Prop. 8 Struck Down as Unconstitutional

[Aufan59 83]

Giving citizens equal protection under the law is not a slippery slope. Equal rights is what America was founded on. I honestly think it is a joke to suggest that giving equal rights is a slippery slope to social decline.

Furthermore, the only reason this is a slippery slope is because the perceived direction society is headed in is bad. To the impartial viewer, this is not a slippery slope, but changing culture and customs. In my opinion, the decline of marriage is the cause, and apathy towards gay marriage is the effect. People care less and less about marriage, and as a result they don't care if gays get married.

Finally, this entire argument over the definition of marriage (and apparently family) is a result of social engineering through the tax code. If one group has the right to define various societal structures through legal recognition and the tax code, then why doesn't another group? If they have the votes, they can do what they wish.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So I have another "slippery slope" question...

Assuming gay marriage becomes legal, how long until gay couples sue churches for refusing to marry them?

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Well given that we've already had a gay couple sue a Methodist church in New Jersey for not letting them use their pavilion and a private wedding photographer in New Mexico was sued for refusing to do wedding photos for a gay couple there because it went against her beliefs, I'd say almost immediately. That's the unspoken consequence of this whole shebang too. It's not just a "civil rights" issue. It will also be a religious freedom and freedom of speech issue.

[au2004ece 30]

Why wouldn't a future case be decided on equal protection of religions? (Some religions believe polygamy is best). Why does a political force matter? If the current definition is unconstitutional, then why is any definition constitutional regardless of a political force that will challenge a new made-up definition?

The voters said "no" to same-sex marriage in one of the most liberal states in the USA. Why, if that doesn't matter, would it matter for voters to vote against polygamy?

Why isn't it a joke to think that the definition of the word marriage should be changed for people whose own choices put them outside of the definition?

Banning polygamy doesn't discriminate against any gender or race, thus it is constitutional. Banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, because it discriminated against gender. Do you recognize the difference, and why the slippery slope is off base?

Gender isn't the only thing you can't discriminate against. You can't discriminate on race, religion, or age either. Some religions believe in polygamy. Some racial cultures use polygamy. So, there is no difference to recognize.

I'm not arguing a slippery slope. I'm saying it is a cliff. If "one man, one woman" is unconstitutional, then all limits are unconstitutional.

Age discrimination is legal. Various religious practices are illegal, despite freedom of religion. For example human sacrifice, and polygamy of course.

I find it hard to believe that for all this time liberals have tried to destroy and redefine freedom of religion, now they are planning on using it to make polygamy legal, as a bigger piece of the 'social manipulation' puzzle.

Who told you age discrimination is legal? There may be certain types of age discrimination that are legal. All it would take is a judge to decide that they are not legal.

You say that it isn't a slippery slope to give people equal rights. Well, duh.

The argument is whether or not they have equal rights now. I think they do because nobody is denied the ability to marry.

If you re-define equal rights as being able to change the definition of words that don't suit the lifestyle you have freely chosen, then comes the slippery slope or cliff as I would describe it.

[SouthLink02 8]

I think they do because nobody is denied the ability to marry.

Wait, what?

[au2004ece 30]

I think they do because nobody is denied the ability to marry.

Wait, what?

Anybody can get married.

Nobody can get "married" to a person of the same sex. (That's not marriage anyway)

So, there is no discrimination.

[Tiger Al 0]

The argument is whether or not they have equal rights now. I think they do because nobody is denied the ability to marry.

If you re-define equal rights as being able to change the definition of words that don't suit the lifestyle you have freely chosen, then comes the slippery slope or cliff as I would describe it.

A Hobson's Choice is not the same as having equal rights.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Then, hypothetically, why can't I marry my sister? (I don't have one, just using it as an example) I promise to get a vasectomy. Or why do I have to be legally constricted to one wife at a time? If two or three different women all mutually agree to be married to me, why prevent us from doing so? Is it a Hobson's Choice that I'm not being discriminated against since I can marry, just not in the fashion I wish to? I mean, we're not part of a cult and I'm not forcing them to do this. It's just one more expression of marriage and family among the others.

