California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Zyphlin said:

In regards to members of the same family, it’s a reasonable argument to make that the state has legitimate and reasoned state interest to deny such marriages due to the fact that procreation between those two individuals has a higher chance for genetic deformity which could place a drain on society as a whole in having to help support that individual. However, I actually have no issues with two siblings or two cousins getting married in a governmental sense…though I think the term “marriage” should be removed as a whole. There’s no reasons in situations where a pair of siblings are going to be together for a substantial amount of time that benefits with regards to power of attorney type issues, taxes, real estate purchase, and other type things should be denied to them. Do I think they should be screwing each other? Nope, and I agree completely with incest laws regarding sex…but simply as governmental marriage, I have little issue with it. Your example in Washington with the older people is exactly what I am describing.

Polygamy issues don’t factor into what I said at all. Polygamy is discrimination based on numbers which one, is allowable, and two, even if it was covered by equal protection its covered at a far lower standard than gender is.

But navy, rather than simply asking questions and deflecting, why don’t you answer mine.

Where is the equal protection based on gender in the fact you can marry a woman but a woman can’t marry a woman?

Click to expand...

They don't factor in because they don't meet your agenda.......Like I said earlier which you are ignoring is in the state of Washington we have domestic partnerships for Gays and it all includes elderly member of the same family who want a domestic partnership for the benefits provided............

There is no sex involved....What part of that do you not understand?

I don't have a problem with woman on woman if you allow all the other grpups the samr right................

Goobieman said:

I see. I guess you then just toss this out the window:

"Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"
- Justice Breyer, McDonald v. chicago

Click to expand...

who are you to tell a man he can't marry a man?

and who are you to tell a bisexual he can't marry 2?

he or she has needs, too, y'know

ptif219 said:

If that is what you believe why no do your own contract and avoid the government taxes and interference?

Click to expand...

Because the marriage license is conected to hundreds of privleges between the two who forge the contract. Were you not paying attention?

ptif219 said:

It is you made it about sex I never mentioned sex

Click to expand...

Do tell how immorality comes into play then, and what exactly you were inferring with your word choice then, what immorality would there be other than sexual immorality in this scenario?

Seems like a pathetic attempt to weasel out of what you stated to me

UtahBill said:

I may be a bit biased about polygamy, being an old man of 64, but I think that having more than one spouse at the same time is crazy stupid. The logistics of it has to be difficult at best.
If I was 24, I might have a different opinion....

Click to expand...

as your left wing friends tell me when it comes to gay marriage, whether someone wants 2,3 or 4 wives is really none of your business.......

texmaster said:

Not true Redress. You want to throw out all laws banning homosexual marriage in favor of allowing it so why can't other alternative lifestyles throw out the laws you enjoy for the sake of your argument?

Click to expand...

They can certainly sue for those rights, just as gays can. However, to say that being gay is the same thing as being incestuous, or a polygamist, or wanting to marry minors, is patently false. They are key differences in each case. This is about gays and marriage.

texmaster said:

Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.

You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage. When a child and an adult come to you and say they want to get married and you can't deny them their "right" they are using the same argument as you are ie their "right" to marray. You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle. Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment. You want gay marriage? Fight for an ammendment don't try to get activist judges to bastardize the Constitution into pretending they were ever addressing homosexual marriage when it is painfully clear they never did.

Click to expand...

First, your comments had exactly nothing to do with what you quoted. I have no clue where you are coming from on that.

Second, again, you have yet to show any evidence at all that this was an activist judge.

Third, again, gay marriage is the issue, not those other things which are, clearly, different than gay marriage.

BDBoop said:

Polygamy vs monagamy also is not the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

Why not......you gays bring up Blacks all the time...............They are not the subject of this thread either..........

don't talk about the NEEDS of bi's

my argumentative structure can't handle it right now

THIS is about CALIFORNIA

you must talk about THAT

this is about GAYS getting MARRIED

to ONE!!!

only to ONE!!!

anything else is OFF TOPIC!

LOL!

The Prof said:

ask barry's doj



Why Does Obama Keep Flip-Flopping on Gay Marriage? - TIME

Click to expand...

Nobody named "Barry" has a DoJ.

It is hilarious watching you keep trying to make this about Obama, and continuously fail.

Navy Pride said:

They don't factor in because they don't meet your agenda.......Like I said earlier which you are ignoring is in the state of Washington we have domestic partnerships for Gays and it all includes elderly member of the same family who want a domestic partnership for the benefits provided............

There is no sex involved....What part of that do you not understand?

I don't have a problem with woman on woman if you allow all the other grpups the samr right................

Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that navy. You can't go "They don't factor in because they don't meet my agenda" when I SPECIFICALLY state WHY they don't factor in. If you want to counter me, actually counter me. Tell me why my reasoning is wrong. Show me where my reasoning is hypocritical. Give me some form of evidence.

