California and Mob Rule

[Theben]

The issue is the term and meaning of "marriage". Marriage isn't something reserved for religion... it's for people who want to commit to spend their lives togethers as partners in love. You keep wanting to keep marriage to only those that are religious.... which is pure crap.

[sic]

It's may be sensible to you because it gives you what you want, which is a monopoly on marriage. Maybe Theban doesn't mind religion coopting the term "marriage", but many would disagree with that.

Again, feel free to call your superstition "holy matrimony"... but the term marriage, and all it means isn't something reserved for your sect of believers.
It is NOT just a relgious concept... no matter how much you want to hide behind your lies.

Personally I don't care what religions think as long as they don't bug me and mine. And if the terms are "holy matrimony" and "marriage" as opposed to "marriage" and "civil unions", that works too. I just want them to extricate their religions from politics as much as possible and IMO this would be one step.

[Jon Miller]

For groups (other than Rome) they had different words to describe 'committing to be partners' and 'marriage'. This includes Africa, Asia, and Europe. Most of these cultures weren't Christian.

To say it is only Christianity that dislikes using marriage for homosexual relationships is wrong.

JM
(And yeah, I missed that Rome had marriage between two men... was it common or just something that emperors/etc did?)

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, obviously. My point was that your definition of discrimination is meaningless because it applies to every single case, and therefore it's reasonable for me to reject it.

No, it is not. The question arises when the law chooses to discriminate between groups of human beings. WHENEVER that happen the state is forced to prove it case (that discrimination is necessary)

[Drake Tungsten]

And yeah, I missed that Rome had marriage between two men... was it common or just something that emperors/etc did?

It must not have been that common given the dearth of historical references to it.

[Zevico]

Democracy

Rule by judicial dictatorship.

This is a hilarious thread.

MrFun bashing democracy and Ben Kenobi hailing it when this is an act of the judiciary.

No. BK is saying that the judges understood and recognised as their role and applied that understanding to this particular case. BK is hailing the judges' understanding of their place in a democratic society. Got it?

[Dinner]

And yeah, I missed that Rome had marriage between two men... was it common or just something that emperors/etc did?

It must not have been that common given the dearth of historical references to it.

Probably true though we know it did happen to some extent. Often enough were the practice had to be outlawed by the new Christian rulers.

[SlowwHand]

Bunch of degenerates, wandering around.

[Dr Strangelove]

Will you take that hat off? How can anyone take you seriously when it's 90 degrees outside and you're running around with a santa hat on?

No. I'm keeping the spirit of Christmas 24/7/52. What could possibly be more serious than that?

[SlowwHand]

That's pretty serious, I have to admit. It's right there at obsessively serious.

[Kuciwalker]

No, it is not. The question arises when the law chooses to discriminate between groups of human beings. WHENEVER that happen the state is forced to prove it case (that discrimination is necessary)

Marriage law will ALWAYS choose to discriminate between human beings, unless we let people marry newborn infants etc. Again, you definition of discrimination is meaningless because it always applies.

Your definition would admit an equal protection challenge to every marriage law that will ever be written. That makes it ridiculous.

edit: to clarify, the problem isn't that the government wouldn't be able to win all such cases (it can demonstrate an overriding concern in the important ones, obviously) but that it expands the power of the 14th amendment far beyond what is reasonable.

edit2: for example, all tax laws would now admit equal protection challenges, as would... pretty much everything. The courts are not supposed to be here to demand that the government be forced to give a reason for EVERY law.

[MrFun]

URL to an interesting anti-bigotry video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV26OMSb_VQ&eurl=http://www.towleroad.com/&featur\e=player_embedded

[MrFun]

BK is missing out on a really, really good video.

[Ben Kenobi]

Watched it.

You don't think I've been ODed on 'anti bigotry' videos? I had enough of that propaganda in class.