|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 14:52:03 GMT -5
So be it. Like I said, just because something is "natural" does not compel the government to recognize it. The only thing the government is compelled to do is to follow the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 15:00:05 GMT -5
You mean the mutable Constitution that we can change as we please?
|
|
|
|
Post by Magnizeal on Jul 16, 2011 15:01:10 GMT -5
I never said that the government had to do something because it was 'natural'. I simply needed to correct your appalling misconception regarding marriage.
Stop arguing about what the government does do and try arguing about what you think it should start doing. You don't make any changes without having a goal, after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 15:15:10 GMT -5
What does this have to do with anything? Yes, there is a prescribed process for changing the Constitution, but Article V can't be interpreted (nor has it been) to construe that minorities with mutable characteristics trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I am not arguing about what the government should do: my issue is with the prior posters mentioning this as a civil rights issue. If the government wishes to grant the people the statutory right to marry multiple partners, there are pros and cons to this and must be considered as a matter of public policy. This is an entirely separate debate. But it is entirely incorrect to frame this as a civil rights issue and as something the government should be compelled to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 15:15:31 GMT -5
Here's a question, is this much different from saying that the LGB should exclude the T for political convenience? Not directly related, but I've always loved the "gay marriage will lead to polgamy!" shit. Why? Because I don't care!Polygamy does not scare me. Polygamy does not bother me, and honestly, I think it should be legal. The downside here is, I then justify their beliefs that those of us who support gay marriage also support everytihing they fear. You know, because I'm okay with polygamy I think marrying your dog or a tree is fine. Which is stupid. I mean, sure, marrying a tree is okay, but marrying a dog? That's just SICK! >.>  |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 15:18:30 GMT -5
I am not arguing about what the government should do: my issue is with the prior posters mentioning this as a civil rights issue. If the government wishes to grant the people the statutory right to marry multiple partners, there are pros and cons to this and must be considered as a matter of public policy. This is an entirely separate debate. But it is entirely incorrect to frame this as a civil rights issue. Well, that was stupid. The rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality linkThis is about social freedom and equality, you know, like having the right to start a family not be considered a felony. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 15:43:43 GMT -5
If we're talking about legal recognition of polygamous marriages, you are going to have to operate on legal terms. You personally cannot just declare something to be a civil rights because you believe it provides "social freedom and equality." Our civil rights are enshrined in the Constitution, as it is interpreted by our federal courts vested with that power in our system of common law.
What clause of the Constitution would compel the government to recognize polygamous marriages? Please cite relevant case law.
Otherwise, we're not talking the same language. I'm talking the language of reasoned law and you're talking the language of personal opinions and whimsical emotions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 16:06:05 GMT -5
Please to be stopping moving the goalposts. You have done that a fair bit already. Some examples: polygamy is mostly a cultural phenomenon whereas gay people exist in every country on the planet. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. And one of these 186 is the United States of America. And another: Marriage itself is unnatural: it seeks to create stability and order in our chaotic natural system. Two cents time. Marriage is not unnatural. Marriage is simply the government recognizing what already happens. In a very general and primitive sense; Man bangs woman, woman has a kid, man generally stays with the woman to make sure his kid survives. Boom, marriage. Or, man bangs woman, man bangs other woman, both women get kids. They live together and help each other raise the kids, and the man can stay with them both to make sure his kids survive. Boom, marriage. And the government sees this, the tribal elders, whatever, and goes, hey, if they're one social unit, let's treat them like one for laws. And boom. Marriage. Not unnatural. So be it. Like I said, just because something is "natural" does not compel the government to recognize it. The only thing the government is compelled to do is to follow the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof. Not that your "reasoned law" talk is very good. I could ask you to point to where in the equal protection clause anything is mentioned about immutable characteristics. It is true that suspect classes tend to require this, but I dare you to find anything saying this is a Constitutional requirement. And if we go here we see them state "If a law discriminates between one group of people and another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so." The government has to have a basis for saying polygamy is inferior to monogamy to have a CONSTITUTIONAL basis for denying it. The burden is not on me, it is on you. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 16, 2011 16:17:17 GMT -5
As I've explained, in the United States there are rigid levels of judicial scrutiny that take into account a myriad of factors. You're right that certain changeable characteristics (e.g. religion) are protected under law, but these factors do not fall under strict or even heightened scrutiny. Actually, religion, because it is protected in the First Amendment, does merit strict scrutiny, if the plaintiff can show their religious expression is being burdened. If a law that is generally applicable affects religion, it only merits rational basis. As an aside, the USSC has already ruled on polygamy. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). It upheld Utah's anti-polygamy law. Not to say a different suit using a different legal theory would fail, but it would be an uphill battle. Not that your "reasoned law" talk is very good. I could ask you to point to where in the equal protection clause anything is mentioned about immutable characteristics. It is true that suspect classes tend to require this, but I dare you to find anything saying this is a Constitutional requirement. You are arguing it backwards. A characteristic only merits intermediate or strict scrutiny if the courts have held that it merits such consideration. (Race, alienage, national origin, gender.) Everything else just gets a rational basis analysis, which includes things that could be considered immutable (i.e. handedness), which is extremely easy to overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 16, 2011 19:44:29 GMT -5
Oh God, those trees can't be legal! |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 16, 2011 19:45:57 GMT -5
That's the hottest fucking thing I've ever seen IN MY LIFE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jul 16, 2011 19:52:35 GMT -5
Oh God, those trees can't be legal! Sure they are! They just celebrated their 18th decade last year!  |
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jul 16, 2011 20:04:31 GMT -5
Do humans typically look at eggs in human porn? You people are WEIRD!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 16, 2011 20:42:16 GMT -5
Pikmin porn.
'nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 16, 2011 21:33:05 GMT -5
Do humans typically look at eggs in human porn? You people are WEIRD! I don't know, but from time to time I like watching a guy spill his seed. >.> |
|
