live in fear.

Love does not mean to agree completely. I love my grand-father but I do not agree with him completely.

I love this idea of "community" in this fashion, it's such an archaic and anacronistic viewpoint of modern america. It's like we're all living on that freaky island from the Wicker Man

If I may ask, what is your idea "community"?

I am not sure I follow you here. When does the majority become one person? The only way I can think of is if a person has such influence to direct the majority. The only way that can be accomplished successfully with out there being a revolution is to have the people live in fear.

Love does not mean to agree completely. I love my grand-father but I do not agree with him completely.

Oh gods.

Neo, kindly explain it to him? I don't feel like it.

If that is the community's belief, any that dissent from that belief would be prosecuted as a traitor.

A person that chooses to dissent from that community would find a safe haven with a community of people that disagree with his former community.I was wondering how long it would take until the "If you disagree with the majority/me, then leave".

Love it or leave it, only "love" is taken to mean "agree completely".

Heh.


I am not sure I follow you here. When does the majority become one person? The only way I can think of is if a person has such influence to direct the majority. The only way that can be accomplished successfully with out there being a revolution is to have the people live in fear.

Love does not mean to agree completely. I love my grand-father but I do not agree with him completely.

You are the one who said that if you don't agree with the majority, they should go elsewhere, and in this case the majority to which you are referring agree with you, thusly your support of them. It follows then that what you are supporting is this:
I was wondering how long it would take until the "If you disagree with the majority/me, then leave".

Love it or leave it, only "love" is taken to mean "agree completely".

Heh.

Oh gods.

Neo, kindly explain it to him? I don't feel like it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your time.

You're very welcome.

Oh gods.

Neo, kindly explain it to him? I don't feel like it.

I got it...

I got it...

Thanks. ;)

Thanks. ;)

He still won't get it, but you're welcome.

He still won't get it, but you're welcome.

Meh. ;)

You are the one who said that if you don't agree with the majority, they should go elsewhere, and in this case the majority to which you are referring agree with you, thusly your support of them. It follows then that what you are supporting is this:

I still do not see what is wrong with this thinking?

If I am not part of the majority then I will go else where. If I am part of the majority then I will stay with the majority.

It never becomes disagree with me then leave, that is the purpose of the courts. The courts uphold the belief of the people based on their constitution.

He still won't get it, but you're welcome.

Thanks for the insult, if you don't want to have a conversation without insults then what is the reason for me to stay?

One insults only to talk down to another.

This is all based on that the people of a state form their community around common beliefs. It may start out "proper" in the state, in legal terms, but ultimatley some one is be discriminated against.

If a person doesn't like the community they are in, they can form a community with people of the same beliefs.

That might, might hold water if we weren't the UNITED States of America.

I am a resident of California, and I opposed the ban on gay marriage. I live in a very large community called the San Francisco Bay Area which shares a common belief that the government should get out of our bedrooms. According to your argument, I should have every right to marry a woman if I want--but for about 29 more days, I don't. So where do we draw the "community" lines? Why can states willfully violate the constitution, but cities and counties can't? Where exactly is my community supposed to move to where we can enjoy our common beliefs and freedoms?

I still do not see what is wrong with this thinking?It's really not that hard to see why cultural relativism is a bad thing.

This is all based on that the people of a state form their community around common beliefs. It may start out "proper" in the state, in legal terms, but ultimatley some one is be discriminated against.

If a person doesn't like the community they are in, they can form a community with people of the same beliefs.

That's a rather... simplistic... viewpoint.

That might, might hold water if we weren't the UNITED States of America.

I am a resident of California, and I opposed the ban on gay marriage. I live in a very large community called the San Francisco Bay Area which shares a common belief that the government should get out of our bedrooms. According to your argument, I should have every right to marry a woman if I want--but for about 29 more days, I don't. So where do we draw the "community" lines? Why can states willfully violate the constitution, but cities and counties can't? Where exactly is my community supposed to move to where we can enjoy our common beliefs and freedoms?

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.

That's a rather... simplistic... viewpoint.

It was meant to be simplistic.

It was meant to be simplistic.

So you weren't being serious then?

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.

Or, you know, we can not allow a tyranny of the majority to restrict the rights of a minority. The decision was based on the fact that they could not demonstrate an effect on the state by allowing this minority right. You can't restrict someone from a basic right because you feel it's icky. These are the kinds of things you don't surrender to the 'majority', because that can lead to people being loaded on trains and sent to camps. If a majority was always right, mobs would rule the land.

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.

So you don't believe in human rights, do you?

Or, you know, we can not allow a tyranny of the majority to restrict the rights of a minority. The decision was based on the fact that they could not demonstrate an effect on the state by allowing this minority right. You can't restrict someone from a basic right because you feel it's icky. These are the kinds of things you don't surrender to the 'majority', because that can lead to people being loaded on trains and sent to camps. If a majority was always right, mobs would rule the land.

No, no, no. The Jews could have just moved to another community. I mean, that's all you have to do to be safe. Kind of like the Jews did in Israel. They've had peace and love ever since.

See, simplistic world views that deny the rights of people work.

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.

If you really feel that way, I think you might want to find a different "community" that shares your beliefs, because in the U.S., counties are not the ultimate power in government. Alameda County can't even get people to pay their parking tickets, let alone safeguard their constitutional rights. Not that you seem to feel constitutional rights are important.

The fact is, counties are part of states, and states are part of the UNITED States. States are free to make their own laws when those laws are only concerned with the state. The right to marry is part of the equal protection clause. States do not have a right to take that protection away. If 98% of voters in California decided that women should not be allowed to work, that would not be "states' rights" in action, that would be a violation of constitutional freedoms. And stupid.

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!
So you live in Minnesota, huh?

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!

Nice!

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!

You got to love the subtle awesomeness of that-the name! To generalize for a moment, you have to be a special kind of nitwit to think that two dudes (or two chicks) getting married has any affect on you whatsoever, so these gay marriage bans are propped up by nitwits. And and least half of the nitwits are going to look at something named "Marriage and Family Protection Act" and think it bans gay marriage and vote for it...awesome. Of course, this assumes it's a ballot initiative and not something just for the state senate...ah, who's the nitwit now...

So you live in Minnesota, huh?
Not for many years, but it's where I grew up and it's where my parents and brother live, so I still refer to visiting them as "going home."

You got to love the subtle awesomeness of that-the name! To generalize for a moment, you have to be a special kind of nitwit to think that two dudes (or two chicks) getting married has any affect on you whatsoever, so these gay marriage bans are propped up by nitwits. And and least half of the nitwits are going to look at something named "Marriage and Family Protection Act" and think it bans gay marriage and vote for it...awesome. Of course, this assumes it's a ballot initiative and not something just for the state senate...ah, who's the nitwit now...

Yeah, my first thought when I saw that name was, "Oh fuck, the wingnuts are trying to ban gay marriage again!" But then I read on and started smiling. Knowing the sense of humor that prevails in MN, I think the choice of name was definitely a calculated and intentional choice.

Understanble to a point, but in a war sense it is not. If the trampling herd wins there is nothing left for the loser to do but concede.

This is not the war sense. It's the political sense, insofar as there is a difference. :rolleyes:

If the trampling herd wins, and the minority trampled by said heard feels sufficiently injured, it may pick up a gun.

Some of us are getting really pissed off. For my part, I feel little need to argue, especially to appeal to people's sense of fairness, because clearly it doesn't inform their decision-making on this issue.


Also, how does democracy work if it is not the voice of the masses that wins in an election? I understand that the US is not a democracy but rather a republic, but isn't a constitution to be decided upon democratically based on the majority view of the states citizens?
No. The federal constitution, in this case, is to be decided by 55 white men with class privilege. Many state constitutions were also decided on by with men with class privilege. In Montana, I'm proud to say that things are at least somewhat different, because we had a constitutional convention in 1972. Missoula sent four men and four women. 19 out of 100 delegates were women. Our constitution is straight up better than the federal constitution. Almost strictly better. For example, we have more protection from discrimination under it.

My point is this: you can either have unadulterated majority rule or you can have constitutionalism, but not both. The fact that constitutions are "democratic" doesn't mean anything other than this: we the people agree to set certain limits on government and majority rule.

If that is the community's belief, any that dissent from that belief would be prosecuted as a traitor.

A person that chooses to dissent from that community would find a safe haven with a community of people that disagree with his former community.
If your view is that what the community decides is always to be respected, then you have no rational complaints against an apartheid society like Jim Crow USA. None. At all. Federalism was the fallback of local tyrants.

Funny thing to me is, how many people who aren't of the bourgeois, universitied elite would have the time to read Marx and even understand what he's talking about?
Oooh, and coffee house Leninists FTW.

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.
No. It should not be. Sometimes, people have puritanical and irrational beliefs. They do not deserve respect on any level.

Again, your principles make the world suck my balls, because you have no rational complaints about apartheid, female genital mutilation, stoning queers or anything else that's horrifying I could think of.

If that's what communities want to do, that's the way it is, and if you don't like it, you should just leave.

Here's what I think: if you don't like it, and you don't want to leave, and you've been respectful of the majority to the extent you appeal to their sense of fairness (meaning that you show the decency of assuming they have a sense of fairness), and you have tolerated some embarrassments and injuries, but you feel that the majority is ultimately just being spiteful, then you have a right to resist.

EDIT: Especially because it's easy for me to imagine queers for whom this is an issue with life-and-death implications in some cases.

I still do not see what is wrong with this thinking?

If I am not part of the majority then I will go else where.

Then why are you still on NSG?


Check and mate.

Then why are you still on NSG?


Check and mate.
O snizzap.

O snizzap.

He walked right into that one. Now he either has to retract his statement about how those with a minority opinion should react, leave, or be exposed as a hypocrite.

With that said, I just want to say a government should not legislate morality. It should be a decision of the citizens and be decided upon per state.

These two sentences are in direct contradiction of one another.

Believe it or not, the state government is still a government.

He walked right into that one. Now he either has to retract his statement about how those with a minority opinion should react, leave, or be exposed as a hypocrite.
It's good to see the anti-authoritarians are always out in force on these threads.

:fluffle:

Although I'm not sure we're representing a "majority view" on NSG.

I believe that was the reason for the development of counties in a state, in order to get down to the smallest form of government in chrage of communities.

The ultimate decision should be left up to each county of a state, since they contain the highest point of a communities beliefs.

Is there nothing at all, in your mind, that the government should stay completely out of?

Or, from another angle, are there no absolute limits on what government can do?

Is there nothing, your mind, that should be reserved entirely to the individual?



Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!

Woot!

you said that with some authority there Mur....

Well, they're not secret stores.

And I like to shop. ;)

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!

Win!

I will happily throw my vote in on such a mesure

I still do not see what is wrong with this thinking?
<snip>
The thing that is wrong with all your thinking in this thread is that it is self-contradictory, self-serving and dishonest.

You have variously (often in the same post) argued both for and against legislation of morality. You have declared that certain choices are the province of individuals, but then argued that the government has the right to impose laws governing those self-same choices. When one level/unit of government won't follow suit, you turn to another level/unit of government and claim that it has the power to do what you want. You argue that nobody should have the right to tell people what to believe but then claim that the majority have the right to impose their beliefs on the minority. You claim that society is based on shared beliefs, but then claim that the majority have no obligation to reach an agreement with the dissenting minority but can merely impose their way -- and that the minority have no choice but to lose whatever property or connections they have in a place and go live somewhere else rather than advocate for a change in the law to accommodate them. Heh, so much for sharing. And all of this stems from your initial argument in which you took it upon yourself to define what marriage is and what it is for (and in such a way as to specifically exclude gays), irregardless of whatever anyone else might think. Another flipped finger to the notion of shared beliefs. Apparently, the only beliefs available for sharing are yours.

You've been working hard to defend your argument, but your efforts have been wasted. I see nothing either true or defensible in anything you have said so far.

Just found out that my home state, Minnesota, has introduced a bill similar to California's! The Marriage and Family Protection Act "would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies."

YAY!
Excellent! So that's, what -- 6 now? :)

Seven, I think, unless you've already counted my vote :D

Seven, I think, unless you've already counted my vote :D

She's referring to the number of states where it is legal.

She's referring to the number of states where it is legal.

That would be three if MN does it.

Of course, I don't count "separate but equal" propositions.

That would be three if MN does it.

Of course, I don't count "separate but equal" propositions.

Well, considering how backward the rest of the nation is, I'm willing to accept the civil union states for now.

She's referring to the number of states where it is legal.
Oooooh.

*sheepishly walks off*

Well, considering how backward the rest of the nation is, I'm willing to accept the civil union states for now.
I don't care if they call it Tiddlywinkle. Then we can say we got Tiddlywinkled instead of married. All I give a shit about is the status of the legal rights. :D

Oooooh.

*sheepishly walks off*


I don't care if they call it Tiddlywinkle. Then we can say we got Tiddlywinkled instead of married. All I give a shit about is the status of the legal rights. :D
Same here. And anyway I'm one of those radicals who thinks that, from the viewpoint of the government, ALL marriages should be civil unions. If I had my way, any couple or small group of private citizens, of any configuration, who wished to establish a legal household for the purpose of joint property ownership, taxation, legal proxy authorization, inheritance, etc, could apply for a civil union from the state which would recognize their household unit and grant them any and all legal benefits the state sees fit to offer.

If they also would like to have their union blessed by a god, then they could get married in a church, at their convenience. But the state, in my opinion, should have no interest in that, and should not recognize church weddings as legally binding agreements under secular law.

I don't care if they call it Tiddlywinkle. Then we can say we got Tiddlywinkled instead of married. All I give a shit about is the status of the legal rights. :D

Unfortunately, in the process of getting all the legal rights and protections, the name matters.

Oooooh.

*sheepishly walks off*


I don't care if they call it Tiddlywinkle. Then we can say we got Tiddlywinkled instead of married. All I give a shit about is the status of the legal rights. :D

Well you're in luck, Obama has been proposing to make federal civil unions that are legally identical to marriage. I know a lot of people will piss and moan about it, but it's still a massive step forward, enough so that after a while we'll just say "well, these effectively are marriages, so let's just call them marriages."

Here's my view on this whole subject. The gay marriage issue splits people into three camps:

Camp 1: Those who see no harm in allowing same-sex couples to wed. They might not necessarily find homosexual relationships to be morally justifiable, but they recognize that granting legal rights to the gay couple down the street changes little in the scheme of things in relation to their lives. After all, that gay couple is going to be there either way; what difference does it make that they now have joint property and medical visitation rights?

Camp 2: Those who are vehemently in favor allowing gay couples to wed. They view homosexual relationships no differently than they do heterosexual ones, apart from the obvious physical differences.

