NationStates Jolt Archive

Once again, Roe v. Wade. That required completely new legislation. But I digress.

No, it didn't. It may have inspired new legislation, but it was not required.


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.

Um, you realized you just described a process that resembles in no way the current contract of marriage. Your description in terms of law is not in the least arbitrary. It's not trivial to require entirely new law.

Incidentally, the majority of legal protections constituting a marriage contract CAN be created with any group of people today. The marriage contract prevents couples from having to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars creating those contracts and makes it so those contracts will be honored in other states. At least, it did until DOMA wiped its ass with the constitution.


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?

Which is not how the current contract works. I know you've been shifting the goalposts, but when people say "legalized marriage" they are referring to a blanket contract. I can already give power of attorney one woman I live with while another inherets my money when I die, etc.


Nevertheless, new protections regarding manner of dress and the like would have to be introduced, and that would require new legislation. Since the requirement of new legislation is somehow "non-arbitrary," but your logic, Muslims could not be covered under anti-discrimination laws.

Um, no. The law doesn't explicitly talk about which manner of dress is protected. It would be a violation of the first amendment. Seriously, when you're in a hole, stop digging.


On the contrary, your argument is so flimsy, it borders on comical.

If you say so. See, this is a public debate. It's being held in from of dozens of people. Here's a secret, many of them recognize that the law doesn't specifically outline why a Muslim or Christian is protected from discrimination. That you don't know that is a problem for your argument.

Look Jocabia, I could address all of your various arguments, but the central topic of this debate is still unaddressed. What this all boils down to is this: why does the requirement of new legislation to implement a court ruling count as a non-arbitrary reason to not extend rights to a group of people under the equal protection clause? Where is the legal justification, or precedent for that? I'm not familiar with any.

Marriage law deals with blanket contracts. You're correct.

Well, there's progress. Okay, so now we know you were pulling about half of those arguments out of your ass. Now that you realize this, how about we try again? So does the requirement for a new type on blanket contract, one that would be distinct from a two-person contract by necessity of the nature of the two types of unions, represent a non-arbitrary distinction?


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.

Okay, at this point I have to ask for you to point me to the specific law that would have to exist in order to protect Muslims from discrimination. The law doesn't create a list of religions that are protected from discrimination. You keep saying this. Back it up.

Can you show me this legislation? You might find a couple of laws that explicitly detail Christian rites, but most here would argue, and rightly so, that those are in violation of the first amendment and just haven't been challenged yet. It's all or none. If you don't get protection until the law grants you it, then it's a violation of the first amendment.


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).

Um, amusing. When a court overturns a law, it may or may not be repealed, but it is void from that moment. It can no longer be enforced. That's the nature of a commonlaw system.

Look Jocabia, I could address all of your various arguments, but the central topic of this debate is still unaddressed. What this all boils down to is this: why does the requirement of new legislation to implement a court ruling count as a non-arbitrary reason to not extend rights to a group of people under the equal protection clause? Where is the legal justification, or precedent for that? I'm not familiar with any.

Um, you don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Um, you don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
In this case, you're saying that the necessity for new legislation to be passed to implement a court ruling is not an arbitrary reason to argue against such a court decision. Right? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. If I'm right, please tell me where the legal precedent is for such an argument.

In this case, you're saying that the necessity for new legislation to be passed to implement a court ruling is not an arbitrary reason to argue against such a court decision. Right? If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. If I'm right, please tell me where the legal precedent is for such an argument.

Both necessity and reason suggest that the difference is relevant. It's not just a random line we drew in the sand or an opinion, but a factual difference in the very nature of the relationships.

I never accepted that there was a relevant legal difference,

So about this....

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.

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.

Yes, it would require changes to the existing institution of marriage: so what?

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.

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.

Yeah, you never acknowledged the relevant legal difference.

Both necessity and reason suggest that the difference is relevant. It's not just a random line we drew in the sand or an opinion, but a factual difference in the very nature of the relationships.

Again, it's not a reason to discriminate against polygamists. It's a reason why an argument that it's a violation of equal rights won't work before the Supreme Court.

See, the argument for gay marriage has been made before in essence when arguing against antimisegination (sp?) laws. I think there is a very strong argument to be made comparing those two issues.

However, if I tried to make the same argument while ignoring that there is a relavant legal difference when there are multiple partners, I'd be giggled at long before I ever got to the Supreme Court.

I'm no lawyer and I certainly could be missing something on the argument for gay marriage (though the specific argument I make about it on my blog was composed while having it reviewed by several lawyers and I have yet to see anyone show a flaw in the reasoning), but I'm very certain about the second argument. The non-arbitrary difference is a HUGE obstacle. You'd have to find a different approach.

Both necessity and reason suggest that the difference is relevant. It's not just a random line we drew in the sand or an opinion, but a factual difference in the very nature of the relationships.

Blah, blah, blah. Until you show me one court case, one legal opinion that states that courts cannot make decisions that would require the passage of new legislation, your argument is just a line drawn in the sand. Just because legalizing polygamy would require new legislation for its implementation says nothing about why it multiple-partner relationships should not be on the same legal footing as two-partner relationships.

Yeah, you never acknowledged the relevant legal difference.
You mistake the context that I used the word in. I was referring to the relevancy of those legal differences to your argument.

Blah, blah, blah. Until you show me one court case, one legal opinion that states that courts cannot make decisions that would require the passage of new legislation, your argument is just a line drawn in the sand. Just because legalizing polygamy would require new legislation for its implementation says nothing about why it multiple-partner relationships should not be on the same legal footing as two-partner relationships.

You're not really aware of what the SCOTUS does, are you? I'll start with the basics of our federal goverment. See we have this branch called the legislative branch. Guess what it does? And we have this branch called the Judicial branch which interprets that which comes out of the legislative branch and puts it within the bounds of the Constitution.

Now, of the two, which do you think creates legislature?

Also, you're shifting the burden of proof. I demand that you find me one case that says that SCOTUS can't demand that I bring them bacon and eggs every day.

You mistake the context that I used the word in. I was referring to the relevancy of those legal differences to your argument.

You admitted the legal differences exist. The context that caused you to make this admission is irrelevant. Regardless, you've admitted it again, so continuing along that vein is silly. However, it's been adequately demonstrated that when you said you never acknowledged the legal difference that you were utterly wrong. In several of those quotes, you admit I PROVED there was a relevant legal different. You continue to acknowledge this when you address the need for new legislation.

Also, you're shifting the burden of proof. I demand that you find me one case that says that SCOTUS can't demand that I bring them bacon and eggs every day.
I wouldn't make an asanine argument about bacon and eggs because I know that there is no legal precedent for such an argument, just like there is no legal precedent for yours.

