This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

[Skeptic]

Are you ****ing serious?

This "argument" is beyond ridiculous.

Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.

 

[Skeptic]

I really love your posts, but this one seems to be reaching quite a long ways.

Don't be so sure, Cobalt. If nothing else, Islamic and mormon groups will now push harder and harder for legalizing polygamy.

Sure, they have a long way to go. But the principle -- that there is a "right" to marriage and ANY restriction on it is "unconstitutional" and will be struck down no matter what the people think -- greatly eases their task.

 

[Megalodon]

Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.

Is Rush treating you kindly?

 

[Cleon]

Is it?

Quite.

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

Gay marriage hasn't been forced on anyone.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

Somehow, I don't think you were told anything of the sort. Your connection to reality seems nebulous at best.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.

Yep. Ridiculous.

 

[Cleon]

Don't be so sure, Cobalt. If nothing else, Islamic and mormon groups will now push harder and harder for legalizing polygamy.

You're just dead-set on driving as far down Kook Highway as you possibly can, aren't you?

Sure, they have a long way to go. But the principle -- that there is a "right" to marriage and ANY restriction on it is "unconstitutional" and will be struck down no matter what the people think -- greatly eases their task.

The Iowa court ruled based on the Iowa state Constitution, not the Federal one. Why are you unable to grasp this simple, simple fact?

 

[gdnp]

...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.

So much for states rights...

 

[Cleon]

Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Your grasp of reality is exceeded only by your ability to read minds.

 

[dudalb]

I think as long as we give state recognition to religious rituals (or have ministers, priests, rabbis and such acting as agents of the state when they perform what they view as a religious rite or sacrament), there will be people who think they have the right to impose their religious view of marriage onto others.

I think the best solution would be to ban the legal recognition of church rituals. Legal marriage should be done by a matter of civil procedure (and I think the oaths and ceremony aren't necessary). You can do any marriage ritual you want in your church, but it should get no legal standing whatsoever.

I generally agree, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
BTW I would not "Ban" legal recognition of church rituals per se. I would make it a voluntary contract, binding in civil law like any other contract,if the parties so choose,but not have the ritual automatically legally binding as it is now.
Anyway you language is a little loaded. Your dislike of religon comes through, and if you are making this argument to somebody who is not a athiest/secluarits/whatever, if might turn him or her off. It's not what you say, but how you say it.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.

Frankly I don't see anything wrong with incest, provided both parties are of the age to consent. Some states define marriage of first cousins as incest. Some don't. I don't think much of bigamy since it's sort of a fraud, but I have no issue with polygamy. Can you state any valid objection to these practices?

 

[gdnp]

My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Have you read the legal opinion? I am told it runs 69 pages, and the judges in question agreed unanimously. There was no dissent. There is a nice summary of much of the legal reasoning in the other thread. Surprisingly, there is not one reference to magic.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.

If you read the judge's ruling, they conclude that equal protection cannot be infringed without a compelling social benefit. They then went through all the arguments the county made for a compelling social benefit and found them wanting. If polygamy would, as you claim, mean "buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy", then I suspect the same justices examining polygamy might find that there was a compelling social benefit to outlawing it, and thus uphold bans on polygamy as constitutional.

Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

As above, laws against father-daughter incest would probably be found to have a compelling social benefit that outweighs the loss of freedom, and thus could be held as constitutional. Although I cannot speak for the Iowa supreme court, who might decide differently. All I can say is that I agree with their reasoning in the gay marriage case.

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

because the situations are not identical.

There may come a time when polygamy is allowed in Western society. The God of the Old Testament does not seem to have had a problem with it. It raises an entirely different set of issues, however. When 3 or more people decide to marry there is the question of divorce, for example. Who decides? Need it be unanimous? Majority rule?

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.

Part of the rule of law is the ability of the courts to find that a particular law is unconstitutional. Otherwise, Iowa could pass a law demanding that you forfeit your property for the crime of belonging to the wrong religion. When courts do not have this power, even an elected government can become tyrannical. See Germany in the 1930's, for example.

Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

Do you have citations? Because the people who told you this, assuming that you have not constructed them from whole cloth, were idiots.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.

Give me a call when someone forces you into an incestuous polygamous homosexual marriage. You get an extra point if it involves a goat.

 

[WildCat]

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Because it boils down to equal protection under the laws. And since there are no groups currently allowed to be polygamists or incestuaous in the US this is not a factor.

 

[Upchurch]

Let's pretend, for a moment, that Skeptic's drivel isn't just pure bigotry.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

How in the world would legalized polygamy lead to the end of "women's equality"?

 

[Megalodon]

How in the world would legalized polygamy lead to the end of "women's equality"?

Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable! It's as absurd as legalizing gay marriage!



This thread is a hoot...