Camp 3: Those who oppose gay marriage. These people find the idea of homosexual relationships abhorrent, and believe, consciously or subconsciously, that such relations should be hidden from the public eye and alienated from mainstream society as much as possible. Whether or not this hatred extends past the relationships to the actual individuals participating in them depends on the how bigoted the individual is.

Here's my view on this whole subject. The gay marriage issue splits people into three camps:

Camp 1: Those who see no harm in allowing same-sex couples to wed. They might not necessarily find homosexual relationships to be morally justifiable, but they recognize that granting legal rights to the gay couple down the street changes little in the scheme of things in relation to their lives. After all, that gay couple is going to be there either way; what difference does it make that they now have joint property and medical visitation rights?

Camp 2: Those who are vehemently in favor allowing gay couples to wed. They view homosexual relationships no differently than they do heterosexual ones, apart from the obvious physical differences.

Camp 3: Those who oppose gay marriage. These people find the idea of homosexual relationships abhorrent, and believe, consciously or subconsciously, that such relations should be hidden from the public eye and alienated from mainstream society as much as possible. Whether or not this hatred extends past the relationships to the actual individuals participating in them depends on the how bigoted the individual is.

So which camp would you be in then?

So which camp would you be in then?

#2. I might be a little biased, though. Even still, it's my firm conviction that anyone anyone without an acceptance-based or "live and let live"-based mentality (in other words, Camp 3) is a bigot and a chauvinist for thinking that their views on morality should be forced onto people, regardless of any notions of practicality or logical thought.

#2. I might be a little biased, though. Even still, it's my firm conviction that anyone anyone without an acceptance-based or "live and let live"-based mentality (in other words, Camp 3) is a bigot and a chauvinist for thinking that their views on morality should be forced onto people, regardless of any notions of practicality or logical thought.

My thoughts as well (I'm a "camp #2 person as well).

And anyway I'm one of those radicals who thinks that, from the viewpoint of the government, ALL marriages should be civil unions.

Ooh, me too! We should start a political party! ;)

Yes.

It's a protected right in Europe, under the ECHR, for example.(Article 12)

I'm pretty sure it's in the UN declaration of human rights too. Though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to actually check.

I'm pretty sure it's in the UN declaration of human rights too. Though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to actually check.

Too bad we don't like any other acronyms that start with U in this country. >_<

Too bad we don't like any other acronyms that start with U in this country. >_<

The UN should totally be renamed the World Assembly.






Mainly to fuck with Max Barry.

Same here. And anyway I'm one of those radicals who thinks that, from the viewpoint of the government, ALL marriages should be civil unions. If I had my way, any couple or small group of private citizens, of any configuration, who wished to establish a legal household for the purpose of joint property ownership, taxation, legal proxy authorization, inheritance, etc, could apply for a civil union from the state which would recognize their household unit and grant them any and all legal benefits the state sees fit to offer.

If they also would like to have their union blessed by a god, then they could get married in a church, at their convenience. But the state, in my opinion, should have no interest in that, and should not recognize church weddings as legally binding agreements under secular law.
:fluffle:

Sweet. You are another one of these radicals. I think Soheran (sp?) is in the same camp?

Unfortunately, in the process of getting all the legal rights and protections, the name matters.
Well that's because many benefits are currently tied to marital status (as opposed to domestic partnership status or something of such kind). They don't have to be, and I advocate that they should not be. I have met many moderates who would be more supportive, but they were put off because advocates wanted gay marriage rather than civil unions. Shallow, I know, but I'd rather have it called Gay Tiddlywinkle and have the same benefits as in marriage than have it called Gay Marriage and be left out in the cold.

That's all I'm saying.

Well you're in luck, Obama has been proposing to make federal civil unions that are legally identical to marriage. I know a lot of people will piss and moan about it, but it's still a massive step forward, enough so that after a while we'll just say "well, these effectively are marriages, so let's just call them marriages."
Actually, I really like Obama's civil union stance, and it's one of the primary reasons I voted for him (others being that he doesn't view national security as more important than human rights, and that he hasn't pledged to "obliterate" Iran if it "makes any move"). He, unlike Clinton, seems to understand, and his policies reflect, that transgender people exist and have a need for relief.


I'm pretty sure it's in the UN declaration of human rights too. Though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to actually check.
Yes, and it supports a sex-neutral reading.

Well that's because many benefits are currently tied to marital status (as opposed to domestic partnership status or something of such kind). They don't have to be, and I advocate that they should not be.

If you're going to change designations worldwide, have fun with it.

Part of the problem I was talking about deals with international implications - where either through general convention or treaty, nations recognize legal marriages performed in other countries.

I have met many moderates who would be more supportive, but they were put off because advocates wanted gay marriage rather than civil unions. Shallow, I know, but I'd rather have it called Gay Tiddlywinkle and have the same benefits as in marriage than have it called Gay Marriage and be left out in the cold.

I agree that it's better than nothing, which is why this issue didn't turn me off to Obama's candidacy.

But, like you said, it's shallow. It's ridiculous. And, in the end, I don't think pandering to that is the way to go. If it's a step in the process on the way to full equality, great. But I don't think we should stop at getting civil unions for same-sex couples.

Actually, I really like Obama's civil union stance, and it's one of the primary reasons I voted for him (others being that he doesn't view national security as more important than human rights, and that he hasn't pledged to "obliterate" Iran if it "makes any move"). He, unlike Clinton, seems to understand, and his policies reflect, that transgender people exist and have a need for relief.


Transgendered people really get the short end of the stick in all this. The situation they are in varies greatly from state to state and whether or not they are post-op. It's ridiculous.

Yes, and it supports a sex-neutral reading.

I believe so. I remember it as being something along the lines of every of age adult having the right to marry and start a family. Nothing about who they can marry.
* Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

If you're going to change designations worldwide, have fun with it.

Part of the problem I was talking about deals with international implications - where either through general convention or treaty, nations recognize legal marriages performed in other countries.

Wow, you're right. I never considered that. Still, I'm going with Gay Tiddlywinkle for the moment, because at least we have a real shot at getting it.


I agree that it's better than nothing, which is why this issue didn't turn me off to Obama's candidacy.

But, like you said, it's shallow. It's ridiculous. And, in the end, I don't think pandering to that is the way to go. If it's a step in the process on the way to full equality, great. But I don't think we should stop at getting civil unions for same-sex couples.

As I understand it, Clinton and Obama are exactly the same on the marriage issue: "no, but we support civil unions."

As a bisexual man, I really would rather have civil unions, or Tiddlywinkles at the moment. I'm all about immediate aims.


Transgendered people really get the short end of the stick in all this. The situation they are in varies greatly from state to state and whether or not they are post-op. It's ridiculous.
I agree. And I really should know more about trans issues. I have only had the benefit of meeting one transman, and he was really nice.

I believe Obama is strictly the better candidate on LGBT issues because he not only knows trans folks exist, but he supports adding the basis of gender identity to hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws where as Clinton does not.

I believe so. I remember it as being something along the lines of every of age adult having the right to marry and start a family. Nothing about who they can marry.
Yay for compound subject:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

=

Men and women... have the right to marry...

=

Men have the right to marry...
Women have the right to marry...

I <3 grammar.

Wow, you're right. I never considered that. Still, I'm going with Gay Tiddlywinkle for the moment, because at least we have a real shot at getting it.

It's certainly a snappy name. =)

As I understand it, Clinton and Obama are exactly the same on the marriage issue: "no, but we support civil unions."

For the most part, yes. Clinton also voted for DOMA, IIRC.

I agree. And I really should know more about trans issues. I have only had the benefit of meeting one transman, and he was really nice.

I don't know a whole lot about it, but I have heard of at least one case in which a post-op transgendered woman was able to marry because she was recognized as female in her state. The couple moved to a different state, assuming that their marriage would still be recognized. But the new state still considered her to be male, and denied recognition.

I believe Obama is strictly the better candidate on LGBT issues because he not only knows trans folks exist, but he supports adding the basis of gender identity to hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws where as Clinton does not.

Really? I didn't know that. That could certainly go down as another strike against her.

You got to love the subtle awesomeness of that-the name! To generalize for a moment, you have to be a special kind of nitwit to think that two dudes (or two chicks) getting married has any affect on you whatsoever, so these gay marriage bans are propped up by nitwits. And and least half of the nitwits are going to look at something named "Marriage and Family Protection Act" and think it bans gay marriage and vote for it...awesome. Of course, this assumes it's a ballot initiative and not something just for the state senate...ah, who's the nitwit now...

"Subtle awesomeness" my ass. That kind of "cleverness" -- saying one thing but doing another -- is precisely why politicians are held in such low regard.

"Equal Rights in Marriage Act" would please me better.

==============

He walked right into that one. Now he either has to retract his statement about how those with a minority opinion should react, leave, or be exposed as a hypocrite.

I think Soldnerism is quite good actually. Their concept of constitutionality is undeveloped and the "minorities can just leave" idea doesn't work ... but there is a refreshing lack of dogmatism or cheap tactics.

This "meta-argument" of yours, which amounts to little more than "Soldnerism should shut up" ... now that's cheap tactics.

==============


Yay for compound subject:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
=
Men and women... have the right to marry...
=
Men have the right to marry...
Women have the right to marry...

I <3 grammar.

Except that marriage is assumed to be between two people. Therefore you could read "men and women" as one of each, having the right to form a marriage. I.e. that both are required.

This could easily have been avoided by saying "all people" instead of "men and women." It wasn't.

I :mad: grammar.

If you're going to change designations worldwide, have fun with it.

Part of the problem I was talking about deals with international implications - where either through general convention or treaty, nations recognize legal marriages performed in other countries.

This is a good point, but I personally think that the issues with recognizing other countries' marriages is really one of political will and has little to do with the nature of the marraige itself.

There are plenty of variations in what constitutes a legal marriage from nation to nation, and sometimes even from state to state within the US. As you point out, between nations, whether one country will recognize another's marriages is a matter of treaty agreement. There is nothing at all to stop a country from defining marriage one way and using one term for it yet still choosing to recognize the legal marriages of a nation with a different definition and a different terminology. After all, not all countries recognize all other countries' legal marriages, even though they're all called "marriage" now. The word "marriage" is not what makes the arrangements legal internationally.

I'm pretty sure it's in the UN declaration of human rights too. Though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to actually check.

Yes, and that's nice and all, but it doesn't really grant any legal protection.

...and the supposedly free nation of democracy AGAIN goes undemocratic, ignoring the will of millions of California voters.

Thats the point of the supreme court. To make sure the unwashed mob made up of uninformed average joe doesnt pass any laws that are unconstitutional.

What I'd like to know is what functions I am unable to perform as spouse to a woman. I mean, the anti-gay-marriage crowd seem quite certain that a woman MUST HAVE A MALE SPOUSE for a "real" marriage, so I want to know why. What can a male spouse do that I am unable to do simply because I am female? What aspect of the marriage contract am I innately unable to fulfill due to my femaleness?

But if you are both female, who will guide your family rationally? :p

It's certainly a snappy name. =)

I thought so. I could see two fabulous men walking down the street: "Oh my gawd: we've been tiddlywinkled for five years."

I smile at them: "I bet you have!"


I don't know a whole lot about it, but I have heard of at least one case in which a post-op transgendered woman was able to marry because she was recognized as female in her state. The couple moved to a different state, assuming that their marriage would still be recognized. But the new state still considered her to be male, and denied recognition.

That is shitty.


Really? I didn't know that. That could certainly go down as another strike against her.
Yes, and by exactly the same, I mean the policy stances they support at the moment. This issue is really important to me (duh), so I compared their positions and basically went through them with a fine-toothed comb. :D

Yes, and that's nice and all, but it doesn't really grant any legal protection.

Pity about that.

And ours is getting more idiotic. Frick.

Harper will fuck up before 2011 and people will hate him, it's only temporary. I hope.

so once again a majority of "1" in the courts over rules the majority vote of a direct democracy.

so once again a majority of "1" in the courts over rules the majority vote of a direct democracy

...enforcing a constitution that was itself established democratically.

You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

Are you a religious fanatic too? Because religious bigotry is the only thing I see fueling anti-gay efforts. If the Bible said nothing about homosexual behavior, there would be no debate about this issue.
:fluffle:

...enforcing a constitution that was itself established democratically.


They created a marriage right specifically for gay individuals. how selective of them. If marriage is a constitutional right in California then it should be available to all lifestyles, polyamorous relationships as well. I did not know the constitution states that marriage specifically is a right for gays. It does not.

besides, once Ah-nuld is out, a Democrat will probably be elected Governor and he/she would have passed gay marriage legislation. No need for an activist court, just patience for the democratic process to work as it is supposed to.

They created a marriage right specifically for gay individuals.

Let me guess, you didn't actually read the opinion? Lemme tell you a secret, that argument didn't work in Loving and it shouldn't work here.

No need for an activist court, just patience for the democratic process to work as it is supposed to.

The democratic process in this country is designed to be tempered by constitutionally protected rights that puts the issue of civil liberties outside the sphere of mere tyranny of the majority.

They created a marriage right specifically for gay individuals. how selective of them. If marriage is a constitutional right in California then it should be available to all lifestyles, polyamorous relationships as well. I did not know the constitution states that marriage specifically is a right for gays. It does not. besides, once Ah-nuld is out, a Democrat will probably be elected Governor and he/she would have passed gay marriage legislation. No need for an activist court, just patience for the democratic process to work as it is supposed to.
Will you please tell me why in the hell a humiliated minority should have to wait for the majority to stop humiliating it?

I love this idea of "community" in this fashion, it's such an archaic and anacronistic viewpoint of modern america. It's like we're all living on that freaky island from the Wicker Man

Only without the barbecue.

Will you please tell me why in the hell a humiliated minority should have to wait for the majority to stop humiliating it?

tell me why other humiliated "minorites" or lifestyles are not included in this right to marriage?

The democratic process in this country is designed to be tempered by constitutionally protected rights that puts the issue of civil liberties outside the sphere of mere tyranny of the majority.


gay marriage is not in the constitution.

and these are selective civil liberties and protected "rights".

This is the job of the people and the legislature and as i said, more than likely these rights would have been granted in the near future through the proper channels. but if it makes you feel good, go ahead and ignore judicial activism. but don't start crying when conservative judicial activists in the mold of Justice Scalia start interpreting and creating rights that suit their world view.

tell me why other humiliated "minorites" or lifestyles are not included in this right to marriage?
No. Because that's not the point of your argument. The point of your argument is that you don't like gay marriage, and you'd like us to have a debate about a red-herring issue like why immediate family members can't get married and why people shouldn't fuck their dogs in the ass. I am not here to have a discussion of any issue even approaching that one. And you aren't either. You're here to have a discussion about this stupid non-issue so that you can claim either "you are bigoted by your own logic; ha!," "your argument provides no reason to oppose legal recognition of polygamous unions," or "it's a slippery slope, first gay marriage, then it'll be people marrying their sisters."

I know where you are headed with this, and I won't bite.

