Judge knocks down marriage prop in ca

[woolfe9999]

The judge's opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day all that matters is how Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court will rule, because we already know how the court's four conservatives and four liberal justices will vote.

That's right, and Justice Kennedy has voted with the left wing of the court on every single gay rights issue that has ever come before it.

- wolf

 

[shira]

The thing I find most funny about this issue is that the same "progressives" who applaud this ruling are the ones who favor affirmative action or other discriminatory practices by government.

If you are going to make the equality argument, everyone should be treated equally in the eyes of the government not simply those who you agree with. Its either all or nothing.

What a surprise: Patranus oversimplifies to the point of absurdity.

I say I'm for free speech, but I also support laws against libel and slander. So I must be a liar or a hypocrite or both, right?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Let's see if I can make the same arguments for outlawing inter-religion marriages:

Equal protection to twist tradition into perversion.

Everyone already IS allowed to marry. It's an argument of terms here. Catholic Man and Catholic Woman, Jewish Man and Jewish Woman, etc. anything else simply isn't the traditional term. To twist it will anger a lot of traditional people.

Bad comparison because inter-relgion and inter-racial marriages are more than the norm and have been so for many years.

You need to find something new and cutting edge like gay marriage. It's still controversial what's the norm for marriages. But we're way past inter-racial and inter-religion marriages and have been for hundreds of years.

 

[Ns1]

But we're way past inter-racial and inter-religion marriages and have been for hundreds of years.

hundreds of years, really?

Interracial marriage means marriage between individuals of different races, e.g. between black and white, or Asian and black, etc. A holdover from slavery and racial bigotry in the United States, marriage between whites and blacks was illegal in many states until such laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967.

In November 2000, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law banning interracial marriage. The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed—40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban—apparently many Alabamans still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood

2010 - 1967 < hundreds of years

The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that
&#8220; Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[JEDIYoda]

Can animals, children, and objects consent?

As I stated in another post...only idiots will bring up the subject of animals.
It`s interesting that you cannot see the difference between two adults and or children and animals.

Considering we are talking about adult humans and not animals.

You must be dumber than a rock!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

THat's a load of crap you selectively blind anti-liberty folk pull pretending thta there is a valid a priori argument against polygamy but not against gay marriage. Why exactly did you assume that I brought up polygamy as some sort of rhetorical foil? I am for almost complete liberty for adults to marry whomever they choose. (I think there is a legitimate case against close genetic relatives, but other than that I don't see much in the way of compelling arguments against liberty.) There is nothing but sanctimonious prudishness and ethnocentrism to argue against polygamy. The ironing is piled high, especially among many who claim to be open-minded...

If polygamy is so important an issu8e why do we not see in every city people standing on the street corner bearing signs in favor of polygamy?

Yet we see this a lot when it comes to gay adults rights!

 

[preCRT]

Those of you posting the slippery slope shit [re marriage to children, animals, inanimate objects, etc.], you folks are the reason for the warnings not to plug in hair dryers while showering. You are morons and idiots, incapable of rational thought.

So please do mankind a favor and ignore those warnings on electric appliances. Plug them all in and use while showering and bathing.

 

[nonlnear]

If polygamy is so important an issu8e why do we not see in every city people standing on the street corner bearing signs in favor of polygamy?

Yet we see this a lot when it comes to gay adults rights!

Are you seriously claiming that the standard for "importance" of an issue is the volume of the mob? Of course in the political sense this assertion is a mere truism, but the question of raw political momentum has nothing at all to do with any of the underlying issues. I guess I am assuming you meant this post to actually be a substantial argument of some sort. I still can't figure out what it might be...

Those of you posting the slippery slope shit [re marriage to children, animals, inanimate objects, etc.], you folks are the reason for the warnings not to plug in hair dryers while showering. You are morons and idiots, incapable of rational thought.

So please do mankind a favor and ignore those warnings on electric appliances. Plug them all in and use while showering and bathing.

I don't know if you meant this post to include me, but rest assured I am not a slippery sloper. I mean everything I say about polygamy, but see no slippery slope regarding children, animals, or other non-human entities, etc. I am in favor of an incredibly liberal institution of marriage between consenting adults which encompasses many ancient traditions (polygyny, polyandry, etc.) as well as more recent innovations. That's about it.

 

[woolfe9999]

Are you seriously claiming that the standard for "importance" of an issue is the volume of the mob? Of course in the political sense this assertion is a mere truism, but the question of raw political momentum has nothing at all to do with any of the underlying issues. I guess I am assuming you meant this post to actually be a substantial argument of some sort. I still can't figure out what it might be...
I don't know if you meant this post to include me, but rest assured I am not a slippery sloper. I mean everything I say about polygamy, but see no slippery slope regarding children, animals, or other non-human entities, etc. I am in favor of an incredibly liberal institution of marriage between consenting adults which encompasses many ancient traditions (polygyny, polyandry, etc.) as well as more recent innovations. That's about it.

