Go Get Married You Gays and Lesbians - Gay Marriage Legal in CA F**K YEAH!!!

[Shotline]

Next thing you know we will be letting people marry their dog! Outrageous!


This argument has always made me shudder as it is such blatant slippery slope and appeal to emotion.

Hmm, yes it is a bunch of hog-wash.

However, what about polygamists? Every argument made by the gay lobby in favor of gay marriage can be used to justify any type of arrangement between two people. Why not let brother and sisters marry, or brothers and brothers?

 

[Silence]

Hmm, yes it is a bunch of hog-wash.

However, what about polygamists? Every argument made by the gay lobby in favor of gay marriage can be used to justify any type of arrangement between two people. Why not let brother and sisters marry, or brothers and brothers?

Because you can back arguments against polygamy and incest with evidence that indicates elevated risk of abuse.

 

[MtnRacer]

Out of curiosity, do the people who have a problem with these 'activist judges' also have a problem with the presidential veto? Because that's exactly what happened here. Citizens tried to vote in an illegal law, CA supreme court veto'd the shit.

Steve

 

[Bronto]

fantastic fantastic its about time

noooow when the hell are we gonna be able to get the cool guns?

Exactly

The reasoning used in the ruling can directly be applied to CCW. If one group of people can have a CCW no problem. Why can't the average citizen also have a CCW. Why this ban is unconstitutional under equal rights protection. arty

 

[jdhu]

Out of curiosity, do the people who have a problem with these 'activist judges' also have a problem with the presidential veto? Because that's exactly what happened here. Citizens tried to vote in an illegal law, CA supreme court veto'd the shit.

Steve

Yes, because the role of judges is not to create policy or interpret statute in the manner they think best for society. Their role is to determine legislative intent in applying the law. In other words, judges overstep their roles when they rule on their conscience or based on what they personally think is "fair."

The executive veto is a express power granted to the president and governors and is meant to prevent whimsical, emotional passage of dumb laws. Executives are well within their powers to veto.

I really dislike your underlying theme. The citizens voted 2-1 to enact a proposition. It is not the power of the judiciary to determine what is best for the populace.

 

[macadamizer]

Exactly

The reasoning used in the ruling can directly be applied to CCW. If one group of people can have a CCW no problem. Why can't the average citizen also have a CCW. Why this ban is unconstitutional under equal rights protection. arty

Because gun ownership at the state level in California is not an enumerated right. You don't have a constitutional right to a gun in California, under current law. Heller may (and hopefully will) change that.

 

[macadamizer]

It is not the power of the judiciary to determine what is best for the populace.

You are right -- but it is the role of the judiciary to determine if the populace had the authority to pass such a law in the first place.

 

[Shotline]

Because you can back arguments against polygamy and incest with evidence that indicates elevated risk of abuse.

Wow, that sounds exactly like one of the arguments people have used to oppose gay marriage. And when you use it, it has as much basis in fact as when it is used to oppose gay marriage.

 

[bdillan]

Why does it matter if they are who they are? Stop trying to sound smart by using wiki and looking up answers. Unless you actually studied law and politics, STFU.

p.s. i'm ready for those red squares

 

[cardinal03]

Hmm, yes it is a bunch of hog-wash.

However, what about polygamists? Every argument made by the gay lobby in favor of gay marriage can be used to justify any type of arrangement between two people. Why not let brother and sisters marry, or brothers and brothers?

That's not true and you know it. You're just fear mongering.

The opinion states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That's all.

 

[Shotline]

That's not true and you know it. You're just fear mongering.

The opinion states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That's all.

Fear mongering, are you kidding? I don't give a rats ass who marries who (refer back to a year or so ago). I don't care if someone marries their dog (Lefty), why do you care?

Try to look beyond this one decision. Ever heard of incrementalism?

The point is, once you make an argument that legal marriage is not just between one man and one woman, then that same argument can be used to justify the marriage of anything. Think about it, if the government cannot dictate who you can love and make a lasting connection with, then how can they limit it? So, what makes love between a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman any different than between a man and a sheep?

If you can make an argument that a man can't marry a dog or a woman can't marry her brother, then maybe you can begin to understand people who argue against same sex marriage. But I seriously doubt you can understand anything but your own point of view..........which will make you a great (typical) lawyer.

 

[macadamizer]

Fear mongering, are you kidding? I don't give a rats ass who marries who (refer back to a year or so ago). I don't care if someone marries their dog (Lefty), why do you care?

Try to look beyond this one decision. Ever heard of incrementalism?

The point is, once you make an argument that legal marriage is not just between one man and one woman, then that same argument can be used to justify the marriage of anything. Think about it, if the government cannot dictate who you can love and make a lasting connection with, then how can they limit it? So, what makes love between a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman any different than between a man and a sheep?

A sheep cannot give its consent to marry. Besides, animals are property in the eyes of the law, not individuals that can legally consent to something.

If you can make an argument that a man can't marry a dog or a woman can't marry her brother, then maybe you can begin to understand people who argue against same sex marriage. But I seriously doubt you can understand anything but your own point of view..........which will make you a great (typical) lawyer.

I am not sure why we don't allow siblings to marry. Might cause some genetic mishaps, sure, but is that enough of a compelling state interest to ban such marriages? I am not sure. I do believe that ickiness shouldn't be the standard for making such rules.

