Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[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?

[ms_gwyn]

I see where he is going with his argument....but if they put in the language 2 consenting adults, I think we might be ok...

One of the main reasons Prop 8 passed was because of the slippery slope of polygamy.

I am against Prop 8 wholeheartedly....but someone pointed out to me when it was on the ballot...down the road it could lead to this possibility and it made me think...there are a lot of programs/laws in this country that started out for a specific purpose and have totally been turned out and used differently because of the language ... so I see that it can lead to a slippery slope of the language isn't used correctly.

Just for an example (and not to lead to a debate on #2)...but to me, #2 is used totally different than what it was originally meant...

[preciousjeni]

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.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

[Nanners52674]

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

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

and a quick yahoo search yielded up these results

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Since my point was completely lost to you, I'll rephrase. Comparing gay marriage to NAMBLA is absurd. The very fact that you're concerned about a possible slippery slope indicates that you believe there is an inevitable and dangerous "next step." You're being hysterical.

No you are being naive.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Pretty much.

I'm sure heterosexual polygamists/bigamists/etc have been seeking reversals in the outlawing of their lifestyles (with no success) long before Prop 8 was an issue. To think that this will lead to a "law reversal free-for-all" is silly.

On that note, entirely overlooking any moral issues people have with polygamy, I'm curious what the effect would be of legalizing this form of marriage. We've discussed it before on GC, but those forums always polarize and then dissolve.

I'm thinking, for example, with medical insurance, if you put multiple wives/husbands on your plan, it would just cost more.

I understand that we aren't set up to handle multiple partners in a marriage, so there would have to be some adjustments to handle things like sudden death with no will (i.e. who gets first dibs).

It just doesn't seem that difficult to accommodate the change. They're finagling it anyway. Why not impose some regulations to enforce protection of the multiple wives/husbands?

Rhetorical questions...no derailing intended.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

No you are being naive.

No, I understand what you're saying. I'm just not scared.

[Drolefille]

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.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not something you should actually worry about.

How about this? I don't give a damn about what people do in their own lives or behind their own closed doors. I believe that gay people should be allowed "civil unions" and should be allowed to take care of their significant others and have certain powers of attorney. I do not believe that they should be discriminated against in any way shape or form.

So let them be married instead of having civil unions so they're not discriminated against in any form.

But let's take this further. Why do we have rules against marriage between close relatives? This type marriage does not hurt others and if they really love each other than why not? The notion that sexual love should be the sole criterion of marriage is in my opinion erroneous.

Besides of public health reasons there is also a high potential of abuse due to power differentials inherent in the relationship. I don't have a problem with it as long as there aren't kids and there truly isn't a power differential. It would probably require siblings to grow up separate for that to actually happen. But I appear to be on of the few people who doesn't have an incest squick button.

There are real "slippery slopes" that can be now considered not out of the realm of possibility. Bigamy, polygamy and communal/group marriage are among these.

A) No those aren't actually slippery slopes.
B) You're redundant.
C) Bigamy is fraud, it will always be illegal.
D) Polygamy as practiced by FLDS groups is child abuse.
E) Polyamory/group relationships are good things when freely consented to, but there's no way to make it equal to marriage with all the legal entanglings involved. People in long term group/poly relationships often have unofficial marriage ceremonies. However it's implausible and improbably, however unfortunate that legal marriage could be extended to more than 2 people.

Stop caring what consensual adults do in bed.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

On that note, entirely overlooking any moral issues people have with polygamy, I'm curious what the effect would be of legalizing this form of marriage. We've discussed it before on GC, but those forums always polarize and then dissolve.

I'm thinking, for example, with medical insurance, if you put multiple wives/husbands on your plan, it would just cost more.

I understand that we aren't set up to handle multiple partners in a marriage, so there would have to be some adjustments to handle things like sudden death with no will (i.e. who gets first dibs).

It just doesn't seem that difficult to accommodate the change. They're finagling it anyway. Why not impose some regulations to enforce protection of the multiple wives/husbands?

