Supreme Court on Cal. Prop 8

[Mungwater 601]

Gettnhuge is watching this on pins and needles

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Actually, no, you don't get to up and decide what 'issues' that this case may present. Nikki2200 does not get to make the rules of discussion. Sorry hun.

 

Discussing the precedent a Supreme Court case/ruling may present for future cases is pertinent to the overall discussion in any logical sense. Especially in a Supreme Court case where said precedent must be followed by other courts since the SC is the higher court for all others including appealate and state courts.

 

If you decide to ignore this arm of the conversation then fine, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what matters and what doesn't.

 

In the case of polygamy, it was already heard by SCOTUS back in the 1800's. Even under the premise of First Amendment protection laws against polygamy were upheld unanimously.

 

This is a completely different set of circumstances and the jump from rights based on sexual orientation are different than those whose religion tells them to marry as many women as possible.

[nikki2200 4]

Actually, no, you don't get to up and decide what 'issues' that this case may present. Nikki2200 does not get to make the rules of discussion. Sorry hun.

 

Discussing the precedent a Supreme Court case may present is pertinent in any logical sense. Especially in a Supreme Court case where said precedent must be followed by other courts since the SC is the higher court for all others including appealate and state courts.

 

If you decide to ignore this arm of the conversation then fine, but you don't get to tell the rest of us what matters and what doesn't.

 

I'm telling you that you are bringing it up intentionally because you got nothing else. HTH!!! If this issue in and of itself is so bad, without having to say it's bad because it sets a precedent for people being able to marry their dogs, then you really don't have much of an argument on this particular issue, do you?

 

If you guys want to sit here and talk about dog-focking and men keeping harems of wives and it being legal, have at it. I'll step out and talk about this particular issue with the adults somewhere else.

 

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

4% is not my guess. I'm not pulling shiit out of my ass. And this study is consistent with other studies done globally.

 

http://abcnews.go.co...65#.UVMzsRysh8E

 

 

 

Sorry. It was 11%, not 12% admit to having some level of attraction to people of the same sex.

 

There is also the concept of the gay spectrum, or the Kinsey Scale, and I believe that close to 10% of people are at least a little bit gay and the link I provided on that study seems to agree with that. But that is a whole different conversation for a whole different day.

 

I'm not "guessing". I was using the facts as I know them to talk about the numbers.

 

Over-inflated numbers to help the cause. My ghey friends complain that they don't have enough ghey partners or friends. A lot of them move back and forth from cities like New York, Chicago, and Dallas because of this. The country as a whole is not at 4%.

 

I'm not interested in the global numbers. The topic is the SCOTUS on prop 8 so I'm interested in US numbers.

[KSB2424 3,172]

I'm telling you that you are bringing it up intentionally because you got nothing else. HTH!!! If this issue in and of itself is so bad, without having to say it's bad because it sets a precedent for people being able to marry their dogs, then you really don't have much of an argument on this particular issue, do you?

 

If you guys want to sit here and talk about dog-focking and men keeping harems of wives and it being legal, have at it. I'll step out and talk about this particular issue with the adults somewhere else.

 

Do you even read the posts? Or do you skim the threads see a word (in this case polygamy) and then just post some drivel about it as its what you were looking for?

 

A. This court case is interesting and has many different tangents of discussion

II. I never mentioned beastiality, actually I did, and said it was stupid to bring up

3. I never said polygamy was either good or bad, that it should legal or illegal. Only that when discussing this case and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment it could set a precedent pertaining to other types of non-traditoinal marraiges.

 

Not sure why you have your panties in a wad.

[phillybear 366]

You know, a wise man once said, "God Hates America, God Hates Faggs."

 

Really gives you something to think about.

[KSB2424 3,172]

In the case of polygamy, it was already heard by SCOTUS back in the 1800's.

Old Supreme Court rulings have been overturned/changed by later Supreme Courts.

