Gay mariage almost OK in California.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by TheMonarch, Sep 2, 2005.

  1. TheMonarch macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #1
    Read

    EDIT: Sorry, bill was only approved. But this is a step no?. But this brings questions. How come same sex couples can get married, but polygamy isn't... I don't agree with polygamy, but if they're messing with marriage, why not be equal to everyone?

    Let me add more. A lot of gay people complain that it shouldn't be anyone's business about how they live their lives. Why should it be anyone's else's business how many wives they want? Some religions accept having multiple wives, do you agree that we should respect and legalize that too? Its only fair right? Why only gay people? Or any type of marriage?

    Again. I don't agree with polygamy. Just a thought.
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    Where do you draw the line once this pandora's box of immorality is opened? where does it stop or end? One wife is enough i dont know who could take 2 :D
     
  3. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #3
    Interesting.
    If heterosexual and homosexual marriages are legal, then why not polygamy. Why not polygamy of heterosexuals or polygamy of homosexuals or combined bisexual hetero and homo marriages.

    What's wrong with me have 2 wives or 20 for that matter if all people involved are consenting to this arrangement.

    Why does the Government have a say in this at all?

    Or what's wrong with me having sex with sheep on the farm?

    I wouldn't be harming anyone else.

    Why should society get to determine who I have sex with or who has sex with me?

    After all I was born the way I am.
     
  4. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #4
    What about a Gorilla? one was lookin' real fine at the zoo the other day...
     
  5. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #5
    Something else that has recently occured is the court's decision to enforce custody rights for same-sex partnerships... meaning, if two women are involved, agree to have a child together to raise as their own, and one mom backs out-- she legally has to compensate just as any parent in a hetero relationship.
     
  6. cooknwitha macrumors 6502a

    cooknwitha

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #6

    Errr....... ummmm.......
     
  7. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #7
    Setting aside the disturbing image in my head of ~loserman~ doing a sheep...

    ...I don't believe that's consensual sex (since the sheep can't agree to anything), which is why it's illegal in many places (perhaps not for that reason, but it seems like a good reason).

    As for Poly. marriages. *shrug* If they're all consenting adults, why not? I'd think it'd be a pain in the ass, in the end, but if someone wanted to do it...
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    That would make a good line and i am sure the voters in Kalifornia will go for it.....for awhile until they start looking good. :eek:
     
  9. TheMonarch thread starter macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    All I'm saying is that if people are going to complain about unfairness, then it should be an equal slate right? Not just hetero and gay people. If we're going to change the definition of marriage, then why not make it equal? (even though I don't agree with changing it)


    Its only fair. Right?
     
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #10
    Wow, it only took one post to compare homosexualuty with polygamy and two to compare it to beastiality.
    This must be a Macrumors Political forums record!
     
  11. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #11
    Nothing. Straight and gay men do it all the time. I wish you luck. Have fun!
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    :D How you been? This what happens when the line becomes grey instead of black & white. Also where do the feds stop and the states start?
     
  13. swindmill macrumors 6502a

    swindmill

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    KY
    #13
    Civil marriage, which is what is at issue, is created and regulated through the police power of the state. A state's authority to regulate this power is bound by the liberty and equality guarantees present in a given state constitution.

    The Supreme Court of the US has already held that marriage is a fundamental right, and that laws may not interfere substantially with the right to marry. A citizen cannot be denied of life, liberty, and happiness without due process of law. In order to meet due process concerns, a government action must have a rational basis. Some courts will find that the government has no rational basis for denying two people of the same sex the right to marry, and thus, access to the benefits of civil marriage. Clearly, the question would be entirely different if polygamy were at issue.

    Also, when a marriage statute implicates a suspect classification (sexual orientation) the government action must pass a strict judicial scrutiny test. Polygamy is not a suspect classification.

    These principles also apply when a legislature is considering amendmending a statute.

    My main point is that comparing the rights of same sex couples to marry with the rights of polygamists to marry makes absolutely no sense at all. The government motive for restricting the different types of marriage is entirely different and the legal questions and implications are entirely different.

    No one is arguing that we should change marriage statutes from including "the voluntary union of a man and woman" to "any human, animal, or combination thereof, of any number, who wish to join in a union in order to take government money and benefits". The definition of marriage is not based on morals, it's based on what is good for the general welfare. Allowing two people of the same sex to join in a civil marriage in order to carry out the common function of a family, which is what the government's interest is, would be within the general welfare.