 

[V4]

Fear mongering, are you kidding? I don't give a rats ass who marries who (refer back to a year or so ago). I don't care if someone marries their dog (Lefty), why do you care?
.

I gotta stop reading barf while drinking....

 

[CHICKenstrip]

That's not true and you know it. You're just fear mongering.

The opinion states that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. That's all.

Just jumping in without having read everything...isn't the heart of the matter that it's an individual, protected right? (I mean, I heard an argument against this on the radio saying that the court has taken an individual right and applied it to a right of a "couple;" heck, I'm not so smart but it seems to me each half of that couple has an individual right to choose to marry someone of the same sex...) I agree animals and children cannot consent in a like manner but someone could individually choose to become part of a polygamous household or some such. Heck...there have been times I wished I could become a "heterosexual, domestic partner" with another single mom or dad to save some money...

Aside from the legalities, am I the only one a bit cynical as to this maybe having something to do with the state deficit? There could feasibly be some money to be made from an increase in any kind of marriage.

(For the record, I have no personal problem with this becoming law, I can just see some other applications.)

 

[cardinal03]

Fear mongering, are you kidding? I don't give a rats ass who marries who (refer back to a year or so ago). I don't care if someone marries their dog (Lefty), why do you care?

Try to look beyond this one decision. Ever heard of incrementalism?

The point is, once you make an argument that legal marriage is not just between one man and one woman, then that same argument can be used to justify the marriage of anything. Think about it, if the government cannot dictate who you can love and make a lasting connection with, then how can they limit it? So, what makes love between a man and woman, or a man and man, or a woman and woman any different than between a man and a sheep?

If you can make an argument that a man can't marry a dog or a woman can't marry her brother, then maybe you can begin to understand people who argue against same sex marriage. But I seriously doubt you can understand anything but your own point of view..........which will make you a great (typical) lawyer.

No. There's no valid legal argument for giving the right to marry to a straight man and woman over giving the right to a same-sex couple since both are protected under CA law.

Arguments about dogs and sheep are not arguments, there's no legal basis for that argument - it's only fear mongering. Dogs and sheep have neither legal rights nor legal standing nor the ability to enter into marriage contracts.

Gays and lesbians are a protected group under the CA constitution. You cannot discriminate against them for being their being gay or lesbian.

Brothers and sisters that want to enter into sexual relationships are not a protected group under the CA constitution. It's that easy.

Incrementalism is not a legal concept, it's just another fear mongering tactic.

The constitution requires that all protected groups be granted the same rights. Incestuous couples are not a protected group. To bring it up at all is just an attempt to associate something beautiful like love and marriage with something ugly like incest.

Incest used to be no big deal. In fact, it was practically preferred by European aristocracy. And then they started getting retarded babies, they realized that maybe incest wasn't such a good thing. And that's why we don't allow cosanguine incestuous relationships.

In addition, most incestuous relationships are relationships of child rape and abuse, not surprisingly most often a father raping his child son or daughter. There are nearly no cases, if any, of purposeful incestuous relationships developing between two emotionally healthy, mature adults in America in the present day.

That is absolutely not the case for homosexual relationships.

So yes, to say that because we allow same-sex couples to marry we will have men marrying sheep and brothers and sisters fucking each other til kingdom come, is nothing more than fear mongering.

 

[wazzuFreddo]

You're incorrect, we're fine. Fred is not a, "partner," he's a pet. Ask him yourself next time you're in the lube den.

:|

 

[rritterson]

Ever heard of incrementalism?

It's also called the slippery slope.

 

[dissolvedego]

If you can make an argument that a man can't marry a dog or a woman can't marry her brother, then maybe you can begin to understand people who argue against same sex marriage.

i see no reason people shouldn't be allowed to marry relatives, more than one person or even pets. who cares?

although the dog thing is kind of pointless. i don't care if someone wants to take their relationship with their pet to the next level, but what legal rights are you going to get with your dog? will you be entitled to his bones and squeaky toys when he dies? if you want to say you're married to your dog and have a ceremony, fine... but i don't see what the purpose of a LEGAL marriage would be in such a case.

 

[bdillan]

a dog is not a sentient being. Dogs have limited intelligence...so it is kind of different i guess. so argument against marry dog and person is different.

 

[chrdog]

The one thing I agree with as far as the same sex marriage rights movement is that people should get to see their loved ones in the hospital and stuff like that, they should also be able to leave their money to whomever they want if they take care of the legal stuff before hand like anyone else.

The rest of the argument is rather ridiculous. I mean given the upwards of 50% divorce rate, how are people equating happiness with marriage? You can love someone without having some dumbass piece of paper to say it.

So yes the whole discrimination deal...to me the only reason the state bestows any special privileges is to help with the rearing of children. I think if you want all the tax benifits and whatnot, you should have to have children, gay or straight, natural kids or adopted. Why the hell should someone get special privileges just cus they declare their "love" for someone in some ceremony that lasts all of what, 20 minutes?

Marriage has several meanings now and while some like me see it as the spiritual bonding between a man and woman in a God given way, other people dont. To me the word is really meaningless outside of the Church and I could no more recognize a gay 'marriage' than I could a squared circle.