 

[Upchurch]

Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable! It's as absurd as legalizing gay marriage!

Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?

Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.

 

[gdnp]

Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?

Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.

Just try following him in one of the Israeli-Palestinian threads.

 

[Brainster]

There is a push on to amend the Iowa constitution:

The only other recourse for overturning the decision is a state constitutional amendment, which would take at least two years to be adopted.

At least one group opposed to same-sex marriage, the Liberty Counsel, said it plans to advance a referendum to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions. "The Iowa Supreme Court has become a proselytizing engine of radical social change," said Mathew D. Staver, the group's founder. "Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture and harm children."

It is of course a gift to Mike Huckabee, in terms of how it affects the 2012 race (assuming Huck runs). It virtually assures that Iowa religious conservatives will be galvanized.

I do think that the decision to push this through the court system is a mistake, rather than letting it be handled by state legislatures. As the article notes, Vermont has passed gay marriage legislation in both the house and the senate, and although the Republican governor has said he will veto it, at some point either the legislature will come up with sufficient votes to override the veto, or a new governor will be elected.

 

[Megalodon]

Yeah, that's the only thing I could think that he was assuming.

But even if you make the assumption of only polygyny, how does that end "women's equality"? Would being one of many wives mean you could no longer vote? Or would not be entitled to equal pay?

Because then all women would be forced to be second wives, including the first ones!!!. You know, just like Iowan heterosexuals are at this very moment being forced to marry other heterosexuals. There's a special division of the Black Helicopters dedicated to just that.

Even assuming a long string of rather silly assumptions, I am genuinely having trouble following this chain of logic.

Come on.... you know better than that. It's Skeptic!

 

[iiwo]

{snip}

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.

1. If there is nothing in the constitution banning gay marriage how can it be made illegal? If this, or any other right, is afforded only to some, how can "all" be able to pursue happiness, etc?

To be certain, the constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage. Neither does it say anything about traveling on airplanes to other states without a passport. The constitution is not so much a set of specific laws as a guideline within laws must be framed. Requiring that I carry my passport to visit another city/state/province within my country (in this case, the US) would be silly--especially if YOU were able to do the same WITHOUT being required to show your passport.

I know marriage is a slightly different issue legally, but the same concept applies--if the constitution not only fails to ban it, but expressly requires that the rights of one are the rights of all...how can the rights of one be only the rights of some?

2. If legal polygamous marriages were allowed for some groups, the rest of us would have a riot and say "why them, I want a plural marriage too!". And guess what!? We would absolutely be in our rights to do so!

The government recognizes polygamous marriages for NO ONE. This was a significant part of Utah becoming a state--as a territory they recognized the plural marriages of the Latter Day Saints. The Federal Government did not; and in outlawing plural marriage the government was well within its constitutional right.

On the other hand, the US government could have said "we recognize the right of any one person to enter a marriage with one or more persons of their choosing regardless of race or creed" and guess what? It would have been just as constitutional. Now there were other issues involved, and legally plural marriages would be a mess, but in the end...that could have happened and still been legal. Not easy, but legal and easy are not always the same thing. (Nor, as you mentioned, is personal preference).

3. What about women's rights? I'm sure there would be some adjustement time, but plural marriage is no more damning to women's rights than single-hood or 'normal' marriage. Alternatively, what if one woman chose to date and marry several men simultaneously?

Your comment seems to suggest multiple women would be subjected to living in the same house with one man, and be subject to him. What if men were the ones subject?

Or what if two men and three women all married each other? What of women's rights then?

Is it?

I remember when, a few years back, I told people that so-called "civil contracts" are simply a step towards forcing gay marriage on the public, probably by using the courts.

I was told that I was paranoid and that it was absurd, since no court could POSSIBLY find a right to gay marriage in the constitution, no matter how much they wanted to.

So, yes, I believe that the same will happen with polygamy. And, later on, with incest, too. Don't believe me? Just wait.

It may well. Whoever you talked to may have been ill informed, after all--there's a reason laws such as Prop 8 in California and the one struck down recently in Iowa exist: someone made them precisely because there *was* no such [explicit] law already in existence.

Perhaps a better option would be to make marriage not recognized by the state at all? Make civil unions the way to get tax benefits and co-signed loans, mortgages, etc. Issues related to wills, death/medical choices, etc can be arranged for outside of marriage. The few things that marriage does accommodate above and beyond any other legal document or relationship could be accommodated in some other fashion (indicate on your driver's license who can see you in the emergency room, for [one poorly considered] example).

 

[Upchurch]

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

For that matter, where is straight marriage magically found in the Constitution? If straight marriage is magically found there, so is gay marriage.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because polygamy can only be between one man and several women. The reverse is unthinkable!

So unthinkable that there's a word for it: polyandry.