I disagree, same sex marriage throughout all the country doesn't need to
happen. Especially if states would all institute civil unions without the right
Good. Let's get past this; it's fireworks time.
@ cjb: "...institute civil unions without the right to adopt."And this gives equal protection under the law how? There's NO legal
reason to deny gays the right to marry; tossing them civil unions, esp. WITH NO
ADOPTION is obviously the back of the bus. It may even be the back bumper of the
Now that the government (not God) has decided marriage means nothing special,
legalized polygamy, polyandry, bestiality or pedophilia "marriages"
can't be far away either. Now people, be careful, you wouldn't want to
discriminate against anyone would you?
@cjbI have a better idea if you want your religious marriage to be
special have a religious ceremony and name it what ever you want but stop trying
to force the state to give you special status. @mountain man thank you for illustrating exactly why those that support doma and prop
@ Pharanc. Let me correct you! Prop 8 was approved by the majority of the
citizens of California in a general election as was the DOMA nationwide. The
courts legislating from the bench overturned the will of the majority which
means prop 8 and DOMA did not lose anything, freedom lost! Marriage lost and the
people of America lost the meaning and value of elections!
"Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married
and who is not. The federal government may not intrude."If
marriage is the province of the states how is it that abortion is not, likewise,
a province of the states? Neither marriage nor abortion is found in the US
Constitution. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, these issues are delegated
to the states and to the people.If the issue is 'equal
protection' the answer of federally defining marriage is not the way to go.
The way to go is to remove the federal benefits that accrue to marriage. That
would include such as variant IRS tax rates for married and single, conveying
property on death such as social security, and a myriad of other benefits
accruing under federal law to the married. A herculean task for sure but the
only fair way to meet the requirements of US Constitution's Tenth
Amendment. It appears our Justices are a bunch of learned nitwits
who don't seem to know what they are doing.
@mountain man Tree things,, first I never claimed prop 8 was not
passed by popular vote, second doma was passed by the legislature not poplar
vote and third regardless of how they became law you lost because they violated
the federal constitution. So no need for correction
@Mountanman --"legalized polygamy, polyandry, bestiality or
pedophilia "marriages" can't be far away either. "Here we go again.1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers
to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting
personal freedoms.-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which
easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though
they've had gay marriage for years now. 2. adult incest (adult
siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public
safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion
amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is
very high (roughly 30-40%). -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent
court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and
uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are
incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage
contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It
can't be removed. 4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't**
convey any special risk to public safety, and adult gay people CAN give
consent.The differences are obvious.
The Supreme Court acknowledged States Rights. But I still think every State
law concerning the definition of "Marriage" will be wiped out soon based
on the "Equal Protection" angle.I have no problem with a
ruling (either way) as long as the highest court hears the evidence and delivers
a ruling. But all this "we can't even hear the case" so
we're going to kick the can to somebody else or let lower court judgements
(even if they are invalid) stand. The CA voters deserve a ruling, not a game
of dodge-ball in the courts.IMO California should defend their laws,
their Constitution, and the voice of their people, so the case can be heard and
ruled on. Quit ducking and leaving this issue open.
@Tolstoy:"... regardless of how they [prop 8] became law you lost
because they violated the federal constitution."Where in the
Constitution? Please elucidate. Apparently the Supreme Court Judges
couldn't locate it.@amazondoc:"... polygamy
creates concrete dangers to citizens."Marriage creates danger...
called domestic violence. Using your logic all marriages should be banned."... adult incest - illegal in every state because of public safety
concerns.Make it legal... problem solved. The government has no
business in deciding about genetics."... children and animals
are incapable of giving informed consent."Bull. Most children
can make informed decisions. They do it every day."Therefore,
they can't sign marriage contracts."Change laws on
contracts. I know 14 year old children who can make excellent decisions.
Current law unconstitutionally discriminates against them."...
gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety, and adult
gay people CAN give consent."Gay marriage opens the door to a
variety of marriage arrangements that will eventually destroy the institution.