 

Plessy v. Ferguson

 

A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. The court upheld an 1890 Louisiana statute mandating racially segregated but equal railroad carriages, ruling that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution dealt with political and not social equality.

 

Was overturned in 1954 Brown versus Board of Education is just one example.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Old Supreme Court rulings have been overturned/changed by later Supreme Courts.

 

 

 

Was overturned in 1954 Brown versus Board of Education is just one example.

 

I am sure that it happens periodically. However, the challenge was under the First Amendment, which is one that SCOTUS is really keen on protecting (lib & conservative justices). Your leap that giving gheys equal legal protection under the law will somehow set some sort of precedent for new legislation for polygamists (or other "non-traditional marriages" as you call them) is a stretch to say the least.

 

Are we seeing an uptick in demand for polygamist lifestyles or religious beliefs?

[nikki2200 4]

I am sure that it happens periodically. However, the challenge was under the First Amendment, which is one that SCOTUS is really keen on protecting (lib & conservative justices). Your leap that giving gheys equal legal protection under the law will somehow set some sort of precedent for new legislation for polygamists (or other "non-traditional marriages" as you call them) is a stretch to say the least.

 

Are we seeing an uptick in demand for polygamist lifestyles or religious beliefs?

 

*sigh* I guess I'm typing.

 

 

Besides the fact that the scenario is not even close at all and I can't see how this case, regardless of the outcome, could ever be used as a precedent for the legality of polygamy. I honestly feel like people just throw this shiit around because they don't have anything else and all it does is prevent the conversation from happening as we investigate the finer points of horse sex, sister-focking, and having 23 wives.

 

These cases are being brought forth with regards to the EPC of the 14th Amendment. Regarding this particular amendment, there is a concept of "suspect classifications" and immutable characteristics of individuals that cannot be discriminated against. The question here is.... is homosexuality considered an immutable trait of an individual, and therefore is it OK to prohibit that individual from the right to marry based on that trait? From articles I've read on this, this is the main argument/decision on the issue if they don't punt and they actually make a broad ruling on this.

 

What I described above has absolutely nothing in the world to do with polygamy, sister-focking, or horse marriage and none of those issues could ever use this decision, if broad decision is made to allow the legality of gay marriage, as a precedent for the legality of any of them. Not the way the case is currently being laid out. If it gets punted now and comes back around again, that could change. But it would be extremely difficult to use this case as a precedent for a polygamy decision.

 

I'm going to venture a guess that the polygamy issue would have to be brought under the FIRST Amendment, or that of religious freedom, because there is no immutable characteristic being discriminated against for wanting to have multiple spouses. Apples and oranges. Not even close to the same thing. But because we don't talk like adults here, we just throw out random bullshiit to detract from the real conversations, and use hyperbole, and straw men, and shock value, we don't discuss such things as the finer points of the 14th amendment and whether or not homosexuality can be considered a suspect classification.

[drobeski 3,061]

Is claiming that polygamy argument more of a stretch than the anti gun nuts playing the everyone should nuclear weapon card ?

I think not

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Is claiming that that polygamy argument more of a stretch than the anti gun nuts playing the everyone should nuclear weapon card ?

I think not

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Over-inflated numbers to help the cause. My ghey friends complain that they don't have enough ghey partners or friends. A lot of them move back and forth from cities like New York, Chicago, and Dallas because of this. The country as a whole is not at 4%.

 

I'm not interested in the global numbers. The topic is the SCOTUS on prop 8 so I'm interested in US numbers.

If one out of ten people shared your (gay) sexual preference, and some of them were in relationships, while nearly all of them were discrete about their sexuality due to fears of rampant homophobia, do you think it would be harder to find partners/friends?

 

How are you so certain the numbers are overinflated?

 

As an aside, 1 out of 10 of my immediate co-workers is gay, and it was higher than that at my previous job. Granted, I live in a gay-friendly city, but don't you think gays have more disincentive to "come out" than to publicize it?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Is claiming that that polygamy argument more of a stretch than the anti gun nuts playing the everyone should nuclear weapon card ?

