Skip to comments.
What's Next, Bigamy? [Does CA Prop 8 overturn signal polygamy next?]
Fox News ^
| August 5, 2010
| Peter Ferrara
Posted on 08/06/2010 5:43:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterdays ruling by a California federal court striking down the states ban on gay marriage opens a constitutional Pandoras Box.
The court ruled that the gay marriage ban violates the Equal Protection Clause because homosexuals should be just as free to marry whoever they choose as heterosexuals. The court concluded that there is no rational basis for a distinction between the marriage of a man and a woman and the marriage of a man and a man.
Whether the failure to see any rational distinction there is itself rational will be decided on appeal. But as of now the decision has established a constitutional right to gay marriage. When did the people ever decide to adopt that in the Constitution?
If that decision stands, it will be a precedent for other challenges to state marriage laws. If there is no rational basis for a distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, is there a rational basis for a distinction between bigamy or polygamy and monogamy?
If a woman wants to marry the man she loves, what is the rational basis for saying she cant do so just because she is married to another man who she says she also loves?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: caglbt; california; constitution; doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; homosexuals; margaretmarshall; moralabsolutes; polygamy; prop8; romney; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; samesexmarriage; vaughnwalker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
I have my eye on a certain redhead and a Filipina./s
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.
Sexless marriages are Legal.
2
posted on
08/06/2010 5:45:36 PM PDT
by
NoLibZone
(If we could remove bad representatives through voting, voting would have been made illegal by now.)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I’ll probably get flamed big time for this, but (frankly) I don’t see too many downsides to polygamy. Given that so many women can’t find husbands and so many marriages produce no children, polygamy might not be a bad thing. In addition, I think this would save many marriages from divorce—instead of cheating, the guy would just take another wife. If some guy wants to build a dynasty (and can afford it), more power to him. It would probably be cheaper too (fewer divorces, and kids cheaper by the dozen to raise). Of course, my wife would NEVER go for it.
3
posted on
08/06/2010 5:49:19 PM PDT
by
rbg81
(When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The Judge’s basis for throwing out prop 8 certainly does accomodate polygamy, and incestuous marriage. And there are activist polygamy groups that are now ready to pounce and I don’t blame them.
4
posted on
08/06/2010 5:50:00 PM PDT
by
HerrBlucher
(In the White House the mighty White House the Liar sleeps tonight.............)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
I saw a really sexy goat the other day, but my dog got jealous.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Whether the failure to see any rational distinction there is itself rational will be decided on appeal. One has to wonder how the lawyers of old look down on todays legal arguments. "I don't understand why X is true, therefore X is false." If Aristotle was alive today he would be rolling over in his grave.
6
posted on
08/06/2010 5:50:35 PM PDT
by
ALPAPilot
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Can I marry my goldfish??? Wow,, another deduction!! Yea!!!
7
posted on
08/06/2010 5:52:31 PM PDT
by
MrPiper
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The court concluded Nah, it was just one old Castro District rump ranger
Why make it sound dignified when it isn't
8
posted on
08/06/2010 5:54:05 PM PDT
by
Regulator
(Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
To: ALPAPilot
If Aristotle was alive today he would be rolling over in his grave. Is that like a Koan, man?
9
posted on
08/06/2010 5:54:05 PM PDT
by
HerrBlucher
(In the White House the mighty White House the Liar sleeps tonight.............)
To: rbg81
I also have no problem with bigamy.
any male dumb enough to have multiple wives, who, when in close proximity to each other, will synchronize their cycles, deserves what he gets.
10
posted on
08/06/2010 5:54:37 PM PDT
by
jrg
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Four states were only allowed in the Union if they forever swore off polygamy.
This judge’s opinion is nonsense, not law.
11
posted on
08/06/2010 5:55:32 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(They say money is the mother's milk of politics, but it's not. It's one hundred proof corn liquor.)
To: jrg
I agree completely. It’s basically a self inflicted punishment. I mean what sane male would want nagging in stereo, let alone surround sound.
12
posted on
08/06/2010 5:59:06 PM PDT
by
Domandred
(Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
To: Domandred
I mean what sane male would want nagging in stereo, let alone surround sound.You know my wife???
13
posted on
08/06/2010 6:01:02 PM PDT
by
MrPiper
To: rbg81
Polygamy has a long history all over the world. Gay marriage, none.
14
posted on
08/06/2010 6:01:16 PM PDT
by
Ronin
To: MrPiper
I mean what sane male would want nagging in stereo, let alone surround soundIf I knew at 19, what I know now at 50,, I would move near a Whore house,,, and find a job...
a lot more sex for a lot less money!!!
15
posted on
08/06/2010 6:03:18 PM PDT
by
MrPiper
To: 2ndDivisionVet; AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; ...
See, this would be the perfect time for Sam Kinison's routine about the Gay Terminator, but I'd have the imprint of a pair of size 11s on my keister. ;') Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
16
posted on
08/06/2010 6:10:39 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
To: ALPAPilot
If Aristotle was alive today he would be rolling over in his grave.
Burying Aristotle alive would not be a good thing. :)
17
posted on
08/06/2010 6:13:47 PM PDT
by
pyx
(Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
To: rbg81
UGG send all the women out to work, the braves hunt, fish during day and make love all night. No taxes, no fee's no bureaucrats, and white man thinks he can improve on Indian way of life.
18
posted on
08/06/2010 6:15:16 PM PDT
by
Foolsgold
(L I B Lacking in Brains)
To: HerrBlucher
who are we to judge, when it comes to love?
Seriously, these liberals and conservative idiots acting like liberals will ruin the institution of marriage.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
The guy just asserted that people have a RIGHT to get married.
So yes, does polygamy fall under "Equal protection"? There are many religions that practice it.
What about marrying 12/13 year old girls? Do they have a "right" to get married?
How will this effect the mail order bride business?
Yeah - this judge has really done a screw job on the legal system.
20
posted on
08/06/2010 6:16:47 PM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson