Prop. 8 Struck Down as Unconstitutional

[Aufan59 83]

Of course it does. Why shouldn't three women who wish to be married to the same man or a group of 5 people get the same societal sanction and other benefits that homosexual and heterosexual couples enjoy? What legal right do we have to deny them the opportunity to demonstrate their love to the world in this way?

While this is the SAME EXACT wording that pro-gay marriage people make...

They'll tell you in the same breath that polygamy is wrong and incest is wrong. They'll talk about inalienable rights and all that. And how gay marriage ban is denying rights of citizens.

But would TOTALLY support a ban on polygamy or incest.

It makes no sense to me. And I've never in my life heard one be able to articulate why one is not only right - but not even up for discussion - and the other is patently wrong.

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

[dallaswareagle01 2]

All you're doing is playing a Devil's advocate game with me; taking my inch and making it 1000 miles. That's not an argument.

You keep just declaring this by fiat but not proving it. It's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. Just because you think I'm taking it too far does not make it so. Show me a rational argument as to why it's ok to change marriage to drop the opposite sex requirement, but not the numeric requirement or the "non-relative" requirement.

Homosexuals should be able to enjoy the same benefits of marriage as heterosexuals.

As should those who wish to not limit their marital love and commitment to just one other person. Relatives should have the same right.

Arguing about what the definition of marriage is so incredibly weak. We all know why you don't want gays to get married. Be upfront about it.

No, what we all know is why you don't or can't answer the question. It is about the definition of marriage. Again, what is so inviolable about it only being between two individuals? What right do any of us have to tell a brother and sister they cannot experience marital love and societal sanction? How is this not discriminatory?

Even if I conceded that "Sure, everyone should be able to marry everybody", what would that prove for either of us? The issue isn't polygamy or incest...it's gay marriage.

As far as the definition thing goes, it's just a flimsy argument to hide the fact that Conservatives find homosexuality icky. It's like Bill Clinton arguing about what the definition of "is" is. As long as there are positives aspects of being married to someone and homosexuals aren't able to do so, it's wrong. If it is so much about the definition, let's change it. Then what would your argument be?

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Judges don't always do what's popular. That's just fact. And it's how our country is set up. Sometimes it's for the bad (RE: Bush Jr.), sometimes it's for the good (RE: This situation).

This has nothing to do with Bush jr. It's about States rights.

We have CHG here in Texas, We approved it (Texas voters) Should a federal judge be allowed to over turn it?

Try answering without your feelings on bush. (if you can)

[TitanTiger 20,570]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

[Aufan59 83]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

[Tigermike 3,090]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Yes you are.

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

And according to the Bible God destroyed Soddam and Gomorrah. Yet you guys want to say it's A-OK for Steve & Bill to marry.

[rexbo 104]

Your argument is like saying banning interracial marriage is constitutional, because it doesn't deny anyone the ability to get married.

You are determining gender in order to enforce the law, thus it isn't equal protection.

So if I a person follows a woman in the bathroom and she complains that a 'man' was in the women's bathroom, that person can say they had a right to be in there because the policeman cannot ask about their gender, because of the equal protection clause?

[Shire5k 19]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Yes you are.

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

And according to the Bible God destroyed Soddam and Gomorrah. Yet you guys want to say it's A-OK for Steve & Bill to marry.

Who are "you guys"?

[quietfan 233]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Well, yes, federal/constitutional rights take precedent over state law, so when it comes to such liberties, yes a federal judge takes precedence.

Secondly, part of the reason for having certain rights protected constitutionally is to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority." 51% of Alabama voters cannot deprive me of my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, Amendment rights. The judge obviously decided that Prop. 8 violates the constitutional rights of gays & lesbians. (You may not agree with that interpetation, which is your right, but it's the judge's charge and duty to make the call.)

In some ways, it's like the old Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal" that had to be struck down by federal courts because local states wouldn't. (Admittedly, that analogy is a little strained because so many of the victims were also disenfranchised then.)

[TitanTiger 20,570]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

So you're a biblical fundamentalist?

[au2004ece 30]

The end result of this process will be the end of marriage, at least in the legal sense. Titan is right. If the definition of a word can be changed because one group doesn't like the definition, then the word no longer exists or means anything. If the definition of marriage cannot be defined as a union between one man and one woman because the words "man" and/or "woman" is used in that definition, then there is no logical reason why the word "one" can be used in that definition either. All we will be left with is "a union".

People will be able to marry their cats. If the current definition is not adaquate, then why would a definition including only people be adaquate?

[TitanTiger 20,570]

The end result of this process will be the end of marriage, at least in the legal sense. Titan is right. If the definition of a word can be changed because one group doesn't like the definition, then the word no longer exists or means anything. If the definition of marriage cannot be defined as a union between one man and one woman because the words "man" and/or "woman" is used in that definition, then there is no logical reason why the word "one" can be used in that definition either. All we will be left with is "a union".

People will be able to marry their cats. If the current definition is not adaquate, then why would a definition including only people be adaquate?

