Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Gahaldu]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

[Daistallia 2104]

Equality for normal people.

OK. Since normalicy is a fallacy, then no equality for anyone then - including you, as I'm sure we can find lots of ways you are abnormal.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

No matter how much it should be. And to Buffet, yes, I would deny CERTAIN abnormal people their rights. Gays specifically. And Now I must be off, dinner awaits!

*places nightshade in your meal.*

*Smack!* Bad Karsol! No cookie. Don't make me send you to bed without your forum for the next few days.

[The Rich Port]

It absolutely is precedent. Homosexual and interracial are still fruits, even though one is apples and the other oranges. Besides, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that we're saying that Loving v. Virginia is relevant because interracial can be substituted with homosexual. That's not what we're saying at all. Instead, Loving v. Virginia indisputably establishes marriage as a right in the US and with that in mind, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

It establishes marriage between man and woman, as they understood it, as a right. Funny how people never noticed till now, isn't it? As I said, legal sleight of hand. If you're taking Loving vs Virginia as establishing marriage between any consenting adult as a right (which there is nothing to indicate it did, only marriage as understood back then), you'd have to allow marriage between multiple partners, and between family members, but of course that's not part of the agenda so it's carfeully ignored.

Homosexuality isn't NEW. The judges, as grown-ass adults, MOST LIKELY knew about it. Still, I think it's more their fault than the people DOING the "legal sleight of hand".

[Karsol]

No matter how much it should be. And to Buffet, yes, I would deny CERTAIN abnormal people their rights. Gays specifically. And Now I must be off, dinner awaits!

*places nightshade in your meal.*

*Smack!* Bad Karsol! No cookie. Don't make me send you to bed without your forum for the next few days.

I be good.
Seriously, I thought people would think I was going on about the batman character.

[Norstal]

So...how many of you live in California anyways?

Personally, I'm glad Prop 8 is gone. That way, homos can pay moar taxes for this bankrupt state.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It absolutely is precedent. Homosexual and interracial are still fruits, even though one is apples and the other oranges. Besides, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that we're saying that Loving v. Virginia is relevant because interracial can be substituted with homosexual. That's not what we're saying at all. Instead, Loving v. Virginia indisputably establishes marriage as a right in the US and with that in mind, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

It establishes marriage between man and woman, as they understood it, as a right. Funny how people never noticed till now, isn't it? As I said, legal sleight of hand. If you're taking Loving vs Virginia as establishing marriage between any consenting adult as a right (which there is nothing to indicate it did, only marriage as understood back then), you'd have to allow marriage between multiple partners, and between family members, but of course that's not part of the agenda so it's carfeully ignored.

Again, you're misunderstanding. Let's take homosexual marriage out of the equation. Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right. Justice Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival[...]." The case was about an anti-miscegenation, so naturally they wrote their Opinion in the context of race. But the fact that it declares marriage as a fundamental right is crystal clear. That being said, then we review Prop 8 and its clear that denying homosexuals the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause.

[Unchecked Expansion]

It absolutely is precedent. Homosexual and interracial are still fruits, even though one is apples and the other oranges. Besides, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're saying that we're saying that Loving v. Virginia is relevant because interracial can be substituted with homosexual. That's not what we're saying at all. Instead, Loving v. Virginia indisputably establishes marriage as a right in the US and with that in mind, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.

It establishes marriage between man and woman, as they understood it, as a right. Funny how people never noticed till now, isn't it? As I said, legal sleight of hand. If you're taking Loving vs Virginia as establishing marriage between any consenting adult as a right (which there is nothing to indicate it did, only marriage as understood back then), you'd have to allow marriage between multiple partners, and between family members, but of course that's not part of the agenda so it's carfeully ignored.

So if marriage as understood them is a right, at what point does it invalidate marriage as understand now as a right? Has marriage changed inherently, or has it simply been interpreted with less prejudice?

[Wamitoria]

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an ebil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

Homosexual marriage = marriage between TWO consenting adults.
Polygamy = marriage between MANY "consenting" adults.
Zoophilia = desire to have sex with a non-human animal.
Pedophilia = desire to have sex with a child.

Do you see what I'm saying? They aren't all the same thing.

Oh, and *fixed.

[Grave_n_idle]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

Personally, I agree that polygamy shouldn't be illegal - but there's no comparison to paedophilia or bestiality, since neither of those can claim informed consent.

[New Amerik]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

If you can get up in front of a legal court, alone, and in some way acknowledge that you fully consent to and wish to marry whichever person..........fine by me. That sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Jusela]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

...

You really do?

[Wiki SciCiv]

Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, people cant vote away the Constitution.

The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".

It was designed with equality in mind.

Equality for normal people.

What is normal people?

[Padullahstan]

.

No really we want to see your opinion on this.

I'm glad it got ruled unconstitutional.

[Wamitoria]

Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, people cant vote away the Constitution.

The constitution wasn't designed with homos in mind. Back then they were secluded from society or frowned upon, and rightfully so. Now if the Constitution said "Let all be married" then I could understand the judges reasoning, but I would still heavily oppose gay marriage. I'm just waiting for an amendment that says "no marriage for homos".

It was designed with equality in mind.

Equality for normal people.

What is normal people?

White, land-owning males.