Rhetorical questions...no derailing intended.

Interesting points. I've never thought of the implications because, quite frankly, I don't plan on being a polygamist, bigamist, or any other type of -ist.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

On that note, entirely overlooking any moral issues people have with polygamy, I'm curious what the effect would be of legalizing this form of marriage. We've discussed it before on GC, but those forums always polarize and then dissolve.

I'm thinking, for example, with medical insurance, if you put multiple wives/husbands on your plan, it would just cost more.

I understand that we aren't set up to handle multiple partners in a marriage, so there would have to be some adjustments to handle things like sudden death with no will (i.e. who gets first dibs).

It just doesn't seem that difficult to accommodate the change. They're finagling it anyway. Why not impose some regulations to enforce protection of the multiple wives/husbands?

Rhetorical questions...no derailing intended.

Eh I'd rather talk to you than him.

There are too many things associated with marriage, think... citizenship. You can't have multiple spouses getting that sort of benefit. Taxes become even more tricky. I think people in a poly relationship should set up living and regular wills as well as financial contracts and protections for their relationship but there are too many different types of relationships to set up one template: triads, vees, quads, one couple who also sees other people, etc.

[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 MysticCat

Given the governor's and attorney general's decisions not to defend it, the court allowed the current defendants -- some groups that supported Prop 8 -- to intervene so that there would be someone to defend the suit. That means those groups are now defendants. Unless plaintiffs opposed that at the trial court and make that an issue on appeal, no more hoops regarding the parties.

It will definitely be appealed -- that was clear along, regardless of who won and who lost.

I haven't had a chance to read the (130+ page) opinion yet; I've just followed some news sources. From those, I take it that the court focused heavily on how defendants' evidence had not established a rational basis for Prop 8. A law that discriminates between people who are not part of a protected class (e.g., racial or ethnic minorities) does not violate the equal protection clause if it has a rational basis. This could good and bad for the opponents of Prop 8 and similar measures.

On the "good" side, it means that the appeals court may show more deference to the trial court. Questions of law are considered anew by an appeals court, but for questions of fact/evidence, deference is usually given to the trial court. Findings of fact are generally harder to overturn on appeal than conclusions of law.

On the "bad" side, it doesn't mean that the trial court found that same-sex marriage bans are per se unconstitutional. Rather, he found that these defendants had not shown a rational basis for this ban.

Though the Ninth Circuit is traditionally more liberal/progressive/choose your term, I wouldn't automatically assume that it will affirm the trial court's decision. We'll have to wait and see.

If they reverse the trial judge, the case may well stop there. The Supreme Court may not see a need to step in. On the other hand if they affirm it, I think it's headed to the Supreme Court. Unless the make-up of the Court changes between now and then by someone other than a more liberal justice or Justice Kennedy leaving, I think the odds in SCOTUS definitely favor the proponants of Prop 8.

FWIW.

What I've seen suggested is that it would be 5-4 with Kennedy likely voting against Prop 8 as he tends to be pro-gay rights, despite enjoying his swing vote and being generally conservative. Assuming they take the case.

And as I understand it the Judge overturned it both for violating Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses and though I think he found that gays held special status, he couched the opinion in such a way as to indicate that even if they did not, it was still a violation. He pretty well eviscerated the defense too. I was following a trial tracker and it was just... bad. Olson and Boies are incredibly good at what they do though too.

But I've been following prop8trialtracker.com (Pro-plaintiff site)

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Eh I'd rather talk to you than him.

There are too many things associated with marriage, think... citizenship. You can't have multiple spouses getting that sort of benefit. Taxes become even more tricky. I think people in a poly relationship should set up living and regular wills as well as financial contracts and protections for their relationship but there are too many different types of relationships to set up one template: triads, vees, quads, one couple who also sees other people, etc.

If you put in a caveat that if you choose to enter a polygamous marriage, you must show the ability to actively provide for said marriage then could it open the door?

Almost like the equivalent of adoption criteria.