I am floored that you take issue with me requesting legal justification for your argument. Allow me to educate you: how do you think a lawyer makes a case before SCOTUS? Do you think they make vague points without any legal justification to back them up? No -- they cite numerous cases quite often to back up their points. What I'm asking you to do is what any person making an argument dealing with legal issues who doesn't want to come off sounding like he's pulling stuff out of his ass is required to do.

You admitted the legal differences exist. The context that caused you to make this admission is irrelevant. Regardless, you've admitted it again, so continuing along that vein is silly. However, it's been adequately demonstrated that when you said you never acknowledged the legal difference that you were utterly wrong. In several of those quotes, you admit I PROVED there was a relevant legal different. You continue to acknowledge this when you address the need for new legislation.

Now who's stretching? I admitted that there were differences -- just not relevant ones as to extending equal protection to multiple-partner relationships.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/368.JPG (http://www.fstdt.com/)

In response to the OP

[/sarcasam]

Good for california

I wouldn't make an asanine argument about bacon and eggs because I know that there is no legal precedent for such an argument, just like there is no legal precedent for yours.

Again, you don't seem to get it. You're asking me to prove a negative. You're asking me to provide legal precedent for a given. You're making the positive assertion that they would graft over that non-arbitrary line and they would force legislation to be created or create it themselves. The burden of proof is on you.


I am floored that you take issue with me requesting legal justification for your argument. Allow me to educate you: how do you think a lawyer makes a case before SCOTUS? Do you think they make vague points without any legal justification to back them up? No -- they cite numerous cases quite often to back up their points. What I'm asking you to do is what any person making an argument dealing with legal issues who doesn't want to come off sounding like he's pulling stuff out of his ass is required to do.

Yes. They do. However, I'm not talking about presenting a case before SCOTUS. You are. You claimed that polygamy would use the exact same justification. I'm claiming you're wrong. You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me.

If you'd like me to provide the caselaw for legalizing same-sex marriage, I'd be happy to. You're saying you could make the same case for polygamy. Good. Feel free to do so. You've pointed out what that takes. Let's see your case for legalizing polygamy. I haven't claimed to have one.


Now who's stretching? I admitted that there were differences -- just not relevant ones as to extending equal protection to multiple-partner relationships.[/QUOTE]

You admitted there were LEGAL differences. You claim you never admitted that. I proved you did. Meanwhile, LEGAL differences are necessarily non-arbitrary. I told you why that was relevant.

Regardless, you've not made ANY case for why polygamy is on the same slope. You've made weird claims analogizing Muslims and Christians who have no legal difference. You've made weird claims about SCOTUS can make law.

If you have the caselaw that supports the legalization of polygamy, provide it. As you said, it's a requirement if you were going to present the case to SCOTUS.

I know people think that gay marriage just happens to be the cause du jour of late. They throw it in with the spotted owl and such. It is dismissed as a cause that is only believed in and should be only believed in by a small portion of the country. I beg to differ.

For those who are reading this and wondering why you should care, let me offer up a little quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller -

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

You’ll hear arguments that the law is on the side of those who are against same-sex marriage, yet there is a strong movement to put forth an amendment that makes same-sex marriage illegal. If the law is on your side, why are you putting forth an amendment to that law? I know I’m being unfair. Who said bigots have to be consistent, right?

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States found that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” They called it “one of the basic civil rights of man.” They are further supported by Skinner v. Oklahoma and Maynard v. Hill, along with dozens of cases since. This was no isolated case. The right to marry has forty years of law behind it.

The argument made by those who would restrict individual rights, for the gain of… well… NO ONE, is that gays and lesbians already have the right to marry, the opposite sex just like everyone else. Switch “gays and lesbians” with “blacks and other minorities” and change “opposite sex” with “the same race” and you have the same argument that was made in support of banning interracial couples, an argument that was struck down by Loving v. Virginia as a violation of the fourteenth amendment. Marriage is an individual right. That means that you cannot restrict whom I would like to marry based on my race or theirs or based on my sex or theirs. If a woman is permitted to marry a man, I cannot be restricted from marrying a man either or it is in violation of Loving v. Virginia. So those of you who think the law is on your side as far as restricting the right to marriage, you’re wrong and I can show you 40 years of precedent to prove it.

Oh, but that’s not the only argument. You’ll also hear that marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman and, as such, gays and lesbians are trying to redefine it. As an individual right it cannot be defined in such a way. It simply can’t.

Or you’ll hear that gays and lesbians should be allowed ‘civil unions’ so that heterosexuals can keep marriage sacred. First, it is not the job of the government to keep anything sacred. The government recognizes marriage even when the church doesn’t. The church will never be required to support any marriage it doesn’t like, but the government has no such right. The government MUST offer rights to everyone. Second, you’ll find that ‘separate but equal’ was struck down in 1954 for being unequal on its face. Simply by splitting people into separate institutions (marriages and civil unions) you create inequality.

“But what about the family?” It has been shown time and again that children benefit from a stable home that comes from the permanent relationship afforded by marriage. By denying marriage to same-sex couples, particularly those with children, you are denying that family of a stability their home deserves and the necessary protections a family finds in marriage. There 1049 rights and privileges offered to heterosexual couples and their families that are currently not allowed to same-sex couples and theirs.

Can anyone tell me how allowing these families to have a joint ability to make decisions for their family, joint ownership of property and all the other rights and privileges that come with federal recognition of marriage, is going to tear apart the family or the institution of marriage in a society where we have shows like “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire”? Maybe I’m missing it, but shouldn’t we want, even beg for, more loving couples to enter into marriage? Shouldn’t we be encouraging people to join together and raise families? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the state of marriage now? Shouldn’t we be all for long-term relationships and the stability they bring no matter how that relationship is composed? It seems to me the obvious answer is yes, yet 11 states had measures on the ballot to restrict the rights of same-sex couples and all of them passed. If you don’t find that concerning, then I don’t know what to say. In 11 states a majority voted to prevent loving couples from having a right that will not and cannot affect most or all of the people who voted to disallow same-sex marriages.

Now, I know lots of people think this is something that just came about as the religious right rose to power in the last few years, but I’m here to tell you that this is a problem on both sides of the aisle. Clinton signed into law something called the Defense of Marriage Act. For those of you unfamiliar with the act, I’ll summarize. The DOMA allows states not to recognize marriages and/or any equivalent unions, i.e. civil unions, that were allowed by other states if they disagree with that union. This act thumbs its nose at the Constitution and the “full faith and credit” clause of Article IV, a clause that is the reason why if you move states you don’t have to get remarried and which allows you to drive cross-country without stopping to get a driver’s license in each state.