The line on marriage needs to be drawn at one man/one woman... else there is no
line to be drawn.
@Mr. Bean --"Marriage creates danger... called domestic
violence. Using your logic all marriages should be banned."Nope.
There is GREATER risk of harm in polygamy.From Judge Bauman's
decision: -- "I have concluded that this case is essentially about
harm," -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of
physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and
abuse, including sexual abuse" ."Make it (incest) legal...
problem solved. The government has no business in deciding about
genetics."From one of several court cases about adult incest,
this one in Federal court:-- “Because we have already concluded that
THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST, we reject Muth's
challenges to the constitutionality of the incest statute.”"Most children can make informed decisions."I don't
have enough words available to thoroughly explain the legal concept of
"informed consent" to you. You'll have to look that one up."Gay marriage opens the door to a variety of marriage arrangements
that will eventually destroy the institution."Nope. The differences have already been explained to you. The courts already
understand these differences. And I trust the courts to know more about law than
you do. ;-)
@Contrarius:"Nope. There is GREATER risk of harm in polygamy."Doesn't matter the degree of risk. If polygamy is denied due to
risk of harm so should monogamy. Besides, Mideast religion is the source of
most harm in polygamy."From Judge Bauman's
decision..."Is the judge American or a foreigner?"THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST..."What compelling interest?"I don't have enough words
available to thoroughly explain the legal concept of 'informed
consent'..."Informed consent is a lawyer's construct
with ulterior, self-serving motivations. "You'll have to
look that one up."I did... and it says: 'In cases where an
individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is
generally authorized to give consent on their behalf, e.g., parents...'"Nope."Yup."The differences have
already been explained to you."Your explanations are bias
personified."The courts already understand these
differences."What courts?"And I trust the courts
to know more about law than you do."Law is not the issue. The
issue is whether gay marriage will open the door to a myriad of aberrant
marriage arraignments... and it will.
@wrz --Following are excerpts from US court cases, demonstrating
that homosexuality rulings don't protect polygamy or incest in US courts
and reaffirming "state interests" in banning them. I'm condensing
these excerpts like crazy. Apologies if anything remains unanswered.Below, "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision overturning sodomy laws.-- People v. McEvoy (Cal. App. 2013) : "'In any given
non-consanguineous relationship, the rate of severe abnormalities in offspring
is estimated at two to three percent...children of siblings or a parent-child
coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four percent.'...This
increased risk is surely sufficient to provide A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR
CRIMINALIZING INCEST..." and "'...California's interests
in..PROTECTING AGAINST INBREEDING ARE SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO JUSTIFY section
285's incest prohibition."-- also People v. McEvoy:
"Lawrence held that the Texas statute was unconstitutional...because the
statute 'furthers no legitimate state interest...' ...Lawrence thus
'did not announce...a fundamental right...for adults to engage in all
manner of consensual sexual conduct, specifically in this case, incest.'
...THERE IS A RATIONAL BASIS for criminalizing incest..."--
State v. Freeman (Ohio App. 2003): "In the case of incest, as opposed to a
consensual homosexual relationship, THERE IS INJURY TO PERSONS....continued --
continued ---- State v. Freeman (Ohio App. 2003) (cont'd):
"...the state has a LEGITIMATE INTEREST in preventing incest...The same
cannot be said for homosexual relationships."-- Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry
properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but
this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR
INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous
relationships...the state constitutional right to marry...DOES NOT AFFECT the
constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and
the marriage of close relatives."-- Muth v. Frank (7th Cir.
2005): "Because...THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST,
we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest
statute." and "Lawrence DID NOT ADDRESS the constitutionality of incest
statutes."-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006) -- a polygamy case:
"Despite its use of seemingly sweeping language, the holding in Lawrence is
ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM
PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an
institution the law protects.'"
@mr beantry the fifth and fourteenth amendments for starters.