[Dempublicents1]

Anyway, my solution has always been to dissolve marriage as a legal construct. Just... leave it to the churches, or druids, or just shack up together and call yourselves married.

None of that addresses the legal issues that pop up when people decide to live as married.

10th reserves rights not granted to the feds to the states.

Also incorrect. The 10th doesn't deal with rights at all. It deals with powers. And it reserves those powers not expressly given to the federal government either to the states or to the people.

Excuse my wording, then. I meant the exact same thing, as it could be argued those are a right to those powers.

No, it really couldn't. The Constitution is pretty clear in only ever using the term "rights" in reference to people. Muddying up the wording gets you nowhere.

Maybe that idiot judge will come to his senses and do the right thing by keeping prop-8 as law. The people voted, plain and simple.

The people voted to ban interracial marriage as well. They also voted to arrest people for having consensual sex. They also voted to send black children to crappier schools.

"They voted on it!" is not, in and of itself, adequate justification for a law.

It's an extremely tortured and specious reading that would interpret Loving vs Virginia as somehow inevitably leading to this. It sounds like a joke someone would have made about the law back then. Not slippery slope - more like frictionless plummet.

Actually, the dissent point-blank said that it would probably lead to this.

And, unless one believes it is ok to discriminate against people on the basis of sex or gender, the reasoning in Loving directly applies.

[Gahaldu]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

...

You really do?

Yeah, you said it was consensual. Nothing's wrong with it in my eyes. Why is it wrong in yours?

[Copiosa Scotia]

To answer your question, marriage is recognized as one of many fundamental rights included within "due process." I'm reading the decision now, and this appears to be one of the two grounds for the court's decision today. The second is that, independent of the existence of a constitutional right to marry, differential marriage laws for straight and gay couples violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ok, so the legal basis of "the right to marry" is "Well, we just assumed."?

I'm actually sympathetic to this argument, because I think there are some problems with such a view of the Due Process Clause. But I should point out that it's not as though the judge in this case invented the right to marry for the purpose of this case. Recognition of this right as part of due process is decades old, and the view of due process that led to that recognition is even older.

[Bromin]

I run a dictatorship, and even we let people marry each other if they want, so dose that mean my dictatorship is more American than America?

[Karsol]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I agree. You should have the right to marry 15 women in my opinion.

...

You really do?

The Bible agrees, you should too. (according to the Ewww-ick-gay-bad theory.)

[Knowlandia]

At this rate, they'd legalising polygamy soon.

Why not? Why should someone be punished for being polyamourous?

What about pedophilia then? Why not legalise that too? Why should someone be punished for sleeping with children?

You are the one suggesting it, not us, pedo.

Heck, if we legalise gay marriage, why just not go ahead and legalise polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia (insert your choice of sexual perversion here) then? Equal rights for everyone, let us not discriminate against anyone! Surely that is what most liberal leftists want.

For the last time... Homosexuality =/= Polygamy, animal marriage, pedophilia, etc.

Your argument is invalid.

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to! You must not deny me my equal rights! My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages. If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me! Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights! You're an evil conservative!

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

Personally, I agree that polygamy shouldn't be illegal - but there's no comparison to paedophilia or bestiality, since neither of those can claim informed consent.

Polygamy should be illegal. If something happens to one of the spouses, which spouse will get what, and who will answer for which spouse if 1 of them gets really sick? We are talking about marriage in the legal sense, of course. If your church allows polygamy, then go for it.

[Buffett and Colbert]

No it's not, my argument makes sense. I should be able to marry as many women as i want to!

As long as the women consent to it, you're right.

You must not deny me my equal rights!

Absolutely correct.

My fifteen wives, which i all met in Thailand, they fully consent to the marriages.

Perfect then!

If you deny me my right to marry these fifteen women, then you're discriminating against me!

I would say so.

Not to mention you're denying me my equal rights!

Yuppers.

You're an evil conservative!

Not necessarily. Liberals can just as easily be bigots.

Heck, i could live on child benefits if i get them all pregnant.

I would support strict regulation in that area, if a law were passed legalising polygamy.

[Zephie]

FUCK YEAH! LOGIC AND REASON FTW!

Uhm, they are two sides of a moral-issue coin. Neither side has logic or reason... it's... a moral argument. 'Tis quite laughable that you would pretend your side is any less petty and "feelings-associated" than the other. Frankly anyone who knows me knows that I believe both groups are stupid. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Then the gays could do whatever the fuck they wanted (with all the lovers they wanted) while the anti-gays covered their eyes. Get government the f*ck out of marriage. Now. THAT is the only logical argument. The right and the left are just retarded and I'm sick of hearing them, even worse I'm sick of hearing people like YOU (generally it is the left, not the right although it happens in both sides) claiming that the opposite side does not compare with you when it comes to "logic" or "wisdom". The reason this really makes me burn is because NEITHER of you have it! I feel better now...

I feel better hearing someone actually making sense.

[Greater Americania]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

[Wiki SciCiv]

Polygamy should be illegal. If something happens to one of the spouses, which spouse will get what, and who will answer for which spouse if 1 of them gets really sick? We are talking about marriage in the legal sense, of course. If your church allows polygamy, then go for it.

So it should only be legal in certain communities, or if the church allows it? No other options?