Maybe you think gay marriage doesn’t affect you. Why should you care, right? In a free society, we should be upset EVERY time individual rights are abridged, particularly when abridging those rights protects the interests of no one. We have to cry out every time we see civil rights being trampled, because if we don’t, we send the message to our government and to the world that Americans aren’t for freedom, that instead we are selfish individuals that are only motivated to action when an abridgement of rights affects us directly. Stand up for freedom. Stand up for families. Stand up for love. Show the world that America is truly “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” and not just for those lucky enough to be in the majority. Don’t wait until they come for you and there’s no one left to speak out for you.

Here is my argument for same-sex marriage and the relevant caselaw. Now, you claim you can apply it to polygamy. Go for it. Let's see you apply those cases. I did it. Can you?

I see... so we BOTH agree that a Supreme Court case cannot be made on the basis you claimed. Good. Glad that's settled.

Again, you don't seem to get it. You're asking me to prove a negative.
The only thing I asked you to do was to provide a legal basis for your argument. The negative I asked you to prove is the entire basis of your argument against polygamy, so I don't feel that I'm out of line in asking you to...oh, I don't know?...back it up?
You're asking me to provide legal precedent for a given. You're making the positive assertion that they would graft over that non-arbitrary line and they would force legislation to be created or create it themselves. The burden of proof is on you.
Yes, the burden of proof is on me with the central argument. However, when you make an assertion, in this case that the necessity for new legislation to support a court ruling is a justification for denying people equal protection under the law -- an argument unheard of, to the best of my knowledge, in US case law -- the burden is on you give a justification for it. Every argument needs substance to back it up. You have failed to give any sort of back-up for your assertion.

Yes. They do. However, I'm not talking about presenting a case before SCOTUS. You are.
A.) You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. B.) Equal protection under the law is ultimately decided by the courts, so it's only inevitable that the judicial branch and SCOTUS case law would be involved in making an argument about this subject.

You claimed that polygamy would use the exact same justification. I'm claiming you're wrong. You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me.
No -- I'm asking you to justify your arguments against me, a pretty cursory thing for a debate.

You admitted there were LEGAL differences. You claim you never admitted that. I proved you did. Meanwhile, LEGAL differences are necessarily non-arbitrary. I told you why that was relevant.
Of course there are legal differences. I've admitted that repeatedly. But, I've also argued that they aren't relevant to your argument, because such differences are no basis to deny people equal protection under the law.

Regardless, you've not made ANY case for why polygamy is on the same slope.
That's because all of my arguments have been related to refuting your claims. This whole debate started with you making the statement, "no one has the right to marry multiple partners." From then on, the debate was about your justification for that. If you'd like to shift it to me making a case for polygamy being recognized under the equal protection clause, I'd be happy to do that.

You've made weird claims about SCOTUS can make law.
I cited a court case where SCOTUS created a new set of legal framework. You've refused to dispute the facts of the case, despite their relevance to this debate, and despite your willingness to bring it up continually. If you really want to debate about the role of SCOTUS and the "creating of new laws" in Roe v. Wade, stop mentioning it and then refusing to debate me about the details -- actually give one tiny measly reason about why what I've stated about that case is wrong. If you're not willing to debate me on that, then stop talking about it.

Here is my argument for same-sex marriage and the relevant caselaw. Now, you claim you can apply it to polygamy. Go for it. Let's see you apply those cases. I did it. Can you?
Yes, I can. Thank you for giving me a chance. But first, let's establish some common ground.

As the case law shows, there exists a constitutionally-protected right to marriage. The equal protection argument in relation to legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional to offer legal benefits for one group of people engaged in a relationship, but to deny it to others. Do you agree so far, Jocabia?

The constitutional right is an individual right. You know what that means? That if you can excercise it just like everyone else, it's not violated.

But, like I said, please present your case law. It should be amusing.

I cited a court case where SCOTUS created a new set of legal framework. You've refused to dispute the facts of the case, despite their relevance to this debate, and despite your willingness to bring it up continually. If you really want to debate about the role of SCOTUS and the "creating of new laws" in Roe v. Wade, stop mentioning it and then refusing to debate me about the details -- actually give one tiny measly reason about why what I've stated about that case is wrong. If you're not willing to debate me on that, then stop talking about it.

Because you didn't demonstrate that it created a new legal framwork. The only evidence for such a claim that you've provided is that they talked about trimesters when talking about a fetus. I mean, golly, that's compelling. That's a brand new legal framework. Well, unless you know what a legal framework is. However, if you'd like to have a in-depth discussion of it, start a thread. I haven't watched anyone get pwned on abortion for a while.

of course they do. They tried the same thing in Massachusetts and New Jersey when those state courts ruled similarly. They tried the same thing in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut when the legislatures of those states drafted same sex civil unions.

All failed. And it most certainly will fail in California. What concerns me is I can't figure out if this was ruled under the state constitution of Californa, or our federal constitution. If it's a federal constitution, this matter might get all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will get some federal clarification on the matter.

if it's a ruling on the state constitution of California, then the matter's pretty much settled.

In the US, marriage is only covered by the state constitutions and state laws. The federal government has nothing to do with it.

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.

When a man and a woman get together to have kids, it's called sex, not marriage.
Besides, hooking is all Americans do these days. With the exception of the FLDS, most Americans don't even believe in marriage in the traditional sense.
Heck, most men who live with their girlfriends aren't even married to them anymore, even when they already have children.

You don't need to be married to have children nor do you have to be married to be able to raise children.

In the US, marriage is only covered by the state constitutions and state laws. The federal government has nothing to do with it.

Makes one wonder how the DOMA came about. If the federal government has nothing to do with marriage then why is it passing laws about marriage?

Gay marriage is just like a breeder's marriage. The only difference is what's in the pants.

Marriage is a legal binding civil contract between two consenting parties for more than simply procreation. Procreation can occur beyond the marital bounds. Marriage is a way of allowing a couple to combine their assets and maximise their position in society. It also gives them protection in that should one party become ill and unable to make decisions, the other will take over in that capacity.

Children are merely a byproduct of human relations.

Marriage was historically meant to bridge the differences between clans, tribes, kingdoms, empires etc; a political alignment for the sake of peace and diplomacy between feuding factions. It was political and personal. This still exists today.

It was only usurped by religion in the Middle Ages. It was a way of granting permission to allow for a couple of unite. Before this time period there was no concrete need for the marriage to be performed before a member of the clergy or the civil sector. It was during this period that the tradition of having two witnesses occurred.

