Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I don't care what his orientation is making this an equal protection claim is opening the door to all kinds of nonsense. Oh you wanna marry two men? Go for it. You wanna marry two goats...equal protection. Equal protection...what a joke.

Point taken Baron. But I will never ever vote for someone who is openly gay.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Point taken Baron. But I will never ever vote for someone who is openly gay.

Why not? What makes that person less worthy of your vote. Do you demand all candidates that you vote for to be believers?

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Socialite

How do you think the Plaintiff's attorneys and/or the judge would response to that?

The two goats analogy is simple, since they don't have even basic human rights, nor would they ever request to be married

However, the polygamy argument certainly should get fired up again over this.

I think polygamy is sufficiently different. It's not a one-to-one relationship.

However it's worth thinking about this (from page 63 of the decision):

The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained.

[Esther]

I believe the judges are over stepping their authority.

The checks and balances are getting out of balance.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by geekette

I think polygamy is sufficiently different. It's not a one-to-one relationship.

However it's worth thinking about this (from page 63 of the decision):

I think polygamy is sufficiently different. It's not a one-to-one relationship.

However it's worth thinking about this (from page 63 of the decision):

Quote:
The states have always required the parties to give their free consent to a marriage. Because slaves were considered property of others at the time, they lacked the legal capacity to consent and were thus unable to marry. After emancipation, former slaves viewed their ability to marry as one of the most important new rights they had gained.

I'm not sure Geekette. Sufficiently different on the basis of one versus multiple? How does that overrule Equal Protection and basic rights? If a man has consenting partners that all wish to be married, how can that right be denied? On what basis? No one is harming the other, all are consenting, no rights are being denied (quite the opposite) -- the only differences are one of cultural toleration. Yes? No?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Esther

I believe the judges are over stepping their authority.

The checks and balances are getting out of balance.

How so?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Esther

I believe the judges are over stepping their authority.

The checks and balances are getting out of balance.

Yes, blame the judges for applying the laws our forefathers made years ago. That definetely makes alot of sense.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by geekette

This guy is no raving liberal even if he is gay. He was originally nominated to the bench by President Reagan but his nomination was held up for the following:



He was renominated to the bench under President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1989 and confirmed. He's currently the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California.

If he's gay he's a liberal.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

If he's gay he's a liberal.

That so?

Know who the Log Cabin Republicans are?

Not good logic there.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I think polygamy is sufficiently different. It's not a one-to-one relationship.


I'm not sure Geekette. Sufficiently different on the basis of one versus multiple? How does that overrule Equal Protection and basic rights? If a man has consenting partners that all wish to be married, how can that right be denied? On what basis? No one is harming the other, all are consenting, no rights are being denied (quite the opposite) -- the only differences are one of cultural toleration. Yes? No?

Yeah, I'm thinking one versus multiple. Plus, I had originally wrote (and deleted) that there's sufficient evidence to suggest that at least in some formulations, polygamous relationships can be very unstable. From what I've read about the fundamentalist Mormon polygamist groups, wives and children were given to and taken away from men at the whim of the leader based on the loyalty of the man. (The women and children had no choice in the matter.) This does not indicate to me an equal relationship.

Now, there may be some equality-minded "polyamorous" relationships out there, but I don't know that they're clamoring for the right to get married.

It's my understanding that our neighbor to the north, Canada, may have to deal very soon with the issue of the legality of polygamous marriages under its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'll be interested to see what evidence is introduced in that case, when it happens. (The people who are arguing for it are related--in more ways than one--to the fundamentalist Mormons in northern Arizona.)