Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.
Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.
Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.
Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?
Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?
I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"
Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.
Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion,
sex, or creed.
If a state allows:
Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.
The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.
(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)
Polygamy on the other hand is a
strawman.
Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.
On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.