Perhaps the "volume of the mob" matters for more than just political momentum. I assume you would concede, for example, that if literally no one in society practices a particular form of marriage, or is even interested in doing so, that there is little point in expanding the definition of marriage to include it? If we accept that as a premise, does it then matter if 1 person or 300 million are interested in practicing a particular form of marriage? According to utilitarian principles it does.

The thing about polygamy is that it could well be that virtually every (male) polygamist in reality is a practicing child molester, meaning that banning polygamy might indirectly protect some children by providing law enforcement with another tool to pursue such people. Of course, it is unfair to penalize what might be a vanishingly small number who practice polygamy as consenting adults, but utilitarianism suggests that we pursue the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I actually agree with you that polygamy among consenting adults should be legal. However, I think you are overly dismissive of the notion that the number of people affected by a given law actually matters.

- wolf

 

[nonlnear]

Perhaps the "volume of the mob" matters for more than just political momentum. I assume you would concede, for example, that if literally no one in society practices a particular form of marriage, or is even interested in doing so, that there is little point in expanding the definition of marriage to include it? If we accept that as a premise, does it then matter if 1 person or 300 million are interested in practicing a particular form of marriage? According to utilitarian principles it does.

Fair enough, that is true in general. (In fact, touche for taking a purely abstract reread of what was most likely argumentum ad populum.) However the apparent silence regarding polygamy issue is clearly not evidence of a total lack of an underlying issue. There are practicing polygamists in the USA who have, even of late, been featured as such on the cover of National Geographic. Aside from those Mormon groups of note who haven't caved to political pressure, there are many foreign ethnic groups who practice polygamy and are faced with devastating consequences if they are to immigrate here.

The thing about polygamy is that it could well be that virtually every (male) polygamist in reality is a practicing child molester, meaning that banning polygamy might indirectly protect some children by providing law enforcement with another tool to pursue such people. Of course, it is unfair to penalize what might be a vanishingly small number who practice polygamy as consenting adults, but utilitarianism suggests that we pursue the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Are you intentionally parodying some of the more tired arguments against gay marriage here? My sarcasm meter is broken!

I actually agree with you that polygamy among consenting adults should be legal. However, I think you are overly dismissive of the notion that the number of people affected by a given law actually matters.

Oh I agree it matters. It matters when it comes to prioritizing what actually gets done in the clusterfuck that is DC. However I don't care to give the mob any significance other than that "practical" matter of deciding which crumbs get thrown to them before they die. I only meant to be dismissive of JEDIYoda insofar as he presumed himself to have made a substantial point apart from the elementary observation that politicians prioritize their energies according to the screams of the rabble (among other things). It seemed to me that JEDIYoda really believed he made some sort of major rhetorical coup regarding the underlying principles. That is certainly deserving of scorn and mockery!

 

[LunarRay]

Shocking! A SF judge rules that way Like I said in the other thread, this has to go all the way up to the SCOTUS.

IF the 9th overturns the SCOTUS will not hear it... they will say that Baker v Nelson still controls..
IF the 9th sustains the lower court then SCOTUS must hear it... (again cuz of Baker v Nelson) and that is where the lower court ruling comes into play... IT is written directly to Justice Kennedy... It could be 5/4 to find the lower court got it right or possibly that just the Equal Protection bit and not the Due Process argument are right or visa versa... I'd love to be a fly on their chamber's wall...

 

[JEDIYoda]

I guess I am assuming you meant this post to actually be a substantial argument of some sort. I still can't figure out what it might be...

It is one of many su8bstantial arguments against the idiocracy that you bring to the table, for that matter that anyone brings to the table when the throw the polygamy issue into the mix.

 

[nonlnear]

It is one of many su8bstantial arguments against the idiocracy that you bring to the table, for that matter that anyone brings to the table when the throw the polygamy issue into the mix.

Ironically, your shameless use of (and apparent respect for) argumentum ad populum is the very essence of idiocracy. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[MJinZ]

Ironically, your shameless use of (and apparent respect for) argumentum ad populum is the very essence of idiocracy. Enjoy your bubble.

Did anyone read the decision? It's not Shakespeare but is very clear.

Here, the Judge quotes the reason why the State is the business of marriage:

"The state regulates marriage because
marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of
a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37."

While you may be able to come up with some sort argument for letting people get married to multiple people, there are about a dozen more stronger arguments against it in each category - on a test of rational basis, interests of nation, and even constitutionality.

 

[MJinZ]

Ironically, your shameless use of (and apparent respect for) argumentum ad populum is the very essence of idiocracy. Enjoy your bubble.

Where did he appeal to numbers?

I think he said that since no one is advocating for polygomy, then polygomy must not be a substantial or even substantive issue.

While the idea is the similar, argumentum ad populum only applies to the agreement in numbers, and the consequently fallacious conclusion.