So I'll simply pose the question again: "Why should a humiliated minority have to wait for the majority to stop humiliating them?"

I'd be grateful to you to answer it. :D

No. Because that's not the point of your argument. The point of your argument is that you don't like gay marriage, and you'd like us to have a debate about a red-herring issue like why immediate family members can't get married and why people shouldn't fuck their dogs in the ass. I am not here to have a discussion of any issue even approaching that one. And you aren't either. You're here to have a discussion about this stupid non-issue so that you can claim either "you are bigoted by your own logic; ha!," "your argument provides no reason to oppose legal recognition of polygamous unions," or "it's a slippery slope, first gay marriage, then it'll be people marrying their sisters."

I know where you are headed with this, and I won't bite.

So I'll simply pose the question again: "Why should a humiliated minority have to wait for the majority to stop humiliating them?"

I'd be grateful to you to answer it. :D

I think I made it pretty clear that it is judicial activism that I do not care for. You obviously can't hold your end in this debate and allowed your paranoia about my "true intentions" to derail you. This means you are running on nothing more than emotion and not rationality.

EDIT: let me help you out here, this decision is very similar to griswold vs connecticut. judicial activism with no true constitutional basis. The judges just felt it was wrong and wanted to "fix" it.

They created a marriage right specifically for gay individuals. how selective of them. If marriage is a constitutional right in California then it should be available to all lifestyles, polyamorous relationships as well. I did not know the constitution states that marriage specifically is a right for gays. It does not.

Can you actually explain how extending to right to marry to homosexuals is creating special rights, or is it just a random claim that you can't support?

besides, once Ah-nuld is out, a Democrat will probably be elected Governor and he/she would have passed gay marriage legislation. No need for an activist court, just patience for the democratic process to work as it is supposed to.

Courts throwing unconstitutional laws is part of the process of our democratic republic.

gay marriage is not in the constitution.

Ninth Amendment.

Oh, and welcome back after your long absence. Pity you haven't changed.

I think I made it pretty clear that it is judicial activism that I do not care for. You obviously can't hold your end in this debate and allowed your paranoia about my "true intentions" to derail you. This means you are running on nothing more than emotion and not rationality.
Sorry, but 'activism' if that's what you call it, is the only way a judicial system and society in general progresses. It's sad that dogmatic Conservatives such as yourself still cling to an archaic document and can't see reality in front of your face.

EDIT: let me help you out here, this decision is very similar to griswold vs connecticut. judicial activism with no true constitutional basis. The judges just felt it was wrong and wanted to "fix" it.

If you are unhappy with Griswold, all I can say is wow.

Why should a humiliated minority have to wait for the majority to stop humiliating them?

Sorry, but 'activism' if that's what you call it, is the only way a judicial system and society in general progresses. It's sad that dogmatic Conservatives such as yourself still cling to an archaic document and can't see reality in front of your face.


labeling and name calling always add substance to every debate. good job. just write me off as a dogmatic conservative and be done with it. it's safer that way isn't it?

labeling and name calling always add substance to every debate. good job. just write me off as a dogmatic conservative and be done with it. it's safer that way isn't it?

well you haven't really given anything of substance to respond to, you just basically presumed that your understanding of the california constitution is better than the california supreme court.

What response is that worthy of if not ridicule? You haven't actually said anything worth actual consideration.

gay marriage is not in the constitution.

and these are selective civil liberties and protected "rights".
But marriage is, and so is equal protection under the law. So actually, the California ban on gay marriage was the thing that created a "selective civil liberty and protected right" by defining marriage in such a way that it became a right that only applied to heterosexual couples and no one else. How happy you must be to have that fixed now by the court, since you apparently don't like "protected rights" and "selective civil liberties."

This is the job of the people and the legislature and as i said, more than likely these rights would have been granted in the near future through the proper channels. but if it makes you feel good, go ahead and ignore judicial activism. but don't start crying when conservative judicial activists in the mold of Justice Scalia start interpreting and creating rights that suit their world view.
I wonder if I should ask my mommy to come over and check to see if judicial activism is hiding under my bed or in my closet so I can go to sleep tonight. I might have nightmares about rightwing buzz-words and talking points otherwise.

I wonder if I should ask my mommy to come over and check to see if judicial activism is hiding under my bed or in my closet so I can go to sleep tonight. I might have nightmares about rightwing buzz-words and talking points otherwise.

I could come over and check in your bed..

UNDER, I mean under....

:p

labeling and name calling always add substance to every debate. good job. just write me off as a dogmatic conservative and be done with it. it's safer that way isn't it?

I see no denial, I'll take that as confirmation then.

Ninth Amendment.

Oh, and welcome back after your long absence. Pity you haven't changed.

thanks for welcoming me back.

sorry i could not conform to your ideology in my absence. i can't afford your boot camps, perhaps you could offer me a discount? otherwise you will forever pity me for simply having a different opinion and world view than you, how criminal of me.

as for the 9th amendment, funny how that has been warped into some sort of source of an infinite number of rights to be granted at anytime to anyone by the courts. The 9th amendment does not create rights, but to judicial activists it does. a conservative activist could take this approach as well and suddenly i doubt you'll be a fan of the 9th amendment.

thanks for welcoming me back.

sorry i could not conform to your ideology in my absence. i can't afford your boot camps, perhaps you could offer me a discount? otherwise you will forever pity me for simply having a different opinion and world view than you, how criminal of me.

as for the 9th amendment, funny how that has been warped into some sort of source of an infinite number of rights to be granted at anytime to anyone by the courts. The 9th amendment does not create rights, but to judicial activists it does. a conservative activist could take this approach as well and suddenly i doubt you'll be a fan of the 9th amendment.

No pat of the constitution "creates" rights. THe constitution merely recognizes certain rights to exist.

I'm surprised such a....stalwart constitutional scholar like yourself didn't know that.

I could come over and check in your bed..

UNDER, I mean under....

:p
Oooh, Neo Honey, will you come over and chase away the mean old judicial activism for me? It's making me feel all... uncomfortable. ;)

Oooh, Neo Honey, will you come over and chase away the mean old judicial activism for me? It's making me feel all... uncomfortable. ;)

scalia has that affect on people....

There is no gay marriage. There is only marriage.

Either:

A) Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults that the government has no right to discriminate as to who may or may not enter said contracts or...

B) Marriage is a religious union defined by individual faiths protected by the First Amendment barring the government from deciding which religion's definitions of marriage are legal or not. Therefore if any religion allows two men or women to get married, the government has no right to declare it unlawful.

Take your pick. :)

Brilliant post. Now watch the US Supreme Court completely screw over the voters, again by defining marriage as a Union between one man and one woman. Then the USSC will tell the voters not to qoute them on the case, just as it did in Bush v. Gore. Why can't people like you be on the Supreme Court majority, instead we get Scalia...can we declare him Unconstitutional?

scalia has that affect on people....

:D

Wait...which affect? :p

:D

Wait...which affect? :p

On stupid people - positive
On intelligent people - negative.

:D

Wait...which affect? :p

the uncomfortable part :p And before anyone says anything, I personally consider Saclia's brand of "jurisprudence" to be the height of judicial activism.

Can you actually explain how extending to right to marry to homosexuals is creating special rights, or is it just a random claim that you can't support?



Spin it how you want, but "extending" the "right" specifically for gays is creating a special right for them. so marriage is now for straights and gays, but nobody else or other lifestyles. how...selective.

and as i have stated, this all could have been done properly through the legislature or another direct vote by the people in the future. However, now that 4 justices have forced their opinion, there will be another proposition for the people, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. it is going to be an incredibly divisive vote and lead to hard feelings on both sides of the issue and will be much harder to repeal if passed. so celebrate this preposterous decision now if it makes you feel good, but there is a storm coming and it will not be pretty. constitutional amendments usually aren't.

On stupid people - positive
On intelligent people - negative.

Oh, okay. Not the one I was thinking of, then. ;)

Anyhoo, Scalia is a disgrace to the legal profession, marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation are the wave of the future, and Daemonocracy is wrong. I think we can take all these things as given. :)

I'm glad to see California's Supreme Court isn't full of shit like New York's.

Spin it how you want, but "extending" the "right" specifically for gays is creating a special right for them. so marriage is now for straights and gays, but nobody else or other lifestyles. how...selective.

The other lifestyles were not the ones who brought suit. A court can't rule beyond the arguments presented. If you knew a fraction of the law you seem to think you do, you'd understand that.

However, now that 4 justices have forced their opinion, there will be another proposition for the people, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

They said that in massachusetts, it failed.

They said that in New Jersey, it failed.

They said that about Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire when the legislature created same sex civil unions.

Every state that has created gay marriage, or same sex civil unions through either legislative action or judicial ruling has two things in common:

1) the fact that the right wing has threatened to change the state constitution to forbid this

2) the facts that all attempts to do so have failed

Here's the whole thing about Gay Marriage:

Have you taken a look at what rights the ruling gives to gay couples? Now they can perform a marriage ceremony in California, thus giving California money, (marriage fees) for letting gays kiss. (Sarcasm: Oh my, how horrible.) Then you have gays and lesbians visiting rights for hospitals and jails: personally I think the visiting rights in California ought to be more liberal, because the current ones blow. Also, this ruling doesn't force any religious organizations to conduct gay ceremonies, so no Churches were hurt, that's good.

The only negative thing that came out, is gay tax cuts. So why the heck don't we (the voters) pass a proposition disallowing tax cuts to married couples unless they have kids. It's non-discriminatory, and it doesn't only affect gay couples. All in all, that would put money into California's budget, where it's badly needed!!! Please tell me, without preaching morality, at least two (dos) negative consequences of this ruling?

No pat of the constitution "creates" rights. THe constitution merely recognizes certain rights to exist.

I'm surprised such a....stalwart constitutional scholar like yourself didn't know that.

I said the 9th amendment has been twisted into a means to create rights.

I like your sarcasm!

Oh, okay. Not the one I was thinking of, then. ;)

Anyhoo, Scalia is a disgrace to the legal profession, marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation are the wave of the future, and Daemonocracy is wrong. I think we can take all these things as given. :)

Just Scalia? The five who voted in Bush over the wishes of the voters in 2000 have been nothing but a disgrace, Scalia was just the loudest disgrace.

the uncomfortable part :p And before anyone says anything, I personally consider Saclia's brand of "jurisprudence" to be the height of judicial activism.
Indeed.

Spin it how you want, but "extending" the "right" specifically for gays is creating a special right for them. so marriage is now for straights and gays, but nobody else or other lifestyles. how...[less] selective.

<snip>
Fixed.

Clearly, now that marriage is a right of both gay and hetero couples, it is a less selective right than it was when it was just hetero couples. If you are so all-fired hot to see polyamorous households get legal marriage benefits, too, then why not follow your own advice and wait for that to happen. Or follow our advice and advocate for it. Look how well the advocacy approach is working for the gays. With a just a little effort, you could get everybody married to everybody, all in perfect equality. Wouldn't that be nice?

Indeed.

Well Mur, if you ever want me to look for radical right wing justices under your bed, I'm just a red line away ;)

Indeed.


Fixed.

Clearly, now that marriage is a right of both gay and hetero couples, it is a less selective right than it was when it was just hetero couples. If you are so all-fired hot to see polyamorous households get legal marriage benefits, too, then why not follow your own advice and wait for that to happen. Or follow our advice and advocate for it. Look how well the advocacy approach is working for the gays. With a just a little effort, you could get everybody married to everybody, all in perfect equality. Wouldn't that be nice?

I'm also for Polygamist Marriage.

Serisouly though, what other lifestyles, besides Straight, Gay or Bi are there Demonocracy? I'd really love to know...

Just Scalia? The five who voted in Bush over the wishes of the voters in 2000 have been nothing but a disgrace, Scalia was just the loudest disgrace.
This is true, but Scalia was the one mentioned. I didn't feel like trotting out the rest of the rogues gallery.

The other lifestyles were not the ones who brought suit. A court can't rule beyond the arguments presented. If you knew a fraction of the law you seem to think you do, you'd understand that.



They said that in massachusetts, it failed.

They said that in New Jersey, it failed.

They said that about Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire when the legislature created same sex civil unions.

Every state that has created gay marriage, or same sex civil unions through either legislative action or judicial ruling has two things in common:

1) the fact that the right wing has threatened to change the state constitution to forbid this

2) the facts that all attempts to do so have failed

3) The Wrath of God has not destroyed any of them. Well, except New Jersey, but that happened long ago. ;)

Well Mur, if you ever want me to look for radical right wing justices under your bed, I'm just a red line away ;)

Thanks, babe. *makes note* :)

3) The Wrath of God has not destroyed any of them. Well, except New Jersey, but that happened long ago. ;)

I'm friends with a Gay Christian. Religion can accept Gays if it's open minded enough. And although the Church won't let him marry, we congratulated him on the ruling, you know that whole separation of Church and State thingy that should work both ways, except when the Church gets to deduct taxes. Great qoute I'm thinking of: "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone."

So please, no more religion bashing. Saying that Fallwell represents all Christians is like saying that Sadr represents all Muslims.

The other lifestyles were not the ones who brought suit. A court can't rule beyond the arguments presented. If you knew a fraction of the law you seem to think you do, you'd understand that.



They said that in massachusetts, it failed.

They said that in New Jersey, it failed.

They said that about Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire when the legislature created same sex civil unions.

Every state that has created gay marriage, or same sex civil unions through either legislative action or judicial ruling has two things in common:

1) the fact that the right wing has threatened to change the state constitution to forbid this

2) the facts that all attempts to do so have failed

Your first point...what is to stop the other groups from filing and why should they be denied the same rights?

second, the gay marriage amendment had to pass the Mass. State Senate first before it went to the people. it failed in the senate and never reached the people. In California, if they can get enough signatures (which they easily will), it is taken directly to the people. different system.

I am not familiar with New Jersey's law but CT and Vermont have civil unons, all the rights of marriage but without the name. much less controversial, nobody feels like alternative values are being shoved down their throats, in it was the legislature who passed the law and not the courts and this could actually ease people to being more receptive to the concept of gay "marriage" in the not so distant future. if it is the will of the people, then it shall be done.

I "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone."


Which is why I throw pies. :)

Which is why I throw pies. :)

Strawberry or Cherry flavored pies?

Your first point...what is to stop the other groups from filing and why should they be denied the same rights?

second, the gay marriage amendment had to pass the Mass. State Senate first before it went to the people. it failed in the senate and never reached the people. In California, if they can get enough signatures (which they easily will), it is taken directly to the people. different system.

I am not familiar with New Jersey's law but CT and Vermont have civil unons, all the rights of marriage but without the name. much less controversial, nobody feels like alternative values are being shoved down their throats, in it was the legislature who passed the law and not the courts and this could actually ease people to being more receptive to the concept of gay "marriage" in the not so distant future. if it is the will of the people, then it shall be done.

