You're assuming that polygamists are a category which would receive stricter scrutiny. Perhaps based on ethnicity, it could work, but I really do not see the Court expanding which categories receive stricter scrutiny in the immediate future.

Thus, because polygamists do not receive stricter scrutiny, the government would only have to survive rational basis review (which it usually does) to ban polygamists.

That's what it should be. :(

If the Constitution is silent about a subject, it should either be amended to address it or it should be left up to the people to decide. As it stands, it has become all about what judges think the "intent" of the document is. I've never liked the idea of unelected officials unilaterally creating laws.

That's why picking judges for the high court has become such a pissing contest between the parties.

FWIW, I would be the third husband to Jessica Alba.

:)

and for the most part, if i'm one of 10 people in a room, and the other 9 people all agree that it's ok for an older man in his 50's to marry and have sexual relations with a 14 year old - if i don't agree does that make me the idiot? its of no concern to me if there's a majority here who are so ultra progressive and accepting of others and i'm the only one who stops and says "wait a minute here, is this really the direction we want to go?". i wasn't put on earth to judge people, but i'm still allowed to have my own opinion.

everyone has this need to waive their "everyone is equal, no matter their lifestyle or choices!!!" flag. i don't. i think its important to have a clear path of what is proper and normal. sure, its ok sometimes to veer off the path from time to time, we're all individuals who come from different parts of the globe/country afterall, but for the most part i think it's wise to have a definite path that says "this is what society should be like" so that its easy to see what is and isn't acceptable. its important to have the standard that shows what is and isn't "normal". and it's ok to sometimes say "while you are allowed to live how you like, you simply aren't walking the same path as the rest us of are so as such, unfortunately, we can't afford you the same rights as us." you simply can't say "i respect your right to mutilate cute little bunny rabbits out of sheer enjoyment, walk side by side with me - we are equals".

there's no place for racism or sexism. we are born a certain sex and we can't help the color of our skin. no one should be considered not equal on those grounds. i agree with that. everything outside of that though, is pure personal choice, and we can choose to walk the line or not (i'm not interested in debating whether homosexuality is something you're born with or not). my point is it wasn't too long ago two people of the same sex couldn't walk the streets holding hands and not be attacked. we're over that period now. all of a sudden we went from gay tolerance to celebrating homosexuality and now saying gay people should have the same rights as a man and woman joining each other in marriage. that is a little too far off that path for me. so going back to my point, i think its ok for them to be off of that path, i respect their right to live as they choose and be considered a civil couple, but i don't think we should welcome them on this "path of normalcy" (for lack of a better term). cuz once you do that, then others who live on the outskirts of that path will soon be knocking, and at what point do we say "no, this isn't legal and we simply don't want that to be recognized by the government as allowable in this society".

but what do i know, i apparently should keep these views to myself or among my brethren a couple towns over in Hicksville, USA. :rolleyes:

Why do you think being progressive means a 50 year old marrying a 14 year old? I don't think any one, even "progressive" people, would approve of that. I'm sure most would want that man to get raped and beat in jail. if your going to use examples, use ones that actually fit the term "progressive".

On that note, while I don't agree with your views, I respect them. Personally, as many have mentioned, we should eliminate the term "marriage" from government use. Call them civil unions, all with the same benefits and rights, and let the couples worry about what to call themselves.

That's an insane comparision. A 14 year old girl by our standards doesn't have the mental capacity to make those decisions yet. Two gay people getting married is an act by consenting adults.

I have a question, and I am in no way bashing your beliefs. I have friends and family against gay marriage for particular reasons. But I've yet to get someone to answer me this.

Why is it so bad? Why is giving two men or two women the ability to file a joint tax return and collect on each other's life insurance such a horrible thing? What does it affect in this country? Maybe it's my libertarian side that comes out in these discussions, but I've honestly never given a crap what other people do in their social lives. It has never once affect my life.

