This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
seems to me as i'm reading this that it all comes down to the meaning of the words domestic partnership vs marriage. I notice the judge used the pro side of the "cultural meaning" part of the marriage debate in his fact finding on behalf of gay marriage yet somehow failed to muster up the same enthusiasm in the "cultural meaning" doctrine regarding the thousands of years of human history he just wiped away. Funny that.
I'm np lawyer either, so many a lawyer can respond to both of us. But it seems to me that what you called Natural Law, while it can be used logically to allow something to become or remain legal, it is much more difficult to make the argument that this should be used to prevent something new from becoming legal. How is this different, to cite one example, from John C. Calhoun's defense of slavery? Calhoun claimed that slavery must be justified because it has always occured throughout the centuries. I don't think tradition is a good or rational justification for preventive law.
So you want the judge to follow Natural Law instead of the constitution? Talk about judicial activism!!
If the only thing at issue here is a title, and if titles aren't really worth worrying about, how can there be a rational basis for requiring the use of one set of titles rather than another? (The pro-discrimination side has the burden of establishing a rational basis, not the anti-discrimination side.)
I was talking about the judge's bias. Given the media circus Walker tried to stir up it seemed he was looking to try and demonstrate a point before the case even started. I didn't realize he was openly gay at the time, but when I found out later his antics started to make more sense.As for harm, some people obviously feel harmed. I don't and I don't support proposition 8, but I don't believe it's unconstitutional either. I suppose we will find out in a few years.
How so? States have been subject to the Fourteenth Amendment since it was ratified.
It already applies to both of those, of course.
Where would it apply, if not to situations where different people are granted different legal rights?
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Are the people who are in favor of gay marriage also in favor of polygamy? Seems like they should since they are all consenting adults. Who are we to tell that guy that he cant marry 3 other women.
I think the biggest supporters of polygamy were also among the biggest supporters of Prop 8 — the Mormons.
What about you? You seem to be in favor of gay marriage. I dont see any difference between the two to be quite honest. If you let one group marry to say the other cant is very hypocritical imo.
The logic behind gay marriage and polygamous marriage is exactly the same. I think there is a case for trans-gender, swinger and bi-sexual relationships getting married as well.
I lived next door to Fundamentalist (Polygamist) when I lived in Utah. I became friends with them and learn a lot about their culture. Mormons did not want anything to do with them. I would say that they are hostile to Polygamist.
So you think that there is no difference. So what? Is that a valid basis to deny either group?
It's not hypocritical because the reasons for opposing each are different. The typical reason given to oppose polygamy is that for every dude who has four wives, there are three other dudes who have zero, which kinda sucks for them. It's an egalitarian thing. Not so with gay marriage.To answer your question, I don't really have a position on polygamy one way or the other. I haven't given it much thought because I don't know anybody — I don't even know of anybody — who really cares a lot about the issue and is deeply affected by it.
To be quite honest if gays are allowed to marry then i would agree, I dont see why we wouldnt allow polygamy. Anyone out there think that gays should be able to marry but cant accept polygamy? Just curious to hear yes to one group and not the other.
I understand your reasoning for no on polygamy but it still sounds like the discrimination that gay people have had to deal with. Atleast to me anyway.
it depends who takes their side and who finally caves into them.
But you can say the some dudes can support additional wives better than some men can support one. Also some women like the additional support of other women in the household. Why should we deny them the right to marriage?
Of course. If that weren't true, no women would prefer polygamous marriages and there'd be no impetus for a law against them. Laws against polygamy aren't for the benefit of women; they're for the benefit of lower-status men.
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking why I think we should deny them the right to a polygamous marriage, I never said we should. If you're asking why some other people think we should, I already gave the standard answer. Because it's more egalitarian.
Apparently there isnt enough of them making enough noise. Polygamist arent running around calling people bigots. If they really wanted it legal they should start, that tactic seems to work.
The United States is a Constitutional Democracy which basically means that the people can't vote for something that violates the constitution. The Bill of Rights (and many other provisions of the Constitution) are designed to protect the fundemental rights of politcal minorities. The question of which branch of government gets to decide whether the constitution has been violated was decided in by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where the Court said the Judicial branch decides.
Don't ask me. I don't have a problem with either.But the polygamy discussion is the about the stinkiest Red Herring in this debate.
I am not for polygamous marriage. I am just playing devils advocate and saying that the arguments for polygamy and same sex marriage are very similar.
So this law is about keeping the ratios of men and women the same based on fairness. But there are a lot more homosexual men then women. So doesn't same sex marriage also distort the ratio?
Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. I really don't see why being against polygamous marriage is more egalitarian.
It's about allowing more people who want to get married, to get married.
No. Same-sex marriage is also about allowing more people who want to get married, to get married.
Because it redistributes women from guys who have more of them to guys who have fewer of them.
This is where I have trouble. We are suppose to have checks and balances. But when the judicial branch makes a decision then it is nearly impossible to overturn.