What other groups? Those believing in marrying a house cat? Straight people can marry, Bi people can marry and now Gays can marry.

Strawberry or Cherry flavored pies?

Almost all varieties, but probably my favorite throwing pies are blueberry and chocolate cream. *nod*

thanks for welcoming me back.

sorry i could not conform to your ideology in my absence. i can't afford your boot camps, perhaps you could offer me a discount? otherwise you will forever pity me for simply having a different opinion and world view than you, how criminal of me.

as for the 9th amendment, funny how that has been warped into some sort of source of an infinite number of rights to be granted at anytime to anyone by the courts. The 9th amendment does not create rights, but to judicial activists it does. a conservative activist could take this approach as well and suddenly i doubt you'll be a fan of the 9th amendment.
That's sort of like saying that we should believe the Fourteenth Amendment sucks because the Supreme Court created the right to freedom of contract around the early 1900s. It's not like we all went "wow, that Fourteenth Amendment is teh suxxors."

This action should guarantee that the California constitutional amendment will pass, when it shows up on the ballot.

I'm not so sure about the re-election of the four judges that voted to overturn this law. Remember the law, Prop 22, passed by a margin of almost 2 million votes, 4.6 million in favor and 2.9 million against.

They've made a lot of Californians mad.California Supreme court judges aren't elected, they're appointed by the governor for 12 year terms.

And a constitutional amendment is far from a certainty on any future ballot. It takes a 2/3 majority of each house to propose such an amendment and dems control both houses.

Almost all varieties, but probably my favorite throwing pies are blueberry and chocolate cream. *nod*

Yumm, Blueberries. Fire away, me hungry...


I'm still wondering if someone will ever tell me which groups the California Gay Marriage Ruling discriminates against...

I would like to qoute a friend on the matter: "Yeah, in California, we have nothing else to do...our education is tip-top, infrastructure booming, no traffic..."

California Supreme court judges aren't elected, they're appointed by the governor for 12 year terms.

And a constitutional amendment is far from a certainty on any future ballot. It takes a 2/3 majority of each house to propose such an amendment and dems control both houses.

California Propositions are the People's Amendments. And it's impossible to get 2/3rds of the politicians here to take a shit, much less pass any laws.

Your first point...what is to stop the other groups from filing

Nothing. Thats the point.

and why should they be denied the same rights?


They shouldnt for any reasons I can think of.

The democratic process in this country is designed to be tempered by constitutionally protected rights that puts the issue of civil liberties outside the sphere of mere tyranny of the majority.

I'm just going to copy-paste this into a response to each new idiotic anti-equality rant that comes along.

but don't start crying when conservative judicial activists in the mold of Justice Scalia start interpreting and creating rights that suit their world view.

Why would I cry if someone gave me more rights? How is that threatening? "Help me, I'm too... too free! Someone tell me what to do!"

No. Because that's not the point of your argument. The point of your argument is that you don't like gay marriage, and you'd like us to have a debate about a red-herring issue like why immediate family members can't get married and why people shouldn't fuck their dogs in the ass. I am not here to have a discussion of any issue even approaching that one. And you aren't either. You're here to have a discussion about this stupid non-issue so that you can claim either "you are bigoted by your own logic; ha!," "your argument provides no reason to oppose legal recognition of polygamous unions," or "it's a slippery slope, first gay marriage, then it'll be people marrying their sisters."

:fluffle:

However, now that 4 justices have forced their opinion, there will be another proposition for the people, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. it is going to be an incredibly divisive vote and lead to hard feelings on both sides of the issue and will be much harder to repeal if passed. so celebrate this preposterous decision now if it makes you feel good, but there is a storm coming and it will not be pretty. constitutional amendments usually aren't.

1) Four justices did what they are paid to do. So did the other three, they just had a different interpretation. This is the role of supreme courts. If you don't like the system, go dig up a few Virginians and yell at them about it. Personally, I'd trust even Scalia's interpretation of the constitution over yours.

2) Oh no, division and hard feelings. Whatever will we do. It's not like this country has ever had to deal with those kinds of things in response the equalizing of civil rights. :rolleyes:

Yumm, Blueberries. Fire away, me hungry...


I'm still wondering if someone will ever tell me which groups the California Gay Marriage Ruling discriminates against...

I would like to qoute a friend on the matter: "Yeah, in California, we have nothing else to do...our education is tip-top, infrastructure booming, no traffic..."It 'discriminates' against those who feel it's their god -given right to dictate the the actions of others. It 'discriminates' against homophobic religious zealots who swear homosexuality is evil.

Personally, I'd trust even Scalia's interpretation of the constitution over yours.



Scalia interprets the Constitution??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh my, I learn something new everyday.

It 'discriminates' against those who feel it's their god -given right to dictate the the actions of others. It 'discriminates' against homophobic religious zealots who swear homosexuality is evil.

Interesting. But even the Devil chose Eve over Adam. The Bible's amazingly anti-Neocon when you read it and understand it. It's also anti-religious right; doesn't anyone get about it preaching Universal Love through Education? It's kinda in black and white, right in front of your face.

So my dear friends: If you critique/use religion, such as Christianity, read the Bible first! Gah! As you can by now tell, I'm no fan of Fallwell. Oh yeah, and I'm voting for Obama; well Clinton's a lying sack of shit and McCain's senile, so not much choice.

It 'discriminates' against those who feel it's their god -given right to dictate the the actions of others. It 'discriminates' against homophobic religious zealots who swear homosexuality is evil.

Which is why I have slightly more respect for people like Robertson, Dobson, and Phelps then I do for some of the guys on this thread. At least Robertson has the balls to be honost and say he just flat out hates gay people, that he finds them icky, and that Gawd tells them they are ebil; and that is his reasoning for getting pissy whenever they arent treated like second class citizens.


The posters bitching here dont even have the balls to be honost and admit theyre homophobes, and so hide behind the facade of caring about the Constitution and this (extremelly BS and not even remotely accurate) arguement about "legislationg from the bench" and teh ebil "activist judges" who hide under their beds.

Scalia interprets the Constitution??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh my, I learn something new everyday.

When he takes a break from pissing on it, I imagine.

:fluffle:

O, thanks! :D


1) Four justices did what they are paid to do. So did the other three, they just had a different interpretation. This is the role of supreme courts. If you don't like the system, go dig up a few Virginians and yell at them about it. Personally, I'd trust even Scalia's interpretation of the constitution over yours.

What, that judicial activist Scalia??? ;)

In all seriousness though, he is a judicial activist, and his problem is that he believes in creating rights for the government. Like torture. If he ever does that, I'll say fuck Scott v. Sanford, this was the worst Supreme Court decision in US history. :mad:

EDIT: I just thought how funny it would be if he had said "just get over it" about the Dred Scott case rather than Bush v. Gore.

I'm also for Polygamist Marriage.

Serisouly though, what other lifestyles, besides Straight, Gay or Bi are there Demonocracy? I'd really love to know...


polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia ala NAMBLA and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously. The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.

as is typical with this forum some will go ahead and call me a bigot, a homophobe, a religous reactionary, immoral etc. but you would just be employing the same moral exclusion that the anti-gay lobby used in years past.

polygamy,

Fine

polyamory,

Fine

incest,

Consenting adults? Then fine.

pedophilia ala NAMBLA

Not consenting adults, so no.

The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.

Damned right it can, and it should. The issue of "fairness" is paramount in a society that respects equal protection, and as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, then the principles of fair and equal application of the law should apply.

What, exactly, would be wrong with polygamist marriages, provided everyone consents?

as is typical with this forum some will go ahead and call me a bigot, a homophobe, a religous reactionary, immoral etc. but you would just be employing the same moral exclusion that the anti-gay lobby used in years past.

Except for one crucial difference. I can call you a bigote, a homophobe, a reactionary, and immoral, I can call you all of that for the opinions you hold, and in that regard you're right, I"m not much different than those who would say the same about gays. But there's a big difference.

I have no interest in preventing you from holding your opinions. I think they're in error, but you have a right to be in error. And that's the difference between me, and those like me, and the "anti-gay lobby". While I may disagree with what you say, I still recognize your right ot say it, and wouldn't try to prevent you from exercising your rights.

On the other hand the anti-gay lobby is all about preventing some people from exercising their rights.

polygamy, polyamory,

I dont care about either.

incest,

Again, dont care if its between consenting consensual adults.

pedophilia ala NAMBLA

Apples to oranges. One is between consenting adults. Children as a rule of thumb are not mature enough to consent to sex. Oh, and comparing gay people to pedophiles isnt homophobic at all.

and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously.

The rest of these fall into the catagory of the "slippery slope falacy", and are idiotic. But, just to humor you, the dead and animals cannot consent. So its a whole different bal game.


And I dont really care if people marry themselves....

polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia ala NAMBLA and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously. The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.

as is typical with this forum some will go ahead and call me a bigot, a homophobe, a religous reactionary, immoral etc. but you would just be employing the same moral exclusion that the anti-gay lobby used in years past.
This post pretty much vindicates me in what I said about the rhetorical purpose of returning the question in the way you did. My question was posed three times and answered zero times, "as is typical" on this forum.

polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia ala NAMBLA and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously. The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.

It's possible that some of those should be allowed. It's possible some day they will be. The arguments against polygamy that aren't morality-based are usually tax-based, but that's not exactly a great reason to restrict the right to marry whomever one chooses. Incest laws are being challenged, but a lot of incest also falls into the category of pedophilia or sexual abuse. As for pedophilia and sexual abuse themselves, those are not, or should not, be illegal because they are sexual matters--they are or should be illegal because they violate basic human rights in the same way rape and murder do. They violate a person's right to bodily safety and autonomy.

as is typical with this forum some will go ahead and call me a bigot, a homophobe, a religous reactionary, immoral etc. but you would just be employing the same moral exclusion that the anti-gay lobby used in years past.

No, I wouldn't, actually, because I will call you a bigot, a homophobe and a religious reactionary, and I will defend your civil rights and equal protection under the law to the bitter end. See, sometimes we can dislike and disagree with people and not try to oppress them.

Except for one crucial difference. I can call you a bigote, a homophobe, a reactionary, and immoral, I can call you all of that for the opinions you hold, and in that regard you're right, I"m not much different than those who would say the same about gays. But there's a big difference.

I have no interest in preventing you from holding your opinions. I think they're in error, but you have a right to be in error. And that's the difference between me, and those like me, and the "anti-gay lobby". While I may disagree with what you say, I still recognize your right ot say it, and wouldn't try to prevent you from exercising your rights.

On the other hand the anti-gay lobby is all about preventing some people from exercising their rights.
And, actually, it could be said the anti-gay lobby is all about preventing people form holding pro-gay opinions. After all, they want to keep the "pro-gay agenda" out of the schools, meaning that they want to remove the exercise of pro-gay speech from schools in some cases, make sex (non)education anti-gay, and even abridge freedom of association by fighting Gay-Straight Alliances.

polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia ala NAMBLA and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously. The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.


As long as everyone involved is consenting (and NO, children, dead people and animals cannot legally or morally consent to sex or marriage,) Who the hell cares? Or, more to the point, why the hell should the government care? It would seem like there are so many issues more pressing than what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes...

As long as everyone involved is consenting (and NO, children, dead people and animals cannot legally or morally consent to sex or marriage,) Who the hell cares? Or, more to the point, why the hell should the government care? It would seem like there are so many issues more pressing than what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes...

No, it is a huge concern.

First step is guy on guy butt sex, the next step is OBVIOUSLLY terrorism!

Why would I cry if someone gave me more rights? How is that threatening? "Help me, I'm too... too free! Someone tell me what to do!"



School prayer, No Backround checks at gun shows, assault weapons to go around, permanent extension of the patriot act, courts blessing of guantanamo and "secret" interrogation prisons elsewhere in the world, ten commandments in court rooms everywhere...yeah i bet you would just love an activist judge on the right.





1) Four justices did what they are paid to do. So did the other three, they just had a different interpretation. This is the role of supreme courts. If you don't like the system, go dig up a few Virginians and yell at them about it. Personally, I'd trust even Scalia's interpretation of the constitution over yours.

2) Oh no, division and hard feelings. Whatever will we do. It's not like this country has ever had to deal with those kinds of things in response the equalizing of civil rights. :rolleyes:

1) I wouldn't yell at them at all. work on your reading comprehension. the judges here are overstepping the bounds those virginians set for them.

2) don't be so dense. we're talking about a vote on a constitutional amendment here, that is a big deal and if passed will set the gay rigths movement back years and compeltely strip the legislature and the courts of any say on the matter. got it now? not sure if i could type any slower for you.

EDIT: oh and this is all in my opinion. not sure if that will lessen the hostility here, this forum has always been rather bitter when it comes to dissent, but this IS my opinion. wonder if that will cut down on the sarcasm and insults?

No, it is a huge concern.

First step is guy on guy butt sex, the next step is OBVIOUSLLY terrorism!

OH NOEZ!!!11!!! Not TERRORISTS!!!! Quick, someone come and confiscate my civil liberties. I wasn't using them, anyway.

No, I wouldn't, actually, because I will call you a bigot, a homophobe and a religious reactionary, and I will defend your civil rights and equal protection under the law to the bitter end. See, sometimes we can dislike and disagree with people and not try to oppress them.


so...you...dislike me?

School prayer,

I'm perfectly find with voluntary student-led prayer. Freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise trumps the Establishment Clause in my book. Others on the left should be too.


No Backround checks at gun shows,

Fine by me. Throw the book at people who commit gun violence; that's the real solution.


assault weapons to go around,

Excellent, I wouldn't be able to thank the Supreme Court more. My stance on gun control makes the NRA look timid. Again, the left should be against gun control. I'm proud to be on the anti-authoritarian left where we are against it.


permanent extension of the patriot act,

Whatever, it'll just piss more people off, thus hastening the revolution, which will now have "assault weapons to go around."



courts blessing of guantanamo

Thankfully, we'll be able to get assault weapons.


and "secret" interrogation prisons elsewhere in the world,

See above.


ten commandments in court rooms everywhere...yeah i bet you would just love an activist judge on the right.

Who cares? What matters is how they rule on civil rights (liberally) and on the power of the federal government (with extreme caution erring on the side of hamstringing it). Again, those assault rifles will solve all the problems if need be.

After all, this is a supposedly Lockean state.


1) I wouldn't yell at them at all. work on your reading comprehension. the judges here are overstepping the bounds those virginians set for them.

2) don't be so dense. we're talking about a vote on a constitutional amendment here, that is a big deal and if passed will set the gay rigths movement back years and compeltely strip the legislature and the courts of any say on the matter. got it now? not sure if i could type any slower for you.
Yawn.

so...you...dislike me?
If she does, I suppose you could see why.


