California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

the Constitution is a chosen means to an end, and it can be unchosen as well. I dont happen to think that the flash point is going to be victims abusing the collective, I think it will be SCOTUS continuing to allow the corruption of our society to go unchecked by its idiotic claim that wealth is free speech, but those who sit on SCOTUS and those who use SCOTUS to ram their agenda down the throat of the collective (GAYS are the worst offenders after the corporate class) might wise up before they destroy the Constitution.

hawk, How have gays impeded your freedoms?

Polygamy denies equality also... two's company three's a crowd... true marriage can only be between two people. And why is it the conservative Christians always moaning about polygamy because they are REALLY against it or because they secretly desire it? Multiple wives would allow them to lord over women like their sexist Bible suggests... Then they can draw their christian army of men to the collection plate if they (like Islam) can offer them multiple wives or virgins in paradise... And it fits with their female subservient doctrines of their saint Paul... Their logic is, if gays get a same sex partner can we have multiple wives too?

From the standpoint of legal benefits of marriage that isn't true.

In the event of death of one spouse the surviving spouse inherits all assets without penalty or taxation.
In a polygamous marriage, who inherits?

In the event of death of one spouse the surviving spouse has parental rights. How do you propose that works in a polygamous marriage?

These are simple questions in case 2 people are married and the gender really doesn't matter in order to answer the questions.

From the standpoint of taxation you are allowed one spouse as a dependent. Again, gender doesn't make a difference but multiple dependents does make a difference and creates an inequality.

Siblings create the same rift as do also family members of the spouse who often try to sue in court to get common law marriage deemed void... I figure if people want to have more than one spouse let them have one spouse and let the other spouse be a mistress and subject to applicable laws or divorce and live in promiscuity... A marriage is between two people. If you want more it is whoredom and need not be considered marriage. Marry the ONE you want to be legally bound with. Leave your mistress if need be other provisions... One has legal privileges the other has provisions.

Those "provisions" usually include a whole lot'sa $$$$$$$$, fancy cars, and an expensive apartment or two.

In relationship dynamics there is always a dominant partner. If there's a constant struggle for dominance there is a schism. Pretending otherwise is mere dilettantism. MOR bullshit.

Hence men either lord it over women or women lord it over men. The alternative is divorce or, what might be worse, staying together for other reasons and making the most of the constant bickering with the odd game on Valentine's day or birfdays. Taking turns at lording it is just silly.

A high divorce rate signifies a society in which the struggle remains unresolved and will likely continue with a third party after a split. A feeding frenzy for lawyers and media which institutions encourage the irresolution.

I assume it is the same with homosexual relationships. Dogging, cruising etc being one solution with dominance being up front about it, if you will forgive such a lewd expression Rex, in modes of dress.

And how do you know women dislike being lorded over? They might be happier like that. Your assumption they are not renders your argument circular. i.e. once you make that assumption your conclusions follow automatically. If your assumption is wrong, which it is in many cases, your conclusion is wrong.

And also, you are making an assumption that a woman who looks to you like she is being lorded over actually is being. I know a guy who presents the "Big Mon" image and his wife, buxom five foot two bottled blond of a certain age, has his every moved taped and twists him round her little finger like a well cooked noodle. But you need to know them well to find that out. Superficially he looks to be really lording it and she can turn him into a quivering blob of ectoplasm just by bringing her knees forward a bit. He calls her "sweetheart" 500 times a day.

If the ship starts sinking you watch women search for lording.

Maybe you're the sexist. You're defining women your way. I'll bet those Biblical women couldn't get into the seraglio fast enough. I bet there was a long waiting list.

You're treating the dictionary as a running buffet Rex. You argument about using the word marriage just how you want you have blown out of the water with that. You have granted the right of others to define the word how they want. A fight has ensued. A democratic referendum was held to settle the matter in our traditional manner, a free vote by free people supervised and scrutinised by experts from all sides, and it decided that marriage is between two people of opposite sexes. One single judge, who might have any number of personal motives, has overturned that. It's incredible. My mates in the pub were astonished when I told them. One spoke of the Cavalry.

All the combinations para are subject to economic exigencies.

The argument that Cal. will derive an economic benefit from officially recognising as "Marriage" relationships between two homosexuals is the only argument worth pursuing.* Polyandry, more than one husband, is a feature of high altitude arrangements, polygyny, more than one wife, of hot dry regions.

If there was an economic benefit to women's and men's barracks with R and R facilities in between Cal. would probably be making the running.

Monogamy between man and woman was chosen by the Christian world for its practical usefulness. The "eyes of God" were only brought in to persuade those who didn't see the practical usefulness. Hence the necessity to give the "eyes of God" some clout.

*I recognise that Cal. might mean just the movers and shakers in the state. I think legalising marriage between homs will attract homs from all over the world to Cal. and the state can pick and choose which to let in on other grounds. This will provide an active market for hets who wish to flee on the best possible terms. Hence, if the current movers and shakers are hets and thinking of fleeing, for any reason, it makes sense. In the end homs can win all votes. Their willingness to do the right thing will soon get rid of the deficit which they can reasonably claim was caused by hets.

