One Judge vs 7 million votes

[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.

[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.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think that is against my civil rights. I should be able to have more then one wife. I think that law is unconstitutional. It should be overturned. I don't care who voted for it.

Actually I have no problems with a legal mechanism being put into place to allow for some type of recognized "union" between more than two consenting adults who have chosen to live in that fashion, provided it applies equally to everyone regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the individuals involved.

Obviously considering any such arrangement a "marriage" would involve a complete redefinition of the concept above and beyond what is necessary to include same-sex couples.

And needless to say I would not support anything that restricted such a union to one (male) husband taking multiple (female)wives. I doubt that any of the religious groups that still condone and practice polygamy, or that might consider doing so again, would be willing to accept the possibility of equal opportunity and protection for women in this matter in order to make it once again legal for their menfolk. The institution of polygamy as a cultural "norm" is so inextricably intertwined with the exploitation and oppression of women that removing those elements and giving equal status, rights and protection to any females involved would make it unappealing to anyone who still clings to it as a vestige of male prestige and power.

[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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Actually I have no problems with a legal mechanism being put into place to allow for some type of recognized "union" between more than two consenting adults who have chosen to live in that fashion, provided it applies equally to everyone regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the individuals involved.

Obviously considering any such arrangement a "marriage" would involve a complete redefinition of the concept above and beyond what is necessary to include same-sex couples.

And needless to say I would not support anything that restricted such a union to one (male) husband taking multiple (female)wives. I doubt that any of the religious groups that still condone and practice polygamy, or that might consider doing so again, would be willing to accept the possibility of equal opportunity and protection for women in this matter in order to make it once again legal for their menfolk. The institution of polygamy as a cultural "norm" is so inextricably intertwined with the exploitation and oppression of women that removing those elements and giving equal status, rights and protection to any females involved would make it unappealing to anyone who still clings to it as a vestige of male prestige and power.

Cultural 'norm'....there in lies the problem. Gay marriage is not seen as a cultural norm and probably will not be seen as the norm for quite sometime. Are you saying then that women in polygamous marriages are exploited and oppressed? Please explain.

[Zachstar]

That is why it is not up to us but up to the highest courts. Remember Interracial marriage for instance.

[krashkart]

Certain groups practice polygamy in a manner that does not faithfully represent a mutual love and respect between partners. In such cases it is centric to the male, and the females are submissive counterparts. I believe that is what frau kaleun is referring to.

[Takeda Shingen]

If mutual love and respect becomes a prequisite for marital union, then I imagine that at least half of the current marriages in the country will have to be immediately dissolved.

However, I applaud the court's decision. It is high time that homosexual couples were made to suffer just as their hertosexual counterparts.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

That is why it is not up to us but up to the highest courts. Remember Interracial marriage for instance.

Excellent point. I bet the majority would have voted against that at one time also.

[Bubblehead1980]

I have no religious views so this issue is different for me.I am opposed to gay marriage because it's just another thing the gay lobby wants to bitch and cry about when courts should be dealing with much more important issues.The voters of California voted NO to gay marriage, that should be respected but nooo the gay lobby has to go to Federal Court when this is supposed to be a state issue anyway with a judge who is gay(how could he be fair?) and get a sham ruling.Hopefully SCOTUS will settle this once and for all.

[Aramike]

I'm sorry, but how were gays discriminated against again?

I thought homosexuals were people - not a race unto themselves. Under Prop 8 marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Are gay men not men? Are gay women not women?

In fact, I submit that they are men and women!

Meaning, they had the SAME rights. What they wanted were SPECIAL rights. (Which is alarming because, in CA, gays are already allowed civil unions which, on paper, is the same thing. Ultimately this is nothing more than an attempt to usurp the term marriage from its traditional meaning, which shows to the shallowness of these activists.)

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Cultural 'norm'....there in lies the problem. Gay marriage is not seen as a cultural norm and probably will not be seen as the norm for quite sometime. Are you saying then that women in polygamous marriages are exploited and oppressed? Please explain.

Integration of the races was not seen as a cultural "norm" until it was. It took the passage of new laws and the striking down of some old ones to make that happen.

Anyway, what I meant by cultural "norm" was a little more specific - there have been and no doubt still are cultures where polygamy was/is practiced and is not considered beyond the pale by the society in which it happens. Even if it is not what everybody does (or has the power or financial means to do), it is not considered abnormal when someone else does it.

Within the small fringe religious groups that still practice it here in the US, it is indeed considered the cultural norm by those people.

It would have been clearer to have said that, in cultures where it is permissible and not considered abnormal, or among subcultures where it is considered the normal thing to do and accept, you will almost without fail find that is tied to practices that involve the abuse, exploitation, and oppression of females.

And yes, absolutely, in any culture that allows men the right to marry multiple spouses but prohibits women from doing the same, it is by definition a discriminatory practice and a tool of sexual oppression.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I'm sorry, but how were gays discriminated against again?

In a nutshell tax laws.