Learn something about the nature and purpose of marriage before sounding off. You sound foolish.

Oh and FYI, I refuse to call my heterosexual marriage a "marriage". It's a civil union.

Yes, well. It is always amazing how ill informed people can be when it comes to the true history of marriage. Marriage was invented when women were considered nothing more than property. Marriage was the ceremony by which a king or dictator rewarded his faithful followers with the most valuable peice of property of all, a woman or women.

It was only recently, in relative terms, that marriage has become about mutual love between a man and a woman. Throughout most of human history it was about men being able to own women as property and as slaves to make them do all the house work and to force them, often through rape, to bear children.

Marriage, for the women, back when it first was invented, was not a very nice thing at all.

Makes one wonder how the DOMA came about. If the federal government has nothing to do with marriage then why is it passing laws about marriage?

DOMA is actually about the federal benefits attached to marriage, and cross-state recognition of marriage.

It doesn't interfere with the marriage arrangements of states.

Now who's stretching? I admitted that there were differences -- just not relevant ones as to extending equal protection to multiple-partner relationships.

I think this should be discussed in a thread about polygamy.

Even if you could prove that Jocabia is arbitrarily opposed to polygamy, and that there is some inconsistency in their legal view of monogamous marriage vs polygamous marriage, this would still have NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread, which is a Supreme Court of California ruling on the constitutionality of a law passed by their state legislature. You could win point after point, by some miracle make Jocabia look like a total fool, and it would still count for nothing to anyone who understands the concept "on-topic."

Whether polygamous relationships should be recognized with marriage, and whether this marriage is the same thing as monogamous marriage is simply not relevant.

When you start that thread on polygamous marriage, please consider this friendly advice:


Prepare your case with some care. Be particularly careful to know the legal meanings of words on which your argument depends, and make sure you have thoroughly wred any documents you mean to link to. It's better to have no links at all, than cite something that doesn't say what you think it does.
Be prepared to have many opponents and few allies, and don't think there is any shame in only engaging one poster at a time. It might seem heroic to carry on two or three arguments simultaneously, but I've seen many strong positions lost by good posters that way, it is simply a huge disadvantage to be outnumbered in debate. It's far better to take on the strongest case you can see against you, and tell the others to wait.
Ignore hijacks. Don't complain about them, don't report them, just ignore them and concentrate on your subject. You're going to get "the dog and the eight year old" (nice phrase that) thrown at you, just the way you're tried to move the debate away from gay marriage here. Some people don't like grey areas and just want to move the debate onto ground where they are more certain of right and wrong. Try not to see that as malicious.
Be prepared for these attacks:

Definition of marriage: does the existing definition stretch to polygamy, or does it need to be changed in significant ways which redefine existing marriages. In the latter case, is it possible to retroactively change a contract (marriage as we now know it), or will existing marriages be void.
Definition of marriage: the old religious/legal/cultural argument as to what marriage IS. If you can defend polygamous marriage for any definition of marriage, fine. If you have a firm definition of marriage which you intend to use (eg legal marriage), give that definition in the OP.
Participants in marriage: if you intend to invoke a "right" to marry, think carefully about whether this is a right granted to an individual, or to an eligible couple. Either definition could work, but changing the owner of the "right" will get you in trouble. Frankly, I'd be very careful about defining marriage as a right at all, but instead put the onus of proof on whoever would ban polygamous marriage, to show how it is harmful.
Legal loopholes: could people use polygamous marriage to exploit the legal system, in ways which it makes no sense for a married couple to do. For instance, the option for a person to prevent their spouse giving evidence which might incriminate them -- could one wife prevent the other from giving evidence, even if they are not married to each other.
Cultural co-factors: this is a weak argument, but it will be put in various different ways. Essentially, posters will try to tar polygamy with the brush of crime by showing how it could be used to protect pedos and slavers from prosecution. Also, guilt by association, bringing up examples of polygamous 'marriages' which are exploitative to the extent of breaking other laws.
Too complicated: A weak argument against a well-prepared law proposal, but surprisingly effective against a poorly prepared one. The appearance of making it up as you go along is very damaging, so consider what other definitions of "polygamous marriage" people might bring up, and try to cover against them from the beginning.
Slippery slope: does polygamy cross some non-arbitrary line and set a valid precedent for other "marriages" which you would not endorse. "Slippery slope" is rubbish, generally, but some people seem to accept it.
Not natural. You should be able to hit that for six. Posters will keep dropping into the thread with it, though, which will get very boring and frustrating for everyone.



I'm looking forward to reading and perhaps posting in your thread. :)

Damn you for posting my topic! At least I has details . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
ADVERTISEMENT

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The California Supreme Court's jurisdiction applies only in California. The other states are under the juridictions of their own state Supreme Courts. The only court that actually jurisdiciton over the whole of the US, including all military bases and embassy around the world, is the United States Supreme Court.

The only thing I asked you to do was to provide a legal basis for your argument. The negative I asked you to prove is the entire basis of your argument against polygamy, so I don't feel that I'm out of line in asking you to...oh, I don't know?...back it up?

Hehe. Wow, someone doesn't understand the burden of proof. You're claiming something and I'm denying your claim. The burden of proof is on you.


Yes, the burden of proof is on me with the central argument. However, when you make an assertion, in this case that the necessity for new legislation to support a court ruling is a justification for denying people equal protection under the law -- an argument unheard of, to the best of my knowledge, in US case law -- the burden is on you give a justification for it. Every argument needs substance to back it up. You have failed to give any sort of back-up for your assertion.

The ENTIRE burden of proof is on you. You've not demonstrated ANY of your claims. All I've done is deny them.

What is not unprecedented is that if two things are different legally that they aren't *gasp* equal. You want me to prove it, but yours is the positive assertion. If you can show where SCOTUS declared that relevant legal differences must be ignored, please do. Until then, I'll rationally assume that something that is NON-ARBITRARY is NOT ARBITRARY. I know that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm pretty comfortable that I can support the claim that things that are not arbitrary are not arbitrary.


A.) You brought up SCOTUS in the first place. B.) Equal protection under the law is ultimately decided by the courts, so it's only inevitable that the judicial branch and SCOTUS case law would be involved in making an argument about this subject.

A) you're right. I did. In relation to the same-sex marriage case and to say your case is not the same. If you don't realize that puts the burden on you, then I don't know what to say.

B) It is? Strange. I could swear that equal protection under the law is the result of legislative action. Nah, that can't be. SCOTUS must have passed that amendment.



No -- I'm asking you to justify your arguments against me, a pretty cursory thing for a debate.