I think not

They are both sh!tty arguments, and neither warrants any serious discussion.

 

Glad someone with conservative ideology realizes the slippery slope is irrelevant.

[drobeski 3,061]

Stutterist

...the anti gun clowns always whip out the "oh so everyone should get to own a bazooka or a nuke too then, right"

And most of those same ass clowns mock those who bring up the polygamy angle with this whole gay marriage. Thing.

My goal is to point out the blatant hypocrisy the libs of this site display on a routine ba ba ba bas basss bassssi basis.

[nikki2200 4]

Is claiming that polygamy argument more of a stretch than the anti gun nuts playing the everyone should nuclear weapon card ?

I think not

 

And now we get to the two wrongs make a right stage of the discussion.

 

Thanks for moving this along as planned.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Stutterist

...the anti gun clowns always whip out the "oh so everyone should get to own a bazooka or a nuke too then, right"

And most of those same ass clowns mock those who bring up the polygamy angle with this whole gay marriage. Thing.

My goal is to point out the blatant hypocrisy the libs of this site display on a routine ba ba ba bas basss bassssi basis.

 

Oh, I understood what you were saying and I agree. I was going to use the "English, motherfucker. Do you speak it?", but I was in a rush.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

And now we get to the two wrongs make a right stage of the discussion.

 

Thanks for moving this along as planned.

 

I agree completely. Can we get back to the sister-focking that you outlined a few posts ago? Tell us about you and your sister and the dirty things that you did with each other. Please include references to pillow fights and double-enders. TIA.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

If one out of ten people shared your (gay) sexual preference, and some of them were in relationships, while nearly all of them were discrete about their sexuality due to fears of rampant homophobia, do you think it would be harder to find partners/friends?

 

How are you so certain the numbers are overinflated?

 

As an aside, 1 out of 10 of my immediate co-workers is gay, and it was higher than that at my previous job. Granted, I live in a gay-friendly city, but don't you think gays have more disincentive to "come out" than to publicize it?

 

 

I'm not ghey. I'm married.

 

I was talking about my openly ghey friends and the problems thay are having living in a ghey-friendly community. If your not openly ghey of course you're going to have problems finding partners/friends. I don't understand where you're going?

 

If I was ghey I would "be out". But I live in a ghey-friendly city. Part of the incentive of "coming out" is you that you have more options.

[nikki2200 4]

Stutterist

...the anti gun clowns always whip out the "oh so everyone should get to own a bazooka or a nuke too then, right"

And most of those same ass clowns mock those who bring up the polygamy angle with this whole gay marriage. Thing.

My goal is to point out the blatant hypocrisy the libs of this site display on a routine ba ba ba bas basss bassssi basis.

 

Want to find a link to anywhere I ever used the nuke argument in the gun control discussion? I'm assuming you are talking about me since I'm the one arguing here. Ya know what? You're not going to find one. You know why? I don't believe in gun control and haven't even been participating in any of those discussions. If some redneck wants to stock up his bunker with AR15s awaiting the zombie apocalypse, I don't give a fock. I also think I've made arguments that gun control will not do anything to stop crime, because the majority of crime is gang-related and they will get their guns anyway. Actually I'm quite certain I've mentioned that a few times.

 

But thanks for being on top of your game and all ready to call out the libs at every chance.

[Mike Honcho 5,412]

Precedent means before. And no... I trust the SCOTUS to look at each individual issue, evaluate it against the laws of the Constitution, and make an educated decision.

If that means in 40 years from now when there's a whole bunch of people suing the government because they want to have multiple spouses, and the SCOTUS uses their decision on this case as a precedent, then so be it.

 

Right now all I care about is the issue of two consenting gay people being able to get married because that is what is on the table. Throwing in other shiit is just an effort to derail discussing the issue and the "slippery slope" argument does not apply when it comes to talking about an individuals' rights and the Constitution. I'm sure the "slippery slope", and probably even references to bestiality, came up too in the 60s when the SCOTUS was deciding whether or not to allow states to make inter-racial marriages illegal.