[CCTAU 3,361]

Then, hypothetically, why can't I marry my sister? (I don't have one, just using it as an example) I promise to get a vasectomy. Or why do I have to be legally constricted to one wife at a time? If two or three different women all mutually agree to be married to me, why prevent us from doing so? Is it a Hobson's Choice that I'm not being discriminated against since I can marry, just not in the fashion I wish to? I mean, we're not part of a cult and I'm not forcing them to do this. It's just one more expression of marriage and family among the others.

The homosexual agenda is gaining speed. The sad part is that all of these open minded people that have no kids and are still in the "love is God" stage of their life will wake up one day and ask the question, "What the hell was I thinking?" But by then, they will have to live with the consequences. For many, that question has already been asked in correlation to the last presidential election. We are living in sad days.

[SouthLink02 8]

The sad part is that all of these open minded people that have no kids and are still in the "love is God" stage of their life will wake up one day and ask the question, "What the hell was I thinking?"

What about those with kids who still support it and have for some time?

Or do those people not exist?

[Tiger Al 0]

Then, hypothetically, why can't I marry my sister? (I don't have one, just using it as an example) I promise to get a vasectomy. Or why do I have to be legally constricted to one wife at a time? If two or three different women all mutually agree to be married to me, why prevent us from doing so? Is it a Hobson's Choice that I'm not being discriminated against since I can marry, just not in the fashion I wish to? I mean, we're not part of a cult and I'm not forcing them to do this. It's just one more expression of marriage and family among the others.

Hypothetically, I personally don't care if you want to do any of the above as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's your life. Of course, if you get the vasectomy then you're acting on one of the reasons the right claims as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other; procreation. But, again, it's your life and I don't think you should be discriminated against by the government deciding whether you're 'married' or not. You should be legally unionized and let your church, pastor, conscience or god decide if you're 'married.' Whether I or anyone else agrees with you should be wholly irrelevant.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Then, hypothetically, why can't I marry my sister? (I don't have one, just using it as an example) I promise to get a vasectomy. Or why do I have to be legally constricted to one wife at a time? If two or three different women all mutually agree to be married to me, why prevent us from doing so? Is it a Hobson's Choice that I'm not being discriminated against since I can marry, just not in the fashion I wish to? I mean, we're not part of a cult and I'm not forcing them to do this. It's just one more expression of marriage and family among the others.

Hypothetically, I personally don't care if you want to do any of the above as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's your life.

I know you don't care, but apparently the gov't and other people do. But if they also support SSM, I fail to see why the line gets arbitrarily drawn there and doesn't include these other marriage options. And I'm repeatedly assured that it wouldn't.

Of course, if you get the vasectomy then you're acting on one of the reasons the right claims as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other; procreation.

I only offered that because one of the chief objections to incestual relationships is that the children born in such pairing have a very high incidence of birth defects. Promising not to have children naturally (they could always adopt or use a non-familial sperm donor) would address that concern.

But, again, it's your life and I don't think you should be discriminated against by the government deciding whether you're 'married' or not. You should be legally unionized and let your church, pastor, conscience or god decide if you're 'married.' Whether I or anyone else agrees with you should be wholly irrelevant.

Then is there any line whatsoever that you believe the government has any interest in setting?

[Tiger Al 0]

Then, hypothetically, why can't I marry my sister? (I don't have one, just using it as an example) I promise to get a vasectomy. Or why do I have to be legally constricted to one wife at a time? If two or three different women all mutually agree to be married to me, why prevent us from doing so? Is it a Hobson's Choice that I'm not being discriminated against since I can marry, just not in the fashion I wish to? I mean, we're not part of a cult and I'm not forcing them to do this. It's just one more expression of marriage and family among the others.

Hypothetically, I personally don't care if you want to do any of the above as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. It's your life.

I know you don't care, but apparently the gov't and other people do. But if they also support SSM, I fail to see why the line gets arbitrarily drawn there and doesn't include these other marriage options. And I'm repeatedly assured that it wouldn't.

Several countries have legalized SSM. Is bigamy, polygamy, incest or Rick Santorum's ultimately scary 'man-on-dog' scenario an issue in those countries?

Of course, if you get the vasectomy then you're acting on one of the reasons the right claims as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other; procreation.

I only offered that because one of the chief objections to incestual relationships is that the children born in such pairing have a very high incidence of birth defects. Promising not to have children naturally (they could always adopt or use a non-familial sperm donor) would address that concern.

