One Judge vs 7 million votes

TLAM Strike · 08-05-10, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Sounds like CA to me!

Lets vote on it and see how you feel about it. Then we will ignore what general concensus shows.

Well yea, if they went by consensus half the state would be part of Mexico.

August · 08-05-10, 02:11 PM

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

Good question sir!

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right?

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.

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:26 PM

Quote:

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.

Huh? You need to clarify that one bub!

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Huh? You need to clarify that one bub!

Marriage to one person is completely different than marrying a bunch of people?

AVGWarhawk · 08-05-10, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Marriage to one person is completely different than marrying a bunch of people?

How is that? Please explain the two some difference than three some in the sack.

August · 08-05-10, 03:01 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-05-10, 03:05 PM

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 · 08-05-10, 03:16 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-05-10, 03:20 PM

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 · 08-05-10, 03:23 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-05-10, 03:09 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-05-10, 03:15 PM

Quote:

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 · 08-05-10, 05:35 PM

Quote:

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.

08-05-10, 02:11 PM	#2
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,217 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	If that is unconstitutional, and it very well may be, then i'd think the laws against polygamy should be unconstitutional as well right? __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

08-05-10, 03:05 PM	#9
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

08-05-10, 03:20 PM	#11
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	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. __________________