EDIT: oh and this is all in my opinion. not sure if that will lessen the hostility here, this forum has always been rather bitter when it comes to dissent, but this IS my opinion. wonder if that will cut down on the sarcasm and insults?

Why not lessen yours then? Ryadn's hostility as perceived by you essentially amounts to her sarcasm about hurt feelings over the constitutional amendment outcome. My hostility as perceived by you is me telling you what your rhetorical purpose is and refusing to play by your rules.

Your hostility consists in asserting that Ryadn has poor reading comprehension and that she is of radically sub-par intelligence. If you don't like that she (probably) called you a bigot, religious reactionary and a homophobe, then you may have a legitimate grievance, but certainly the high road is to come to terms, apologize and make amends.

Well you're in luck, Obama has been proposing to make federal civil unions that are legally identical to marriage. I know a lot of people will piss and moan about it, but it's still a massive step forward, enough so that after a while we'll just say "well, these effectively are marriages, so let's just call them marriages."

You'd think a black man would be the last person to propose "separate but equal" marriages.

Sorta kinda yes and no. I know the case you're refering to, it's more technically correct to say that the court ruled that the obvious legislative intent of a statute dealing with the importation of "vegetables" was that it cover tomatoes as well.

Less so that a tomato is legally a vegetable, but that a statute covering "vegetables" covered those things that were traditionally considered vegetables in the normal every day use of the word "vegetable", which included tomatoes, and not in the scientific technical use of the word, as a tomato, though typically and commonly thought a vegetable, is in fact a fruit.

You are my hero.

I think Soldnerism is quite good actually. Their concept of constitutionality is undeveloped and the "minorities can just leave" idea doesn't work ... but there is a refreshing lack of dogmatism or cheap tactics.

This "meta-argument" of yours, which amounts to little more than "Soldnerism should shut up" ... now that's cheap tactics.


No, it amounts to "here's where your logic falls apart. Either admit this argument of yours is BS or actually live up to your end of it." He's welcome to continue expounding on how those who hold opinions in the minority should leave their community, however it will only show that he doesn't actually believe it.

If she does, I suppose you could see why.

.


nope, can't see why. i could fiercely disagree with someone on something but not dislike them. so if she does, i wouldn't know why.

oh and i don't think she has sub-par intelligence i just don't like words getting put in my mouth or cheap shots when the conversation/debate could be completely civil.

Your first point...what is to stop the other groups from filing and why should they be denied the same rights?

Which other groups? Some groups that might file should be denied the marriage rights they may want due to the fact that they want to marry someone incapable of giving legal consent (such as an eight year old, or a dog). We can't argue this point very well unless you're more specific.

Which other groups? Some groups that might file should be denied the marriage rights they may want due to the fact that they want to marry someone incapable of giving legal consent (such as an eight year old, or a dog). We can't argue this point very well unless you're more specific.

He already has. And it's pretty much the eight year old and the dog.

He already has. And it's pretty much the eight year old and the dog.

So how about those discount coupons for your re-education camp? All your stammering and pouting when others don't see eye to eye with you...and the pity...I would very much like to join your world order.

So how about those discount coupons for your re-education camp? All your stammering and pouting when others don't see eye to eye with you...and the pity...I would very much like to join your world order.

Ummmm... WTF? I'll admit I'm sleep-deprived and flipped out about spending all day tomorrow in 15-25 mph winds with a high (HIGH) of 60, but what the hell are you talking about?

Ummmm... WTF? I'll admit I'm sleep-deprived and flipped out about spending all day tomorrow in 15-25 mph winds with a high (HIGH) of 60, but what the hell are you talking about?

a few pages back, something he said to me about how i haven't changed my opinions or views since he last saw me. so i offered to join his boot camp to indoctrinate me into his world view.

Spin it how you want, but "extending" the "right" specifically for gays is creating a special right for them.

By the very meaning of the word "extend", that is not the case.

so marriage is now for straights and gays, but nobody else or other lifestyles.

Two questions.

First, is anyone else entitled to it simply by the logic of equality under law? I doubt it.

Second, so what? That's a reason to expand marriage rights further. It's not a flaw in the court's decision. Loving v. Virginia didn't give gays marriage equality, after all.

and as i have stated, this all could have been done properly through the legislature or another direct vote by the people in the future.

Properly, a majority of the population should not be entitled to deny equality under law to a minority. Rightfully, this is not a political decision. The public is entitled to decide whether or not to have civil marriage, and what sorts of rights and benefits should be associated with it. But if there is marriage, it must be extended to both gays and straights, or to neither gays nor straights.

However, now that 4 justices have forced their opinion, there will be another proposition for the people, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

And it will fail.

Spin it how you want, but "extending" the "right" specifically for gays is creating a special right for them.Yeah, but heteros will also have the right to marry people of their own sex, so it evens out.
so marriage is now for straights and gays, but nobody else or other lifestyles. how...selective.There's good reasons to limit marriage to consenting adults. There aren't really any to support limiting it to one sub-category of consenting adults.

polygamy, polyamory, incest, pedophilia ala NAMBLA and the marrying of one's self. hell, people try to marry animals and deceased ex-lovers posthumously. The main argument i read for Gay marriage is "fairness". Well that "fairness" argument can be "extended" to others as well.

So the obvious question is, is there a reasonable basis for drawing a distinction between same-sex marriage and any of those relationships? I think so, in all the above cases--and furthermore, the way that you cite them in your argument shows that you probably think there's a difference, too.

The whole point of the "fairness" argument is that the distinction is arbitrary... not simply that there is a distinction. Distinctions are okay. Distinctions based on irrational bigotry are not.

So the obvious question is, is there a reasonable basis for drawing a distinction between same-sex marriage and any of those relationships? I think so, in all the above cases

I kinda liked "marrying yourself" though. Doesn't seem to be ruled out by "consenting adults" ... the only benefits would be tax ones ... and the conversation starter of wearing a wedding ring on each hand ...

Are you serious, you would take marriage over the right to be able to vote, or to be able to express your own thoughts publicly without fear of the government locking you up till you agree to change your mind?
In the hypothetical that I am only allowed to have ONE of the three. There are "democratic people's republic" where you can vote, but since there is no open discussion of the issues the vote is meaningless, the only question being whether the great leader is affirmed by 99% or 99.9% of the vote. Similarly, speaking out about the issues, but not being allowed to influence the outcomes, is not so valuable, though probably better than the first.
But if the state, however oppressive otherwise, is going to let me live in peace with my loved one, and recognize our right to security in our togetherness, I would be willing to shut up about a lot of things, for that. I really did not expect to live long to see this happening in this country.

<SNIP>

Oh, come on KoL, we know the real reason you're in favor of gay marriage...
*points down to sig*
:D

The fact is, anyone who continues to argue that marriage is 'between a man and a woman" is either a homophobe or a politician. there is absolutely no legitimate reason that gays should not have the same exact rights as heterosexuals. By now, ALL american courts should have legalized gay marriage.

The whole point of the "fairness" argument is that the distinction is arbitrary... not simply that there is a distinction. Distinctions are okay. Distinctions based on irrational bigotry are not.

Exactly. A gay marriage is not the same as a straight marriage, because it involves two people of the same gender. Just like a marriage between two muslims is different from one between two catholics - it involves people of different faiths.

In fact - MY marriage is different from yours, since it involves different people.
(Unless you wanna marry me of course ;))

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions. Do they matter ? Are they reasons to give one more legal status than another ?

a few pages back, something he said to me about how i haven't changed my opinions or views since he last saw me. so i offered to join his boot camp to indoctrinate me into his world view.

I wasn't referring to your opinions or views. I was referring to your inability to debate.

Edit: And your post before the one I quoted demonstrates this perfectly.

Exactly. A gay marriage is not the same as a straight marriage, because it involves two people of the same gender. Just like a marriage between two muslims is different from one between two catholics - it involves people of different faiths.

In fact - MY marriage is different from yours, since it involves different people.
(Unless you wanna marry me of course ;))

Distinctions, distinctions, distinctions. Do they matter ? Are they reasons to give one more legal status than another ?

No, and No.

Mainly I want to say "Yay California."
Now maybe the rest of the US will get some sense. Eventually. It's wrong, and unconstitutional to my doubtless over simplified understanding of the Constitution, to us the law to deny some of our citizens the rights the rest have.
Right now gays have equal rights the same way blacks did in 1962.

"Subtle awesomeness" my ass. That kind of "cleverness" -- saying one thing but doing another -- is precisely why politicians are held in such low regard.

"Equal Rights in Marriage Act" would please me better.

But they aren't saying one thing and doing another. This act does have to do with marriage and protecting the family. The difference is that, unlike the bigots who often talk about "protecting the family", the people pushing this law are actually including the families of same-sex couples.

I think I made it pretty clear that it is judicial activism that I do not care for.

"judicial activism"...defined by.....being a decision you don't like?

I think I made it pretty clear that it is judicial activism that I do not care for. You obviously can't hold your end in this debate and allowed your paranoia about my "true intentions" to derail you. This means you are running on nothing more than emotion and not rationality.

EDIT: let me help you out here, this decision is very similar to griswold vs connecticut. judicial activism with no true constitutional basis. The judges just felt it was wrong and wanted to "fix" it.

First of all, you read the decision, did you? Are you claiming there is no constitutional basis for the decision THIS thread is about? Based on what?

Second, it's not judicial activism to apply the laws equally. I'll give you an example, under the definition of equality based on the amendments to the Constitution, can I make a law that says the men can only drive trucks and women can only drive cars? Would it be "judicial activism" under the CA Constitution or the US Constitution to overturn it as unconstitutional?

as for the 9th amendment, funny how that has been warped into some sort of source of an infinite number of rights to be granted at anytime to anyone by the courts.

See, when I read this, what I hear is,

"Waaah! Waaah! They recognized rights I don't actually want people to have!"

The 9th amendment does not create rights, but to judicial activists it does.

No, it protects them.

a conservative activist could take this approach as well and suddenly i doubt you'll be a fan of the 9th amendment.

A conservative "activist" could recognize individual rights protected by the 9th amendment? I don't see how that would be a bad thing.

judicial activists it does.

judicial activist. n. - some one who makes rulings contrary to a certain political beliefs, usually the regressive neocon political belief system

School prayer,

That would be the opposite of upholding rights, as it would amount to religion being forced upon students, infringing upon their 1st Amendment rights.

No Backround checks at gun shows, assault weapons to go around,

There are arguments to be made for these. Some of us believe that there are legitimate government interests in regulating weapons, but a court that held differently wouldn't be an evil, activist judge problem.

Of course, this would have nothing to do with the 9th Amendment and everything to do with the particular interpretation of the 2nd.

permanent extension of the patriot act, courts blessing of guantanamo and "secret" interrogation prisons elsewhere in the world, ten commandments in court rooms everywhere...

Again, all of those are the opposite of protecting individual rights.

I don't know if you've read the 9th Amendment, but it refers to individual rights, not government powers. Decisions upholding government power over the people have nothing to do with the 9th Amendment.


You'd think a black man would be the last person to propose "separate but equal" marriages.

I know, right? Especially one who is the product of an interracial marriage that wouldn't even have been recognized in some parts of the country at the time.

That would be the opposite of upholding rights, as it would amount to religion being forced upon students, infringing upon their 1st Amendment rights.

What are you talking about? There is no freedom of religion in the Constitution. The courts made that up. The Constitution was meant to recognize that we are a Christian nation.


There are arguments to be made for these. Some of us believe that there are legitimate government interests in regulating weapons, but a court that held differently wouldn't be an evil, activist judge problem.

Of course, this would have nothing to do with the 9th Amendment and everything to do with the particular interpretation of the 2nd.

Nuh-uh. Judicial activism. Judicial activism. (See, I don't actually have to make an argument because I say that word and somehow it means the courts were wrong.)


Again, all of those are the opposite of protecting individual rights.

I don't know if you've read the 9th Amendment, but it refers to individual rights, not government powers. Decisions upholding government power over the people have nothing to do with the 9th Amendment.

Bullshit. You don't have some silly right to a trial. You don't have protections from search and seizure. Again, these were all made up by JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS, JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS. Boogy, boogy, boogy.

is anyone else entitled to it simply by the logic of equality under law? I doubt it.

If you're pro-gay based on equal rights, then you also have to be pro-polygamy. Same logic used in both cases.



As for NAMBLA and Animal fucking, as was pointed out earlier, marriage has to be between two or more CONSENTING ADULTS.

If you're pro-gay based on equal rights, then you also have to be pro-polygamy. Same logic used in both cases.



As for NAMBLA and Animal fucking, as was pointed out earlier, marriage has to be between two or more CONSENTING ADULTS.

QFT

If you're pro-gay based on equal rights, then you also have to be pro-polygamy. Same logic used in both cases.

That's absurd. All persons already have perfectly identical rights with regard to polygamy.

That's absurd. All persons already have perfectly identical rights with regard to polygamy.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/large-smiley-037.gif

I'm all for VOLUNTARY student or teacher led school prayer. If you don't like it, then just chill. However if all students are FORCED to pray, then the school is over-stepping its bounds. It's like the Pledge of Allegiance: say Under God and students who don't like it, don't have to say it; as for guns, I believe that these should be made available to all mentally sane people.

Back to gay rights though: how will this affect the US negatively? Like I said earlier, the tax code will have to be altered, but that is long overdue, since the early 20th century... so I have no problem with it.

QFT

QFT?

That's absurd. All persons already have perfectly identical rights with regard to polygamy.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :sniper:

QFT?

Quoted For Truth

If you're pro-gay based on equal rights, then you also have to be pro-polygamy. Same logic used in both cases.

Not really. The logic is a little different.

In trying to keep homosexuals from marrying, you are taking people in the same situation and denying them equal protection.

Polygamous relationships are a different situation, with their own legal considerations. Personally, I do think there should be a way to legally recognize such relationships, but it would have to be somewhat different.

Quoted For Truth

GTN - Good to Know.

question mark?

Could you maybe rephrase your question? ;)

I'm saying that there's no "slippery slope" between gay marriage and polygamy in terms of the equal rights argument. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue because rights are being denied to a specific group, depending on how you look at it, on the basis of either sex or sexual orientation. With polygamy, the same "right" is being denied to everyone.

If you're pro-gay based on equal rights, then you also have to be pro-polygamy. Same logic used in both cases.

The logic of the same-sex marriage movement is that between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, there is no non-arbitrary distinction. I'm not at all convinced that the same is true of the distinction between monogamous and polygamous marriage. There are considerations of stability and of equality that simply aren't substantive with respect to same-sex marriage, but might be with respect to polygamy. Legally, furthermore, polygamous marriage would probably have to be quite different.

I mean, same-sex marriage follows quite immediately from applying principles of equality under law to existing marriage laws... the only real difference is that same-sex couples are incapable of biological reproduction, but legally (and culturally, in many respects) marriage isn't about children anyway. Polygamy, on the other hand, is a rather more radical break--and simple consistency may simply not be good enough.

