Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/5/2010 10:32:46 AM
From: D. Long	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 794358

Could somebody explain to me how you could possibly uphold this judge's ruling and not allow polygamy? That's the slippery slope created by Romer and Lawrence. If commonly held moral beliefs have no bearing, then anything is permissible. I think I would have taken a different tack if I were representing California. The state tried to justify the amendment as having a rational basis, which generally is a pretty low bar which the judiciary gives deference to the state. But, alas, not in this case. I would have thrown in another argument - that the "fundamental right" under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects only marriage between a man and a woman. Fundamental rights analysis finds rights under the due process clause by looking at long-held traditional beliefs. Well, that is man-woman marriage, and nothing else. The courts should not create this right under the due process clause under the excuse that it is a strongly held tradition, then twist the hell out of it later to pervert that strongly held tradition until it is unrecognizable. I think that might have been a much stronger defense.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next