And your one argument about showing people what is "normal" is just flawed in my opinion. Who defines what "normal" is? Our politicians, our churches, our neighbors? There are people who feel it's normal to be married young, have a lot of kids, have the wife stay home and tend to the house while the husband goes out and works. Some believe it's normal for both to have careers, start a family later in life, and utilize nannies while raising their child. I just think it's wrong for you to define "normal", when it's going to change from person to person.

being extreme here. you have black and white issues (figurtively speaking). white issues representing acceptable and normal (your average heterosexual, picket fence, Joe and Jane Smith relationship), black issues representing the opposite of that (your pedophiles, or beastiality, for example). then you have this whole gray area (homosexual couples wanting to get married). now, once you start taking things from that gray area and allow them into the white area you start to open up the floodgates. how much from that gray area are we going to allow as acceptable until we reach that extreme black area? once you allow the homosexual marriages, what else do we allow? what else is allowed to be included in the definition of normal? because once you go down that road it becomes easy to say "well, if we're going to allow this, we now have to allow that".

so that's my point. first its gay marriage. what then? people become so shortsighted because they're falling over themselves to appear so accepting of other people's lifestyles. rather than look down the horizon and ask "what kind of snowball effect is this going to have?" they want to be PC and shout "everything should be fair and equal". this isn't about me being closeminded, it's about me not wanting to see what this leads to years down the road, now that we've allowed the government to govern relationships.

i grew up being taught that homosexuality is forbidden and an abomination, i've progressed to the point where homosexuality can now be defined as an "alternative lifestyle". alternative being the keyword here. alternative to what is considered a normal, acceptable lifestyle - a man and a woman. and i was fine with homosexuality being simply an alternative lifestyle. heck, i watched Will and Grace, i've rubbed elbows with gay people being a New Yorker. i'm cool with it. i was ok with homosexuality being the satelite that revolves around the sphere of normalcy - like the moon we see it, we acknowledge its existence, but it's still far enough away. but that's not enough apparently. to me this whole ruling just puts the official seal of approval on gay marriage now. now, marriage is not just a man and a woman, it's now a man and a woman or two men/two women. i just don't like that we've gone down this road, that's all. i was fine with the way things were before. change is good, but not all the time. we still need that north star to guide our ships by, we still need some things in life to remain constant, unchangeable.

whatever, no one's opinion is going to be changed on a message board. i've spoken my mind here, anything after this becomes repetitive. i'll try to remain silent in this thread for as long as i can.

I honestly can't believe people believe that allowing gays to marry is going to open the floodgates towards state-sanctioned pedophillia. Yeesh.

That's awful selfish of you.

I didn't think that this was the first time this law has been reviewed by the CA Supreme Court. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought this had previously passed judicial scrutiny.

In the bigger picture, the Civil Union in CA provides all of the benefits of marriage that the state can provide. So I don't see that the law is truly discriminatory.

If, as has been argued here, marriage is just a word, why do people want to refuse it for gays?

And not all that long ago someone could have easily said they couldn't envision something as absurd as state-sanctioned gay marriage. And yet here we are.

It's really utterly silly, but still people want to scaremonger on those lines.

Even more surprising than HA's comments is the fact that you guys are getting so offended by him. This is protocol and par for the course for him. He's probably a homosexual baby toucher in real life, but hides behind a homophobic facade at FOFC. ;)

IIRC, discrimination based on religion gets strict scrutiny. Or at least higher scrutiny. Most polygamous marraiges are based on a view of religious teachings.

Equal protection of the laws is pretty clear in the 14th Amendment.

I just find it strange he posts about woman the way he has in, considering his current status, yet he is offended at the idea of gay marriage.

I think that with the 50-some % divorce rates, number of children we have today outside of marriage (not to say that is right or wrong) and politics in marriage (pre-nups, greedy divorces, ect.); I just we are romancing the idea that marriage is the same concept as it pre-Boomer generations. Not that it doesn't work, it just doesn't seem to be the same in today's society.

That's what I don't get either. For some reason, people have this fantasy that marriage is this fairy tale where everyone ends up happy.

Marriage blows in this country. We have high divorce rates, high annulment rates, messy courts, and tons of other bullshit. We have a high child out of wedlock rate and more children born into poverty than any other advanced country in the world. What exactly is gay marriage going to destroy here?

I'm not surprised about HA (or JIMGA)'s comments; I'm surprised there are other people here who agree with him.

:rolleyes:

You may be opposed to gay marriage due to personal or religious grounds, but I don't believe you are stupid enough to think that pedophilia, something which is looked down upon by everybody except the small percentage of pedophiles, is the next logical step (or even at all related) to two consenting ADULTS being able to marry whoever they please. Non-sequitur scaremongering sums your position up nicely.

And if some of the people you cite as cohorts had their way, the idea of equal civil rights wouldn't have come about either. I'm comfortable we're on the right side here. :D

I had promised myself I'd avoid this thread but here I am all the same ;)

I think that some people are offended by gay marriages for either (i) religious reasons, (ii) because they view marriage as first and foremost a setup for conceiving an raising children within.

