>> Seriously though, based on the ruling and the gay judge’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, polygamy and incest should be covered under this ruling, right? <<
Carling, the way I understand it: No.
People can accuse Walker of a lot of things - judicial activism, liberal agenda, power-hungry tyranny - but he’s certainly smart because he *purposely* closed off the possibility of polygamy by ruling that his findings were based upon the fact that men were being denied marriage licenses to wed other men *because of their gender*, which the Supremes have ruled is off limits (men and women must be treated equally in all things).
He said something along the lines of “there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’ there is only ‘marriage’ and this court is removing the restriction based upon gender just like it did with race.” It’s toward the end of the ruling but I’m too lazy to go look up the exact page; you can find it online. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose so there is no way someone can use this to support multiple marriages. It was almost diabolically brilliant because he made it impossible for people to use the slippery slope argument on appeal.
I’ve said it before, but I just don’t really care about the whole gay marriage thing, nor does most of my generation, because I believe with every ounce of my being that 95%+ to 99%+ of men are straight and want to bang (pardon the phrase), be with, and grow old with women.
I don’t think having gay marriage be an option is suddenly going to cause men throughout the country to go, “Oh, gee! I should have been screwing Steve all along.” I just have too much faith in the incorrigible nature of men who want nothing more than to get in a woman’s pants, generally speaking. That is why the slippery slope thing doesn’t seem particularly probable to me. (You could make eating worms legal - wait, it is - and I’m not going to go do it because it’s repulsive based on my nature. When it comes to gay sex, I think virtually all men are wired to feel the same way. It holds zero interest or appeal.)
What I don’t get about polygamy: When you have a group of people joining together to form an economic unit, isn’t that called a corporation? What is the purpose of saying it is “marriage”? No one has explained that one to me yet.
“When you have a group of people joining together to form an economic unit, isn’t that called a corporation?”
Well what is it when you have two people joining together to form an economic unit, isn’t that called a partnership? Wasn’t that covered with civil unions?
Several groups and gays have stated that gay marriage should receive the same tax breaks etc. as married heterosexuals, even though gay people can NEVER (naturally and on their own) expand American society! One of the main reasons that marriage is sanctioned/subsidized in the tax code is because a man and a woman can have kids and expand and grow the social structure and future generations of Americans!
Where as gays can only bring down a society - as seen through history!
Technically, you are correct. Legally, the door is now wide open for other challenges under the 14th Amendment, and based on this ruling, they would have to succeed.
Prop 8 wasn’t to ban “gay” marriage; it was to affirm that marriage is between a “man and a woman”. The homosexual mafia decided to attack the wording and have it apply to them.
Verminous libs.
Verminous libs.
You know that is a "straw man" argument? Taking that fallacy out of your passive argument leaves what exactly -support for homosexual marriage?
You do not care? -well, one that does not care matters not as far as questions are concerned -some call this being a useful idiot -tyrants like useful idiots...
Maybe my post will shock you -maybe my post will cause you to reevaluate apathy taken on a dismissive premise?
You post here on Free Republic so I assume you 'get it' for the most part e.g. individual freedom, unalienable rights etcetera... You know of course that all these 'freedom' things are premised upon small government and the free market system.
Many people are familiar with the economic free market -almost all if not all here on FR support it -WHY?
Support of the economic free market system has reasons -reasons proved historically by facts. Capitalism works in spite of the socialist arguments. Do we capitalist support the economic free market because we are all greedy rich capitalist pig oppressors that want to keep the poor victims down as the socialists claim? NO? No, it is because the economic free market system is the best and only system that works. It is a system that empowers the individual -a system that takes all knowledge from all areas and translates it into a price for a good or service with the price being an instant measure of market determined value. The free market enables the best to succeed and be rewarded while allowing failures to be punished but try again. The economic free market determines true value and creates wealth -all benefit... ALL this without central planning and without government imposed prices and values on goods and services. Any time government has attempted to impose prices or meddle in value determination the results has been bad -always the Utopian ideal is pursued by imposition contrary to the free market and always the unintended consequences have happened... Take for instance the housing crisis -at its root was the government mandate for the poor to become homeowners -quite a noble cause. Quite the unintended consequences we now suffer economically...
Anyway, the economic free market is good. Why not then the moral free market? Marriage the institution -that between man and woman has been proven successful. The moral free marker has given it value and according has rewarded it with privilege. WHY? Because they wish to keep the homosexual downtrodden and poor? LOL Think again...
THINK! WallStreetCapitalist
WHY NOT MainStreetMoralist TOO?