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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/4/2010 11:02:45 PM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794349

Could somebody explain to me how you could possibly uphold this judge's ruling and not allow polygamy? polygamy, marriage with animals, objects, and so forth. It's a slippery slope.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/4/2010 11:21:29 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 794349

Maybe no one can, let alone this judge.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/5/2010 12:01:50 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 794349

THE RIGHT TO MARRY What does he mean by the "right to marry"? Who gave US citizens a right to marry?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/5/2010 9:22:16 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Respond to of 794349

Could somebody explain to me how you could possibly uphold this judge's ruling and not allow polygamy? I am certain that this will be challenged by a muslim group before too long. The question will then become "why are we willing to change this for muslims when we wouldn't do it for mormons?"

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (376600)	8/5/2010 10:32:46 AM
From: D. Long	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794349

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.