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.
HIGHLY insulting and, again, NOT what this thread is about. Start your own damn thread if you want to go there.
No reason to be insulted. Thats my opinion and view and it wont ever change. Wasnt trying to insult anyone.
And really, I wasnt trying to hijack your thread, just thought I would add part of my personal view on homosexuals along with a pet peeve on the whole acting thing. Thats all.
Im sure the thread will be completely back on strictly gay marriage in no time.
Yes, thank you. I am aware of the difference between the history of the Mormons and the present definition of marriage. Are you?
Yes I am.
However, saying that gays and Mormons have something in common, because the Mormons once practiced polygamy is like saying that Christians and Muslims should understand one another, because they both worship the God of Abraham.
#1. you can slice and dice up the "interracial thing" as many ways as you want, it's still male with female.
#2. there were interracial marriages in this nation in the 1700's that's a fact it's documented.
#3. homosexuals have never been accepted in any society and with this marriage thing around different states in the USA they are still not accepted by mainstream society, no matter how they try to take the paraphilia aspect away from their lifestyle it's still abnormal.
1. The interracial marriage court case and subsequent decision were based on individual rights, just as this case for same sex marriage was about individual rights.
2. If there is such documentation, please produce it, otherwise you're talking out your hat.
3. With this one you show your ignorance of history. And just what is 'wrong' with being abnormal, especially the way you seem to define normal? I am physically abnormal myself, though I'm not shunned by society.
There are other interesting things going on with the appeals process itself in this case. Because the defendants (the state, most notably the governor and attorney general) support overturning Prop 8, the defendant-interveners (the original Prop 8 proponents) may not be able to appeal. To do so, they have to prove standing, which they did in the original case at the district level. They were able to prove that they had a protected interest in the original case, which granted them standing. However, that standing does not automatically carry over through the appeals. As a result, if the Ninth Circuit finds that the defendant interveners do not have standing, they cannot appeal the case and the decision would stand in California and end there.
It should be noted I am simply repeating analysis of this case that I have read elsewhere. I have no legal background and if anyone can explain this better, please do.
You explained it very well and what you said is pretty much what I read in the decision to lift the stay.
That is interesting. So if same sex marriage is allowed then the Morman's have some ground to push for their form of marriage as well.
Can't discriminate against one form over another, can we ?
Tangentially, perhaps, though the rational basis review would have to be applied all over again, this time examining polygamous marriages and attempting to weigh the state's interest in prohibiting them against the appellants' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted as allowing no discrimination. This is not so. The government can indeed discriminate. But the argument for that discrimination must pass, at a minimum, rational basis and in some cases scrutiny or strict scrutiny. Judge Walker did not hold that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage must pass scrutiny or strict scrutiny (both are more stringent and difficult for the government to pass than rational basis) but he did hold that they must pass rational basis and that they failed. A ban on polygamous marriages would have to pass the same test of rational basis at a minimum in order for a court to uphold such a ban.
Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was largely built upon Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), neither of which would be particularly useful precedents in a presentation arguing for legalization of polygamous marriages.
Such a case would be more likely to be firmly rooted in Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the major cases which established a fundamental right to marriage. It would also be rooted in the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause. It would have some similarities to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but I don't think that case would be of particular value as precedent.
Personally, I have no problem with legal recognition of polygamous marriages. But then, I'm not a big-government control freak who wants to micromanage human relationships and/or consensual sexual behavior between adults.
Tangentially, perhaps, though the rational basis review would have to be applied all over again, this time examining polygamous marriages and attempting to weigh the state's interest in prohibiting them against the appellants' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is interpreted as allowing no discrimination. This is not so. The government can indeed discriminate. But the argument for that discrimination must pass, at a minimum, rational basis and in some cases scrutiny or strict scrutiny. Judge Walker did not hold that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage must pass scrutiny or strict scrutiny (both are more stringent and difficult for the government to pass than rational basis) but he did hold that they must pass rational basis and that they failed. A ban on polygamous marriages would have to pass the same test of rational basis at a minimum in order for a court to uphold such a ban.
Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was largely built upon Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), neither of which would be particularly useful precedents in a presentation arguing for legalization of polygamous marriages.
Such a case would be more likely to be firmly rooted in Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the major cases which established a fundamental right to marriage. It would also be rooted in the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause. It would have some similarities to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but I don't think that case would be of particular value as precedent.
Personally, I have no problem with legal recognition of polygamous marriages. But then, I'm not a big-government control freak who wants to micromanage human relationships and/or consensual sexual behavior between adults.
Me neither. I did find it interesting that those posters in favor of this were quick to jump on the Mormans and multiple wives when that was brought up. If you are not going to discriminate types of marriages, then it must be done across the board so as not to discriminate. What is good for one group must be good for all groups. If you want equality then it must be applied equally.
Funny how so many people, usually opposed to marriage equality, think that those who support it must be gay...
I am a liberal who was raised not to hate others. It's ignorant that people that are oppossed to it think everyone in support is a raging homosexual. I am also athiest so I hate religion therefore I have no reason to believe anything the bible says.
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.