I agree with you up until the end only because there is the distinction that all of these new fangled "marriages" would be predicated on "consent" of all parties involved. Thus there is no way to truly determine the consent of a cat or a horse or your toaster. And currently we have laws that make people under a certain age (varies by state) unable to consent for themselves (they'd need a parent's signature and permission). Some are even considered too young for parental consent to make the marriage allowable (again, varies by state). Of course, there are some who are trying to lower those ages of consent to get rid of them altogether. Jettisoning them is highly unlikely mainly because of unpopularity. Lowering them probably has a chance eventually but not in the immediate future.

Of course, had you asked many of our parents and probably 95% of our grandparents when they were much younger, they would have thought you were crazy to think one day there would be enough popular will to change marriage to no longer be between opposite sexes too.

[au2004ece 30]

The end result of this process will be the end of marriage, at least in the legal sense. Titan is right. If the definition of a word can be changed because one group doesn't like the definition, then the word no longer exists or means anything. If the definition of marriage cannot be defined as a union between one man and one woman because the words "man" and/or "woman" is used in that definition, then there is no logical reason why the word "one" can be used in that definition either. All we will be left with is "a union".

People will be able to marry their cats. If the current definition is not adaquate, then why would a definition including only people be adaquate?

I agree with you up until the end only because there is the distinction that all of these new fangled "marriages" would be predicated on "consent" of all parties involved. Thus there is no way to truly determine the consent of a cat or a horse or your toaster. And currently we have laws that make people under a certain age (varies by state) unable to consent for themselves (they'd need a parent's signature and permission). Some are even considered too young for parental consent to make the marriage allowable (again, varies by state). Of course, there are some who are trying to lower those ages of consent to get rid of them altogether. Jettisoning them is highly unlikely mainly because of unpopularity. Lowering them probably has a chance eventually but not in the immediate future.

Of course, had you asked many of our parents and probably 95% of our grandparents when they were much younger, they would have thought you were crazy to think one day there would be enough popular will to change marriage to no longer be between opposite sexes too.

Take out the marrying a cat analogy and try this one. People could marry themselves. Why should somebody that hates all other people not be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage?

And to the age of consent laws: if the government can't define marriage based on gender, then why can they define marriage based on age? A 50 year old could marry a newborn baby to save money on taxes.

[dallaswareagle01 2]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Well, yes, federal/constitutional rights take precedent over state law, so when it comes to such liberties, yes a federal judge takes precedence.

Secondly, part of the reason for having certain rights protected constitutionally is to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority." 51% of Alabama voters cannot deprive me of my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, Amendment rights. The judge obviously decided that Prop. 8 violates the constitutional rights of gays & lesbians. (You may not agree with that interpetation, which is your right, but it's the judge's charge and duty to make the call.)

In some ways, it's like the old Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal" that had to be struck down by federal courts because local states wouldn't. (Admittedly, that analogy is a little strained because so many of the victims were also disenfranchised then.)

Thanks, Then I guess I have to ask. Why have the vote in the first place? Why not just go to court first.

[au2004ece 30]

So the voters of California voted. They as a majority did not approve of gay marriage. Their state, they can do what they want. A federal judge (I don’t care who appointed) can overrule a state’s majority because he (or she) does not agree with their vote.

Am I correct?

Well, yes, federal/constitutional rights take precedent over state law, so when it comes to such liberties, yes a federal judge takes precedence.

Secondly, part of the reason for having certain rights protected constitutionally is to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority." 51% of Alabama voters cannot deprive me of my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, Amendment rights. The judge obviously decided that Prop. 8 violates the constitutional rights of gays & lesbians. (You may not agree with that interpetation, which is your right, but it's the judge's charge and duty to make the call.)

In some ways, it's like the old Jim Crow laws and "separate but equal" that had to be struck down by federal courts because local states wouldn't. (Admittedly, that analogy is a little strained because so many of the victims were also disenfranchised then.)

Thanks, Then I guess I have to ask. Why have the vote in the first place? Why not just go to court first.

It would save a lot of time and money if all bills/propositions were vetted for constitutionality before they were passed/enacted.

[Aufan59 83]

Your argument is like saying banning interracial marriage is constitutional, because it doesn't deny anyone the ability to get married.

You are determining gender in order to enforce the law, thus it isn't equal protection.

So if I a person follows a woman in the bathroom and she complains that a 'man' was in the women's bathroom, that person can say they had a right to be in there because the policeman cannot ask about their gender, because of the equal protection clause?

There aren't laws against going into the restroom of the opposite sex.

[Aufan59 83]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

So you're a biblical fundamentalist?

I always get confused on which parts of the Bible we ignore when it comes to morality.

So we ignore the part about the world being populated by incest, twice.

But we accept the part that says gays are bad.

So confusing!!

[TitanTiger 20,570]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

So you're a biblical fundamentalist?

I always get confused on which parts of the Bible we ignore when it comes to morality.

So we ignore the part about the world being populated by incest, twice.

But we accept the part that says gays are bad.

So confusing!!