The burden of proof in debate is relatively easy to assign. I've claimed that polygamy would not be legalized under the same argument as same-sex marriage after you claimed the opposite. I'm wondering which one of us can evidence that. Gosh, I certainly can't figure who has the burden of proof. You claimed you could use the same argument. I claimed you can't. Yep, it's just impossible to nail down the burden of proof there.



Of course there are legal differences. I've admitted that repeatedly. But, I've also argued that they aren't relevant to your argument, because such differences are no basis to deny people equal protection under the law.

Um, then you don't know how it works. If there are legal differences then they aren't equal. The law established marriage as an individual right that must be applied to all individuals equally. With gay marriage, a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man. Thus, it's unequal. You can't apply that argument to polygamy, but if you think you can, please try. Till then, you're shifting of the burden is laughable.


That's because all of my arguments have been related to refuting your claims. This whole debate started with you making the statement, "no one has the right to marry multiple partners." From then on, the debate was about your justification for that. If you'd like to shift it to me making a case for polygamy being recognized under the equal protection clause, I'd be happy to do that.

It's true. No one has that right. The right to marriage is an individual right as defined by law. You aren't asking for an individual right that is equal in nature to that right. You've demonstrated that their natures make them different legally.



Yes, I can. Thank you for giving me a chance. But first, let's establish some common ground.

As the case law shows, there exists a constitutionally-protected right to marriage. The equal protection argument in relation to legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional to offer legal benefits for one group of people engaged in a relationship, but to deny it to others. Do you agree so far, Jocabia?

Nope. We don't. Loving showed us that people can't have different rights. As such, you can't say that a white guy can marry a white girl, but a black guy can't. The argument applied to gay marriage is that a girl can marry a guy, but a guy cannot. Both sex and ethnicity are protected classes.

You could attempt to apply it as a single guy can marry a single girl but a married guy cannot, but that only works if marital status was a protected class, but we already know it isn't, or we wouldn't have marriage law.

DOMA is actually about the federal benefits attached to marriage, and cross-state recognition of marriage.

It doesn't interfere with the marriage arrangements of states.

DOMA?????

All I know is that the federal constitution does require all states to recognize marriage licenses issued in the other states.

California tried to challenge this when it had a law saying that if you were visting California from say Oklahoma, you were required to buy a California license plate during your time in california. SCOTUS said they were not allowed to do that.
Now with Mass and Cal deciding they will allow gay marriage we are already seeing some states, such as Texas, trying to pass laws saying they will not recognize marriage licenses issued outside of their respective states.
Point of fact as an example, the Texas CPS's refusal to accept Utah marriage licenses or birth certificates as proof of age or marriage.

It's certain that as soon as those laws are challenged, SCOTUS will strike them down just as it did the California law that said you had to pay a fine for not having a California driver's license while driving in California. It's pretty clear, states are mandated to accept all official documents issued by all the other states in the US.

I'll just put a "devils advocate" position here, mainly to encourage Vamosa to make that thread. They might have some allies in the legalizing polygamy thing ...

Um, then you don't know how it works. If there are legal differences then they aren't equal. The law established marriage as an individual right that must be applied to all individuals equally. With gay marriage, a woman can marry a man but a man can't marry a man.

Yeah, it's stronger when it's based on gender, than sexuality. Far fewer people deny the legitimacy of gender. :)

Thus, it's unequal. You can't apply that argument to polygamy, but if you think you can, please try. Till then, you're shifting of the burden is laughable.

I'll try. Person A has the right to marry. Person B does not, under existing law.
Why? Person B is already married. That is, they have exercised what is supposedly a right.

It is unjust that by exercising a right, the person loses the further use of the right. In fact, it is a contradiction by the definition of "rights."

(Note, I don't genuinely believe that, because I don't think a right to marriage IS an individual right. As I will argue in the appropriate thread.)

I'll just put a "devils advocate" position here, mainly to encourage Vamosa to make that thread. They might have some allies in the legalizing polygamy thing ...



Yeah, it's stronger when it's based on gender, than sexuality. Far fewer people deny the legitimacy of gender. :)



I'll try. Person A has the right to marry. Person B does not, under existing law.
Why? Person B is already married. That is, they have exercised what is supposedly a right.

It is unjust that by exercising a right, the person loses the further use of the right. In fact, it is a contradiction by the definition of "rights."

(Note, I don't genuinely believe that, because I don't think a right to marriage IS an individual right. As I will argue in the appropriate thread.)

It's also not really the definiton of right as we understand it. You do have the right to excercise the right still. You simply can't marry another person while you are married. Similarly, I can't vote twice in the same election.

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.

That's all easily covered by the law. You have a primary wife, and then you get to number the wives on your documents, 2-10. Keep in mind, that in Polygamy, women can also do this to men. Also, it has to be CONSENTING, and as far as Cults go, they rarely have truly CONSENTING individuals. I mean if someone signs a contract after you say "sign this or be dead", they're not really consenting by signing, because you have mis-informed them. That's generally why cults are illegal.

That's all easily covered by the law. You have a primary wife, and then you get to number the wives on your documents, 2-10. Keep in mind, that in Polygamy, women can also do this to men. Also, it has to be CONSENTING, and as far as Cults go, they rarely have truly CONSENTING individuals. I mean if someone signs a contract after you say "sign this or be dead", they're not really consenting by signing, because you have mis-informed them. That's generally why cults are illegal.

wouldn't it be something more along the lines of "sign this or burn in the fire pits of hell forever"???

After all, some people don't care what you threaten to do to their bodies. They are more worried about what will happen when they die. And threatening them with hell can be quite a persuader.

...and the land of the free continues to regulate the private lives of it's citizens...

If this land was truly free, we'd all be screwed. Possible literally.:p

It's also not really the definiton of right as we understand it. You do have the right to excercise the right still. You simply can't marry another person while you are married. Similarly, I can't vote twice in the same election.

Whether the person is already married is a non-arbitrary distinction. *nod*

I just had the Devil on the phone. I'm fired. :p

If this land was truly free, we'd all be screwed. Possible literally.:p

It's just a typo. It was meant to be "Land of the Fee."

I wonder how many decades it will take for the rest of the US to catch up with their superior northern cousins?

They'll never catch up to us, we're a superior race :D

Because you didn't demonstrate that it created a new legal framwork. The only evidence for such a claim that you've provided is that they talked about trimesters when talking about a fetus. I mean, golly, that's compelling. That's a brand new legal framework. Well, unless you know what a legal framework is. However, if you'd like to have a in-depth discussion of it, start a thread. I haven't watched anyone get pwned on abortion for a while.

You know, I've got to hand it to you -- you can have a wheel right in front of your face and still hold strong to the fact that it's shaped like a square. Ever consider a career in politics?