    STOP COMPARING GAY MARRIAGE TO POLYGAMY AND BEASTIALITY - IT'S IGNORANT
     
  14. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #14
    To everyone not an acolyte of Santorum, don't get your hopes up too far, this bill has yet to pass the Assembly (it's already failed there before) and the Governor hasn't said what he would do yet either. My Assemblyman, Mark Leno, has been trying very hard to round up the votes, but so far Central Valley Democrats have yet to agree. It's a good step to get it passed the State Senate, but hardly indicative of passage just yet.

    To the Santorumites among us (Dont Hurt Me, I took yours as a joke, so I'm not including you,) stop with the silly slippery slope arguments. If you want to have a serious discussion, get serious. The right of gay marriage has nothing to do with the topics of polygamy or bestiality. What it does have to do with is equality before the law - you know all that fourteenth amendment stuff. In case you forgot:

    emphasis added
     
  15. Lacero macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #15
    Santorum is gross. [​IMG]
     
  16. TheMonarch thread starter macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #16

    Look, I didn't say OMGWTF GAY MARRIAGE=POLYGAMY SO BAN IT!!!

    I keep hearing the argument that "Its none of your business how other people want to live their lives" argument. So using that argument, then you agree that it shouldn't matter how many wives certain people want, its still about marriage, and "Its none of your business". No?

    If we're going to change the definition of marriage, then why not make it equal?

    Let me say it again, I don't agree with polygamy, just a thought.
     
  17. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #17
    And so is his "argument" that some posters want to parrot.
     
  18. swindmill macrumors 6502a

    swindmill

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    KY
    #18
    First of all, that statement was aimed at you specifically, but to all people making the argument as if makes any sense at all. Second, it really doesn't matter what arguments you hear from other people. They are not making legal arguments. I tried to explain why what you propose would not be making it "equal".
     
  19. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #19
    If we give equal rights to the Homosexuals, then I think that equal rights should also be given to the polygamists who want multiple, as well as the people in Arkansas who want to marry their 13 year old cousin.

    And the argument about "the strict judicial scrutiny test" is just plain dumb. Polygamy = 2 or more wives. Homosexual marriage = same sex partner. Simple as pie.
     
  20. swindmill macrumors 6502a

    swindmill

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    KY
    #20
    Did you even read my post? You have responded with exactly what I was addressing in the first place.

    Do you have any idea what strict judicial scrutiny is? It's not an argument. It's a test that courts apply to government actions which involve discrimination of a suspect class. I have no idea what that second part of your post is trying to argue.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    If you give equal rights under the law to [fill in the blank], utter moral chaos will ensue.

    1955 [fill in the blank] = black people
    2005 [fill in the blank] = gay people

    Some arguments just never seem to go out of style.

    Too bad about that.
     
  22. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #22
    Problem is what one state does vs another, example get married in Kalifornia but then come to South Carolina.........different laws different states. It why its a fed deal because people move across states.
     
  23. swindmill macrumors 6502a

    swindmill

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    KY
    #23
    It's within the state's powers to decide on marriage laws. People who get married in a state whose marriage laws recognize same sex unions, and then move to one which does not, will encounter problems, but that is a personal decision. The reason the 'Santoriums' want a federal marriage amedment is so states, in having to recognize the supremacy of the federal constitution, will no longer have the power to include same-sex marriages within their state marriage laws.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Um, ok... I'll bite. A civil union is a bond between 2 consenting adults, that also brings with it some legal rights and responsibilities. Polygomy is more than 2 people, so it can't be a legal bond between 2 people. Though, in certain circumstances, power of attorney and other legal protection cover the same things. I suppose gay couples could do the same, but it isn't as easy as just getting married. I mean... civily unioned. Plus, 3 or more isn't a couple, it's a group. You may as well just call it dating. Or a harem. Sex with animals is 1 consenting adult and 1 (or more) very confused animal(s). Children are not consenting adults, that's why they're called children. Though in some states, 14 is perfectly legal with the parents ok. The fact that it's icky doesn't come into play, I guess.
     
  25. ~loserman~ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Land flowing with Milk and Honey
    #25
    Obviously my first post was tongue and cheek.
    It was only made to point out the argument that is being made all the time that it isn't the governments business what goes on in my bedroom.

    The problem with that argument is it is societies/ the government's business.
    We have a government of the people by the people for the people. Or at least we used to.
    If society at large is not ready for some form of social change, at least the majority of it, then that change is not going to happen. At least not as far as the law is concerned. If law makers choose to be bold and act in opposition to what the majority of the public wants then restrictive laws get passed as a backlash as soon as the majority or opposition can get their people into power.

    Edit: I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. It just happens to be kind of how it is.
     

Share This Page