Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (154423)	12/20/2004 2:26:02 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Are a number of people who want society to allow polygamous marriages a "class" in the context of discrimination? " Yes- a number of people with a religious reason who want to have polygamy are indeed a class. You are simply not correct about this. Society discriminates all the time, and marriage is one area where it is obviously discriminating. It may not be clear to you that it is discrimination, but I think it should be clear to most lawyers- and it would also be clear that discrimination against non-protected classes would have only minimal scrutiny. You can disagree with me all you want, but you won't be able to back it up with legal references- because they go against you. If you read this judgment carefully, you will see that the judge first found discrimination and THEN went on to decide that under Washington law gays were a protected class. seattletimes.nwsource.com step one- find discrimination "The clear intent of the Legislature to limit government approved contracts of marriage to opposite-sex couples is in direct conflict with the constitutional intent to not allow a privilege to one class of a community that is not allowed to the entire community." Step 2 he finds that gays are a protected class- protected class status though, has nothing to do with the finding in step one- "But Hicks went further, finding that under Washington's Constitution, homosexuals are a so-called suspect class, groups with such immutable characteristics as race or sex that entitle them to equal protection of the law. " Your opinions in an area you do not understand are not very...compelling. If you were well versed in con law, and understood the cases in this area, we could maybe talk- but this isn't going to be that kind of exchange. I understand you don't like the idea of them being a class- but your preferences have little to do with law. A discussion of polygamy and the law in the Goodridge decision- pro-polygamy.com

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (154423)	12/20/2004 9:29:31 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Just because a number of people hold a common objective, that does not make them a "class". Rignt on. NAMBLA would be a good example in the sexual arena. Here we have a number of people who wish to legalize sex between adults and children. Heaven help us if we recognize them as a "class" being discriminated against. A non-sexual example are the naturists, who wish to go nude in public. The law is discriminating against them, too. The ultra-liberal left needs to regain its power of judgment to be discriminate in the causes it embraces.