5 ms·

Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distincti

Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word". None of which are among my justifications for my position. It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. That is true. It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. However, this wouldn't be a concern if the underlying issue had been decided by the people in the first place. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority. Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded.

vectorpush 11y ago
> So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? This response makes no sense. I didn't say anything about love or about wanting to decide the target of discrimination. If you pay close attention you can grasp my point. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Prohibition of gay marriage is the exact opposite, i.e. the identity of the individuals is the only determining factor with regard to whether or not the marriage is legal. > None of which are among my justifications for my position. Justifications which are also conveniently absent from the discussion. You keep bringing up who gets to decide, but we've already established and agreed that it is the role of the courts to determine if a law is constitutional and that's exactly what happened. > It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. Which didn't happen. So to reiterate, you agree that it's the role of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our laws, you've also failed to put forward any reasoning to rebut the court's determination that prohibition of gay marriage is unconstitutional (in fact, you stated you have no feelings either way) and you've further stated that the people could amend the constitution if they are so inclined... So where's the problem? Your use of the term 'judicial activism' implies that the judges are acting without regard for their duties as stewards of the constitution and are instead acting out of personal politics, but you haven't put forward any evidence to support that implication. > Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded. This isn't an argument, just a platitude; it's akin to saying "don't delude yourself, the 4th amendment won't protect you from unreasonable search and seizure if you piss off the wrong people". Well that's obvious, the point is that the intent of the constitution includes protection for the minority from the tyranny of the majority, claiming that this isn't true in practice doesn't add anything to a discussion about what judges should be doing.
- LordKano 11y ago
  This response makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. You just don't like it. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Just like the prohibition on same sex marriage, the prohibition against polygamous or polyamorous marriage is about the imposition of arbitrary criteria placed upon what does or does not constitute a marriage. You are fine with one but not the other. You are being hypocritical. Which didn't happen Prop 8 was an amendment to the California state constitution. It did happen and the judicial activist wing of the SCOTUS found the flimsiest of excuses to invalidate it. The legalization of same sex marriage was the agenda behind both of President Obama's supreme court nominations.
  - vectorpush 11y ago
    > the prohibition against polygamous or polyamorous marriage is about the imposition of arbitrary criteria placed upon what does or does not constitute a marriage. Once again you're stating the obvious to no logical effect. Some arbitrary criteria is the foundation of every law by definition; the point, which you keep side-stepping, is that prohibition of poly marriage does not meet the definition of discrimination since the law affects all people equally without regard for their individual traits. I understand that you're trying to paint me as a hypocrite because you think they're equivalent, but they're clearly not; to suggest otherwise is like saying prohibiting black people from entering your restaurant is the same as prohibiting more than 10 people from entering your restaurant... Give me a break.
    - dang 11y ago
      Please stop, both of you.
      - cbd1984 11y ago
        Why?

vectorpush 11y ago

> So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination. Love is love, right? This response makes no sense. I didn't say anything about love or about wanting to decide the target of discrimination. If you pay close attention you can grasp my point. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Prohibition of gay marriage is the exact opposite, i.e. the identity of the individuals is the only determining factor with regard to whether or not the marriage is legal. > None of which are among my justifications for my position. Justifications which are also conveniently absent from the discussion. You keep bringing up who gets to decide, but we've already established and agreed that it is the role of the courts to determine if a law is constitutional and that's exactly what happened. > It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. Which didn't happen. So to reiterate, you agree that it's the role of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of our laws, you've also failed to put forward any reasoning to rebut the court's determination that prohibition of gay marriage is unconstitutional (in fact, you stated you have no feelings either way) and you've further stated that the people could amend the constitution if they are so inclined... So where's the problem? Your use of the term 'judicial activism' implies that the judges are acting without regard for their duties as stewards of the constitution and are instead acting out of personal politics, but you haven't put forward any evidence to support that implication. > Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded. This isn't an argument, just a platitude; it's akin to saying "don't delude yourself, the 4th amendment won't protect you from unreasonable search and seizure if you piss off the wrong people". Well that's obvious, the point is that the intent of the constitution includes protection for the minority from the tyranny of the majority, claiming that this isn't true in practice doesn't add anything to a discussion about what judges should be doing.

LordKano 11y ago
This response makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. You just don't like it. Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are. Just like the prohibition on same sex marriage, the prohibition against polygamous or polyamorous marriage is about the imposition of arbitrary criteria placed upon what does or does not constitute a marriage. You are fine with one but not the other. You are being hypocritical. Which didn't happen Prop 8 was an amendment to the California state constitution. It did happen and the judicial activist wing of the SCOTUS found the flimsiest of excuses to invalidate it. The legalization of same sex marriage was the agenda behind both of President Obama's supreme court nominations.
- vectorpush 11y ago
  > the prohibition against polygamous or polyamorous marriage is about the imposition of arbitrary criteria placed upon what does or does not constitute a marriage. Once again you're stating the obvious to no logical effect. Some arbitrary criteria is the foundation of every law by definition; the point, which you keep side-stepping, is that prohibition of poly marriage does not meet the definition of discrimination since the law affects all people equally without regard for their individual traits. I understand that you're trying to paint me as a hypocrite because you think they're equivalent, but they're clearly not; to suggest otherwise is like saying prohibiting black people from entering your restaurant is the same as prohibiting more than 10 people from entering your restaurant... Give me a break.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please stop, both of you.
    - cbd1984 11y ago
      Why?