 

So, I guess you're unaware of the make-up of the current court.

[phillybear 366]

So, I guess you're unaware of the make-up of the current court.

 

I don't think any branch of our government is currently using the Constitution as anything other than a beer cozy.

[KSB2424 3,172]

They are both sh!tty arguments, and neither warrants any serious discussion.

 

Glad someone with conservative ideology realizes the slippery slope is irrelevant.

Ghey Marraige to Beastiality is analogous to fighing an Assault Weapons Ban means Nukes should be legal too. Both are ridiculous.

 

Ghey Marraige to Polygamy is anlogous to Assault Weapon Ban leading to Semi-Auto handgun ban. That slope isn't all that slippery now is it? Much more like minded topics. HTH

 

I hate the slippery slope argument most times too, when they are absurd. However setting precedent is not absurd. For example setting up a Sin tax on ciggarettes seems like a good idea, however then we've seen politicians want to take it further and a step further and a step further. Taxes on sugar is next. Then it really is who knows? Sometimes a slippery slope is in fact a trend of precendent leading down a road. Just beause some use that term in absurd fashion doesn't mean it doesn't exist in non abusrd instances. To stick your head in the sand that it doesn't happen is what's assinine.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Ghey Marraige to Beastiality is analogous to fighing an Assault Weapons Ban means Nukes should be legal too. Both are ridiculous.

 

Ghey Marraige to Polygamy is anlogous to Assault Weapon Ban leading to Semi-Auto handgun ban. That slope isn't all that slippery now is it? Much more like minded topics. HTH

 

I hate the slippery slope argument most times too, when they are absurd. However setting precedent is not absurd. For example setting up a Sin tax on ciggarettes seems like a good idea, however then we've seen politicians want to take it further and a step further and a step further. Taxes on sugar is next. Then it really is who knows? Sometimes a slippery slope is in fact a trend of precendent leading down a road. Just beause some use that term in absurd fashion doesn't mean it doesn't exist in non abusrd instances. To stick your head in the sand that it doesn't happen is what's assinine.

 

Answer the question from earlier - who is pushing for polygamy? It isn't the Mormons.

[KSB2424 3,172]

Answer the question from earlier - who is pushing for polygamy? It isn't the Mormons.

It only takes one person.

 

From Nikki's own words in this very thread:

 

It's really not about what the vast majority of Americans want and should have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. It's about the question of people's right to marry whomever they wish. It doesn't matter if one person wants it or 10 million people want it. It's about rights.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

It only takes one person.

 

From Nikki's own words in this very thread:

 

 

You must know that your argument is BS if that is the best that you can come up with.

[DankNuggs 305]

*sigh* I guess I'm typing.

 

 

Besides the fact that the scenario is not even close at all and I can't see how this case, regardless of the outcome, could ever be used as a precedent for the legality of polygamy. I honestly feel like people just throw this shiit around because they don't have anything else and all it does is prevent the conversation from happening as we investigate the finer points of horse sex, sister-focking, and having 23 wives.

 

These cases are being brought forth with regards to the EPC of the 14th Amendment. Regarding this particular amendment, there is a concept of "suspect classifications" and immutable characteristics of individuals that cannot be discriminated against. The question here is.... is homosexuality considered an immutable trait of an individual, and therefore is it OK to prohibit that individual from the right to marry based on that trait? From articles I've read on this, this is the main argument/decision on the issue if they don't punt and they actually make a broad ruling on this.

 

What I described above has absolutely nothing in the world to do with polygamy, sister-focking, or horse marriage and none of those issues could ever use this decision, if broad decision is made to allow the legality of gay marriage, as a precedent for the legality of any of them. Not the way the case is currently being laid out. If it gets punted now and comes back around again, that could change. But it would be extremely difficult to use this case as a precedent for a polygamy decision.