Anyway, I'll go ahead and make a new thread addressing why I believe that polygamy is required under the Equal Protection Clause, since it seems that more than one poster wishes this thread to remain focused soley on gay marriage. Fair enough.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and make a new thread addressing why I believe that polygamy is required under the Equal Protection Clause, since it seems that more than one poster wishes this thread to remain focused soley on gay marriage. Fair enough.

As long as there IS gay marriage, which shows more equality and church/state separation than currently, have a blast, good luck, and have fun.

k, so here is simply my opinion on the matter, take it or leave it.

A) if the State wishes to address civil unions as marriages, I'm all for it, more power to them

B) if a gay couple wish to get married under said State, again, more power to them

C) however, if a gay couple wish to get married under a religious institution, then it is up to the discretion of said institution as to whether or not they accept gay couples. For example, the Catholic Church strictly defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman who are willing to bear/raise a child. That is why the Catholic Church will not accept gay marriages, and until a Pope who is willing to change that rule comes along, they never will.

Just think if all the gay people in in the world move in to all the foreclosed houses in California how good it would be for the economy. I think this ruling was more about the economy than about gay marriage. Does anyone else smell a conspiracy?

Just think if all the gay people in in the world move in to all the foreclosed houses in California how good it would be for the economy. I think this ruling was more about the economy than about gay marriage. Does anyone else smell a conspiracy?

No.


Last I checked, one didnt have to be married to move in together.

You know, I've got to hand it to you -- you can have a wheel right in front of your face and still hold strong to the fact that it's shaped like a square. Ever consider a career in politics?

Considering I showed you claiming you never admitted there was a legal difference and then showed you quotes of you agreeing the legal difference exists half a dozen times. Considering you claimed I am against polygamy. Considering you claimed protecting Muslims requires new legislation. I'll take your claim as a compliment. Because I've adequately demonstrated that you aren't even sure what you're said, let alone what I or SCOTUS has said.

And I can't wait for that thread. Considering the conversation so far, it should be entertaining. Considering the thread isn't up yet, it's pretty clear that when you made the claim you didn't have the actual evidence. You'll notice that I didn't have to pause to make my argument about same-sex marriage. It's almost like I did the research BEFORE I offered my conclusion.

Considering the thread isn't up yet, it's pretty clear that when you made the claim you didn't have the actual evidence.

An OP requires better preparation than an incidental argument late in a thread. I encourage that, because good OP's make good threads (even though it seems that bad OPs make the longest ones ...)

An OP requires better preparation than an incidental argument late in a thread. I encourage that, because good OP's make good threads (even though it seems that bad OPs make the longest ones ...)

Want me to make a thread supporting same-sex marriage. It would take all of 5 seconds. Why? Because I do the research BEFORE I make a claim.

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
Personally, I woudl vastly PREFER that we call it Tiddlywinkle. "Marriage" is an institution with a very, very shitty history, and I would love the option of having a legally-recognized union without having to use the word "marriage."

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.
I don't know if you're a bigot, homophobe, religious reactionary, or immoral person. None of those are remotely important, in this case, because you're simply wrong. Others have explained in detail, so I won't bother, but I will just take this moment to suggest that you drop your persecution complex and focus on building legitimate arguments instead of tossing out lame non-arguments and then making excuses for why you fail.

Want me to make a thread supporting same-sex marriage. It would take all of 5 seconds. Why? Because I do the research BEFORE I make a claim.
Gathering information before one makes a claim? What is this heresy?!

HE'S A WITCH!!!

activist judges

In this case, there was only one relevant issue:

Does the California State Constitution bar the law in question?

Because of how our system of law works, if the answer to that question is "yes" then the judges DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE...they MUST strike down the law.

It's not "judicial activism" when judges to this. It is the most fundamental and required part of their job. It is, in fact, exactly what their job exists for. They are not being "activists." They are being judges.

If you just don't like the judicial branch then that's fine, but please cut it the fuck out with this "judicial activism" crap.

HE'S A WITCH!!!

Did you get better then? :D

Gathering information before one makes a claim? What is this heresy?!

HE'S A WITCH!!!
THROW HIM INTO THE POND!

Yes, well. It is always amazing how ill informed people can be when it comes to the true history of marriage. Marriage was invented when women were considered nothing more than property. Marriage was the ceremony by which a king or dictator rewarded his faithful followers with the most valuable peice of property of all, a woman or women.

It was only recently, in relative terms, that marriage has become about mutual love between a man and a woman. Throughout most of human history it was about men being able to own women as property and as slaves to make them do all the house work and to force them, often through rape, to bear children.

Marriage, for the women, back when it first was invented, was not a very nice thing at all.

Care to back this claim up USoA, or is it going to be more of your usual?

Want me to make a thread supporting same-sex marriage. It would take all of 5 seconds. Why? Because I do the research BEFORE I make a claim.

Suppose that Vamosa spent that time researching (though seeing the thread now, I think they spent the time writing rather than reading) ... why the hell would you mock that?

It's exactly what you have several times told them they should do. Learn some stuff.

The now-familiar cry of "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" is, and always has been, completely bogus. No judge "legislates from the bench", and no judge ever would. "Activist judges legislating from the bench" is nothing more and nothing less than code for "that judge made a ruling I didn't like." Let's at least have the honesty and integrity to call this so-called argument what it is -- whining.

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.
Judges aren't elected for a reason. Their job is above politics, they can not be worried about the will of the people. that's what the other two branches are for.

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.

Hang around. You might learn something about the way the United States is constituted. It's slightly more complicated than a show of hands.

EDIT: Ha-ha Maineiacs. Timewarped ya!

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.

The same argument could have been (wrongly) made about Brown vs. Board of Education. Most people in 1954 didn't want to integrate, but that didn't mean that striking down segregation was wrong. Segregation violated the Constitution; by ordering schools to integrate SCOTUS was doing their job the way the Constitution proscribed, and so was California's SC.

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.

I suggest you learn how the law works before you try and talk about it, because right now, that doesn't even raise to the level of "pathetic"

EDIT: Ha-ha Maineiacs. Timewarped ya!

Nuh-uh! :p

Hang around. You might learn something about the way the United States is constituted. It's slightly more complicated than a show of hands.

EDIT: Ha-ha Maineiacs. Timewarped ya!


Essentially a show of hands is what this issue in going to come down to. The issue is going to be on the November ballot here in California. Yes a simple majority is how this issue is going to be settled.

Essentially a show of hands is what this issue in going to come down to. The issue is going to be on the November ballot here in California. Yes a simple majority is how this issue is going to be settled.

and it will lose.

and it will lose.

