California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Silmanarmo]

I'm going to throw my Canadian perspective into this Gay or straight any person who is truly "free" should have the personal right to marry, love and support whomever they want. Perhaps this is because the big picture is to have a unified world not a world based on race, sexual orientation or religion. The term "married" does not mean that you have to be catholic. It means that you love and support that person to the best of your ability. To refuse this from any human suggests ignorance. Who is to say who can do what and who can't. Whether I agree or disagree with this issue gives me no right to refuse human rights from a person; love. I would rather see two very happy gay people married together then two unhappy straight people married (not that all straight marriages don't work!). therefore why wouldn't there be gay divorce? There is straight divorce. <- there's my opinion

[DeltAlum]

/\/\/\ I like your thoughts.

[Silmanarmo]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

/\/\/\ I like your thoughts.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Silmanarmo

I'm going to throw my Canadian perspective into this Gay or straight any person who is truly "free" should have the personal right to marry, love and support whomever they want.

What if I want to marry, love and support two women at the same time, and they want to marry, love and support me and each other?

Serious question. If this shouldn't be allowed, how do you distinguish between it being okay for two people to get married and not okay for three people to get married?

[DeltAlum]

Uh, isn't there a debate on polygamy somewhere else?

Why muddy the waters any worse than they already are?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Uh, isn't there a debate on polygamy somewhere else?

Why muddy the waters any worse than they already are?

Because they will get muddied sooner or later. I'm thinking of legal reasoning and jurisprudence here, not ethics or philosophy. If a court wants to interpret equal protection rights to mean that a state cannot deny anyone the right to marry a person of the same sex, then the courts have to be prepared to consider a similar claim regarding multiple marriage. (Note that my example =/= polygamy, as I suggest all three parties being married to each other, not just the man to the two women.)

The question I'm asking is on what basis could or would a court say that the state has no interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages but does have an interest in preventing multiple marriages.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Because they will get muddied sooner or later. I'm thinking of legal reasoning and jurisprudence here, not ethics or philosophy. If a court wants to interpret equal protection rights to mean that a state cannot deny anyone the right to marry a person of the same sex, then the courts have to be prepared to consider a similar claim regarding multiple marriage. (Note that my example =/= polygamy, as I suggest all three parties being married to each other, not just the man to the two women.)

The question I'm asking is on what basis could or would a court say that the state has no interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages but does have an interest in preventing multiple marriages.

This is one of the major issues I have about this ruling - the CA Supreme Court has taken quite a broad view on equal protection, and doesn't seem to have thought down the road to the future court cases that will be brought pursuant to the ruling. It has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter, but I question the court's wisdom in speaking in such sweeping terms. If people are going to be in favor of judge-made law, as opposed to leaving things to the legislatures, then the judges have to be very careful in how they frame things.

Also, could everyone stop with the ridiculous criticisms of the Northern/Southern educational systems?

- graduate of the CT educational system who seems to have done ok, and who understands that there are some great, and not so great, schools in both the North and South.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm thinking of legal reasoning and jurisprudence here, not ethics or philosophy.

I'll take your word for that, because the first thought I had was a propaganda technique called "transference" which basically is to point the discussion in a different direction in mid-stream in order to muddy the waters.

Like bringing up polygamy in a discussion of gay marriage.

Guess I don't see much of a commonality.

But go ahead, muddle away.

It's an open board.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'll take your word for that, because the first thought I had was a propaganda technique called "transference" which basically is to point the discussion in a different direction in mid-stream in order to muddy the waters.

Like bringing up polygamy in a discussion of gay marriage.

Guess I don't see much of a commonality.

But go ahead, muddle away.

It's an open board.

The thing is, though, he wasn't muddling at all; he brought up some perfectly valid points. The thread isn't just a "do you like/do you not like gay marriage," it's about the court case that decided the issue in CA. When you look at the court's reasoning, it opens the door to the issues that MysticCat mentioned. Whether or not you see a commonality, when you read the court's opinion, it leaves things extremely wide open for skilled litigators.

It would be nice to talk about these things in terms of aspirations or optimal results, or to talk in vague terms about how things should be, where the argument should end. However, because of the setting where the decision was made, the legal reasoning issues raised my MysticCat are fairly important, to say the least.