Replies

The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.

He didn’t.

While I believe that gay-marriage is legally a states’ rights issue, my Christian faith leaves me firmly against the idea. So as a Christian, I was somewhat disappointed in Cooper’s defense because he refrained from a direct attack on gay marriage. As a states’ rights advocate, I appreciated the fact that he tried to convince the court that important, democratic, timely, public debate should continue as is with various states banning and allowing gay marriage.

The lawyer defending Prop 8 should demand that if the justices intend to strike down the law that they strike down all laws banning any kind of marriage. You can’t rule that one kind of marriage must now be accepted and any other type be excluded. Any and every type relationship must be given equal status as well by the Gay and Lesbian’s rational. While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.

The main question is "what would the Constitution say." I admit to being middle of the road on this issue but here goes:

My own personal opinion is I support traditional marriage, but being the libertarian I am, but the government should not be involved but in reality it is so I see it as more of a State's rights issue. Let each State and the people therin decide, that's the basis of our system. The people of California have spoken and said no so it should stay that way. Same with Massachusetts, if they say yes, the same should apply. Even so, if a minister of any religion or a judge who will not marry a gay couple based on his convictions should not be forced to either. No one should be forced to go against their conscience.

I do agree with your idea though, if we take this equality thing too far, if homosexuals can marry, why not polygamy? Why not group marriage?

Take it a step further, albeit a bit absurd, a lonely middle aged guy like me, why can't I find some good looking 18, 19 or 20 year old chick, toss her in the back of my Chevy Blazer and off to the Justice of the Peace? B-) Hey, marriage is a right so I'm claiming it as a right for me too. A lot of my classmates are in the same boat as me, we can just pick women like we are drafting for a dodgeball team and have our own harems. B-D

Maybe your position is the best of all along with getting rid of all tax breaks and so on.

The only other way to cure this at that national level is to have a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as traditional (like they did for the Russian and Serbian Constitutions) or open for all. I don't like amending the Constitution for things like that though. Otherwise, the Feds should be silent here and just kick it to the States.

if they re-define marriage then it;s anything goes and our side had better point that out plus point out how eevry argument can be used for any marriage

While they’re at it, demand the tax code reflect their ruling as well. No more deductions and different rates that don’t apply to every one. Either every one has them and pays the same rate or it’s unconstitutional.

They want to destroy marrige then fine, let’s get the government out of favoring either way!!!

I agree with you.