No, I'm just saying, the only way this "world populated by incest" thing is possible is if you hold to a very strict interpretation of Genesis. Yet many, many believers believe Genesis to be at least partly allegorical (somewhat due to the literary genre it was written in) and some even believe in the process of evolution (guided by God of course). They at least believe that the purpose of Genesis was not to be a science textbook (such as the Flood account being more localized to the "known" world of the writer, not the literally the entire globe). So that really wouldn't necessitate incest.

I was just surprised to hear that you seem to be leaning toward the fundamentalist view as a justification.

[Aufan59 83]

So if incest is wrong, how did we get here? If you start with two people, end up with 6 billion, someone had to **** their sister.

Isn't this sort of like saying "if murder is wrong, why do I keep hearing about people shooting each other every night on the news?" People do stupid stuff they shouldn't do. The fact that it occurs doesn't mean it's therefore ok.

It is nothing like that.

In the biblical world view we were created by incest. We weren't created by murder.

So you're a biblical fundamentalist?

I always get confused on which parts of the Bible we ignore when it comes to morality.

So we ignore the part about the world being populated by incest, twice.

But we accept the part that says gays are bad.

So confusing!!

No, I'm just saying, the only way this "world populated by incest" thing is possible is if you hold to a very strict interpretation of Genesis. Yet many, many believers believe Genesis to be at least partly allegorical (somewhat due to the literary genre it was written in) and some even believe in the process of evolution (guided by God of course). They at least believe that the purpose of Genesis was not to be a science textbook (such as the Flood account being more localized to the "known" world of the writer, not the literally the entire globe). So that really wouldn't necessitate incest.

I was just surprised to hear that you seem to be leaning toward the fundamentalist view as a justification.

I told you, knowing which parts of the Bible to take literally confuses the heck out of me. Apparently you can pick whatever you want out of it, and disregard the rest as 'figurative'. I think I'm liking 'Christianity' more and more.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Ha this ought to be good...

[TitanTiger 20,570]

I told you, knowing which parts of the Bible to take literally confuses the heck out of me. Apparently you can pick whatever you want out of it, and disregard the rest as 'figurative'. I think I'm liking 'Christianity' more and more.

Many people who educate themselves on it rather than shoot from the hip share that feeling. While there are differing opinions on some matters, there's much to be learned in paying attention to genre, Hebrew and Ancient Near Middle Eastern history and so on. Hard core fundamentalism where literally everything is considered literal is mostly a reactionary and fairly recent (late 19th/early 20th century) obsession. Even Augustine commented on the allegorical nature of Genesis and that was about 1600 years ago.

I could suggest some books if you'd like to investigate it for yourself.

[Grumps 3,705]

I am for marriage being strictly a religious entity and not a legal entity. If marriage is not a legal term then its definition is irrelevant and anyone can marry anyone or anything.

[quietfan 233]

JMO:

In keeping with the principle of separation of church and state, I've always thought the government (state or federal) should not be in the "marriage as a religious entity" business anyway. Just as any adults of sound mind and legal age can enter into business contracts and partnerships with any other qualified consenting adults, the government should simply recognize domestic contracts/partnerships with the similar legal standing and protections.

If individuals also wish to enter into a religious marriage as a more binding, holy, or loving committment within the beliefs of their particular faith, they can still do so as a private religious covenent.

["Consenting adults" being the key phrase here of course. While some cultures see little wrong with polygamy or perhaps even incest ( ), the reality in most such cases is not consent. Most polygamist cults or incest horrors we read about are essentially cases of rape where overpowering, dominant males inflict their perversions on powerless, non-consenting or brainwashed victims.]

[TitanTiger 20,570]

I'm sure that is most cases, but there are plenty of "modern" arrangements where every party involved is fully aware of what's going on and no one feels taken advantage of and no one is brainwashed. There's even a movement beyond polygamy (one male with multiple females) called polyamory. This is a setup where there are multiple partners all married to one another rather than one person who is married to multiple others (but the others are not married to each other, only to the one "head" male or female). It's a "group marriage" where it could be three lesbians, two men and two women, four men, two men and three women, two men two women and one bisexual partner of either sex...the combinations are endless. Some in that movement eschew the notion of marriage altogether but others want to see the same kind of push for "marriage equality" that is currently happening for gays. And all the exact same reasons are given...unequal protection, hospital/medical issues, tax breaks, being treated as second class citizens by having to live closeted lives and the list goes on. Same goes for grown adults who wish to have their incestual relationships legitimized as legal marriages.

[Grumps 3,705]

I can certainly see how a judge could rule that banning homosexual marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause. I cannot see how the same argument would not apply to polygamists or those who prefer to marry their brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers/children as long as all parties are of legal age.

[au2004ece 30]

I can certainly see how a judge could rule that banning homosexual marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause. I cannot see how the same argument would not apply to polygamists or those who prefer to marry their brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers/children as long as all parties are of legal age.

If the government is not allowed to use the definition of a word in its definition of law, then nothing about the original definition is allowed. Marriage becomes whatever any number of people wants to make it. Marriage no longer exists because it would mean anything and everything.

It seems as though this is what the hardcore leftists want. If you take marriage and then bastardize it, then nobody will care to be apart of marriage. Then, society changes from people being apart of families to being apart of communities where everybody will spread their wealth according to how the government wishes.