Whether it wins or loses, my point is that it will be a simple majority that will decide it.

A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy.

A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy.

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.

That's what judges do you realize, right? Judges aren't elected os that they're free to decide as they see fit. That's the entire point, so that judges may rule based on their wisdom, not cheap political pressure.

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.

Bah. No one really has "moral authority". What matters here is "legal authoirty".

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.
No shit, why do you think I'm an anarchist?

I was just letting you know, because the whole point of the judiciary in a Republic is to keep the trampling herd from trampling over the rights of the minority. I used the Latin "per se" meaning "by itself" to indicate that while majorities may be right, the very fact that the majority supports the same policy does not make it right.

And you are right that the judiciary per se does not have moral legitimacy. I'm not here to defend the structure of either the California state government or the federal government.

Nevertheless, when the rare morally correct decision comes down from the judiciary, I'm here to support their decision.

It is truly sad when freedom has to be imposed, but sometimes that's the way it's gotta be.

That's what judges do you realize, right? Judges aren't elected os that they're free to decide as they see fit. That's the entire point, so that judges may rule based on their wisdom, not cheap political pressure.

You are right. I was saying that the judges dont have moral legitimacy, thats for philosophers and priests to decide. My previous argument about the judges being undemocratic was wrong. I should have remembered my Federalist Papers. You are right, morally right or wrong, the judges do have the power to interpret the constitution in the way they see fit regardless of political pressures.

You are right. I was saying that the judges dont have moral legitimacy, thats for philosophers and priests to decide. My previous argument about the judges being undemocratic was wrong. I should have remembered my Federalist Papers. You are right, morally right or wrong, the judges do have the power to interpret the constitution in the way they see fit regardless of political pressures.
Oh... Wow. You concede arguments.

Let my respect for you previously be x, (where x>1). My respect for you now is x^6.

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.

No shit, why do you think I'm an anarchist?

[...]

I assumed you were just trying to be different.

But if you think it gives you moral legitimacy, please yourself. :p

A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy.

But the public as a whole does, and majority rule as a procedure, in most circumstances, does fairly well at approximating it--mostly because most majority-minority relations are not constant. The result is a tendency towards coalition politics, which empower minorities, and the lingering possibility that the tyrannical measures you enact now will be used against you after the next election.

Judges that arent elected and are free to interpret the constitution in any way dont have moral legitimacy.

Sure they do. Do you think the judiciary comes out of air? It is put in place and granted legitimacy through constitutions, which (in general) are approved by the public in one form or another. Indeed, its members, too, are appointed by elected officials (and elected directly in some places.)

Strangely enough, most people are smart enough to recognize the virtues of an independent judiciary... what's undemocratic about allowing them to put it into practice?

The decision of the judges was wrong simply because the people of California voted against the gay marriage proposal in 2000. 61 percent of california voters didnt want gay marriage in the state. The judges voted for something that the people of california dont even want. Therefore the decision is undemocratic and wrong.
Yeah, um, that's not how the three branches of the government work.

See, the Founders of America spent a huge amount of time and effort ensuring that American would NOT be a pure democracy. They specifically and clearly did NOT want that. I'm personally delighted they felt that way, since pure democracy is one of the most oppressive and unjust systems of government possible, but even if you disagree you really need to get through your head that aclling something "undemocratic" doesn't equate to it being bad, inappropriate, or wrong.

Yeah, um, that's not how the three branches of the government work.

They WORK ?

*gives up politics, law, and the other thing right now*

Yay!

But the public as a whole does, and majority rule as a procedure, in most circumstances, does fairly well at approximating it--mostly because most majority-minority relations are not constant. The result is a tendency towards coalition politics, which empower minorities, and the lingering possibility that the tyrannical measures you enact now will be used against you after the next election.

Per se means "by itself."

So has anyone mentioned Obama and McCains responses to the ruling? I fell off the thread a little while ago.

So has anyone mentioned Obama and McCains responses to the ruling? I fell off the thread a little while ago.

Obama "supports the court's decision." McCain "supports the right of the people of California to protect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman" (that may not be verbatim, but it was long-winded and I am quoting from memory as best I can; don't feel like googling for it at the moment).

[semithreadhijack] I find it especially funny when conservatives denounced "activist justices" on the Supreme Court that were chosen by Republican presidents and confirmed by a Republican Congress.[/hijack]

Obama "supports the court's decision." McCain "supports the right of the people of California to protect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman" (that may not be verbatim, but it was long-winded and I am quoting from memory as best I can; don't feel like googling for it at the moment).

It's good to hear that while Obama won't specifically work towards a gay marriage law with the word "marriage" in it, he won't stand in the way of progress when other people make it.

McCain made it clear he stands for unconstitutional discriminatory laws.

Obama "supports the court's decision." McCain "supports the right of the people of California to protect the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman" (that may not be verbatim, but it was long-winded and I am quoting from memory as best I can; don't feel like googling for it at the moment).

Yeah (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isMtlWp0V29_IA4Ubxt4s0w5kWZAD90MBSCG0) - McCain "supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona," while "John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

Obama "has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage,"

Per se means "by itself."

The point is that you can't just dismiss the results of a democratic process because "A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy."

The point is that you can't just dismiss the results of a democratic process because "A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy."

Indeed. But you also can't uphold a law simply because the majority said so. I think that's what Everywhar was getting at.

Yeah (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isMtlWp0V29_IA4Ubxt4s0w5kWZAD90MBSCG0) - McCain "supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona," while "John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."

Obama "has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage,"

So it seems Obama's stance will be "federal civil unions, marriage is up to the states."


The point is that you can't just dismiss the results of a democratic process because "A majority per se does not have moral legitimacy."

An unconstitutional law, which this was, is not a result of a democratic process, at least not in the way our system practices democracy. We don't leave minorities at the whims of the majority. The majority has to decide what their principles are going to be, and when they write down that one of those is "equality before the law" we don't let 51% of voters violate that principle.

Indeed. But you also can't uphold a law simply because the majority said so. I think that's what Everywhar was getting at.

No, it's never so simple a judgment... but there are good reasons that that's our basic starting ground.

Yeah, um, that's not how the three branches of the government work.

See, the Founders of America spent a huge amount of time and effort ensuring that American would NOT be a pure democracy. They specifically and clearly did NOT want that. I'm personally delighted they felt that way, since pure democracy is one of the most oppressive and unjust systems of government possible, but even if you disagree you really need to get through your head that aclling something "undemocratic" doesn't equate to it being bad, inappropriate, or wrong.

