Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The man should have recused himself. This will be more gas on a fire that doesn't need it.
Whether or not the man was gay, the defense in the case was rather shoddy. Anyone who actually read the case should easily see that the defense lost it.
If proponents were able to show that these things are not issues, then polygamous marriage would be granted. But the issue of whether they are consenting adults would be irrelevant, as it was in today's ruling.
I referenced consenting adults in response to others who referenced it first. I think it's valid to reference consenting adults anyway to invalidate the "then why can't people marry their dogs?" responses that also exist on and off of this thread.
Ultimately, if this is about human rights, then the number of humans involved will be no more an issue than the sex of the humans involved. We're either interested in all people being treated fairly or we're not.
I don't particularly care if they want their day in court. If they're willing to pay a lawyer, then they can have their day in court.
The jist of this ruling is that homosexual couples are identical to heterosexual couples in having the potential for a successful marital union. The judge came to this conclusion after listening to experts testify. If every credible expert had given evidence to the contrary, then the judge would have ruled differently.
The idea that they are consenting adults is irrelevant. This idea of "consenting adults" was never mentioned by the judge in his ruling.
The judge in any future ruling will base his or her decision on empirically based facts. For example, it's perfectly acceptable for a state to deny a blind man a diver's license. By the blind man's very nature, he is incapable performing that task adequately. Based on the evidence, the state can say he will be an inferior driver.
In this case, there was no reliable evidence to suggest homosexuals would make for inferior marriages.
In the case of polygamous couples, there is evidence to suggest they would make for inferior married couples. The existing property laws that make marriage between two people possible, would open to the door widespread abuse among "polygamous couples"--i.e., a group of people are attempting to shield financial assets. Secondly, it would open a can of worms on the subject of child custody.
If proponents were able to show that these things are not issues, then polygamous marriage would be granted. But the issue of whether they are consenting adults would be irrelevant, as it was in today's ruling.
+1 !
Every now and then, rational, intelligent and refreshing perspectives are featured on City-Data. Thank you!
Way to another idiot judge who destroys the will of the people of California and institutes his own biased opinion. I guess it has nothing to do with the fact he is a sodomite as well. Real legit. If anyone else needs anything more to see that the justice system in this country is extremely flawed and they people running it care nothing for the PEOPLE anymore then I don't know what will. They complain when citizens take the law into our own hands yet its just peachy when they do it. Moderator cut: Advocating violence
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 08-05-2010 at 09:34 AM..
Fine by me. If two consenting adults love each other and want to spend their lives together in the hell called marriage have at it. I am kidding about the marriage hell part but I am happy for those that love one another and have not been able to express that as others have.
Way to another idiot judge who destroys the will of the people of California
Did you say the same when interracial marriage was legalized?
Quote:
and institutes his own biased opinion.
Biased? I guess you didn't pay attention to the court proceedings. If anything, you should be cursing hte defense for defending Prop. 8 rather poorly.
Quote:
I guess it has nothing to do with the fact he is a sodomite as well.
And you try to claim that the Judge is biased?
Quote:
If anyone else needs anything more to see that the justice system in this country is extremely flawed and they people running it care nothing for the PEOPLE anymore then I don't know what will.
Apparently you don't know that the country's been like this since the beginning of time.
How the hell is it freedom when the people (including sodomites) voted last year to not allow it in their state and now some sodomite judge takes it into his own hands and changes the will of the voters. People need to rally and do even more to make sure they have the say so when it comes to this not some homosexual judge with an agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
have at it. I am kidding about the marriage hell part but I am happy for those that love one another and have not been able to express that as others have.
