Prop 8 overturned (Montclair: estate, buildings, lesbians)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

It's called intolerance because it *is* intolerance.

No, its not.

Suddenly keeping marriage way its always been is 'intolerant'.

LOL...No, I don't think so.

And I thought it was only republicans that believed in revisionist history..guess not.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Excellent post!

I was thinking about this but you beat me to it. Our government does have a say so in marriage. It's why polygamy is illegal.

So basically if we make marriage legal for gays and lesbians then society doesnt have the right to stop any kind of marriage.

Man+Dog
Brother+Sister
Man+Wife+Wife
Woman+Husband+Dog

And so on...

I mean, you can't justify gay marriages without defending the other potential marriages that exist as well.

Why, that would be hypocritical...I mean, if its supposed to be about Love then who are we to stand in the way...right?

Ahem. I thought not.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So basically if we make marriage legal for gays and lesbians then society doesnt have the right to stop any kind of marriage.

Man+Dog
Brother+Sister
Man+Wife+Wife
Woman+Husband+Dog

And so on...

I mean, you can't justify gay marriages without defending the other potential marriages that exist as well.

Why, that would be hypocritical...I mean, if its supposed to be about Love then who are we to stand in the way...right?

Ahem. I thought not.

Careful Montclair, I stated that as a philosophical question about a year ago in a P&OC thread, and ended up getting reported by quite a few posters for a "hate" posting.

BTW, I still agree with that position, especially the multiple partnership arrangements.

And before anyone ask, no...it is not a "hate" posting.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So basically if we make marriage legal for gays and lesbians then society doesnt have the right to stop any kind of marriage.

Man+Dog
Brother+Sister
Man+Wife+Wife
Woman+Husband+Dog

And so on...

I mean, you can't justify gay marriages without defending the other potential marriages that exist as well.

Why, that would be hypocritical...I mean, if its supposed to be about Love then who are we to stand in the way...right?

Ahem. I thought not.

So now, we are equating gay people and the marriage of gay people to that of dogs? A man marrying a dog is somehow equivalent to two gays being married?

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

No, its not.

Suddenly keeping marriage way its always been is 'intolerant'.

Yes, it absolutely is. This isn't how marriage has always been--it's been redefined so many times it's difficult to keep track of. Just within the last century, interracial marriages were banned, polygamy was legal, the age consent has been altered, and women and men had different burdens of proof for divorce proceedings. Going back through history, one finds even great "redefinitions" of marriage--stretching back to the ancient Greeks, which historical evidence strongly suggests legally recognized same-sex unions.

So, the argument for the historical sanctity of the institution of marriage carries no water. And even if you allow for the conservatism of the institution of marriage to be a valid point of contention, it's a particularly lousy one. Our nation, like all others, has a grave history of social injustices--the ownership of slaves, the genocide of natives, the disenfranchisement of women--that makes arguments based on historical precedent most untenable. Social precedent is, generally speaking, an awful grounds on which to base a legal argument.

[Highnlite]

Don't argue with 18montclair, he thinks there were compasses around 1400 years before they were invented.
Please don't think I insult you, you can always deny that you believe compasses were around 1400 years before they were invented.

Ol Maggie Srivastav (Gallegher is not actually her last name)

Said her piece, now read this rather more intelligent response

Judge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[i]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy.

Justice Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words?
But for all the lofty language about freedom and morality, nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today. Indeed, the whole point of this legal exercise—the lengthy trial, the spectacularly detailed finding of facts (80 of them! with subheadings!)—was to pit expert against expert, science against science, and fact against prejudice.
It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

So now, we are equating gay people and the marriage of gay people to that of dogs? A man marrying a dog is somehow equivalent to two gays being married?

Oh, so you draw the line at man marrying a dog?

I see.

And what makes where you draw the line better than where I draw the line?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Oh, so you draw the line at man marrying a dog?

I see.

And what makes where you draw the line better than where I draw the line?

Because I didn't equate a group of people to dogs. Basically, lets just treat them like dogs because that's all their worth is what I'm getting out of that.

And for the record Newtoca, that amounts to hatred IMO.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So basically if we make marriage legal for gays and lesbians then society doesnt have the right to stop any kind of marriage.

Man+Dog
Brother+Sister
Man+Wife+Wife
Woman+Husband+Dog

Man + dog? How could a dog possibly give consent to that arrangement? The "marriage to animals" argument is intellectually weak; it's the marriage debate-equivalent of grasping at straws.

As far as intra-relative marriage goes, there are genetic reasons behind such bans, as offspring produced by such arrangements can be born with genetic deficiencies. Since homosexual couples are unable to produce offspring, the analogy doesn't hold.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Oh, so you draw the line at man marrying a dog?

I would draw the line at anyone attempting to marry something which is unable to provide consent to a marriage. Perhaps our views differ on that, however.