The first of these is something which is open to interpretation from each of the various main religions which exist and is a sign of just how dangerous religion can be when applied blindly to the world imho.

The second argued that marriage should be restricted to 'traditional' relationships and preserved as a method to raise children within. Many studies have frequently shown that kids raised within a traditional family tend to do better ecomically and emotionally than children without this setup.
(I haven't seen similar studies involving kids raised within a same sex family marriage and it could well be that the same advantages are transferred through that setup.)

As from a realistic perspective its much more likely that heterosexual couples will raise children than same sex couples the arguement is then that the tax and economic advantages for marriage should be reserved for heterosexual marriages as these are the most likely to fall under the intent of marriage (ie. raising kids) and bettering society.

PS - To be honest I don't have a particularly strong stance either way on this topic - I'm quite happy for gay people to get married but see marriage largely as a piece of paper myself and so not worth getting bitter and twisted over ...
Mainly this post is to try and encourage this thread to stay constructive rather than devolve into a slagging match.

Well, you're getting more into a First Amendment issue than a classification issue. Then you have to get into permissive vs. mandatory accomodation and nondiscrimination views and endorsement and blah, blah, blah. But, even there, considering the current membership of the Court, I doubt that a broad no polygamy ban would be shot down for a variety of reasons (stare decisis, fear of judicial decision making for legislatures, no need for accomodation, not a class, etc.)

In time, all bigotries will fade, but as with any great change in humanity it will take that time to happen. The beginnings are here, we can see the cracks in the right-wing movement to ban gay marriage already starting to give way to more intelligent and equal governance for all people.

The laws and even the amendmants to state constitutions will in time be stricken because the highest law in this country, the constitution, says they are wrong.

There is no room in a truly free society for any group, majority OR minority to pass limitations against any other group( and please, lets keep the ignorant arguements about pedohilia out of tihs, there is a difference between harming children and consenting adults making a choice for themselves, get a grip here) . Are we a truly free society?

Not yet, but we're always trying. Unfortunately we get setbacks like the past 8 years every so often that keeps us shrouded in ignorance and bigotry of one group over another. All in the name of Religion, or family values or the good old days.

Society will always change and there will always be resistance to change. The hardest thing to learn is that we as individuals have the final say in things. Groups come and groups go, but how we live from day to day is OUR choice, our decision every single moment we draw breath.

Live and Let Live. And one day we might actually get over ourselves and find that truly free society.

While I too find it hard to fathom pedophilia being given any level of acceptability legally...I would say that I believe you might be grossly underestimating the vehemont unacceptance level of gay relationships, from a mere 50 years ago.

I can understand JiMGA & HA's comments, because if you look at how everything progresses in society, IMHO...
1. It begins with discussion and acceptance of the overt negativity of the subject
2. Then becomes so universally accepted as "wrong" it becomes fodder for comedy and ridcule, to the point that ridicule becomes scorn
3. People then begin to try and understand this segment of society, since we are a society that does not want to exclude anybody, and is compassionate to those who areshunned from it
4. This then progresses to "knowing" somebody who does it(because our society tends to encourage diversity in lifestyle)
5. Then moves towards philosophical debate(and subsequent legitimization) of the semantics of precisely what is "wrong or right" and how some people have no control over it, so who are we to judge?
6. Then people become more accepting(or less unaccepting)
7. Then any opposition becomes an old-world thinking person for suggesting it wrong(for whatever their reason)
8. Then it becomes legal and (reluctantly) accepted by all, and not PC to voice otherwise

When you consider the increased sexualization of teenagers (namely girls) these days, I dont know if it is that far-fetched to think that we are between steps 3 & 4 in my (admittedly strawman) roadmap.

My personal belief is that the word "marriage" should be removed from legal verbiage, and substituted with "civil union". Civil union then becomes the default word for consenting adults to "apply" for perks and privileges that society deems worthy of rewarding(a seperate discussion to me).

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply made a poor choice rather than an intentional one - but your comparison of homosexual rights and pedophile rights is probably the most inflammatory, ignorant, and prejudicial I've ever come across. (Gay bashers *love* this argument).

Compare homosexual marriage to murder next time, because the analogy is just about as accurate.


No, sir, you are wrong. Pedophiles don't have it bad - they're breaking the law and they don't have it bad enough. Pedophiles aren't a persecuted class of citizens, they're breaking the law. Homosexuals are discriminated against.

iii. want to be judger and anyone not exactly like them is judged negatively.
iv. are running from their own perceived demon.

etc. etc.