 

I'm going to venture a guess that the polygamy issue would have to be brought under the FIRST Amendment, or that of religious freedom, because there is no immutable characteristic being discriminated against for wanting to have multiple spouses. Apples and oranges. Not even close to the same thing. But because we don't talk like adults here, we just throw out random bullshiit to detract from the real conversations, and use hyperbole, and straw men, and shock value, we don't discuss such things as the finer points of the 14th amendment and whether or not homosexuality can be considered a suspect classification.

 

For argumentative sakes:

 

why wouldn't being a horsefocker or polygamist not be considered immutable for the same reasons homosexuality is?

 

Also:

 

One of the issues brought up is the slippery slope of marrying to pass on pension type benefits... 90 yr olds and 18 year olds as it extends through the life of the spouse, you could potentially daisy chain unions to keep perpetual pensions going...

 

Seems like a weak point for the purposes of this specific legislation, but i bring it up for discussion

[hoytdwow 202]

You either believe in freedom or you don't. The rest of it is hyperbole, moral fundamentalism and semantics.

[KSB2424 3,172]

You either believe in freedom or you don't. The rest of it is hyperbole, moral fundamentalism and semantics.

Whats your stance on gun control? Just curious.

[hoytdwow 202]

Whats your stance on gun control? Just curious.

I believe the Constitution says it best: "a well-regulated militia."

[penultimatestraw 473]

Ghey Marraige to Beastiality is analogous to fighing an Assault Weapons Ban means Nukes should be legal too. Both are ridiculous.

 

Ghey Marraige to Polygamy is anlogous to Assault Weapon Ban leading to Semi-Auto handgun ban. That slope isn't all that slippery now is it? Much more like minded topics. HTH

 

I hate the slippery slope argument most times too, when they are absurd. However setting precedent is not absurd. For example setting up a Sin tax on ciggarettes seems like a good idea, however then we've seen politicians want to take it further and a step further and a step further. Taxes on sugar is next. Then it really is who knows? Sometimes a slippery slope is in fact a trend of precendent leading down a road. Just beause some use that term in absurd fashion doesn't mean it doesn't exist in non abusrd instances. To stick your head in the sand that it doesn't happen is what's assinine.

The slope is slippery because it is full of sh!t. Always a bad argument IMO.

[nikki2200 4]

For argumentative sakes:

 

why wouldn't being a horsefocker or polygamist not be considered immutable for the same reasons homosexuality is?

 

Also:

 

One of the issues brought up is the slippery slope of marrying to pass on pension type benefits... 90 yr olds and 18 year olds as it extends through the life of the spouse, you could potentially daisy chain unions to keep perpetual pensions going...

 

Seems like a weak point for the purposes of this specific legislation, but i bring it up for discussion

 

First of all, horse focking shouldn't even be on the table because a horse cannot verbally consent to having sex, and abuse of animals is largely considered criminal activity. You could use the same argument that we have a Constitutional right to beat our dogs. We don't. It's dumb and has no bearing on the discussion at all.

 

How could you classify polygamy as an immutable trait. Polygamy is marrying more than one person. What human trait that is distinctive is being discriminated against by saying you are only allowed to marry one. If you have an innate human desire to bang a bunch of women, you can do so legally. You can even bang a bunch of women who aren't your wife legally. You just can't marry more than one and I can't even fathom what immutable human trait is being discriminated against for only allowing you to legally marry one. Is gigolo recognized as a suspect classification and on what grounds could it be? There is an argument for religious freedom, however that is more along the lines of First Amendment protections. I think it is quite a leap to bring forth a case saying well you let the gays get married, therefore you need to let me have 12 wives if I want them. The connection just isn't there in terms of the constitutionality in my mind. Additionally, the state has a strong interest in the case of polygamy because it does bring on substantive questions regarding social security, tax breaks, and quite frankly opens a door to fraud. It would be interesting to see the discussion, however I will stand by my opinion that using this as a precedent would be extremely difficult.

 

I don't even understand your last point.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'm not ghey. I'm married.

