Judge knocks down marriage prop in ca

[nonlnear]

thats is a load of crap that you idiots who are against gay marriage pull out of your hat...
This has nothing at all to do with anything more than one person wanting to marry another person.
Not two people wanting to marry a thirds or fourth person!

BTW we are taling about people here not aminals and such!

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...

 

[Brainonska511]

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...

It's a load of crap that polygamy is coming up in the first place with gay marriage. They are separate issues that can be debated on their own merits.

 

[nonlnear]

I don't really like polygamy on human equality issues. 1 person and 1 person. Not 2 people for one person.

So don't do it. Do you really need a government reassuring you that your prejudices are "right" (by trampling on the liberty of others) to help you sleep at night?

 

[nonlnear]

It's a load of crap that polygamy is coming up in the first place with gay marriage. They are separate issues that can be debated on their own merits.

They are different phenomena, but the issues are not separate. The arguments, both for and against both of these institutions, are for the most part identical in rhetorical form and effect.

 

[Patranus]

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.

 

[MJinZ]

So don't do it. Do you really need a government reassuring you that your prejudices are "right" (by trampling on the liberty of others) to help you sleep at night?

Please, get the issues clear. To a government, liberties are well defined societal privileges.

I do not care if people want to get married to 10 other people. They are free to do so.

However, it has nothing to do with what a government will recognize as a marriage.

The fact is, group policies are fundamentally different than individual policies. As an individual, you have lots of rights and protections not enjoyed as a group. A group is not treated the same way as an individual in the eyes of the law.

A person having the right to marry multiple people is functionally equivalent to a group establishment.

As it is the government's position in granting marriage benefits as a matter of encouraging individual relationships, not multi-unit group benefits.

Note, that I presented the argument based on the fundamental differences between the goals of society (through government). I did not begin to even approach the practical aspects of abuse of the system if one were allowed to be married to a cluster of other people.

 

[MJinZ]

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.

Not everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the government, what are you smoking?

Equal protection is not equal benefits.

Let's see - Veterans, disabled, children, and yes - Blacks. There is a reason why they are granted special privileges. Frankly, I have not read the arguments for affirmative action, but I have always found it to be the least white people could do for reparations from building a nation around the backs of slaves.

 

[classy]

Only because you're black. Now if you were also a womenz, you'd be up in arms too.

Thats lame. I can't win for losing. You people suck.

I am obligated just because I am black to support gay marriage, not based on the issue, just because I am black. Forget anything else I believe in, we gave you equal rights negroe, so you support these gays. So I am held in damn obligation soley because I am black.

Then because I don't support marriage. I damned even worse then the worse bigot on the planet, not just because I reject one gay issue, but look here n*****, you are worse than the white bigots. I simply don't support alterating the definition of marriage. But I am damned no matter which way I would fall on this issue, just because I am black.

LOL
What a joke , hehehehehehehehehe

 

[Patranus]

Not everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the government, what are you smoking?

Equal protection is not equal benefits.

Let's see - Veterans, disabled, children, and yes - Blacks. There is a reason why they are granted special privileges. Frankly, I have not read the arguments for affirmative action, but I have always found it to be the least white people could do for reparations from building a nation around the backs of slaves.

Hmmm. Equal protection is not equal benefits. Sounds like an argument that could apply to this case.

How is not being able to grant "special privileges" to straight people any different than granting special privileges to other groups?

 

[MJinZ]

Hmmm. Equal protection is not equal benefits. Sounds like an argument that could apply to this case.

How is not being able to grant "special privileges" to straight people any different than granting special privileges to other groups?

Same reason government doesn't grant special privileges to the wealthy, beautiful, healthy, successful, awesome people in society.

But you already knew that.

 

[nonlnear]

Please, get the issues clear. To a government, liberties are well defined societal privileges.

I do not care if people want to get married to 10 other people. They are free to do so.

However, it has nothing to do with what a government will recognize as a marriage.

