disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Damn activist judges bla bla bla bla. It is all Clintons fault. And they are all probably areeeb radical islamic terrorist lovers who like small boys and eat baby seals.
Did I get all the usual slurs right?
Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Its just a matter of time....America may be slow but eventually injustice is righted and ultimately America stands for fairness with "liberty and justice for ALL".
You keft out "Democrap"
And the road to polygamy opens further.
Good news too, there are a lot of hot women I need to work on marrying.
So... wait.
Two ADULT INDIVIDUALS wanting to get married leads to the road of polygamy?
Awesome!
Note that the issue at hand here was a state law ruled to violate the IA Constitution.
Actually, yes. Much of what keeps Marriage Man and a Woman has been struck down, and that is also the basis for polygamy being restricted.
Just pointing that out.
So marriage still being defined as a union between two individuals.
Is a road to polygamy for you?
Feel free to read teh whole thing:Will legalization of same-sex marriage lead to the legalization of polygamy? Proponents of same-sex marriage dismiss the question, for if they ever did face it squarely, they would have to admit the truly radical nature of the case for homosexual marriage. The logic of the polygamy question is this--If marriage can now be homosexual as well as heterosexual, why must it be limited to two persons rather than three . . . or several? Proponents of same-sex marriages have dismissed this question as irresponsible, irrelevant, and inflammatory. The question is indeed controversial, but only because it demands to be answered. It is by no means irrelevant.
That fact is underlined by Richard A. Posner in a recent article published in The New Republic. Posner is a judge sitting on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and he also serves as senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is one of the nation's most prolific and influential legal scholars, and his opinion on this question cannot be dismissed lightly.
=-=-=
Posner criticizes Gerstmann for basing his case for same-sex marriage on the argument that marriage is a "fundamental right." Such rights cannot be taken away by the state without a compelling reason, and Gerstmann argues that the state does not have any compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the rights of marriage. As Posner explains, "When Gerstmann describes the right to marry as fundamental, he means that any person who wants a marriage license has a strong presumptive right to it regardless of how the person defines marriage." When applied to same-sex marriage, this appears to bolster Gerstmann's case. If marriage is indeed a "fundamental right," the state must offer a compelling argument against the right of homosexuals to marry, and Gerstmann alleges that the government has made no such case.
Posner then leaps upon the great legal crevice created by Gerstmann's argument. When Gerstmann argues that marriage is a fundamental right, asserting that same-sex couples cannot be denied this right, Posner understands this logic to go far beyond Gerstmann's argument. Once marriage is defined as a fundamental right, all persons must be granted that right unless the state offers a genuinely compelling argument that would support its denial. As Posner argues, "He might be a man who wanted to marry his sister (both being sterile), or a very mature twelve-year-old boy (say, a freshman at MIT) who wanted to marry his twelve-year-old girlfriend (say, a freshman at Harvard), or a married man who wanted additional wives so that they might help out his current wife around the house, or a busy professional woman who wanted two husbands, the better to take care of the house and the kids, or a homosexual male who wanted three male spouses." If marriage is a fundamental right, Posner explains, then it is a fundamental right for everyone--not only for heterosexual and homosexual couples.
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.So marriage still being defined as a union between two individuals.
Is a road to polygamy for you?
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.
:mrgreen:When you make decisions based on emotion, not well considered reasoning... you release that little ass kicker (the law of unintended consequences)
This question answers itself...Why should we allow the truly needy to suffer just because you cannot find a provision for it in the constitution?
If the argument for changing 'man and woman' to 'two individuals' is sound, then the same argument for changing 'two individuals' to 'two or more individuals' is equally sound.
Please explain how that is not the case.Erhm, not really.
Please explain how that is not the case.
I think we should just abolish marriage altogether and make everybody just form an LLC instead. :mrgreen:
You haven't explained how the argument for changng 'man and woman' cannot be equally applied to changing 'two'.Because the definition of marriage isn't being altered in such a fashion that says..
X can marry Y, oh, and they can marry Z too.
It's still how it should have been when it was first created:
A union between two consenting adults.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?