OK.

But, again, it's your life and I don't think you should be discriminated against by the government deciding whether you're 'married' or not. You should be legally unionized and let your church, pastor, conscience or god decide if you're 'married.' Whether I or anyone else agrees with you should be wholly irrelevant.

Then is there any line whatsoever that you believe the government has any interest in setting?

I've answered this question in this thread already as well as the umpteen other threads on this subject since I've been a member here. I've yet to be shown a compelling reason to change my mind.

[TitanTiger 20,570]

Several countries have legalized SSM. Is bigamy, polygamy, incest or Rick Santorum's ultimately scary 'man-on-dog' scenario an issue in those countries?

I'd say it's a little early for that to have wound it's way through the courts. I didn't mean to imply that if SSM were legalized today, that polygamy or polyamory would be legalized tomorrow.

But to answer your question, Saskatchewan, Canada has legalized polygamy. The UK and Australia both give legal recognition to polygamous marriages performed abroad. In Russia, legislation currently under consideration to make polygamy legal.

I've answered this question in this thread already as well as the umpteen other threads on this subject since I've been a member here. I've yet to be shown a compelling reason to change my mind.

Could you restate it so I don't have to weed through reams of old threads?

[Aufan59 83]

Who told you age discrimination is legal? There may be certain types of age discrimination that are legal. All it would take is a judge to decide that they are not legal.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that there are legal age limits on things like getting a drivers license, buying tobacco, getting a job, etc.

You say that it isn't a slippery slope to give people equal rights. Well, duh.

The argument is whether or not they have equal rights now. I think they do because nobody is denied the ability to marry.

If you re-define equal rights as being able to change the definition of words that don't suit the lifestyle you have freely chosen, then comes the slippery slope or cliff as I would describe it.

Obviously you've already made your mind up about homosexuality. Who knows, maybe the science will catch up with you? But all the evidence suggests that it is much more complicated than just a choice.

[Tiger Al 0]

Several countries have legalized SSM. Is bigamy, polygamy, incest or Rick Santorum's ultimately scary 'man-on-dog' scenario an issue in those countries?

I'd say it's a little early for that to have wound it's way through the courts. I didn't mean to imply that if SSM were legalized today, that polygamy or polyamory would be legalized tomorrow.

But to answer your question, Saskatchewan, Canada has legalized polygamy. The UK and Australia both give legal recognition to polygamous marriages performed abroad. In Russia, legislation currently under consideration to make polygamy legal.

I don't think Saskatchewan Family law s.51 makes polygamy legal, per se, but rather addresses property rights of second spouses. The rest of Canada does not give second spouses any property rights regardless of whether they knew their husband/wife was already married or not. Maybe I misinterpreted the law. Nevertheless, that law pre-dates Canada's SSM laws. UK and Australia recognize polygamous marriages for welfare purposes only. Lastly, the legislation in Russia has been being considered since the early 1980's. It seems the slippery slope has been avoided.

I've answered this question in this thread already as well as the umpteen other threads on this subject since I've been a member here. I've yet to be shown a compelling reason to change my mind.

Could you restate it so I don't have to weed through reams of old threads?

You only have to read up to my last few posts in this thread.

[autiger4life 3]

After reading the 10 pages I've decided to jump in for two reasons. The first is that Titan is involved and seems to be one of the only people I can disagree with and remain civil. Secondly, I think I have something slightly new to add.

I am glad that this was decided by the courts. However, I also agree with Titan that it could lead to other forms of marriage. I personally don't really have a problem with polygamy, but I do think it is a fair question to ask when does it stop. I think most Christians agree that marriage was originally a religious institution that was adopted by the governments of countries. I would personally like to make marriage a religious institution only. I want the government out of the business of marrying people. If someone wants to get married, find a pastor willing to do it. If they wish to enter into a union, find a courthouse.

My next point is about the federal courts overruling a majority of Californians. This is set up so as to ensure that a majority of people cannot vote to take away the constitutional rights of the minority. While some don't like this facet of America, it was set up to ensure the protection of the little guy, at least in my cases.

