4 ms·

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on

I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over. Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.

seiji 12y ago
having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
- LordKano 12y ago
  There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  I have a lot of poly friends who I'd be happy to see married.
mkr-hn 12y ago
> Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. A polyamorous relationship means three or more people have managed to form a happy, loving partnership with each other. If they've managed that, why shouldn't they get married? Obviously, this doesn't validate marriages to children or pets, since one or more parties are incapable of informed consent.
erichocean 12y ago
> I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. My friends are generally liberal, so I don't know many people who would vote for Prop 8 for religious reasons. That said, of the people who did support Prop 8, all of them had the same reason as you, and without fail, all of them wanted to see same-sex marriage become the law of the land. Which ended for me the notion that supporting Prop 8 meant you hated gays and deserved to be silenced, run out of a job, and alienated by all right thinking people. Thanks for sharing.

seiji 12y ago

having a judicial activist issue a fiat. legislative process and in those states, In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too? That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority. So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force. suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?

LordKano 12y ago
There is one very big downside. Our insurance premiums are based upon the idea that at worse, there will be one working spouse, one non-working spouse and their children (who will at some point grow up and get their own insurance). Where will the money come from to pay for Elder Smith's four wives and their fifteen children? Everyone else's premiums, of course! But then, that only strengthens the case for "Single Payer", right?
mkr-hn 12y ago
I have a lot of poly friends who I'd be happy to see married.

mkr-hn 12y ago

> Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage. A polyamorous relationship means three or more people have managed to form a happy, loving partnership with each other. If they've managed that, why shouldn't they get married? Obviously, this doesn't validate marriages to children or pets, since one or more parties are incapable of informed consent.

erichocean 12y ago

> I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat. My friends are generally liberal, so I don't know many people who would vote for Prop 8 for religious reasons. That said, of the people who did support Prop 8, all of them had the same reason as you, and without fail, all of them wanted to see same-sex marriage become the law of the land. Which ended for me the notion that supporting Prop 8 meant you hated gays and deserved to be silenced, run out of a job, and alienated by all right thinking people. Thanks for sharing.