Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[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 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.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

Maybe that's why some Republicans (Lindsey Graham, others) want to repeal the 14th Amendment, which grants birthright citizenship. The same amendment also has equal protection under the law in it.

Of course, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were enacted in the wake of the Civil War. I'm not really sure we really want to go back there!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

Actually I think some would argue against that, that he was applying our laws. They would argue he was applying HIS interpretation of our laws

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually I think some would argue against that, that he was applying our laws. They would argue he was applying HIS interpretation of our laws

He cited the Equal Protection clause -- so technically, he applied the old law to a contemporary issue. No re-interpretation going on.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

Ummm Equal protection is not exactly founding fathers. Add about 100 years to get to the Equal protection clause.

Also this fails under equal protections intent. The intent is that the laws are applied equally. You can't say a black man can't marry but a white man can. No man can be married to another man under the California law there is no inequality. Inequality would be saying Asian men can't marry, but white men can. Defining marriage has ALWAYS been the right of the States. If this holds it will bring into play the full faith and credit that is required by the states. SO any state that allows two men to be married must be recognized by all other states.

[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?

[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.)