G
Giants
Guest
If he wants to, I’m sure he will. Hardly any sort of ‘debacle,’ though.
- Status
F
Faithdancer
Guest
It will just show what a sham his pretended objectivity was.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.
Hallowed be Thy Name;
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen.
R
RobbyS
Guest
It was a weird decision and the court has come up with other weird ones. None more than Plessy. Roberts had to do a back flip to arrive at his opinion, because nothing in the language of the act or of the Constitution allows him to say what he did.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I guess we’ll find out next week. And if same sex “marriages” resume in California, can multi-party “marriages” be far behind? Hugh Hefner may be the first in line for that license…or licenses…or licentiousness. …
G
Giants
Guest
If there’s ever any sort of serious push to legalize polygamy, we’ll see the same process work itself out. The people who don’t want it will need to demonstrate a viable State interest in keeping it illegal. My sense is that this won’t prove terribly difficult. A tax argument may ultimately suffice.I guess we’ll find out next week. And if same sex “marriages” resume in California, can multi-party “marriages” be far behind? Hugh Hefner may be the first in line for that license…or licenses…or licentiousness. …
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Certainly the homosexualists cannot produce a moral argument against polygamy. It will be interesting…
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wrong. It would change for 100% of Americans. There is no such thing as two different definitions of marriage or categories of marriage.
Further, you have little understanding of the concept of equal protection. A constitutionalist you are not.
G
Giants
Guest
I certainly can’t manage a credible moral argument against it. Maybe there is one, and it hasn’t occurred to me just yet. Then again, I don’t particularly care how many wives my neighbor has. It’s not like it has any effect on MY marriage - what kind of person would pretend that it does?
What will really be interesting is that, unlike the gay marriage debate, the people forming ranks on both sides of the polygamy debate will be religious, and using their theologies to justify their positions on the issue.
G
Giants
Guest
Hate to break it to you, but I am a member of that 100% of Americans. If the definition of marriage were expanded to allow for gay people to marry each other, it would affect my marriage not one wit.
And while I may not be a Constitutionalist, the lawyers who are arguing against Prop 8 and the judges who’ve been judging the case most assuredly are - and their understanding of “equal protection” is exactly the same my own.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Whether it affects your marriage personally or not, it changes the definition of your marriage, in civil terms.
Since you do not appear to be Catholic, it is understandable that you have no concern about same sex “marriage” legitimizing what is considered by faithful Catholic Christians to be a gravely disordered activity, i.e. homosexual activity. However, to a faithful Catholic the nature of homosexuality and its practices, its antithesis to proper heterosexual relations within marriage, are integral to the Catholic opposition toward same sex “marriage.” Any argument that ignores this moral parameter and is based on purely secular reasoning is pretty much moot, to faithful Catholics.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Um, I hate to break it to you, but institutional definitions are just that; they are universal, not “mine” or “yours” or “theirs,” variously. It affects the institution of marriage, respect for that institution, and the understanding of that institution.
Marriage is not a private affair. A relationship is a private affair. Those are two different categoreis.
Cohabitation is a private affair; marriage is a public affair. Marriage is a civil matter, a matter of public record, regardless of whether there is additionally a religious ceremony or sacrament involved. It’s the relationship within the institution of marriage which is private and in a technical sense “not affected” by the relationships which other couples have, including heterosexual couples.
And the lawyers who are arguing for Prop 8 have a different understanding of Equal Protection, an understanding which is in keeping with the Constitution.
Have a nice day.
F
fix
Guest
Why should a heterosexual judge do such a thing?
F
fix
Guest
Whether people, especially lawyers, want to accept it or not judges base their decisions not only on the law but their private interpretation of that law which includes their moral values.
If judges hold immoral beliefs we get immoral decisions. Just notice why the Supreme Court appointments are so politically charged.
R
rossum
Guest
Because in the matter of homosexual vs heterosexual, both homosexual judges and homosexual judges may be biased. Hence my suggestion that such judges recuse themselves, leaving only the neutral bisexual and asexual judges on the bench.
There have certainly been complaints about one of the judges in the Proposition 8 case being homosexual.
rossum
F
fix
Guest
How can the term bias be used for what is normal?
F
fix
Guest
Because The Left has inverted language in all kinds of ways, not the least of which is this.
Well, in that case we should not have any judges at all. Just having such a position is intolerant.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes the ultimate conclusion to progressive moral relativism…moral nihilism. To be.followed shortly thereafter by anarchy and hopefully then- if not sooner- the apocalypse. Come, Lord Jesus!Well, in that case we should not have any judges at all. Just having such a position is intolerant.
- Status