IMHO The 9 Supreme Court Judges have too much power and there is checks and balances on the judicial branch.
You have made some very good points. My ratio argument about homosexuality wasn't very good. But isn't the marriage law about the right for an individual to marry who they want. What right does the state have to prohibit who we marry? Even is distorts the ratio of men and women.
They don't. That's pretty much what this decision is about.
Yeah, that one was pretty much right over the middle of the plate.
The government doesnt decide that. Churches are free to marry, or not marry anyone.
And Newt Gingrich is just a turd.
begs the question. The judge ruled that the title of marriage lends a cultural benefit to those who have it (heterosexuals) which is denied to homosexuals. Apparently that same cultural benefit which has existed for thousands of years and is recognized across virtually all cultures, old and new is now to be given to a very small minority of people that it was never intended to be given to in the first place. What rational basis could a judge decide that redefining the meaning, both culturally and literally, of marriage is sound logic? He couldn't so he used the discriminatory angle and assigned a value to it (inferior). That is really bad logic.It strikes me as very thin when a supporter is left to claim that it is up to the "pro discrimination" side to establish a rational basis. Not only is it a gigantic leap to assume that anyone that wants to retain the idea of marriage as its traditionally been defined as "pro discrimation", its plain that when good arguments fail, the fallback position is of labelling the opposition as something ghastly. Like saying someone that is pro abortion is "pro-murder" or someone that is anti abortion is anti womens rights.
And as far as I could tell, you disagreed with him about that. There are two possibilities. Either marriage is not "just a label," in which case your contrary assertion is wrong; or it is "just a label," in which case — what's the rational basis for requiring the use of one set of labels over another?
To accord with the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause?
That's how it works.
No need to be defensive. "Pro-discrimination" isn't ghastly. Laws against murder are pro-discrimination: they discriminate against murderers. That's not a bad thing. Every law that's ever been passed is discriminatory. It's the whole point of even our best laws.
What's wrong with polygamy?
The anti-discrimination side first needs to prove an injury for which relief can be granted.So you want the judge to follow Natural Law instead of the constitution? Talk about judicial activism!!
If the only thing at issue here is a title, and if titles aren't really worth worrying about, how can there be a rational basis for requiring the use of one set of titles rather than another? (The pro-discrimination side has the burden of establishing a rational basis, not the anti-discrimination side.)
They want to get married. They can't. Isn't that enough?
These findings of fact can certainly go away, its called remand. (Though I don't doubt abuse of discretion will be attempted) Also, appelate courts hands are hardly tied in a de novo review of this law. Frankly, the governor's and AG's refusal to defend this amendment really pisses me off. They don't like the law. I get it. But the people of California validly passed a two different propositions on this subject and its their duty to represent the people on matters such as this. The will of the people was clearly voiced, and they passed this case off to a bunch of seemingly crack-pot incompetents because they didn't agree with the law. That's chicken####. Considering how screwed up the CA Bar is, no way the AG is called to account for these actions, but to me this is a serious ethical violation. The judge should have compelled them to defend the statute in court, just as he would have compelled an assigned defense lawyer to perform a zealous defense in a child rape case.
They can get a civil union which provides all the same legal benefits in CA, absent those prohibited by federal law (and those particular laws are not on trial in this case). So no, thats not enough. You need to prove that not being married causes some harm. Social stigma is the common means of attack. Only worked once outside of a racial case, and that was in Vermont on state grounds.
Gay rights activists have explained in great detail why civil unions do not and cannot provide the same legal and actual benefits as marriage does. I don't need to repeat their arguments here. If you believe these arguments are not convincing, that's your choice; but then I would strongly disagree with you. Hopefully, the SC will as well.
Several things.First, there's no historical basis for it. There are no documented groups in history that have accepted polygamy.Second, there's no Biblical basis for it. The Bible says one man and one woman period. There is no polygamy in the Bible.Third, it's not natural. There is no polygamy in the natural animal kingdom for any species.Fourth, it's not necessary. All the rights polygamists want can be accomplished today without marriage through contracts.Fifth, polygamists cannot have children. At least not naturally. Why do they have to shove it down our throats. Res Ipsa Liqueur, folks.
Regardless of my belief on their merits, my point is that the initial burden is on gay rights activists. They need to at establish certain elements before a court of law before any shifting of burdens can occur. One of those elements is a showing of harm. That can be as simple as proving a violation of a right, but here that would also require establishing that right in the first place.
I think most Mormons are anti-polygamy, given the bad rap they've received for it. And I think those that are polygamists are a vast, vast minority.That said, polygamy should be legalized. The "egalitarian thing" you mention is a non-sensical reason, as there are plenty of men who can't land a wife in a monogamous society, due to looking awful, smelling awful, lack of earning capacity, etc. Life isn't fair.
I think I'm supposed to laugh at this. I'm not sure why though.
