What would A World Without Lawyers be like?
"The Internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea: massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it" - I wish I had said this.
Must be fun to limit the discussion to your own personal preference....or should I say Lifestyle choice?...Just kidding
The Limits goverment has in defining marriage is the CORE of this argument.
DOMA is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.
One related question is....Should government be able to limit marriage to ANY TWO people?
Last edited by IHOPSkins; February-11th-2012 at 11:33 AM.
"As long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it.
The only person who’s going to be penalized and have difficulty is the law-abiding citizen,
who then cannot have [it] if he wants protection -- the protection of a weapon in his home."
In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man.
Then he can rob his house.
You referred to the gay marriage issue as being reflective of a NO LIMITS policy on marriage. NO LIMITS is the phrase you used. You were wrong about that, and you continue to be wrong about it. You conflated gay marriage with the idea that there are NO LIMITS whatsoever placed on the Federal definition of marriage. That's simply incorrect, unsuppportable, and echoes a commonly seen so-called "conservative" attempt to re-frame equal rights as a throwing-open of the doors to any crazy thing you can think of (hence your words, NO LIMITS).
If you want to argue that someday, maybe the popular will is going to allow polygamy under the banner of equal rights, then I agree with you. Maybe it will. Someday. And maybe it won't. Maybe, IHOP, you can point me in the direction of the major national movement that either exists or is brewing to legalize polygamy, because somehow I fail to see one at this time or on the horizon. I'd welcome it because we have a nice big house and a couple of very desirable ladies in my community seem have their eyes on me. But again, that does not match your claim of NO LIMITS.
NO LIMITS would run afoul of all kinds of protections that are not going to go away. One major protection for you to stop and consider, in case you retread the standard next step of this ineffective old NO LIMITS argument by retreating from polygamy to something more nefarious like objects / animals / little kids, is the principle of legal consent. Another to consider, in case you weren't planning to go that way and planned instead to stick with polygamy (another bad move), is the age-old and time-honored principle of balancing the needs of the society against the rights of the individual. If a polygamy case came up before the Supreme Court right now, on what grounds would it be decided against the complainant? Do you doubt that it would be? Ask yourself how and when you think that's going to change, and please share it here.
Again: For those who want to discuss the contemporary marriage issue as what it is -- and not the made-up bugaboo they wish it could be to make their objections more solidly grounded -- there is a seat available here at the adult table. But pretending that any of this has anything to do with NO LIMITS, that ineffective fearmongering, only guarantees a meal of chicken nuggets and sippy-cup milk with the drooling munchkins. Sorry IHOP.
Last edited by mjah; February-11th-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Me, I have to confess that I have no clue what this Supreme Court would do with this case. (But in the words of Han Solo, "I've got a bad feeling about this".)
My question is: can corporations get married, now that they are declared persons? And can they execute a corporation? How does one determine the sex of a corporation anyway?
Geez, minors can view porn but adults of the same sex cannot get married. I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Last edited by LadySkinsFan; February-11th-2012 at 01:43 PM.
To quote a person who has been receiving some substantial media attention of late, "Corporations are people, my friend." Why can't they get married?
We need an Amendment.
Gay marriage now legal in Washington
Slowly the tide is turning.
While throwing out the popular referendum, the California court left a moratorium on gay marriage in place pending appeal.
---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 12:34 PM ----------
---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 12:41 PM ----------
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 9th Circuit majority, chose not to embrace the broad ruling handed down by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker -- that same-sex couples cannot be denied the right to marry, period. Instead, Reinhardt ruled narrowly that Prop 8, which passed by ballot referendum in 2010, violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because it took away, without any rational reason, the right to marry that the California Supreme Court had guaranteed to the state's gay and lesbian citizens earlier that year.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)