The fact is, group policies are fundamentally different than individual policies. As an individual, you have lots of rights and protections not enjoyed as a group. A group is not treated the same way as an individual in the eyes of the law.

A person having the right to marry multiple people is functionally equivalent to a group establishment.

As it is the government's position in granting marriage benefits as a matter of encouraging individual relationships, not multi-unit group benefits.

Note, that I presented the argument based on the fundamental differences between the goals of society (through government). I did not begin to even approach the practical aspects of abuse of the system if one were allowed to be married to a cluster of other people.

What the hell are you rambling on about? This has to be one of the most incoherent pieces of drivel I have ever read that is posted in good faith by somebody who believes it to be a sensible argument. You are imagining legal structures which don't exist, and state interest which is laughable at best.

 

[MJinZ]

Thats lame. I can't win for losing. You people suck.

I am obligated just because I am black to support gay marriage, not based on the issue, just because I am black. Forget anything else I believe in, we gave you equal rights negroe, so you support these gays. So I am held in damn obligation soley because I am black.

Then because I don't support marriage. I damned even worse then the worse bigot on the planet, not just because I reject one gay issue, but look here n*****, you are worse than the white bigots. I simply don't support alterating the definition of marriage. But I am damned no matter which way I would fall on this issue, just because I am black.

LOL
What a joke , hehehehehehehehehe

You are free to support whatever you want, but know that makes you a hypocrite and irrational in the eyes of those of who us who see and know better.

 

[MJinZ]

What the hell are you rambling on about? This has to be one of the most incoherent pieces of drivel I have ever read that is posted in good faith by somebody who believes it to be a sensible argument. You are imagining legal structures which don't exist, and state interest which is laughable at best.

I'm sorry, what?

Legal structures, like institutions, corporations, partnerships, local governing bodies, Boards, mobs, etc? They really don't exist do they?

Though I work with lawsuits on a daily basis, so others may not know this. But if you sue a corporation, even a local governing Board, and name the defendants in each party, the fact that they are treated differently in the eyes of the law is like night and day.

I wonder if you think Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to be losing sleep at night knowing that his name is listed as a defendant at the top of the hottest lawsuits in California.

 

[nonlnear]

You are free to support whatever you want, but know that makes you a hypocrite and irrational in the eyes of those of who us who see and know better.

Do you prefer a steam or a dry iron for your wrinkles?

 

[nonlnear]

I'm sorry, what?

Legal structures, like institutions, corporations, partnerships, local governing bodies, Boards, mobs, etc? They really don't exist do they?

Polygamy doesn't have to create any collective entities. You are imagining a form which is conveniently convoluted, I suspect for ease of ridicule. Of course if you construe it in a silly way it will appear, well, silly.

 

[MJinZ]

Polygamy doesn't have to create any collective entities. You are imagining a form which is conveniently convoluted, I suspect for ease of ridicule. Of course if you construe it in a silly way it will appear, well, silly.

You're going to have to give me a better argument than a fallacious dismissal out of perspective convolution. Just because you can't understand something, or something is complicated and rarely applicable to day to day life, does not make it less true.

The fact is, the law treats groups differently than individuals. I'm not passing judgment on this rationale (I understand, as you probably do as well, the spirit and intent - that which is what the USA is built upon - individual liberties over submission to institution).

Your question is why polygomy should not exist. My personal opinion is that offends the sense of equal human valuation.

However, to a government, that is only one argument. The others, are related the governmental motivation for marriage licenses in the first place - namely a strong individual liberty component to marriage.

We do not give marriage certificates to groups, as we do not allow corporations to marry other corporations, or give driver's licenses to a company, allow a group to take the role of individual, etc.

 

[charrison]

thats is a load of crap that you idiots who are against gay marriage pull out of your hat...
This has nothing at all to do with anything more than one person wanting to marry another person.
Not two people wanting to marry a thirds or fourth person!

But the argument is the same. If this is between consenting adults what is the difference?

I

 

[charrison]

It's not a matter of regulation, but recognition and benefits.