Finally I would like to speak to the matter of same sex couples raising children. While I do think, that on a logic level, it is probably best for a mother and father to raise a child, I could never outlaw two homosexuals from raising a kid because it isn't as good as a mother and father(if that is the case). We allow single moms to raise children, we allow single dads to raise children, we allow children to raise children, we allow Britney Spears to raise children etc. There are literally thousands of people who are allowed to raise children who could not raise a child as well as a homosexual couple. So until the above problems are fixed, I would never try to stop two homosexuals from raising a child. Obviously those "problems" won't be fixed. We will always have single parents, many of which do a great job or the best they can. But I don't think the argument is fair to say two homosexuals can't raise a child because they might not be as good as a mom and dad.

[au2004ece 30]

After reading the 10 pages I've decided to jump in for two reasons. The first is that Titan is involved and seems to be one of the only people I can disagree with and remain civil. Secondly, I think I have something slightly new to add.

I am so offended.

I am glad that this was decided by the courts. However, I also agree with Titan that it could lead to other forms of marriage. I personally don't really have a problem with polygamy, but I do think it is a fair question to ask when does it stop. I think most Christians agree that marriage was originally a religious institution that was adopted by the governments of countries. I would personally like to make marriage a religious institution only. I want the government out of the business of marrying people. If someone wants to get married, find a pastor willing to do it. If they wish to enter into a union, find a courthouse.

I'm not sure that marriage originated within religion. Marriage definitely existed before the time of Christ, so marriage is obviously not only a Christian institution. Marriage (defined as a man and a woman) has been so universal throughout history that it is difficult to say that it is an entirely religious concept.

I can find some common ground with you on wanting government out of the business of marrying people, but It weird that you want the government involved in "unions". That's weird because union would mean the same thing that marriage means now (except it may allow for a different interpretation for who can be involved and how many). Why would you want the government involved in the new form of legal marriage?

My next point is about the federal courts overruling a majority of Californians. This is set up so as to ensure that a majority of people cannot vote to take away the constitutional rights of the minority. While some don't like this facet of America, it was set up to ensure the protection of the little guy, at least in my cases.

I just don't see that anybody's rights are being violated. Nobody has the right to change the definition of words to suit their lifestyle. And at the same time, anybody can currently participate in marriage. So, the voters are allowed to determined what marriage means as long is nobody is kept from participating in the definition decided.

Finally I would like to speak to the matter of same sex couples raising children. While I do think, that on a logic level, it is probably best for a mother and father to raise a child, I could never outlaw two homosexuals from raising a kid because it isn't as good as a mother and father(if that is the case). We allow single moms to raise children, we allow single dads to raise children, we allow children to raise children, we allow Britney Spears to raise children etc. There are literally thousands of people who are allowed to raise children who could not raise a child as well as a homosexual couple. So until the above problems are fixed, I would never try to stop two homosexuals from raising a child. Obviously those "problems" won't be fixed. We will always have single parents, many of which do a great job or the best they can. But I don't think the argument is fair to say two homosexuals can't raise a child because they might not be as good as a mom and dad.

Do we allow single moms to adopt children they are not related to? Do we allow single dads to adopt children they are not related to? Do we allow children to adopt other children they are not related to? Do we allow Britney Spears to adopt children that she is not related to?

Perhaps the answer to those questions is yes. I thought the adoption process had strict requirements.

If we do allow those types of adoptions then there should be some sort of priority where all the couples that want to adopt are allowed first, then single moms, then single fathers, then gays if there are still plenty of kids left with a need.

[autiger4life 3]

After reading the 10 pages I've decided to jump in for two reasons. The first is that Titan is involved and seems to be one of the only people I can disagree with and remain civil. Secondly, I think I have something slightly new to add.

I am so offended.

I am glad that this was decided by the courts. However, I also agree with Titan that it could lead to other forms of marriage. I personally don't really have a problem with polygamy, but I do think it is a fair question to ask when does it stop. I think most Christians agree that marriage was originally a religious institution that was adopted by the governments of countries. I would personally like to make marriage a religious institution only. I want the government out of the business of marrying people. If someone wants to get married, find a pastor willing to do it. If they wish to enter into a union, find a courthouse.

I'm not sure that marriage originated within religion. Marriage definitely existed before the time of Christ, so marriage is obviously not only a Christian institution. Marriage (defined as a man and a woman) has been so universal throughout history that it is difficult to say that it is an entirely religious concept.