 

I was talking about my openly ghey friends and the problems thay are having living in a ghey-friendly community. If your not openly ghey of course you're going to have problems finding partners/friends. I don't understand where you're going?

 

If I was ghey I would "be out". But I live in a ghey-friendly city. Part of the incentive of "coming out" is you that you have more options.

I was using "your" in the third person. Substitute one's. As you seem to value personal experience over data collected from populations, I offered my personal experience of gay prevalence - almost exactly 1 out of 10 of my coworkers (actually 4 of 30) is openly gay. But most gays aren't open, which suggests to me the numbers would be underestimated, if anything. And closeting would make finding a partner/friend more difficult for any gay individual than the numbers alone suggest.

[BudBro 183]

in colorado in 2006, voters passed amendment 43 with a 56%-44% vote to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. fast forward to 2012, and the legislature tries to pass a law saying otherwise, which loses in committee by 1 one. in 2013, gov hickenlooper signs a law into place allowing for gay marriage.

 

so, it makes no real difference what the majority of people want, even if they go to the polls and vote on it.

[nikki2200 4]

I should have explained myself better. Under the EPC you cannot discriminate against someone specifically because of the trait. It is unconstitutional to say you cannot marry that person because they are black. The prohibition is solely based on a suspect classification and it is front and center in the prohibition. With polygamy, I don't think it would fall under the EPC clause, because you are not saying you can't marry that person because you are mooslim, it is saying you can't marry more than one person period. Which is why I think that discussion, if it ever happened, would be all about the First Amendment, not the Fourteenth or the EPC. And I think it's pretty accurate to say that, even though I am by no means an expert in Constitutional Law.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

I was using "your" in the third person. Substitute one's. As you seem to value personal experience over data collected from populations, I offered my personal experience of gay prevalence - almost exactly 1 out of 10 of my coworkers (actually 4 of 30) is openly gay. But most gays aren't open, which suggests to me the numbers would be underestimated, if anything. And closeting would make finding a partner/friend more difficult for any gay individual than the numbers alone suggest.

 

 

I know. I put a smiley face up but it didn't work.

[JT 137]

Gettnhuge is watching this on poppers and a kielbasa

 

Fixed

[BunnysBastatrds 2,581]

I was using "your" in the third person. Substitute one's. As you seem to value personal experience over data collected from populations, I offered my personal experience of gay prevalence - almost exactly 1 out of 10 of my coworkers (actually 4 of 30) is openly gay. But most gays aren't open, which suggests to me the numbers would be underestimated, if anything. And closeting would make finding a partner/friend more difficult for any gay individual than the numbers alone suggest.

 

 

I don't beleieve the majority of gheys are closeted. Ten to twenty years they were, Not in todays enviroment. I've been told by a few ghey friends that they moved away from small town intolerance to big cities so they could live and work without the difficulties they endured at home.

[drobeski 3,061]

Want to find a link to anywhere I ever used the nuke argument in the gun control discussion? I'm assuming you are talking about me since I'm the one arguing here. Ya know what? You're not going to find one. You know why? I don't believe in gun control and haven't even been participating in any of those discussions. If some redneck wants to stock up his bunker with AR15s awaiting the zombie apocalypse, I don't give a fock. I also think I've made arguments that gun control will not do anything to stop crime, because the majority of crime is gang-related and they will get their guns anyway. Actually I'm quite certain I've mentioned that a few times.

 

But thanks for being on top of your game and all ready to call out the libs at every chance.

Wasn't talkin bout you, was talking bout the anti gun wackos, and yes all of them have used it many times.

Not linking it, tired ...Benadryled out had allergic reaction to new med.

I have no problem with gays marrying btw...just think the ones screaming and crying about it are selfish attention starved ass pipes who'll never be satisfied

[JT 137]

Wasn't talkin bout you, was talking bout the anti gun wackos, and yes all of them have used it many times.

 

Always a component of a really solid argument.

[drobeski 3,061]

Always a component of a really solid argument.

Guilty ?