You can marry 5 consenting woman at the a Church of your choosing (that would perform this) and live with them and call yourselves married and guess what, no one cares and the State won't bat an eyelash.

But if you want the State to grant you those benefits among the 6 of you, no they will not.

Last time i checked polygamy was not legal.

 

[woolfe9999]

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...

I think the problem with "polygamy" is that people associate it with Mormon fundies who practice it by marrying 12 year olds. That is an actual wrong, and it probably blurs the issue of polygamy per se in many people's minds. Personally, I have no issue with polygamy when it is between adults. Too bad just about the only people who practice it in this country are basically child molesters.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

Yep so liberal that George H.W. Bush was the one to put him on the bench. :awe:


opps, beat by dennilfloss


HaHa... this guy was nonimated by Reagan but was held up as people thought he was to anti-gay. You can;t make it up.

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[3] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.

Wired magazine describes Walker as having libertarian leanings.

It isn't just that he was appointed by GHWB. Bush appointed because he actually IS a conservative. I know from direct professional experience in his court room. As well, his reputation in the legal community here is one of favoring defendants over plaintiffs in tort litigtion, favoring the prosecution over the defense in criminal trials, and generally favoring entity and corporate parties over individuals. He is one of those gay republicans. It's odd, but they're out there.

- wolf

 

[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...

What I find interesting and at the same time so funny is you idiots who bring up polygamy anytime there is a debate on gays having the same right to get married as hetrosexuals.

There is a huge movement for gays having the same right to get married at others and for that marriage to be recognized by the powers that be.

yet where is the movement for legalization of polygamy?
Don`t you find it interesting that almost nobody is in favor of polygamy?
Even the gays won`t go there.

I know you will say we have to start somewhere and this is the starting point.
The issue is not even a talking point.
Nobody gets up in arms over people wanting polygamy to be legal..
You will never ever see on a national level any rallys in favor of polygamy.

You can say howe identical these issues are but at the end of the day, all you are doing is blowing smoke out your ass!

Peace!!

 

[Doboji]

Thats lame. I can't win for losing. You people suck.

I am obligated just because I am black to support gay marriage, not based on the issue, just because I am black. Forget anything else I believe in, we gave you equal rights negroe, so you support these gays. So I am held in damn obligation soley because I am black.

Then because I don't support marriage. I damned even worse then the worse bigot on the planet, not just because I reject one gay issue, but look here n*****, you are worse than the white bigots. I simply don't support alterating the definition of marriage. But I am damned no matter which way I would fall on this issue, just because I am black.

LOL
What a joke , hehehehehehehehehe

You're not worse than white bigots.... just equal is all. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Any questions?

 

[Doboji]

This thread cracks me up... anyone with half a brain looks at this gay rights issue as absolutely ridiculous. Comparisons to womens rights and black rights are spot on. You can't go around depriving people of their rights just because the majority of people think it's cool. I mean if the majority of people decided it was a good idea to round up jews and execute them would that be acceptable as well? Our founding fathers built the constitution to protect against exactly this type of anti-gay bullshit.

 

[Craig234]

I am obligated just because I am black to support gay marriage, not based on the issue, just because I am black. Forget anything else I believe in, we gave you equal rights negroe, so you support these gays. So I am held in damn obligation soley because I am black.

You have said this many times, and it's completely false.

No one is saying you have to have a certain opinion because you are black. Everyone is saying you should base your opinion on the issue (except perhaps you).

The role your being black has is not to dictate you are obligated to an opinion - but for people to note the irony of you being in a class on the other end of the same bigotry.

It'd be like watching a Mexican illegal alien in the US fight to strengthen laws against Guatemalans immigrating to Mexico saying all the same things Americans said against him.

It's unexpected, but you're not saying that he has to base his opinion just on the group he's in. If he has a good argument, fine.

You don't.

It's time for you to stop playing the victim citing some false behavior by other posters claiming they're doing something they're not.

Base your opinion on the issue and defend it - you haven't. You dodge the discussion with things like this false claim how are you are so abused over your race.

 

[ichy]

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.