Legalising prostitution and marijuana put Amsterdam on the tourist map.

That's the line I would pursue Rex. It would suit us hets if you were all concentrated in one place and could settle down to domestic harmony without all this bickering.

You might want to read this spendi -
Monogamy and polygyny in Greece, Rome, and world history

Monogamy may date back to the Etruscans (and who knows, maybe even earlier) who it is believed date back to before Greek and Roman civilizations. Even the Etruscan kings valued their queens as equals...

I've finally read the entire 136-page opinion in this case (well, I skimmed the dull parts). Some of my doubts have been resolved, others have not.

I still think that Judge Walker, in taking extensive testimony and incorporating lengthy and detailed findings of fact in his opinion, was, in effect, attempting to create a legislative history for Proposition 8. Compare his opinion with the recent opinion of Judge Tauro in the Massachusetts case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., which invalidated DOMA. In contrast to Walker, Tauro issued his ruling on the basis of a motion for summary judgment and didn't hear any testimony at all. But then he was dealing with a congressional statute that had a full legislative history (which he cited), unlike Walker, who was dealing with a citizen initiative that had no such history. Tauro's opinion, as a result, is 39 pages long, about one-quarter of the length of Walker's opinion.

I am, again, left wondering why Walker didn't follow the same path and decide this case on summary judgment. I suppose that, without the kind of legislative history that Tauro had in connection with DOMA, he needed to determine if the government could establish any kind of rational basis for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. The intervenors in his case, of course, did a terrible job of providing a rationale, although I'm not entirely impressed with the job that the plaintiffs did. Some of their factual findings were, I would say, tenuous or debatable or just plain irrelevant. It is less a testament to the plaintiffs that they did such a good job at presenting their case, I think, than a testament to the truly horrible job the intervenors did in trying to rebut it.

The intervenors, however, didn't really have to provide a rationale for Prop 8 so much as the plaintiffs had to show that there was no possible rationale for it. As the supreme court stated in Heller v. Doe (citations omitted):



It should be noted that Walker ultimately decided that the classification made by Prop 8 did involve a fundamental right, but he based much of his reasoning on the lower threshold of the rational basis test. Under that test, the legislature doesn't have to articulate "the purpose or rationale supporting its classification." Indeed, as Heller goes on to say, a "legislative choice is not subject to courtroom factfinding and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data." In sum, as long as some conceivable rational basis exists, the law stands.

That is, in part, why I don't think an appellate court would be required to defer to Walker's findings of fact. Although Walker attempted to create a legislative history for Prop 8, there's no constitutional requirement, under a rational basis analysis, for a legislative history even for regular legislation. Furthermore, the fact that it was the intervenors, rather than the state, making the case (and doing a very bad job of it) provides additional reason for paying little deference to the trial court testimony or to Walker's findings of fact.

In short, I think many who thought that the appellate courts would be hamstrung by Walker's extensively detailed findings of fact and by the requirement to pay "due deference" to those findings are unduly optimistic. If this case reaches the supreme court, I doubt that the justices will feel bound to follow those findings, and I don't think they should be.

If two men or two woman want to marry why is that different than if a man and a woman marry? Or is a woman not equal to a man? Is marriage as it stands sexist?

They're not being "sexist" as much as being blinded by their religious teachings from the bible. They have no good reason based on common sense, history, ethics, or our Constitution. They want to use such arguments as a) it takes a man and a woman to grow the population, and b) a child needs a father and mother.

They ignore the fact that many married heterosexual couples do not have children, or the simple fact that many single men and women raise their children.

They're blinded by their own bigotry, discrimination, and no understanding of our Constitution. They see only what they want to see; total ignorance.

That looks silly to me para. What was "specific to this movement" is the "context". No?

According to Christian doctrines in most all faiths a woman is to serve her husband and he is to serve Jesus. That is sexist and that will be the rope that trips them up. In a free society we all serve the greater good of humanity equally.

"They" is your straw man ci. Your own sitting duck. I have used neither argument. I could suggest methods of growing the population which involve no relationships. And nursuries.

Religious teaching follows economic exingencies you silly moo. Can you not understand that simple fact. The religious teaching is to encourage the desired effect. Not the starting point.

I can't understand how you have got to your age without knowing such a simple and obvious thing. Maybe you really are completely stupid.

The Constitution was designed for practical purposes and not out of any principles. How to make the most out of the goldmine the FFs found themselves in charge of.

Yes, I can see how the defeated party might look at things this way. However, nothing could be further from the truth - it is our Principles which have led us to occupy the position which you bunch USED to occupy.

Cycloptichorn

And you're welcome to it.

Not as fun as it looks from the outside, is it? However, it does grant us some small benefits in terms of physical and social comforts, for which we are grateful.

Cycloptichorn