California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.