I dont think that there are only 2 reasons people fall into one camp or the other.

This statement 40 years ago:


This statement 40 years from now:

Obviously... :rolleyes:

Let's just cut to the chase and admit the obvious, you'd believe homosexuals should be treated as perverts. It really has nothing to do with a slippery slope argument.

you see, this is the arguement that frightens me. we should all be free. let's not pass limitations on others. live and let live. let's be truly free.

your idea of free is being in an open marriage. you don't want anyone treading on you. say your next door neighbor, on the other hand, believes in being allowed to marry his sister. now, you would want to say "hold up, marrying your sister is just silly, no one should that be acceptable" but then wouldn't you be setting limitations on someone else? not everyone has the same idea of free.

i think if you put 100 people on a deserted island and tell them all there is no formal goverment and they're all free to do as they wish, you'll find that would be a recipe for disaster. so you need boundaries. you need structure. you need limitations. not everything can be fair, as i mentioned before.

and i agree with what Marc mentioned - ultimately i feel a marriage should be for procreation. sometimes people aren't able to reproduce, or there comes a point where they decide they don't want children, and i have no prob with that. but the institution of marriage, from what i was taught, was a way to be considered a union in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of God, and a child is produced which is the manifestation of that love. this is marriage. and yes, because that married couple is reproducing, furthering the human race for future generations they should be afforded more rights than homosexual civil unions. same sex couples can not reproduce. what benefit does society receive from having a same sex married couple?

hi,

you are smart and you "get it".

Then why do you support people who are sterile getting married? Obviously there is "no benefit to society" in your mind from that. There is no chance of kids there. You just don't have a problem with that, because well, it flys in the face of your argument, but you don't want to tell sterile straight people they can't marry.

Publically acknowledging a committed relationship as having binding legal rights. The benefit society is recieves is having psychologically healthy individuals (being seen as a lesser person has a strong detrimental effect on your psyche).


Oh, as for the inane pedophila comes next remarks. The people who would be on the rafters on this should take care to realize that has homosexuality has become more accepted, pedophila has become less and less accepted. If you recall people as young as 14 or 12 could get married in the past. And especially women that age would be married off to older men.

Pedophilia is wrong unless of course the kid is seduces you.






/in case I ever run for office this is a joke :)

There's a difference between hetero sterile people and homosexual people having kids. In one, the role model is something that benefits the reproduction of the human race and the other is a role model of what not to do if you want the human race to continue.

A) What if the hetero sterile people don't WANT kids at all? Hell, what if hetero non-sterile people don't want kids at all.

B) I'm thinking that "role models" of sexual prefence isn't going to make much of a difference to the second head. That sort of thinking falls into the trap of the "homosexuality is just a choice" BS.

Well, in some ways, they are all on the same extremely broad slope, one end being an absolute moral society deeming Puritanic values to a ridiculous level to be the standard, along with a belief that the chosen people of God are white, heterosexual Christian males, while the other is the complete absence of morals as provided to us through the Judeo-Christian ethic, wherein even necrophilia and pedophilia are excused and allowed.

Obviously, it is such a bafflingly large slope, broad in many directions (there is no one step to the next on this slope), it is preposterous to try to draw connections between those four in any meaningful way--not that that stops those against at least one of them from trying.

I'd like to have an example of a law that was passed by the courts. I hear the argument that judges pass laws, when they can do no such thing. Overturning a law on constitutional or legal process grounds is not equal to passing a law. A court cannot create and put on the books a law that does not currently exist.

I would agree with this, although I think what they meant was defining existing laws through precedent, or allowing previous laws or practices to stand or become re-enacted when the law that eliminates them is declared unconstitutional.

Why do their need to be limitations on what someone does in their private life? If it doesn't hurt you in anyway, why is there a limitation? This is the part of your argument I can't understand. Why are there these limitations if it takes place between consenting adults?

I'll add I think incest is a bad argument on your part as the main reason it's illegal today is due to the high level of genetic defects it causes in offspring.

Your hypothetical scenario is not at all related to gay marriage. Your scenario works out better if you say, the 100 people are all free to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on that right of others.

In any case, you have yet to provide what this structure and these limitations on gay marriage will help within society. You just say "we need structure" but have failed to mention why.


If a marriage is for procreation, no one who is impotent or has a defect that doesn't allow them to have children should be given a marriage license. Those who have vasectomies or their tubes tied should have their marriage immediately revoked. Once you have become too old to bear children or create them, you marriage should also become null and void.

