Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's not desperate or silly. It's just a progression of thought you don't want to consider.

Marriage in our society has always been defined as a man and a woman. Now it's being redefined to include same sex. Who is to say some won't try to redefine it again?

No, Prax, it's desperate and silly.

It would be laughed out of a court room, if it even got a chance for an argument in a court room.

It's not apples-to-apples. We're talking humans that have "certain inalienable rights" and non-humans, which are not protected under the law in this way.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

No, Prax, it's desperate and silly.

It would be laughed out of a court room, if it even got a chance for an argument in a court room.

It's not apples-to-apples. We're talking humans that have "certain inalienable rights" and non-humans, which are not protected under the law in this way.

That is your opinion. Im not sure if you see my point, but let me add that not to long ago the notion of two men getting married would be laughed at. It was an absurd suggestion.

Marriage has been defined by society as a union and contract between a man and a woman.

As for animals, the fact that they have no protection under the law does not mean a man can not marry his goat if he wanted to...the goat has no rights to protect him FROM such a thing.

What is happening is more than "legalities". The law that was proposed was a law some thought was needed to protect what society has defined since it was founded, that marriage is a union of a man and woman. Up until recently no law was needed because no challenge to the social norm was made

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is your opinion. Im not sure if you see my point, but let me add that not to long ago the notion of two men getting married would be laughed at. It was an absurd suggestion.

Marriage has been defined by society as a union and contract between a man and a woman.

As for animals, the fact that they have no protection under the law does not mean a man can not marry his goat if he wanted to...the goat has no rights to protect him FROM such a thing.

What is happening is more than "legalities". The law that was proposed was a law some thought was needed to protect what society has defined since it was founded, that marriage is a union of a man and woman. Up until recently no law was needed because no challenge to the social norm was made

I do get your point.

What I'm saying is that it's simply not even possible to consider a man denied the privilege of marrying his goat (I'm sure there won't be a long line for this) on the basis of Equal Protection. The man can be denied and what legal recourse could he claim? Marriage is still between human beings and persons, not animals.