(Not that I oppose legalizing polygamy.)

(Not that I oppose legalizing polygamy.)I've always sort of wondered exactly what the problem would be if people married multiple partners. so long as everyone gives consent I really don't see anything wrong with it. I somehow doubt society would instantly collapse if suddenly the >1% of people even interested in polygamy started practicing it legally...

I've always sort of wondered exactly what the problem would be if people married multiple partners. so long as everyone gives consent I really don't see anything wrong with it. I somehow doubt society would instantly collapse if suddenly the >1% of people even interested in polygamy started practicing it legally...

There's no problem, per se, it's just that our current marriage laws are written for two people, so they'd have to be radically reworked to allow for polygamy. And I'm not even sure how you could pull off some of the stuff in a polygamous marriage, particularly in regards to medical decisions and such.

There's no problem, per se, it's just that our current marriage laws are written for two people, so they'd have to be radically reworked to allow for polygamy. And I'm not even sure how you could pull off some of the stuff in a polygamous marriage, particularly in regards to medical decisions and such.

I always figured it would be somewhat based off of incorporation law, with some more personal protections added in.

I also think that polygamous relationships are less likely to fit into an easy mold like most 2-person marriages. As such, an incorporation-style legal structure would allow them very easy customization.

Beyond the legal aspect of it, could it be credibly stated that the desire to have multiple sexual and romantic partners is a type of sexual orientation? Does anyone have insight into such a proposition? If it is true, then proponents of same-sex marriage would have to endorse the legalization of polygamy in order to remain consistent.

Beyond the legal aspect of it, could it be credibly stated that the desire to have multiple sexual and romantic partners is a type of sexual orientation?

Not a type of sexual orientation. It may well be biological, but it wouldn't be a sexual orientation.

Not a type of sexual orientation. It may well be biological, but it wouldn't be a sexual orientation.

If it's biological, then how can it not be considered a sexual orientation?

If it is true, then proponents of same-sex marriage would have to endorse the legalization of polygamy in order to remain consistent.

Not at all. The question is not whether people of a certain sexual orientation are disproportionately disadvantaged. The question is whether the legal distinction between different sex acts or different romantic relationships is arbitrary.

Pedophilia could be considered a sexual orientation, too. But because it makes sense to make a distinction between relationships between adults and relationships between adults and children, there's nothing illegitimate about its legal prohibition.

Not at all. The question is not whether people of a certain sexual orientation are disproportionately disadvantaged. The question is whether the legal distinction between different sex acts or different romantic relationships is arbitrary.
And in the case of banning polygamous relationships from being granted legal rights, both requirements are met. Where is the logic in granting legal rights to people engaged in sexual and romantic relationships, regardless of the gender of the participants, but not extending similar rights to people because of the number of people involved in a relationship? The distinction seems arbitrary to me.

Pedophilia could be considered a sexual orientation, too. But because it makes sense to make a distinction between relationships between adults and relationships between adults and children, there's nothing illegitimate about its legal prohibition.
Pedophilia is a totally different case because children are not legally old enough to consent, so no valid relationship can exist between an adult and a child. In a consenting adult polygamous relationship, however, the adults involved are consenting, so it is a legal (albeit not legally-recognized, at the current time) relationship.

If it's biological, then how can it not be considered a sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation deals solely with what sex arouses the person. Since "multiple" is not a sex, polygamous relationships are not a sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation deals solely with what sex arouses the person. Since "multiple" is not a sex, polygamous relationships are not a sexual orientation.

According to what definition? Here's what the American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as:
An enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others
What if someone feels emotionally and instrinsically compelled to have multiple romantic and sexual relationships at once? That seems to meet the aforementioned definition, and certainly seems to meet the general criteria that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.

According to what definition? Here's what the American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as:

What if someone feels emotionally and instrinsically compelled to have multiple romantic and sexual relationships at once? That seems to meet the aforementioned definition, and certainly seems to meet the general criteria that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice.

That still wouldn't be polygamy.

Meanwhile, no one has the right to marry multiple partners. And it's not a small distinction. As has been pointed out, the legal effect is quite different. It's not simply opening up marriage to multiple partners. It would require new laws, an altered form of the marriage contract. Just that fact alone makes the difference non-arbitrary.

Pity about that.

Weeeell, I like my laws a little more law-y and a little less declarational, if you know what I mean :p

Weeeell, I like my laws a little more law-y and a little less declarational, if you know what I mean :p

But I hear you like to be told what to do.

But I hear you like to be told what to do.

o.0



(My previous statement would support that theory, btw...)

Well... you guys should stop viewing Polygamy as the archaic notion of one man and many wives. No one has said it, but I think that's what most people are thinking, and please correct me if I am wrong. I would bring up a Star Trek Enterprise Analogy if I may: Dr. Phlox has three wives, and two husbands-in-law. Polygamy gives one diversity. The problem with "cheating" in a relationship isn't really the "cheating" part, it's the lying part. If you and your wife are adventurous and want to try taking on new sex partners, while still staying loyal to each other, and your relationship is strong enough to talk about it openly, why not? It's not like everyone here survives without FWBs, and this isn't that much different, it's just acknowledging it and not making it sneaky or awkward.

Plus, inside their minds, many Hollywood Stars have already legalized it, although this last sentence is more intended to piss of conservatives then make a valid point. BTW, I'm straight and not-married. Just thought I should get that out there, but I will date Bi-girls, provided the other criteria, (i.e. personality, intellect, looks) matches. I'd totally date that bi-girl in Dodgeball the movie.

o.0



(My previous statement would support that theory, btw...)

I followed the conversation back. Perhaps being told what to do is your sexuality and thus it's discrimination against you not to allow someone to own you. I hereby declare the ban on slavery unconstitutional.

I followed the conversation back. Perhaps being told what to do is your sexuality and thus it's discrimination against you not to allow someone to own you. I hereby declare the ban on slavery unconstitutional.

It's a relationship between two or more CONSENTING adults. Slavery/rape is NOT consenting. If you are trying to be ironic however, or sarcastic, then well done :)

It's a relationship between two or more CONSENTING adults. Slavery/rape is NOT consenting. If you are trying to be ironic however, or sarcastic, then well done :)

I was being sarcastic. But, I was also pointing out that just because it can be called a sexuality doesn't mean it's automatically covered.

In the case of same-sex marriage, the marriage is identical other than the sex of the participants (sexuality has nothing to do with marriage). Polygamy is a different kind of contract. From a civil perspective marriage can happen without the law other than the contract portion of it. There is no ready contract that exists today that would fit. The currently existing civil contract actually does require that it be only two people.

Want examples? If I'm married and I need someone to make medical decisions for me, who makes them? My wife. Now, what happens when I have two wives? 10 wives? Who inherets my money when I die? Do we all get protection under the law from testifying against one another?

And, while you might just want to give simple answers to these, there are implications. Technically, under a polygamist contract, I could actually make a cult where no one could testify against anyone else. And yes, it's a bit of a silly example, but the fact is that there is much to consider because the contract is significantly different.

But they aren't saying one thing and doing another. This act does have to do with marriage and protecting the family. The difference is that, unlike the bigots who often talk about "protecting the family", the people pushing this law are actually including the families of same-sex couples.

I was replying to this ...

[Y]ou have to be a special kind of nitwit to think that two dudes (or two chicks) getting married has any affect on you whatsoever, so these gay marriage bans are propped up by nitwits. And and least half of the nitwits are going to look at something named "Marriage and Family Protection Act" and think it bans gay marriage and vote for it...awesome.

For one thing, there are nitwits on all sides of any debate, and at least some of the votes gained by the other side actually voting FOR a bill because of its name, are going to be lost back by your own nitwits who vote AGAINST it because of its name.

CTOAN was joking, and he acknowledges that the above only applies to the naming of a referendum, not a house bill where (you would hope) the members know more about the bill than its name. (I know more about it than its name. It's in Minnesota! I'm an expert now.)

But in all seriousness, the naming of bills is quite important, and I feel that this one is misleading. "Defence of Marriage" is surely defence of something that already exists, so the bill claims to be doing something it has already done, ie define marriage more widely, and in the process defining the new meaning of marriage within the state. "Defence" is not the right word.

==============

Nuh-uh. Judicial activism. Judicial activism. (See, I don't actually have to make an argument because I say that word and somehow it means the courts were wrong.)

Careful, some people get a little frisky when you do that ...

Oooh, Neo Honey, will you come over and chase away the mean old judicial activism for me? It's making me feel all... uncomfortable. ;)

===========

The logic of the same-sex marriage movement is that between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, there is no non-arbitrary distinction. I'm not at all convinced that the same is true of the distinction between monogamous and polygamous marriage. There are considerations of stability and of equality that simply aren't substantive with respect to same-sex marriage, but might be with respect to polygamy. Legally, furthermore, polygamous marriage would probably have to be quite different.

Absolutely. A modern (non-sexist) marriage has corresponding vows in each direction. With three people, the correspondingly fair arrangement would be for each person to have a reciprocal vow with each of the others (6 vows in all, as opposed to monogamy's 2). Perhaps more ... it's certainly more complicated.

Of course, most polygamists don't want that, they want multiple wives etc. Such an arrangement isn't reciprocal, and doesn't just pass as easily as two people making reciprocal vows.

===============

Oh, damn. I just saw this:

[...]

Want examples? If I'm married and I need someone to make medical decisions for me, who makes them? My wife. Now, what happens when I have two wives? 10 wives? Who inherets my money when I die? Do we all get protection under the law from testifying against one another?

And, while you might just want to give simple answers to these, there are implications. Technically, under a polygamist contract, I could actually make a cult where no one could testify against anyone else. And yes, it's a bit of a silly example, but the fact is that there is much to consider because the contract is significantly different.

Not even a silly example. I think you have distinguished important differences between the cases of gay marriage and polygamy, which demand that they be considered separately.

The slippery slope has sound traction after all. ;)

That still wouldn't be polygamy.
No, legally recognizing a relationship involving multiple partners would be, however. What's your point?

Meanwhile, no one has the right to marry multiple partners. And it's not a small distinction. As has been pointed out, the legal effect is quite different. It's not simply opening up marriage to multiple partners. It would require new laws, an altered form of the marriage contract.
You have failed to demonstrate why the legalization of polygamy itself would be harmful. Yes, it would require changes to the existing institution of marriage: so what? Why is it not worth it to go through such changes? You've failed to address the issue at hand.

No, legally recognizing a relationship involving multiple partners would be, however. What's your point?


You have failed to demonstrate why the legalization of polygamy itself would be harmful. Yes, it would require changes to the existing institution of marriage: so what? Why is it not worth it to go through such changes? You've failed to address the issue at hand.

I've failed? Um, do you always make things up? I never said it would be harmful. Never even hinted at it. Never said it wouldn't be worth it.

I said, that it wouldn't be legalized based on equal rights. I simply pointed out why. Thus there is no slippery slope and it would have to be considered on its own. Everyone else understood. One wonders why you didn't.

Want examples? If I'm married and I need someone to make medical decisions for me, who makes them? My wife. Now, what happens when I have two wives? 10 wives? Who inherets my money when I die? Do we all get protection under the law from testifying against one another?

And, while you might just want to give simple answers to these, there are implications. Technically, under a polygamist contract, I could actually make a cult where no one could testify against anyone else. And yes, it's a bit of a silly example, but the fact is that there is much to consider because the contract is significantly different.
There's much to consider: yes. But it's up to the participants in the polygamist marriage to make those decisions. One spouse may be entitled to make mental decisions, one may have the sole right to inherit property, etc. That would all be settled in the legal contract. Again, just because it would be a complicated process and not easily summed up says nothing about the credibility of legalizing polygamy itself. All you've succeeded in proving is that it would be quite different than traditional marriages and that it would require a lengthier legal contract. Whoop-dee do.

There is no ready contract that exists today that would fit. The currently existing civil contract actually does require that it be only two people.

Want examples? If I'm married and I need someone to make medical decisions for me, who makes them? My wife. Now, what happens when I have two wives? 10 wives? Who inherets my money when I die? Do we all get protection under the law from testifying against one another?
Take a good look at these quotes I've pulled out from your posts. In them, and in your posts in general, you've done your best to cast doubt on the feasibility and legitimacy of legalizing polygamy. Just taking a glance at them sheds light on what your view of the subject is.

There's much to consider: yes. But it's up to the participants in the polygamist marriage to make those decisions.

No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. Absent the legal contract we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a legal basis is required for them to make decisions, it's not just a matter of them making the decisions.

One spouse may be entitled to make mental decisions, one may have the sole right to inherit property, etc. That would all be settled in the legal contract. Again, just because it would be a complicated process and not easily summed up says nothing about the credibility of legalizing polygamy itself. All you've succeeded in proving is that it would be quite different than traditional marriages and that it would require a lengthier legal contract. Whoop-dee do.

Which was my point. I recongnize you missed it, but I was addressing the slippery slope argument. It has to be considered seperately and there is no current law or currently recognized right that would make it automatically legal. Equal protection doesn't prevent them from treating different relationships differently. You've already admitted the relationship is different. That was my point.

It's not about it being harmful. It's not about it being a bad idea. I didn't say I was against it. I didn't say anyone should be against it. I only addressed the slope argument. And according to the bold, I addressed it perfectly.

Take a good look at these quotes I've pulled out from your posts. In them, and in your posts in general, you've done your best to cast doubt on the feasibility and legitimacy of legalizing polygamy. Just taking a glance at them sheds light on what your view of the subject is.

Ha. Perhaps you should search a bit harder. You might find me specifically arguing in a thread about how the government should stay out peoples' private lives. I support legalized drug use, prostitution, euthenasia, stabbing yourself in the eyes with pencils, civil unions as a contractual relationship between any two people, marriage as a word people choose to apply or not according to their beliefs and entirely seperate from the civil union, and the allowance to engage in a form of incorporation of sorts that deals with multiple partners.

But hey, you found me pointing out that there is no slippery slope and the creation of laws would be seperate so I must be against polyamory. In fact the two quotes you gave go directly to proving the bolded quote from you. Exactly what I wanted to prove to address the slippery slope argument. Nothing better than making things up, blaming me for it, while people entirely get my point. Yeah, that doesn't look silly.

As a legal basis is required for them to make decisions, it's not just a matter of them making the decisions.
Of course it's not just a matter of them making decisions amongst themselves. They would make decisions pertaining to medical rights, property inheritance, etc. under the legal contract. All such "controversies" would be spelled out in the contract.

Which was my point. I recongnize you missed it, but I was addressing the slippery slope argument. It has to be considered seperately and there is no current law or currently recognized right that would make it automatically legal. Equal protection doesn't prevent them from treating different relationships differently. You've already admitted the relationship is different. That was my point.

