One Judge vs 7 million votes

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't see how the two are at all similar. Marriage to multiple partners is fundamentally different than marriage to the partner (singular) of your choice.

But what is so fundamentally different about it? They're still consenting adults, correct? Being married to one person does not legally prevent someone from sleeping with another person. In fact a group of three or more consenting adults can live like they are in a polygamous marriage and it's only the formalization of this arraignment that the government can prohibit.

[Zachstar]

When a survey was made about integration of African Americans into a single non-segregated system in the late 40s. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of GIs polled said it was wrong.

If the Civil Rights laws depended on a vote we might have still been segregated today.

The rights of people can't come up for a vote.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

When a survey was made about integration of African Americans into a single non-segregated system in the late 40s. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of GIs polled said it was wrong.

If the Civil Rights laws depended on a vote we might have still been segregated today.

The rights of people can't come up for a vote.

Who then determines what are the rights of the people?

[Zachstar]

Sadly the courts have had to be depended on time and time again to establish the rights of people. From Roe vs Wade to Brown vs Board etc...

What I worry about tho is if the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case because it is such a hot topic. Idiot prop 8 supporters think the Supreme court will hand them an easy victory. But what they don't seem to get is that if they rule a right... It is VERY hard to get them to revisit that ruling... That is why abortion hasnt been touched much in the past few decades.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Who then determines what are the rights of the people?

You have the inherent right to do anything you want, except deny that same right to others. Anything else is legislating morality.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But what is so fundamentally different about it? They're still consenting adults, correct? Being married to one person does not legally prevent someone from sleeping with another person. In fact a group of three or more consenting adults can live like they are in a polygamous marriage and it's only the formalization of this arraignment that the government can prohibit.

Frau nailed it - you can't marry multiple partners, no matter the gender. That goes for if you're gay, straight or other. That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Frau nailed it - you can't marry multiple partners, no matter the gender. That goes for if you're gay, straight or other. That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

How so? Because the law says I can not have two wives? This is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. I think the judge should overturn this law no matter what the voters say.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

But that's not the case either, now is it. Homosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But that's not the case either, now is it. Homosexuals are free to marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

I could be wrong, but I suspect August's comment was meant to be just a little tongue-in-cheek.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I could be wrong, but I suspect August's comment was meant to be just a little tongue-in-cheek.

I've seen so many wacky points of view argued here in GT that it becomes kind of hard to tell anymore.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Then they wouldn't be homosexuals then, would they? That's a silly argument. Almost like the famous Ford quote about being able to have a Model T in any color you like so long as it's black.

But it's not. Any restrictions from marrying a person of the opposite sex are self imposed. It's more like demanding that Ford produce Buicks because that's the car they prefer.