Reply With Quote
lol, cause "losers" are never married. good logicI'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.
There's no discrimination.
I don't think anyone has a problem with a gay guy marrying a lesbian.
lol, cause "losers" are never married. good logicI'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.
Well there is that whole: ". . . that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Then again, there is the whole "That to secure these rights, Governments are ins uted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
It is undoubtedly true that fundamental rights exist only insofar as the government permits. Whatever rights we might think fundamental are decidedly not guaranteed to many on this planet.
Our social compact, though, has been long understood to ensure that fundamental rights aren't at risk in an election and are not subject to the whims of a majority. It doesn't take a scholar to realize that the Cons ution, and certainly the Bill of Rights, are manifestly countermajoritarian. The imprimatur of the majority doesn't make a governmental act cons utional.
There are also benefits under the Internal Revenue Code, health and survival benefits in a variety of fields, statutory inheritance rights for those who die intestate -- just to name a few.
The next paragraph is where the court strawmans itself into a decision.
Basically, it says the federal government can pass any law that regulates a person's actions, which is kind of stupid on its face.In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is cons utional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
State of Virginia, 1962:
"There's no discrimination in our law.
I don't think anyone has a problem with a black man marrying a black woman, or a white man marrying a white woman."
LOL...
Explain.
Sorry Chump.
I couldn't help but run with what Darrin said. I don't particularly like you, but I hope you accept my apologies. To put you in a class with Fuzzy...
Really, I'm sorry. You at least have style and good intelligence. He's a complete loser.
I don't know what it means regarding him either.
Stop.
Just let me be the Devil's advocate.
http://volokh.com/2012/02/07/supreme...n-prop-8-case/Based on a quick skim, Reinhardt decided that the Supreme Court wasn’t ready yet to embrace a full right to same-sex marriage, and that it was wiser to offer AMK a narrow rationale based on Romer rather than a broad rationale based on Lawrence or Loving. So Reinhardt’s reasoning seems to be California-specific: He argues that Prop 8 took away rights provided by the California Supreme Court’s Marriage Cases, and that those who voted for Prop 8 acted out of animus towards or disapproval of gays, making Prop 8 uncons utional under a Romer rationale regardless of whether same-sex marriage is cons utional in the general case. I assume Reinhardt is figuring that this either will work or at the worst might buy some time: If the Supreme Court grants cert and reverses on the merits, on remand the case presumably goes back to the same panel. On remand, Reinhardt can then strike down Prop 8 again, but this time under a broader theory along the lines of Judge Walker’s opinion below. That would take a few years, though, keeping the issue alive in the meantime — giving the social at udes more time to develop, more states time to change their laws, and possibly more time for a change in personnel at the Court.
men wrote that mythical claptrap, not God.
"Consent of the governed", another myth Americans live by.Then again, there is the whole "That to secure these rights, Governments are ins uted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The 1%, Corporate-Americans, have fully disenfranchised Human-Americans, irreversibly.
The UCA and 1% "consents" to how the Fed govt operates, and the operating directives are primarily to protect and enrich the UCA and the 1%.
says the lonely cyber-stalkerI'm all for polygamy. Let the rich men have as many waives as they can take care of. Let the loser men go without a woman.
I don't see the connection between polygamy and same-sex marriage, tbh...
They aren't connected, but they are both different than the traditional recognized marriage of one man and one woman.
Under the law, I believe only one of those is strictly prohibited.
Why isn't polygamy any different than same sex marriage for equal protection reasons?
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040729.html
Anti-polygamy statutes draw the line at the number of spouses, not their characteristics or status. There is long-settled precedent that limiting the number of spouses does not violate any cons utional guarantee, nor should it.
Still doesn't fly. Similar and equal reasons apply to not wanting same sex marriage.
^ You seem well versed in the equal protection clause, law and precedent in general. You should sue and see how that goes...
Repugnance to society, putatively.
And biracial marriage.
I don't have legal cause to sue. I don't wish to marry. Been there, done that with one woman already. Divorced and plan to stay single.
As for the legal decisions, any activist judge can find reason to rule as they desire on these areas of law that have become muddied over the years.
You already know my stance. We have had too many threads in the past on this issue, and being tired of it, I'm not going out of my way. I will say this however.
It does not violate equal protection to say marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying a strait or lesbian, etc.
Reasons in your link about polygamy included the fear that children will be married off. Is promoting "fear" of something that can happen outside those parameters a reasonable reason to stop that one particular challenge?
Personally, I don't advocate polygamy. However, at least we have historical precedent, and it is established religion. I fail to see how legally enacted state cons utional changes can be struck down, when they have 10th amendment rights, and then also make laws preventing 1st amendment rights as well. You and others can rationalize these all you want. I simply will never understand how you can rationalize stepping on the cons ution.
So, do you just ignore the 14th Amendment?
Or do you think that Equal Protection only extends as far as the majority will permit?
InSaneTorum said marriage equality would lead to bestiality.
Some people, Catholic bishops?, want InSaneTorum to be President.
I would think you would have standing to sue, seeing that you live in this country and the anti-poligamy laws are allegedly denying you a cons utional right.
Under your premise States could amend their cons utions to deny women the right to vote. It doesn't work like that. The US Cons ution is the law of the land.
The Equal protection Clause isn't violated by defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The 1st amendment is, but not the 14th.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