I know, I rethought my argument and concluded it was wrong. I disagree with the judges decision, but the decision they made was in there legal and constitutional rights. And it is good that the supreme court is unelected and free of political pressures.

An interesting tidbit: Arnold Schwarzenegger, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and would uphold the ruling. But he also said: "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

I think the constitutional amendment has been Terminated.

It's good to hear that while Obama won't specifically work towards a gay marriage law with the word "marriage" in it, he won't stand in the way of progress when other people make it.

McCain made it clear he stands for unconstitutional discriminatory laws.

Why am I not surprised? Obama wants to leave the marriage upto the states, as it should be, and McCain wants to *gasp* support the rights of the Californian people's majority? Does he realize that the majority of us want his ass deported? Preferably to....

An interesting tidbit:

I think the constitutional amendment has been Terminated.

Absolutely without question my favourite Republican. :)

An interesting tidbit:
Arnold Schwarzenegger, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and would uphold the ruling. But he also said: "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
I think the constitutional amendment has been Terminated.
Excellent news.

And this just in: Sulu's tying the knot. In the wake of this ruling, George Takei is getting ready to marry his life partner of 21 years. I'd give almost anything to be there for that one. :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24716075/from/ET/

Excellent news.

And this just in: Sulu's tying the knot.

Oh wow, good for him. Didn't he only fairly recently come out?

Excellent news.

And this just in: Sulu's tying the knot. In the wake of this ruling, George Takei is getting ready to marry his life partner of 21 years. I'd give almost anything to be there for that one. :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24716075/from/ET/

Good for him, how anyone who had an education could be opposed to same-sex marriage is beyond me, also if more people watched shows like star trek, there would be a lot less discrimination in the world.

Oh wow, good for him. Didn't he only fairly recently come out?
Yes, officially. Unofficially, I don't think it was ever much of a secret. He's 71, so I'm frigging glad this day came for him.

Yes, officially. Unofficially, I don't think it was ever much of a secret.

let's just say, there was a reason that the uniforms on the USS enterprise were fabulous

Excellent news.

And this just in: Sulu's tying the knot. In the wake of this ruling, George Takei is getting ready to marry his life partner of 21 years. I'd give almost anything to be there for that one. :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24716075/from/ET/

Obviously someone needs to burst in with a pair of Lirpa and challenge him for his groom!

Obviously someone needs to burst in with a pair of Lirpa and challenge him for his groom!

Fuck that, I'm bringing a bat'leth

Absolutely without question my favourite Republican. :)

The two parties should work out an exchange; The Dems get Ahnold and the GOP gets Lieberman.

The two parties should work out an exchange; The Dems get Ahnold and the GOP gets Lieberman.

If the senate didn't hang in that balance I'd be all for it. Frankly as a jew and a democrat, I'd be happy if Lieberman didn't associate with either group.

DundundundundundundunnnnnEhehehe... ehehehe dundundun...

The two parties should work out an exchange; The Dems get Ahnold and the GOP gets Lieberman.

If the senate didn't hang in that balance I'd be all for it. Frankly as a jew and a democrat, I'd be happy if Lieberman didn't associate with either group.
Gah! Don't even get me started on that bastard -- that saboteur, that shill, that mole! It infuriates me that the Dems will not revoke his party membership. He is beyond the pale.

Why am I not surprised? Obama wants to leave the marriage up to the states, as it should be,

What planet do you live on where being granted your civil rights "should" be up to the state rather than guaranteed by the federal government?

Hooray! Me and my partner can get married!




Oh wait I don't have a partner. :( or a boyfriend or dating :(

Indeed. But you also can't uphold a law simply because the majority said so. I think that's what Everywhar was getting at.
Yes, indeed it was. This is an issue that doesn't even command all that large of a majority anyway, which is why it is "controversial." I do not mean to trivialize democracy, but rather to say that a democratic decision should not always be honored, which is something I think we can all essentially agree on.

let's just say, there was a reason that the uniforms on the USS enterprise were fabulous
:cool:

What planet do you live on where being granted your civil rights "should" be up to the state rather than guaranteed by the federal government?
Probably Planet "Federalism." :rolleyes:

Hooray! Me and my partner can get married!




Oh wait I don't have a partner. :( or a boyfriend or dating :(
And you live in Atlanta. Daaaamn...

And you live in Atlanta. Daaaamn....

Yeah I would say Atlanta sucks unless you like b***** queens. I doubt I would ever see civil unions or marriage in my lifetime this is the bible belt and GA is pretty backwards.

.

Yeah I would say Atlanta sucks unless you like b***** queens. I doubt I would ever see civil unions or marriage in my lifetime this is the bible belt and GA is pretty backwards.
Well, Montana is not much better. However we do have an out lesbian who we continue to elect to the State House of Representatives (2000-2007). She's now running for Senate again, defending her seat. Christine Kaufmann is made of win. :)

GA must be a pretty shitty place to be a Green, eh? :fluffle:

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Just because they weren't thinking about gays when they said "everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law" doesn't mean that equal protection under the law doesn't apply to gays.

I would like you to explain the logic behind this statement, however.Actually, I am not as who is wrong is a matter of prespective and to point out since I am strong advocate of state rights.

I am strong advocate of state rights.

Well, since this decision was made on a state level, whats the issue?

Well, since this decision was made on a state level, whats the issue?
O snap. :)

Also, I would think it would be even cooler to be a strong advocate of individual rights.

Well, Montana is not much better. However we do have an out lesbian who we continue to elect to the State House of Representatives (2000-2007). She's now running for Senate again, defending her seat. Christine Kaufmann is made of win. :)

GA must be a pretty shitty place to be a Green, eh? :fluffle:


Yep. Especially since whe have the some of highest pollution levels cause of coal power plants and the state doesn't fund MARTA so the service is bad. It would rather fund more roads :headbang:


Give it a couple more years and GA will be like the rust belt states. This state is still stuck back in the 60's.

Well, since this decision was made on a state level, whats the issue?By that I mean by the elected officials of a state.

By that I mean by the elected officials of a state.

Oh please. The judges did the job that is outlined for them in the Constitution. A law was declared unconstitutional. Thats the power the constitution, bot federal and state, give them.


What you are really saying is you like it when they strike down laws you dont like, but when they strike down laws you do like, such as letting those icky queers marry, theyre judicial activists.

By that I mean by the elected officials of a state.
Judges are accountable to the public in California. What is your complaint?

O snap. :)

Also, I would think it would be even cooler to be a strong advocate of individual rights.

Indeed. "States' Rights" is generally just a code word for "authoritarianism at the state level."

Indeed. "States' Rights" is generally just a code word for "authoritarianism at the state level."
Wow, you put that really well.

*steals*