I can find some common ground with you on wanting government out of the business of marrying people, but It weird that you want the government involved in "unions". That's weird because union would mean the same thing that marriage means now (except it may allow for a different interpretation for who can be involved and how many). Why would you want the government involved in the new form of legal marriage?

My next point is about the federal courts overruling a majority of Californians. This is set up so as to ensure that a majority of people cannot vote to take away the constitutional rights of the minority. While some don't like this facet of America, it was set up to ensure the protection of the little guy, at least in my cases.

I just don't see that anybody's rights are being violated. Nobody has the right to change the definition of words to suit their lifestyle. And at the same time, anybody can currently participate in marriage. So, the voters are allowed to determined what marriage means as long is nobody is kept from participating in the definition decided.

Finally I would like to speak to the matter of same sex couples raising children. While I do think, that on a logic level, it is probably best for a mother and father to raise a child, I could never outlaw two homosexuals from raising a kid because it isn't as good as a mother and father(if that is the case). We allow single moms to raise children, we allow single dads to raise children, we allow children to raise children, we allow Britney Spears to raise children etc. There are literally thousands of people who are allowed to raise children who could not raise a child as well as a homosexual couple. So until the above problems are fixed, I would never try to stop two homosexuals from raising a child. Obviously those "problems" won't be fixed. We will always have single parents, many of which do a great job or the best they can. But I don't think the argument is fair to say two homosexuals can't raise a child because they might not be as good as a mom and dad.

Do we allow single moms to adopt children they are not related to? Do we allow single dads to adopt children they are not related to? Do we allow children to adopt other children they are not related to? Do we allow Britney Spears to adopt children that she is not related to?

Perhaps the answer to those questions is yes. I thought the adoption process had strict requirements.

If we do allow those types of adoptions then there should be some sort of priority where all the couples that want to adopt are allowed first, then single moms, then single fathers, then gays if there are still plenty of kids left with a need.

To say it is not discriminatory is akin to saying that a black man and white woman can't marry each other, but it isn't discriminatory since they can both participate in marriage, just not with eachother. Participation is not the problem, it is government deciding who you can marry.

While I agree that marriage was around before Christ, so was religon. In fact, the Old Testament is before Christ. Now I don't know if our modern concept of marriage is from judeo-christianity, but I know it wasn't from the athenians either, because they were fine with homosexuality. Pediastic relationships were encouraged for young men. It seems to me that it is largely based on Christianity and without the presence of someone being Christian, there usually isn't much argument against gay marriage. I assume this is part of the reason we haven't seen much of Raptor in this thread.

You are right about adoption from what I know. However, private adoptions allow anyone to have the child. Would you be okay with a gay couple being able to find someone to either carry the baby(for gay men) or to get pregnant by artificial insemenation( for gay women). That is certainly allowed for these groups.

[au2004ece 30]

To say it is not discriminatory is akin to saying that a black man and white woman can't marry each other, but it isn't discriminatory since they can both participate in marriage, just not with eachother. Participation is not the problem, it is government deciding who you can marry.

Marriage has never meant both people had to be the same race, though. People added that because that's what they wanted. They changed the definition to suit there beliefs and lifestyle. That's the same thing that the same-sex marriage proponents are trying to do.

While I agree that marriage was around before Christ, so was religon. In fact, the Old Testament is before Christ. Now I don't know if our modern concept of marriage is from judeo-christianity, but I know it wasn't from the athenians either, because they were fine with homosexuality. Pediastic relationships were encouraged for young men. It seems to me that it is largely based on Christianity and without the presence of someone being Christian, there usually isn't much argument against gay marriage. I assume this is part of the reason we haven't seen much of Raptor in this thread.

I guess my point was that since all religions have marriage and even many pagen cultures had marriage, that marriage is not defined by a specific religion but has instead been defined by the entirity of human history.

You are right about adoption from what I know. However, private adoptions allow anyone to have the child. Would you be okay with a gay couple being able to find someone to either carry the baby(for gay men) or to get pregnant by artificial insemenation( for gay women). That is certainly allowed for these groups.

The whole question of a gay couple finding somebody else to carry the baby is just silly. The person is either gay or not. Why do they want to have it both ways? Only heterosexual relationships can produce children. If a person is gay, then they should accept that fact.