It's not about it being harmful. It's not about it being a bad idea. I didn't say I was against it. I didn't say anyone should be against it. I only addressed the slope argument. And according to the bold, I addressed it perfectly.
No, you addressed it quite miserably. You've failed to address why multiple-party sexual and romantic relationships should not be entitled to the same legal rights as two-person relationships under the law. Just because the recognition of such relationships would require more complicated legal contracts says nothing at all about why such relationships are not instrinsically entitled to the same rights under the law.

EDIT NOTE: I changed the wording around so as not to offend your "I'm against it, but not really..." argument.

Of course it's not just a matter of them making decisions amongst themselves. They would make decisions pertaining to medical rights, property inheritance, etc. under the legal contract. All such "controversies" would be spelled out in the contract.


No, you addressed it quite miserably. You've failed to address why multiple-party sexual and romantic relationships should not be entitled to the same legal rights as two-person relationships under the law. Just because the recognition of such relationships would require more complicated legal contracts says nothing at all about why such relationships should not be recognized.

Who said they should not be? I didn't. I failed to address an argument I wasn't addressing. Man, that's crazy. How could I possibly have addressed an argument so miserably that wasn't my argument and didn't relate to my argument.

I haven't spoken to whether or not they should be recognized. We weren't talking about that. We were talking about whether or not it's a slippery slope. It isn't. The current rights don't apply to them because there is a significant and noticeable line between two person and multi-person relationships. You've pointed out that this is true. Since that was the only thing I was trying to show, it appears I was quite succussful.

You've done a crappy job of showing that asians are bad drivers. Now you may not have been trying to show that, but apparently whether you were making that argument or not isn't relevant.

EDIT NOTE: I changed the wording around so as not to offend your "I'm against it, but not really..." argument.
This is just sad. You know people can address the reality of current law without being against legalizing something, right? I was speaking to the reality of the situation. Not only have I not said I was against it, but since you claimed I had, I explicitly explained the opposite. Your absurd assumptions are going to be amusing when the posters who know me better see this. I've been on this forum for 5 years and I have 20,000 posts. Feel free to find ONE where I say polyamory should be illegal or that a type of marriage contract should not be permitted among them.

Go ahead. 20,000 posts. Find one where I say I'm against polygamy. I'll wait.

Who said they should not be? I didn't. I failed to address an argument I wasn't addressing. Man, that's crazy. How could I possibly have addressed an argument so miserably that wasn't my argument and didn't relate to my argument.
I was addressing your argument against the "slippery slope" point of view. Now you're the one confused.

I haven't spoken to whether or not they should be recognized. We weren't talking about that. We were talking about whether or not it's a slippery slope. It isn't. The current rights don't apply to them because there is a significant and noticeable line between two person and multi-person relationships. You've pointed out that this is true. Since that was the only thing I was trying to show, it appears I was quite succussful.

You've done a crappy job of showing that asians are bad drivers. Now you may not have been trying to show that, but apparently whether you were making that argument or not isn't relevant.

You fail to understand my argument. I am stating that your argument against the "slippery slope" point of view is invalid. Simply pointing out that there is a noticeable difference between two-person relationships and multiple-person relationships, and how the two would receive legal rights under the law, says nothing about why the latter type of relationship is not obligated to receive the same legal rights under the law as the former type of relationship.

So what if multiple-partner relationships will require different legal contracts and more complicated proceedings than two-partner ones? Why does that mean that they aren't entitled to the same legal rights under the law as two-partner ones? You've still failed to address this.

You fail to understand my argument. I am stating that your argument against the "slippery slope" point of view is invalid. Simply pointing out that there is a noticeable difference between two-person relationships and multiple-person relationships, and how the two would receive legal rights under the law, says nothing about why the latter type of relationship is not obligated to receive the same legal rights under the law as the former type of relationship.

Um, yes, it does. If there is a significant legal difference, and you've admitted there is, then it's not discrimination not to treat them equally. The argument for legalizing gay marriage is that there is no significant difference. The argument for legalizing polygamy cannot be the same since we've all admitted the difference is relevant to the current law.


So what if multiple-partner relationships will require different legal contracts and more complicated proceedings than two-partner ones? Why does that mean that they aren't entitled to the same legal rights under the law as two-partner ones? You've still failed to address this.

Because they will require different legal contracts and more complicated proceeding. Everyone agrees there are legal differences, relevant legal differences, to the extent that new law would be required. That satisfies the idea that they are not equal interactions.

I haven't failed to address it. You just don't realize that since a change to law would be required in order to capture it, that it's not something that is a violation of equal rights. If it were truly equal, all that would be required is recognition.

For example, all that they had to do with interracial marriage was lift the laws that banned it. All they had to do with gay marriage was lift the laws that banned it. With polygamy, you've already admitted this is not the case.

Not even a silly example. I think you have distinguished important differences between the cases of gay marriage and polygamy, which demand that they be considered separately.

The slippery slope has sound traction after all. ;)

Oh, look, it's almost like I made a cogent argument and some people read and addressed it. Wow, if only all replies stuck to what a post actually addresses.

Not at all. The question is not whether people of a certain sexual orientation are disproportionately disadvantaged. The question is whether the legal distinction between different sex acts or different romantic relationships is arbitrary.

It appears others have explained to Vamosa that the issue is whether the distinction is arbitrary. If it's not, then it's not in violation of the equal protection clause. For example, it's not arbitrary to require firefighters to be able to walk and thus it's not discriminatory. Vamosa, you've agreed that the distinction isn't arbitrary and in doing so demonstrated why there is no slippery slope here.

Um, yes, it does. If there is a significant legal difference, and you've admitted there is, then it's not discrimination not to treat them equally. The argument for legalizing gay marriage is that there is no significant difference. The argument for legalizing polygamy cannot be the same since we've all admitted the difference is relevant to the current law.




Because they will require different legal contracts and more complicated proceeding. Everyone agrees there are legal differences, relevant legal differences, to the extent that new law would be required. That satisfies the idea that they are not equal interactions.

I haven't failed to address it. You just don't realize that since a change to law would be required in order to capture it, that it's not something that is a violation of equal rights. If it were truly equal, all that would be required is recognition.

For example, all that they had to do with interracial marriage was lift the laws that banned it. All they had to do with gay marriage was lift the laws that banned it. With polygamy, you've already admitted this is not the case.

Your argument is based on a warped sense of what equality is. Equality means that all groups of people are entitled to the same legal rights. In this case, it means that people who engage in two-person relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal recognition as people who engage in multiple-person relationships. The fact that the contracts might look different for common sense reasons between the two groups of people does nothing to change the fact that both groups of people are still entitled to the same right of legal recognition from the government.

Your argument is based on a warped sense of what equality is. Equality means that all groups of people are entitled to the same legal rights. In this case, it means that people who engage in two-person relationships are entitled to the same sort of legal recognition as people who engage in multiple-person relationships. The fact that the contracts might look different for common sense reasons between the two groups of people does nothing to change the fact that both groups of people are still entitled to the same right of legal recognition from the government.

No, it isn't. It's based on the legal "sense of what equality is." If there is a non-arbitrary line, then all things are NOT equal under the law. It's not discriminatory to recognize this.

Equality merely requires that law be applied equally. The act of marriage is a right. The contract is tied to that right, but the fact is the contract you are talking about doesn't exist. SCOTUS can't recognize it, because even if they did the law still wouldn't exist to address them. They don't make law. As such even if they ruled that polygamy was "equal" there still would be no legalized polygamy because we'd be missing the contract for it. Polygamy isn't a law or right being applied unequally, because you've admitted there is a legal and relevant distinction.

No, it isn't. It's based on the legal "sense of what equality is." If there is a non-arbitrary line, then all things are NOT equal under the law. It's not discriminatory to recognize this.

The fact remains that inequality still exists if some sexual and romantic relationships are recognized under the law, while others aren't. That polygamous relationships would involve divying up of rights and responsbilities does nothing to change the fact that they are a type of relationship that are NOT recognized under the law, while two-partner relationships are. That is inequality, plain and simple.

Equality merely requires that law be applied equally. The act of marriage is a right. The contract is tied to that right, but the fact is the contract you are talking about doesn't exist. SCOTUS can't recognize it, because even if they did the law still wouldn't exist to address them. They don't make law. As such even if they ruled that polygamy was "equal" there still would be no legalized polygamy because we'd be missing the contract for it.

Your argument is at odds with the history of the SCOTUS itself. The Court invented an entirely new legal framework for obtaining abortions in Roe v. Wade.

Your argument is at odds with the history of the SCOTUS itself. The Court invented an entirely new legal framework for obtaining abortions in Roe v. Wade.

Um, what? Start a thread on that. I'd love to watch that smackdown.

As to your other post, I'll let someone else explained. I tried to explain that non-arbitrary actually means *gasp* non-arbitrary, but you protest. Someone else will deal with it.

EDIT: Keep in mind that when I say in order for polygamy to be legal, there would have to be new legislation to deal with the contractual obligations. Technically everything SCOTUS says is law, because it's legal precedent, but I'm referring to actual legislation which isn't just interpretation.

Um, what? Start a thread on that. I'd love to watch that smackdown.
Oh, I dunno. The trimester formula, which could be found no where on the books then or now, other than in...Roe v. Wade?

As to your other post, I'll let someone else explained. I tried to explain that non-arbitrary actually means *gasp* non-arbitrary, but you protest. Someone else will deal with it.

Denying rights to a group of people because they don't fit the mold of another group of people is arbitrary in every sense of the word.

Oh, I dunno. The trimester formula, which could be found no where on the books then or now, other than in...Roe v. Wade?

Like I said, start a thread. I look forward to it. I love watching people be educated, and you will be... swiftly.

Denying rights to a group of people because they don't fit the mold of another group of people is arbitrary in every sense of the word.

In every sense of the word? Hmmm... I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means since you've already admitted to a legal distinction that is anything but arbitrary. One wonders if a legal distinction would matter in a case of law. Nah, probably not. Legal has nothing to do with law.

the big issue with the gay marriage thing is the election.

it will energize the republican's base and weaken the democrats base
As several of the minorities that tend to vote for the democrats also have a tendency to have a conservative religious view point.

notice how this issue seemed to come up just before the election last time.

think there is an Illuminati behind the scenes manipulating things.

Your argument is at odds with the history of the SCOTUS itself. The Court invented an entirely new legal framework for obtaining abortions in Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade was not decided on grounds of equal protection.

As several of the minorities that tend to vote for the democrats also have a tendency to have a conservative religious view point.

Yes, but they don't actually vote according to it.

The risk is a mass mobilization by white conservative Christians, as we saw in '04, but I don't think the political situation is the same this year, especially with McCain being the nominee.

You have failed to demonstrate why the legalization of polygamy itself would be harmful.

It is simply not the topic. It has NOTHING to do with the court decision in California, or gay marriage.

The only relation that legal (marriage) recognition of polygamy has to the topic, is the entirely spurious one introduced by (IIRC) Daemonocracy, where it was invoked like bogeyman lurking behind gay marriage. The "slippery slope" argument.

Jocabia (and others) quite simply showed that there are other factors to consider, that allowing marriage between people of the same sex does not "open the door" for polygamy.

THAT DOES NOT imply opposition to legalizing polygamy. (I have objections to legalizing polygamy btw, but then, I object to marriage too. Not the point.)

If extending marriage to polygamy is the only topic you want to discuss, go make a thread. It has been plainly shown to be a separate issue from the subject of this thread.

the big issue with the gay marriage thing is the election.

So, you're pro gay marriage, prefer Dems to Reps, but still think the Dems should shut up about it because there are more serious issues in the choice of government.

Gotcha.

it will energize the republican's base and weaken the democrats base

That's just a balancing factor in any two-party system. The side with the majority are more divided, the minority more united. Very frustrating when "your" side is the majority, but a huge consolation when you're in the minority. It's a quite natural, unwritten rule against tyranny of the majority. Tyranny generally requires more drastic measures than a majority can agree on.

the big issue with the gay marriage thing is the election.

it will energize the republican's base and weaken the democrats base
As several of the minorities that tend to vote for the democrats also have a tendency to have a conservative religious view point.

notice how this issue seemed to come up just before the election last time.

think there is an Illuminati behind the scenes manipulating things.I'd like to see some kind of evidence in support of this argument, particularly one that takes into account of people that vote for the Republicans that don't have conservative religious viewpoints.

the big issue with the gay marriage thing is the election.

it will energize the republican's base and weaken the democrats base
As several of the minorities that tend to vote for the democrats also have a tendency to have a conservative religious view point.

notice how this issue seemed to come up just before the election last time.

think there is an Illuminati behind the scenes manipulating things.

Since its only in California and not on a national scale, it doesnt have much chance to mobilize anyone outside of California IMO. Besides, how would it weaken the dems?

Not to mention most ultra conservatives who would vote soley on issues like this wont trust McCain to do anything about it anyway, they dont buy his newfound conservative stance on things..

Could you maybe rephrase your question? ;)

I'm saying that there's no "slippery slope" between gay marriage and polygamy in terms of the equal rights argument. Gay marriage is an equal rights issue because rights are being denied to a specific group, depending on how you look at it, on the basis of either sex or sexual orientation. With polygamy, the same "right" is being denied to everyone.

Ah, okay.

Go ahead. 20,000 posts. Find one where I say I'm against polygamy. I'll wait.
Done \/ ;)
I'm against polygamy.

Done \/ ;)

Lulz.

Like I said, start a thread. I look forward to it. I love watching people be educated, and you will be... swiftly.
How convenient that you fail to point out any holes in my argument, instead trying to defer it to another thread. The fact remains that you were just proven dead wrong with this statement:
SCOTUS can't recognize it, because even if they did the law still wouldn't exist to address them.
...because the court in Roe created new trimester guidelines for abortion laws, because no existing laws fit their ruling. Of course, you've conveniently tip-toed around admitting this because it obliterates your argument that SCOTUS couldn't recognize a legal right to polygamy because there are no laws that currently address it other than outlawing it. When that was the case with abortion, the Court created its own legal framework. Why couldn't they do the same with polygamy?

In every sense of the word? Hmmm... I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means since you've already admitted to a legal distinction that is anything but arbitrary. One wonders if a legal distinction would matter in a case of law. Nah, probably not. Legal has nothing to do with law.
Of course there's a legal distinction, but it is nevertheless arbitrary to deny rights to a group of people simply because there are intrinsic differences between them and another group of people. Either two-couple relationships and multiple-partner relationships are entitled to equal rights, or they aren't. Plain and simple. Equal protection is not, and never has been, judged in light of the differences between two groups of people, but rather on the necessity for each individual group to be equally recognized under the law.

