The right's dangerous legal argument
Find a Conversation
The right's dangerous legal argument
| Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:46pm |
Appearing for the supporters of Prop 8, Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, said the people hold the right to modify the state constitution by adding or subtracting protections for civil rights.
Court appears ready to uphold Prop. 8
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.

Pages
Re: the Mormon aspect of the thread, a couple of things came to mind.
First, the history of their leaders being killed for having taught and practised other than one man/one woman marriage.
Second, their idea of marriage and procreation even now is so vastly different from the rest of Christiandom that I feel something of an affinity with them on some levels.
As an aside, it was news to me that it "isn't possible" for a man and woman to have as "extremely close" a relationship as two women or two men.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>> Loving V. Virginia states that marriage is a constitutional right. It was "progressive" too.
Actually, marriage was declared a "basic civil right."
>>> And had that been left up to popular vote, one wonders if inter racial marriage would yet be legal.
I think it would.
>>> Those dang progressive laws.
Sometimes.
>>> Thanks for confirming that your previous posts on the subject were utterly wrong.
Yeah...ok...ROFL!!!
>>> Prop 8 removed an existing legal civil right and substantially rewrote the CA constitution to inculcate bias against a legally protected class of people. On that basis I hope the CA Supreme Court will overturn it.
Prop 8 was a vote to constitutionally define marriage. It seem unlikely that the CASC will overturn the people's right to amend their own constitution.
>>> They may not, precedent is a huge problem here --- we just don't have a history of overturning the voted in removal of rights of certain of our citizenry as we've never voted to remove rights from a class of people before this.
There was no vote to remove anyone's rights...there was a vote to constitutionally clarify the definition of marriage to preserve it's traditional meaning.
>>> At any rate those who oppose gay marriage are on the backside of history, by the time my children are my age, this battle will be regulated to the pages of history, where younger heads will shake and say "what were they thinking" must as we do now considering times when there was a battle for womens right to vote.
The times they are a-changin'
>>> When a new vote is taken and this goes the other way again, should I prepare for arguments of 'activist people'?
When are activists ever silent?
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Would you like a blanket for your knees?
if the Church wants to be truly separate, it needs to refrain from accepting state funds.
No.
In the US, a couple gets a marriage license, then the marriage itself can be either civil or religious.
>>> One way for the issue to go away... legalise same sex marriage, and then everyone can go tend to their own business.
Or homosexuals could be content with civil unions...and then everyone can go tend to their own business.
Pages