Simply saying "You just are saying that cause it doesn't meet your agenda" is nothing but an opinion, an opinion based off seemingly zero fact. That's not an argument, that's not a counter, that's just pure unadulterated ignorance.

And more power to Washington, its good that they've done something for them. Personally I don't have a huge issue with Civil Unions but I can also understand how they're seperate but equal and thus unconstitutional.

However saying "if you allow woman on woman you must allow EVERY combination" is as ridiculous as saying "IF you allow man on woman you must allow EVERY combination". If I just said "You MUSt allow women on women" and ended it there, giving no further argument, nothing specific to my argument...sure, maybe you'd have a point.

But I didn't, I've stated specifically WHY...and unless you can show me where the reasonings I SPECIFICALLY gave to justify same sex groupings ALSO apply to minors, or multiple people, or animals, or anyone else, then you're not countering anything.

Indeed, you and a fellow poster actually got me to admit, that I'd probably not have a great problem with relations being allowed to "marry" despite finding it incredibly offputting. Though if the genetic issues are present as I thought they were, I am fully in favor of laws prohibiting sexual intercourse between two such people.

Redress said:

Nobody named "Barry" has a DoJ.

It is hilarious watching you keep trying to make this about Obama, and continuously fail.

Click to expand...

but barry says gay marriage is just like incest and pedophilia

i guess barry fails too

LOL!

The Prof said:

who are you to tell a man he can't marry a man?

and who are you to tell a bisexual he can't marry 2?

he or she has needs, too, y'know

Click to expand...

Hi, I'm the constitution, nice to meet you.

My Equal Protection Clause protects gender as a protected group that requires a mid level range of necessity by the government to discriminate against them.

My equal protection clause does not apply to "numbers of people" as a protected group.

The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?


Tim-

ptif219 said:

Prop 8 is a state issue. This the federal government is abusing power and not letting States have their rights. What about the states rights to govern its people. Marriage is not a federal issue

Click to expand...

It just goes to show that the peoples vote means nothing in California.........

Navy Pride said:

Why not......you gays bring up Blacks all the time...............They are not the subject of this thread either..........

Click to expand...

However they are DIRECTLY related to the main argument against gay marriage, the equal protection clause, and its inception as well as being heavily involved in the constitutional law that makes up the EPC. This means blacks, and more preceisely the civil rights movement, is DIRECTLY related to this because its based off their struggles that the law being used to argue for gay marriage is came into being.

Polygamists are related to this in absolutely zero ways, other than anti-gay marriage people shoving it in to try and equate the two things as being similar without ever providing any actual factual evidence to show HOW they're similar in ways that are on par with the arguments for gay marriage.

Zyphlin said:

Hi, I'm the constitution, nice to meet you.

My Equal Protection Clause protects gender as a protected group that requires a mid level range of necessity by the government to discriminate against them.

My equal protection clause does not apply to "numbers of people" as a protected group.

Click to expand...

but bi bobby is only one boy

The Prof said:

but barry says gay marriage is just like incest and pedophilia

i guess barry fails too

LOL!

Click to expand...

Barry is too cool to fail.

Goobieman said:

Really?
I saw that he had his own same-sex marriage waiting for him.
Why didnt he recuse himself?

Click to expand...

Really, where did you see this?

And yes, he is a conservative judge, appointed by Reagan and Bush and whose appointment was opposed by liberals.

Hint: gays can be conservative, we even have a couple who fit that bill who post here.

Frankly, I could care on that front as well, as long as children were precluded (just as it stands now) and they were willing to swear under oath (said children) that they were under no duress, and this is really what they want.

Maybe a guardian ad litem.

For everybody else, see first four words on this post.

Let's return to the topic-at-hand, shall we?

Hicup said:

The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?


Tim-

Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:

It just goes to show that the peoples vote means nothing in California.........

Click to expand...

Not when the vote violates the rights of others. It amazes me that some people have a problem with that check. I mean, how many of these same people cheered the SCOTUS decision against Chicago's handgun ban?

Hicup said:

The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?

Tim-

Click to expand...

That's funny, cause I see a bunch of "conservatives" shying away from this particular conservative whose also rejecting the polygamist arguments and has given specific reasons for it while not a single, solitary conservative has shown how any of my arguments for same sex marriage can be equally applied to polygamy.

How about instead of calling people out, you step up.

Ikari said:

Drunk driving.

Click to expand...

Can't...stop...laughing....

The Prof said:

but bi bobby is only one boy

Click to expand...

Then I guess Bi Bobby's pool of potential people he can feel attracted to and wishes to marry due to love (not that he has to, but assuming the norm) is larger.

Congratulations Bi Bobby.

You still only get one, because "number of people" isn't a protected grouping under EPC and furthermore a far stronger case for government interest can be made with polygamy than with same sex marriages.