In fact, while his reasoning is not always true (example: few people, if anyone, cared about Blacks at one point. Similarly, few people, if any, cared about Gays), it is far more statistically likely to be true than NOT true. For example, if no one cares about the way people walk, the colors people wear, how much we can spend on Pianos - these are accurately inconsequential issues.

 

[JockoJohnson]

What he said and what reality is are two different things. He stated that no one is advocating for polygamy, I pointed out that they are in Canada and most likely will be in the US.

 

[hal2kilo]

he thing about polygamy is that it could well be that virtually every (male) polygamist in reality is a practicing child molester, meaning that banning polygamy might indirectly protect some children by providing law enforcement with another tool to pursue such people. Of course, it is unfair to penalize what might be a vanishingly small number who practice polygamy as consenting adults, but utilitarianism suggests that we pursue the greatest good for the greatest number of people.- wolf

After they raided the place down in Texas, there were some news/documentaries about what happens in polygamous societies. Basically, it sucks to be a male adolescent because the male with his" harem" doesn't like competition. They usually are pushed out of the nest so to speak.

So yes there is a compelling reason for society not to allow polygamy. But I don't see how this ruling instantly allows it.

 

[MJinZ]

What he said and what reality is are two different things. He stated that no one is advocating for polygamy, I pointed out that they are in Canada and most likely will be in the US.

I don't see anyone in their right mind that would support polygamy.

With polygamy, literally, what you have are multiple sex partners - yet you desire the benefits of marriage across the board.

The situation is at odds at so many levels, ie: individual vs group considerations, human equality, social instability, and contraindications of what most benefits that arise from a socially monogamous marriage.

Humans were never meant to be monogomous, biologically speaking. Men are always looking to seed and woman seek caregivers for her children.

Polygamy - aside from the social issues - is thus arguably humanly regressive.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I don't see anyone in their right mind that would support polygamy.

With polygamy, literally, what you have are multiple sex partners - yet you desire the benefits of marriage across the board.

The situation is at odds at so many levels, ie: individual vs group considerations, human equality, social instability, and contraindications of what most benefits that arise from a socially monogamous marriage.

Humans were never meant to be monogomous, biologically speaking. Men are always looking to seed and woman seek caregivers for her children.

Polygamy - aside from the social issues - is thus arguably humanly regressive.

I agree. But there is always that small percentage (probably very small) that would demand this. Do we have to listen to their arguments if they go to court?

To be honest, I am not even trying to argue this or anything else. Just playing more of a devil's advocate to people who seem to think that now, hopefully, the gay marriage issue is settled and there are no more marriage arguments to be made. There will be. There are already polygamy issues in Canada.

 

[MJinZ]

I agree. But there is always that small percentage (probably very small) that would demand this. Do we have to listen to their arguments if they go to court?

To be honest, I am not even trying to argue this or anything else. Just playing more of a devil's advocate to people who seem to think that now, hopefully, the gay marriage issue is settled and there are no more marriage arguments to be made. There will be. There are already polygamy issues in Canada.

Absolutely, there is no harm in listening to their arguments and arguing back.

What people sometimes don't realize is that Courts often have to listen to two strong arguments, and apply the law and/or the spirit and intention of the Law, and sometimes, find such laws to be unconstitutional or unlawful.

Those are complex cases. However, when you have a weak argument against a strong argument, and many laws spanning different aspects of life apply, the weak arguments don't hold water.

I can stand here and give arguments for Polygomy (I love playing Devil's Advocate, it's a strong tool for gauging the strength and validity of your own position, or arriving at a novel position), but I have to say, they are not strong at all when you apply the tests that courts will use.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I've yet to see 1 valid reason against gay marriage that doesn't have some religious ideology behind it.
The 'sanctity' of marriage has long passed away. A gay married couple living next to you won't give you 'the gays', nor will it affect your children or others. Welcome to the 21st century, where all rights are given to all people no matter race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender or political affiliations.
I hope...

 

[shira]

Did anyone read the decision? It's not Shakespeare but is very clear.

Here, the Judge quotes the reason why the State is the business of marriage:

"The state regulates marriage because
marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of
a stable, governable populace. FF 35-37."

While you may be able to come up with some sort argument for letting people get married to multiple people, there are about a dozen more stronger arguments against it in each category - on a test of rational basis, interests of nation, and even constitutionality.

I did read the entire decision, and it's astounding how completely vapid the case made by the defense (the pro-Prop-8 side) was. The judge concluded that the defense's "expert witnesses" were almost entirely without credibility, and that there was no objective evidence supporting any of the defense's contentions. On the other hand, the judge found the plaintiffs' case compelling, their expert witnesses entirely credible, and all of their contentions solidly supported by objective research.

In sum, the judge concluded that Prop 8 caused significant harm (to same-sex couples, their children, society, and to state and local governments), provided no benefits whatsoever, and was therefore unconstitutional on due process and equal-protection grounds.