I mean if it's all about procreation, you would be hypocritical to allow those who can't procreate into this marriage. They, as you say, "offer no benefit to society".

And lets stop using the "eyes of God" argument in this stuff. Not everyone believes in God and in fact, as science continues to be taught to people, less and less people will believe in God. Not all of us want our laws to be developed around some fairy tale from thousands of years ago that science has disproven.

Very true.


You're crossing the line here. I should know, since I've crossed it many times before. :)

You extol the rights of gays and deride gay bashers, yet you have become a religious basher by calling someone's beliefs fairy tales. That's pretty harsh.

This is a great game, let me try:

"I like video games."

This statement 40 years ago:

"I like playing ball in the park with my friends."

This statement 40 years from now:

"I like stealing cars, shooting people, and picking up prostitutes from street corners."

Hence: Video games are evil!!!!!!!! :eek:

I always suspected I was supporting pure evil. Thanks for the head's up, GH!

being free, and being free to do whatever the hell you want - those are two different concepts. if you fail to see why then i need not write further.

and if the brother and sister don't plan on having kids - you still want to infringe on their rights to marry or you ok with that? afterall, as some stated here, not everyone gets married to have kids. so what then? we start allowing brother/sister marriages? because if you still want to ban incest marriage then you're now infringing on what those two consenting adults want to do with their lives. just being in a group, be it GLAAD, be it the People's Liberation For Incestual Marriage In America, or the Coalition Of Older Men Who Want Teen Brides (again, using extreme examples here to help illustrate a point) doesn't mean you should now be granted equal rights and afforded the same privileges. there needs to be a standard we live by where we can say "no, not this time. we don't want our society to regress by allowing and sanctioning this group of people. this is not an element we want to be formally recognized in our society".


look at the Free Mode in GTAIV online to see an example of what would happen in society if we had no structure or limits. look at RoboCop to see what happens when order breaks down. that's just a silly example, but the fact remains if we were all free to do whatever we wanted it'd never be safe to drive a car, we could never walk around with money in our pockets and we truly would have to lock our daughters up. we need structure, going back to gay marriage, because we need to establish when it's ok or not ok to do something. we can't just go around granting rights to every group just because in their mind they're being infringed upon.



i don't believe in God, to be honest, that doesn't mean i want to abolish all traces of tradition. not believing in God doesn't stop people from celebrating Christmas, but we all do it anyway. that's a religious holiday, a time meant to reflect on the birth of the Son Of God. just because you remove the religious element from your life or no longer believe in the religion behind the ceremony doesn't mean you get to poo-poo all over it. we were having weddings in churches and temples to have the blessings of our Creator (whoever/whatever that might be) long before we were getting hitched at a city hall or a Vegas drive-thru. to me, marriage is a religious institution/act joining a man and a woman in a union that is formally recognized by the state.

Heh...too late. :)

Actually, just push back your run 10-15 years. By then it might not be such a big deal.

Humans need structure and limits. Chaos and outright anarchy might crop up in different places from time to time, but it's a temporary situation that is resolved once a new power is in place. We love structure and limits. It's wired in to our brains even if we don't realise it. Nothing like gay marriage (or anything else) is going to suddenly change that.

Well, they say you are what you eat.

I remember the first time I went to see an R-rated movie...I kind of lied to the folks, because they were real picky about the movies they let us kids go see...but during the flick they showed someone being murdered in a very graphic way, and it really upset and shocked me at the time.

Of course, years later, after much motion picture bloodshed and carnage I remember coming out of a theater after a particularly bloody horror flick and realized how desensitized I had become to the violence on the screen. I could watch mayhem much more graphic than the murder that had upset me so much years earlier without a second thought.

Part of that is understanding what I'm seeing on the screen isn't real. But still, there is a voyeuristic element to it that is rather unsettling when you think about it. That's one reason I don't go to see splatter-horror movies anymore.

I think the same can be said for video games like Grand Theft Auto...where you are actually playing a criminal, jacking cars, raping and murdering people. Not saying everyone who plays it will become a psycho murderer, but I sometimes wonder if "pretending" to do such things on a regular basis can desensitize one's moral sense of right and wrong?

If someone is encouraged by a movie or video game to do something terrible then I'd argue that if it wasn't the game/movie, it just would've been something else that eventually pushed them over the edge.

A sense of right and wrong is not something that can just be erased by playing a video game or watching a movie, it requires a lot of external, real-world "help" to get you to that point.

