Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives?

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I can answer in 2 words or less






BIRTH DEFECTS!

INBREEDING!


continue.

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So what? Birth defects happen to children in marriages that are not among close relatives.

Many monarchies survived hundreds of years inbreeding. I would bet that mankind survived due to inbreeding in its early years.

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

All of what you just mentioned are already outlawed in most states...and?

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

All of what you just mentioned are already outlawed in most states...and?

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

Hysterical often?

Just tell us, has some strange man been stalking you?

it's ok to tell them no.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

The will of the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority.

Amazing how judges are only activist when they disagree with you.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

This one is the easy one - we have nearly 200 years' worth of rulings that there is a rational basis for banning polygamy and communal marriages, mostly based on the potential for abuse and the difficulty of legally sanctioning (and enforcing) those contracts (for example, how can we be sure that the first wife is "OK" with the second marriage, free of coercion?). Now, if things have changed enough that polygamy will equal something other than "one man, many wives, starting from age 14" then I'd be for it, presuming the contractual difficulties could be sorted out - after all, what do I care, and once we've eliminated that harm that is the rational basis for the ban, who is getting hurt?

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Either way though, "slippery slope" is a terrible reason to fight something, particularly when your worst-case scenario for falling down the slope is brothers/sisters or bigamy - I'm not exactly sure those are apocalyptic consequences.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This one is the easy one - we have nearly 200 years' worth of rulings that there is a rational basis for banning polygamy and communal marriages, mostly based on the potential for abuse and the difficulty of legally sanctioning (and enforcing) those contracts (for example, how can we be sure that the first wife is "OK" with the second marriage, free of coercion?). Now, if things have changed enough that polygamy will equal something other than "one man, many wives, starting from age 14" then I'd be for it, presuming the contractual difficulties could be sorted out - after all, what do I care, and once we've eliminated that harm that is the rational basis for the ban, who is getting hurt?

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Either way though, "slippery slope" is a terrible reason to fight something, particularly when your worst-case scenario for falling down the slope is brothers/sisters or bigamy - I'm not exactly sure those are apocalyptic consequences.

Since it's my cause du jour, I want to make a distinction between religious polygamy and other forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The latter is entirely different from the former.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Since it's my cause du jour, I want to make a distinction between religious polygamy and other forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The latter is entirely different from the former.

Feel free to make that distinction and fight for your cause.

However, the law really can't make that distinction (at least not easily) - you can understand why I've treated them the same for purposes of this discussion, I'm sure? I don't mean any offense by lumping them together, or to imply one is akin to the other.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Feel free to make that distinction and fight for your cause.

However, the law really can't make that distinction (at least not easily) - you can understand why I've treated them the same for purposes of this discussion, I'm sure? I don't mean any offense by lumping them together, or to imply one is akin to the other.

I didn't think you meant to cause offense and didn't take any. Since most religious polygamy occurs in nigh cult like environments (at least here, I don't know enough about African or Islamic polygamy to comment) and underage marriage can occur with parental consent it is probably legally impossible to make such a distinction as things stand.

I only raise the point since he grouped group relationships with the more concerning categories as something to fear on the scary slippery slope that ends in child molestation. -.-

/thesis topic

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?

It's just a guess, and I could easily be wrong. Four of the nine justices have to vote to take a case for the Supreme Court to hear it. As a general rule, they prefer to take cases where there is a divurgence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals -- split circuits, it's called. They view their job as being to resolve the split among the circuits.

Also as a general rule, they prefer to let cases percolate up among the circuits to see if a split or a consensus develops. Why should they use up their limited time on a case if the circuits end up being in agreement?

So my hunch on this one is that if the Ninth Circuit reverses, which would basically perserve a status quo in that circuit, they'll think it prudent to wait and see what happens in other cases in other circuits. But if the Ninth Circuit affirms, I think at least four of them will think the decision constitutes enough of a legal shift with potential effects outside California and the Ninth Circuit that they have to step in and decide themselves.

But I could be quite wrong.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The will of the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority.

Amazing how judges are only activist when they disagree with you.

Touche' - cuts both ways. So you won't disagree with a decision if it is something you don't agree with? What if I am of the minority and you are the majority and a judge finds for the minority? Will you exercise your right to disagree as well or will you just bend over and take it?

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point. To my knowledge NAMBLA has not asked for marriage privleges. That does not mean that it is out of the realm of possibility (incremental creep has started) for them to attempt to have it legalized. It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

There is a "slippery slope", however and we are on it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Touche' - cuts both ways. So you won't disagree with a decision if it is something you don't agree with? What if I am of the minority and you are the majority and a judge finds for the minority? Will you exercise your right to disagree as well or will you just bend over and take it?

I can disagree with a decision and agree that it was the right one based on the law. I can also disagree and think it was the wrong one. I don't act like a well respected judge acted on a whim.

My example of NAMBLA was extreme to make a point. To my knowledge NAMBLA has not asked for marriage privleges. That does not mean that it is out of the realm of possibility (incremental creep has started) for them to attempt to have it legalized. It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

There is a "slippery slope", however and we are on it.

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Stop caring what consensual adults do in bed.

I don't and you based on what you quoted from me you know that as well.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

I hate to inform you of this but "tongue in cheek" does not necessarily mean funny.

If the legal age for marriage is less than 18 with parental or guardian consent and a man wants to marry a 16 year old boy and the parents/guardian approve does that make it acceptable to you? It certainly would be legal.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

It was somewhat "tongue in check" but I guess that was lost on everyone.

No. We understood what you were trying to do and that you intended it to be tongue in chEEk, but the very fact that you made that particular parallel is reflective of your presuppositions. You seem to be blind to your bias.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You neither made a point nor were particularly funny. There is no incremental creep to legalizing marriage contracts with minors who cannot consent to sex much less marriage. That's like saying a leash law means you can lock children in cages like animals.

Yes.