Your argument is like saying Muslims are not entitled to protection under anti-discrimination laws that have previously only protected Christians because there are clear differences in how the two groups face persecution. A Muslim may wear a type of head-dress or traditional garb, and thus face harassment on the street or on the job for his or her appearance. Since Christians do not face this type of harassment, Muslims are thus not entitled to the same kind of protection from discrimination.
Roe v. Wade was not decided on grounds of equal protection.

No kidding. That wasn't the point of my bringing it up. Look at the text I quoted from Jocabia. His point was that SCOTUS can't recognize polygamy as deserving equal protection under the law because there's no existing legal framework to deal with it. The reason I brought up Roe v. Wade is that it is an example of a case where the Court in fact constructed a new type of legal framework to assist in applying their holding.

It has been plainly shown to be a separate issue from the subject of this thread.
Quite to the contrary, what I've been discussing is at the heart and soul of this thread. The topic is about a court ruling that recognized that under concepts of equal protection, same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal marriage rights as heterosexual ones. It is perfectly legitimate to examine whether or not such an extension of equal protection would then extend to multiple-partner couples as well.

His point was that SCOTUS can't recognize polygamy as deserving equal protection under the law because there's no existing legal framework to deal with it.

Right. But this is important not because the Supreme Court can't create new legal frameworks, but because if a new legal framework is required, the distinction is no longer arbitrary.

Right. But this is important not because the Supreme Court can't create new legal frameworks, but because if a new legal framework is required, the distinction is no longer arbitrary.

What a ridiculous standard for equal protection. I'll bring my Muslim and Chrisitian example up once more: to protect Muslims from discrimination, new legal standards would be required because of the differences in customs between the two groups. Since a new legal framework would be required, you're telling me that Muslims aren't entitled to the same right to be free from discrimination as Christians?

How convenient that you fail to point out any holes in my argument, instead trying to defer it to another thread. The fact remains that you were just proven dead wrong with this statement:

Amusing. Odd that everyone else seems to have gotten my point. When everyone else understands and you don't, I wonder where the problem lies. No guesses?

...because the court in Roe created new trimester guidelines for abortion laws, because no existing laws fit their ruling. Of course, you've conveniently tip-toed around admitting this because it obliterates your argument that SCOTUS couldn't recognize a legal right to polygamy because there are no laws that currently address it other than outlawing it. When that was the case with abortion, the Court created its own legal framework. Why couldn't they do the same with polygamy?

Again, create a thread and end the hijack.


Of course there's a legal distinction, but it is nevertheless arbitrary to deny rights to a group of people simply because there are intrinsic differences between them and another group of people. Either two-couple relationships and multiple-partner relationships are entitled to equal rights, or they aren't. Plain and simple. Equal protection is not, and never has been, judged in light of the differences between two groups of people, but rather on the necessity for each individual group to be equally recognized under the law.

You don't know what arbitrary means, do you? If there IS a legal distinction, a relevant distinction, then it's not arbitrary. No attempt to ignore the relevant differences will make them go away.

Your argument is like saying Muslims are not entitled to protection under anti-discrimination laws that have previously only protected Christians because there are clear differences in how the two groups face persecution. A Muslim may wear a type of head-dress or traditional garb, and thus face harassment on the street or on the job for his or her appearance. Since Christians do not face this type of harassment, Muslims are thus not entitled to the same kind of protection from discrimination.

Um, no, it isn't. It's like saying that if there is no relevant legal difference between Muslims and Christians then any law treating them differently is discriminatory.

No kidding. That wasn't the point of my bringing it up. Look at the text I quoted from Jocabia. His point was that SCOTUS can't recognize polygamy as deserving equal protection under the law because there's no existing legal framework to deal with it. The reason I brought up Roe v. Wade is that it is an example of a case where the Court in fact constructed a new type of legal framework to assist in applying their holding.

Hehe. Seriously, this stuff is just beautiful.

Quite to the contrary, what I've been discussing is at the heart and soul of this thread. The topic is about a court ruling that recognized that under concepts of equal protection, same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal marriage rights as heterosexual ones. It is perfectly legitimate to examine whether or not such an extension of equal protection would then extend to multiple-partner couples as well.

And I've pointed out and you've agreed that there is a relevant legal distinction, so much so that it requires new law to address it. As such, the legal acceptance of such a distinction is not discriminatory.

By the way, so how is that search for all my vitriol toward polygamy going? Certainly, you've found tons of posts where I express my disdain, right? Or do you admit how stupid that claim was?

By the way, so how is that search for all my vitriol toward polygamy going? Certainly, you've found tons of posts where I express my disdain, right? Or do you admit how stupid that claim was?

Points \/
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13701452&postcount=484
He just needed to edit that's all...

Right. But this is important not because the Supreme Court can't create new legal frameworks, but because if a new legal framework is required, the distinction is no longer arbitrary.

Amusingly, s/he doesn't seem to know what arbitrary means. Obviously, if a new legal framework is necessary, and, in fact, not just a legal framework, but actually legislation to deal with the contractual obligations of the marriage, the distinction is not arbitrary in a legal sense.

arbitrary - based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard>

Given that the intrinsic nature of a multi-partner relationship, according to everyone, including Vamosa, requires a dramatic change to the law to deal with new issues that don't exist in two-partner relationships, arbitrary simply CANNOT apply.

Points \/
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13701452&postcount=484
He just needed to edit that's all...

I laughed when I saw it earlier. Sorry for not patting your head. *pats*

What a ridiculous standard for equal protection. I'll bring my Muslim and Chrisitian example up once more: to protect Muslims from discrimination, new legal standards would be required because of the differences in customs between the two groups. Since a new legal framework would be required, you're telling me that Muslims aren't entitled to the same right to be free from discrimination as Christians?

A ridiculous standard is that distinctions be non-arbitrary? Huh. I didn't realize. In that case, it's discrimination to prevent people with no legs from being firefighters, to make abortion law apply to women, to make the voting age 18, to give discounts to children, for OB/GYN's to only accept female patients, etc.

And again, the distinction between Muslims and Christians IS arbitrary. There is no need for a new legal framework to deal with Muslims. That you say there should be doesn't make it so. What new framework do they require?

I think it's time to start quoting The Princess Bride.

I laughed when I saw it earlier. Sorry for not patting your head. *pats*

Don't mind me, I'm just bored.
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/car-smiley-004.gif

Amusing. Odd that everyone else seems to have gotten my point. When everyone else understands and you don't, I wonder where the problem lies. No guesses?
It's not a matter of understanding. That you have a few people who agree with you does nothing to change the fact that you're wrong. Appeal to majority, logic fans?

Again, create a thread and end the hijack.

Hehe. Seriously, this stuff is just beautiful.
From The Handbook of What To Do When You've Been Proven Wrong: Giggle and pretend you know something the other person doesn't, all the while refusing to enunciate just what that is.


You don't know what arbitrary means, do you? If there IS a legal distinction, a relevant distinction, then it's not arbitrary. No attempt to ignore the relevant differences will make them go away.
Why is the fact that the legal contract between multiple-partner couples would not be a photo copy of the one served to two-partner couples "legally relevant?" What sort of hurdles would a court have to jump through in order to recognize a right to polygamy? All a court would have to do is rule that marriage contracts must be afforded to multiple-partner couples. The details of the contract, like all contracts, would be left up to the individuals signing it.

Um, no, it isn't. It's like saying that if there is no relevant legal difference between Muslims and Christians then any law treating them differently is discriminatory.
According to you, trivial differences between two groups of people is a "relevant legal difference." Opposing the equal protection argument for polygamy based on the grounds that the marriage contract would look different than the one in two-person marriages is no different than opposing equal protection for Muslims because they are discriminated against in different ways than Christians. You're picking at details that have no bearing on the central question of whether or not the group in question is entitled to the same legal rights as other groups under the law.

And I've pointed out and you've agreed that there is a relevant legal distinction, so much so that it requires new law to address it.
I never accepted that there was a relevant legal difference, the same way that I would never recognize the presence or non-presence of traditional religious garb is a "relevant legal difference" between two groups of religious people.

By the way, so how is that search for all my vitriol toward polygamy going? Certainly, you've found tons of posts where I express my disdain, right? Or do you admit how stupid that claim was?

That you oppose the simultaneous legalization of polygamy and gay marriage has been established. If that wasn't the case, then you wouldn't be vehemently picking at trivial details to deny a group of people equal protection under the law.

A ridiculous standard is that distinctions be non-arbitrary? Huh. I didn't realize.
Except, the difference you give -- that marital contracts would look different between the two groups of people -- is arbitrary. So what? Why should that prevent polygamous marriage from being recognized? Because it would require new legal precedents? So did every other major civil rights decision in history.
And again, the distinction between Muslims and Christians IS arbitrary. There is no need for a new legal framework to deal with Muslims. That you say there should be doesn't make it so. What new framework do they require?
Bringing Muslims under the blanket of anti-discrimination laws would require new guidelines regarding manners of dress, types of worship (facing Mecca in public), etc. Under your argument, because existing discrimination law in this hypothetical case (where it only applies to Christians) does not have these stipulations, then a non-arbitrary difference exists to deny Muslims the equal right to be free from discrimination. This is the exact same argument you're using to deny equal protection for multiple-partner relationships -- because the legalization of polygamy would require new legal precedents, then a non-arbitrary difference exists.

Except, the difference you give -- that marital contracts would look different between the two groups of people -- is arbitrary. So what? Why should that prevent polygamous marriage from being recognized? Because it would require new legal precedents? So did every other major civil rights decision in history.

Who said it shouldn't be recognized? Again, it just means that the standard is non-arbitrary.

Every major civil rights decision in history did NOT require that we create new laws. There is no legal difference between to blacks or two whites or a black woman and a white woman getting married. No difference. None. The distinction is entirely arbitrary.

However, according to you there is a dramatic legal difference between two people marrying and ten. In fact, it is such a difference that entirely new laws must be created to deal with the distinct contractual obligations.

Bringing Muslims under the blanket of anti-discrimination laws would require new guidelines regarding manners of dress, types of worship (facing Mecca in public), etc. Under your argument, because existing discrimination law in this hypothetical case (where it only applies to Christians) does not have these stipulations, then a non-arbitrary difference exists to deny Muslims the equal right to be free from discrimination. This is the exact same argument you're using to deny equal protection for multiple-partner relationships -- because the legalization of polygamy would require new legal precedents, then a non-arbitrary difference exists.

Um, those aren't legal distinctions. The legal framework doesn't address what the specifics are of worship, etc. In fact, the specifics cannot be codified into law because of the first amendment.

However, by the very nature of marriage law it does address the contractual nature of the relationship. That's why the former is an arbitrary distinction and the latter is not.

You're really reaching here and to most of us, it's pretty obvious.

Every major civil rights decision in history did NOT require that we create new laws. There is no legal difference between to blacks or two whites or a black woman and a white woman getting married. No difference. None. The distinction is entirely arbitrary.
Once again, Roe v. Wade. But I digress.

However, according to you there is a dramatic legal difference between two people marrying and ten.
No, just a small factual difference. The government would grant the same legal protections currently afforded to two-person relationships to multiple-person ones. The details would be worked out in the subsequent contract drawn up between the participants. That would be done in the privacy of their home/homes, or in their lawyer's office. The government needn't do anything more than extend legal protections their way.

Oh my God! It's so dramatically different! Give me a break.
In fact, it is such a difference that entirely new laws must be created to deal with the distinct contractual obligations.
What new laws would have to be created? As I said above, the protections would be extended and the details worked out in the contract. Why would that require new legislation?

It's not a matter of understanding. That you have a few people who agree with you does nothing to change the fact that you're wrong. Appeal to majority, logic fans?

I'm not claiming it means I'm right. I'm pointing out that they understood me. You should probably look up terms before you use them from now on.

Appeal to majority would be a case where I was using it to avoid debate. Here, I'm using it because you're suggesting I'm making arguments I haven't made and then claiming I refuse to back up the arguments I haven't made. That's a misunderstanding. In cases of misunderstandings, who is responsible can certainly be evidenced by how many had the same misunderstanding, or didn't.

From The Handbook of What To Do When You've Been Proven Wrong: Giggle and pretend you know something the other person doesn't, all the while refusing to enunciate just what that is.

Amusing. So unless I take your bait and hijack the thread, I'm wrong. Interesting. I'm curious, if I follow the other forum rules will this also prove me wrong?

Why is the fact that the legal contract between multiple-partner couples would not be a photo copy of the one served to two-partner couples "legally relevant?" What sort of hurdles would a court have to jump through in order to recognize a right to polygamy? All a court would have to do is rule that marriage contracts must be afforded to multiple-partner couples. The details of the contract, like all contracts, would be left up to the individuals signing it.

You've admitted it wouldn't be a photocopy of the current contract. You've admitted that new and relevant distinctions would have to be made. Distinctions that are currently not necessary.

Um, the bolded shows you're not particularly familiar with marriage law, or even what legal marriage is in our country. See, it's a blanket contract. The details are the same for EVERY person who gets married. They are not left up to the individuals signing it. As such, you've just outlined the non-arbitrary difference in what you're suggesting. What your crying for is a completely different kind of contract. It's resemblence to a marriage contract doesn't change the rather signficant change you're requiring to it, the change, that by the definition of arbitrary, makes the distinction non-arbitrary.

According to you, trivial differences between two groups of people is a "relevant legal difference." Opposing the equal protection argument for polygamy based on the grounds that the marriage contract would look different than the one in two-person marriages is no different than opposing equal protection for Muslims because they are discriminated against in different ways than Christians. You're picking at details that have no bearing on the central question of whether or not the group in question is entitled to the same legal rights as other groups under the law.

Trivial difference between two groups of people? Um, we're talking about differences that according to you and everyone else will require a change to the way the law is written and applied. They would require elements of law that don't exist today.

As to the second part about Muslims and Christians, I'm not sure you actually know what you're talking about. In fact, I'm sure you don't.

I never accepted that there was a relevant legal difference, the same way that I would never recognize the presence or non-presence of traditional religious garb is a "relevant legal difference" between two groups of religious people.

You sure? Let me go back and see if you did.

That you oppose the simultaneous legalization of polygamy and gay marriage has been established. If that wasn't the case, then you wouldn't be vehemently picking at trivial details to deny a group of people equal protection under the law.

Heh. Nothing like shifting those goalposts. I believe the legal arguments for polygamy will be different. I base this on an understanding of what arbitrary is. I'm funny like that.

Marriage law deals with blanket contracts. You're correct. So perhaps it would require new legislation. But then again, so would extending anti-discrimination protection to Muslims. It would require new guidelines regarding different manners of dress, etc., which could remain vague but would remain necessary to fully protect Muslims. Thus, new legislation would be required. The example holds up.

Your standard that court rulings can't require the passage of new legislation has no basis in law, whatsoever. In fact, every ruling that has overturned a statute has implicitly required that unconstitutional laws are repealed (though this not always the case -- obviously, many just go unenforced).