Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

[rossum]

And the universal constant till revisionist tried to redefine marriage is man and woman.

No. Not man and woman but man and women, plural. Are you saying that we should make Moslem marriages to up to four wives legal because there is precedent in the Old Testament, as well as the Qur’an, and such marriages were long established before the United States even got started. It is the US law from 1776 on which is revisionist.

You are merely picking one variant of many and asserting it as superior. You are Catholic so from the Church’s point of view their own version is superior. However, marriage as defined in law in the United States already differs from the Catholic standard. You cannot require that US law enforces your particular version over all the other particular versions available. The law in America is guided by the Constitution, not by the Catholic Church. This argument is about whether or not Proposition 8 is Constitutional. We already know that the Catholic Church supports Proposition 8.

rossum

 

[royal_archer]

No. Not man and woman but man and women, plural. Are you saying that we should make Moslem marriages to up to four wives legal because there is precedent in the Old Testament, as well as the Qur’an, and such marriages were long established before the United States even got started. It is the US law from 1776 on which is revisionist.

You are merely picking one variant of many and asserting it as superior. You are Catholic so from the Church’s point of view their own version is superior. However, marriage as defined in law in the United States already differs from the Catholic standard. You cannot require that US law enforces your particular version over all the other particular versions available. The law in America is guided by the Constitution, not by the Catholic Church. This argument is about whether or not Proposition 8 is Constitutional. We already know that the Catholic Church supports Proposition 8.

rossum

Multiple wives is not unique to muslims or the old testement. It is a common pattern in many cultures and the natural world. It also meets the criteria I laid out in this thead for a valid marriage in that it is a partnership following the pattern capable of bearing and raising children.

My primary objections to it are moral. and my secular objections only relate to logistical implementation issues (such as allowing employers to determine the number of a workers spouces they are willing to cover…)

Given the number single moms who can not find decent husbands and bread winners for the fammily, poligamy may provide some bennefits for society (from a purely secular and legal point of view / not a moral point of view)

 

[dskysmine]

Which question? There are over a dozen here. Prioritize, say, three, and I will address them.

They have all the same importance for the sake of our discussion… I don’t choose whichever questions you ask of me to answer. I either answer all or none. Please answer when you find the time. Or answer with what you find essential.

This has nothing to do with oligarchy. Judges only rule on cases brought to them.

Please read the definition of oligarchy and you will certainly find out what I mean.

Not true. Sometimes laws that have been on the books for years are struck down. I am not sure you understand what you are talking about here.

If you are complaining about the process of judicial review, then you simply are rejecting part of the process set up in the three branches of U.S. government. It is not perfect, but it is the best on the planet. I don’t complain about judicial review, and I disagree with about 50% of the case results that I follow. You can’t whine when you lose and then also use it to one’s advantage elsewhere without being hypocritical. Win some, lose some.

I am talking about ballot reviews. The ballot was not considered unconstitutional to be up for ballot, now it is considered unconstitutional by another member of the Judicial branch. It seems the Judicial branch cannot agree given the same premises…

No. Not man and woman but man and women, plural. Are you saying that we should make Moslem marriages to up to four wives legal because there is precedent in the Old Testament, as well as the Qur’an, and such marriages were long established before the United States even got started. It is the US law from 1776 on which is revisionist.

The US law from 1776 doesn’t say anything regarding marriage… I don’t see where you are arguing from. And the constitution doesn’t say anything regarding marriage. It seems the Founding fathers didn’t want to make that choice for the constituants, even though they argued for the freedom to bear arms, which seems logically less important (or not).
It seems odd that when society decides one thing that doesn’t pleases an “elite”, that “elite” will be given everything to allow for what they want.

You are merely picking one variant of many and asserting it as superior. You are Catholic so from the Church’s point of view their own version is superior. However, marriage as defined in law in the United States already differs from the Catholic standard. You cannot require that US law enforces your particular version over all the other particular versions available. The law in America is guided by the Constitution, not by the Catholic Church. This argument is about whether or not Proposition 8 is Constitutional. We already know that the Catholic Church supports Proposition 8.

rossum

Actually, proposition 8 wasn’t considered “unconstitutional” on the base of the Constitution alone. If there were no judge law concerning marriage it couldn’t have been considered unconstitutional at all.