What do birth defects have to do with anything? Someone can make the argument that a much higher level of AIDS infections occur in homosexual relationships (yeah I know the argument is marriage, but it was simply accepting gay sex 20 years ago). Also, birth defects and severe mental and physical retardation are linked to genetic history (even in non-incestuous scenarios) as well. We are not stopping people who continue to have high rates of ratarded children from having babies. The brother / sister or father / daughter, etc. example fits the argument perfectly. Either accept the freedom to do as consenting adults want or don't. That also means youthenasia when consenting, etc.

As for the "eyes of god", we have laws being crafted today based upon the old argument that some races were not as talened as others. Since we all know that all races are equal, even black and white (add any other race you want) and the civil rights war was fought and won in the 1960's, can we stop creating laws around affirmitive action and race based policy? That fairy tale should not be driving policy today.

Not saying that it will cause people to something terrible.

I'm just wondering if a steady diet of something like that would change our reaction to a real-life situation...i.e., we see something similar in real-life and our reaction is not shock and revulsion, but more of a blase, shrug-your-shoulders, sh*t happens kind of response. It's all about the slippery slope. :)

And, if some kid has never thought about robbing, or killing someone...and plays a game like Grand Theft Auto...where the violence is more gritty and realistic...and not over-the-top and cartoony like other games...it certainly opens a whole new range emotions and experiences for that kid. And sometimes all it takes is a nudge or push to cause some people to start going in the wrong direction.

The term fairy tale was probably over-the-line. But I am not the one that brought up the issue of religion. He said it's bad in "God's eyes". This argument is used by social conservatives as well.

If you're going to use a particular religion for the basis of a legal argument, then their religion is fair game. If a Scientologist believes psychology should be outlawed based on their religious beliefs, isn't their religious beliefs now part of the argument? If your basis for outlawing something is based on the word of a particular God, I believe it is only fair to argue whether such God exists.

Hey, looks like you fellas have this whole thing just about ironed out - just let us know, k thx.

You'll be the first to get a PM, sir. ;)

I understand what you're saying, and I personally don't care if a brother and sister want to marry. I'm just saying that one of the arguments is that incestous children are at a much higher rate for fatal defects. There marriage in affect may hurt others in this scenario, while a gay marriage hurts no one.

I agree with you though, just saying that comparing incest to gay marriage seems flawed in my eyes.


I agree with you here too. Although I don't feel that these policies are based on saying that one race is better than the other, and instead based on trying to root out racism and helping minorities catch up to the majority race. That has nothing to do with biology or genetics either, it has to do with the fact a particular race was opressed for hundreds of years in this country and need a hand catching up.

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but my personal point of view is that there is an ideology behind gay marriage which insists that men and women are completely interchangeable, that they simply have different genitals, and that is the extent of their differences. I believe this is completely incorrect.

Well, when that "ideology" is, you know, the Constitution, I think you kind have to accept it as true in this debate.

Where in the Constitution does it say men and women differ only in respect to their genitals?

Constitution doesn't even go that far. We're all equals under the law, regardless of your genitals.

Oh, my genitals are more than equal, and I want that recognized.

"Equals under the law" is not the same thing as interchangeable for all purposes.

When you're deciding wether something is legal/constitutional (e.g., gay marriage), it pretty much is or, if not, certainly should be.

From the Federalist Papers:

They ducked the question of whether the law was constitutional the last time around. What they ruled on was whether the marriage licenses that had been granted were legal under the law.

And, by the way, the constitutional amendment the anti-gay-marriage groups are putting together would also ban civil unions.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars"

That's a bad thing if you're on a spaceship with just enough supplies to get to the moon and back.

Gambia has a solution:


I think "eccentric" is perhaps a little too light a term to throw at a country's leader who has just said he'll decapitate around ~10% of his population.

No controversies over same-sex marriages there....

Hey, if the U.S. gets too liberal for you, SFL Cat....

I've got the perfect solution for all of this madness. Let's just roll back the clock 50 years and it will be solved. The inevitable slide began when segregation was thrown out, despite a majority of people in the south wanting it to stay that way. The Loving v Virginia decision also needs to be undone. Very similar arguments were used against interracial marriage as the ones used today against gay marriage, so we've got to fix that as well.

Hell, for that matter, let's just go back 150 years so women cannot vote and we can still have slaves. Conservatism will rise again! Tyranny of the majority is a great thing! There shouldn't be any rights that are not subject to the vote of the majority! Let's put everything up for a vote and majority rules! That's DEMOCRACY after all!