Punishment? If by punishment you mean a response to actively challenging the idea and the constitutionality of marriage as a strictly heterosexual option? I think he should be held in very high regard and receive accolades for his efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals.
for the same reasons that others have suggested judge moore be impeached, disbarred, converted to islam, etc.
insomuch as many people were offended by judge moore's actions, many are also offended by the SF mayor's actions.
I have a 100% divorce rate - way higher than then the national average.
Which is pretty similar to the whole Moore deal, really. If every mayor and judge just decided to go off trying to be a revolutionary, well, you can imagine the type of world we'd have. Though I supported Moore's intentions...he still broke the law. And all the lefties were sure to let him know about it.
quite true: not yet.
jurist scalia (yer dawg!) waxed prophetic when he said:
but, what does this right-wing nut know? Dani Eyer (yer dawg for realz), executive director of the ACLU of Utah, who was not a party to the polygamy case, had this to say:
wouldn't that be something? the concept of marriage being wide open? It sounds rather alarmist to suggest that this would lead to widowed grandmothers marrying their grandson fresh outta college not looking for a serious relationship but still wanting to have benefits bestowed upon his dear old g-ma.
Well, not really. This is a quote by the group opposing the issuance of the licences. My understanding is that the major is basing his decision to let gay folks marry on the California Constitution which has been construed to provide far stronger equal protection provisions than the Federal Consitution. Insofar as the California law is in violation of the constitution, the constitution previals. While I cannot be certain, I suspect that the city attorney approved that construction. Obviously, if the court holds that the construction of the constitution is inaccurate, then the major should act in accordance with such a ruling. I feel that an analogy to Judge Moore is only possible if the Major were to then defy a ruling by the court.
Maybe its just me, but you sound quite paranoid. Do you also believe in UFOs? I am not familiar with the polygamy case, but based on you snippets alone, it seems that this precedent would allow the state to outlaw any marriage that is "detrimental to society". It should be fairly easy to show that the generally far-fetched scenarios you outlined are detrimental to society, particularly if as you suggest they are done for financial gain. Setting aside obvious (and more important) moral concerns, gramothers marrying their grandchildren is also detrimental to society because any of their children would more likely have serious birth defects. I will not even address your suggestion that allowing homosexuals to marry would open the door for people to marry animals. Get your mind out of the gutter!!!!
that's the main part of my point: today, polygamy doesn't have much of a chance of (again) being legally recognized any more than the other cases which have yet to be recognized.
findlaw's crawler for just the state of utah provided a treasure trove of writs, decisions & briefs. sorry for not providing it earlier, along with (assumed to be read) news stories.
agreed, it should be. BTW, many a straight marriage is legally had for financial gain, exclusively. I refer you to the enlisted corps of our active duty military for ample supporting evidence.
you start making a case based on genetics, & the aclu would (rightly so) be on your back.
I wouldn't. There's a big difference between marrying another human being and marrying an animal or a minor... neither can give consent on their own.
ya got me, but I normally use it properlyOriginally posted by $tinkle
p.s. pet peeve: misuse of "it's"
Incest is not wrong for society if society as a whole finds it acceptable. If that happens, I'll move into the mountains, but the point of society is that we have a generally accepted agreed upon rules. If queers can get the marriage proposal accepted by the courts, then so be it.
ground rules: no animals.
that's simple and B&W... legal rights of partners. If a gay couple has been together for 50 yrs, one falls critically ill and unable to make decisions., everyone recognizes them as "married", but the family of the sick person has the right to determine the medical treatment and the future of that person. Do you think you should be allowed to make decisions on behalf of your comatose wife of 50 yrs?
You're lucky those of us replying to you are bored at work 
because it comes down to a legal matter, what's so wrong with civil unions? i believe most (if not all) proposals for civil unions offers protection in this case, in addition to all the other legal reasons sought.
my debating chops are rough, as i'm installing & configuring a new box on top of all the other crap i'm supposed to be doing. feh!Originally posted by LordOpie
And for someone who argues well, you sure suck today with all this non-sense and red herrings and slippery slope arguments. What if polanski lobbied for legalizing incest
) Do you guys think something like this could be passed with less drum beatingon both sides?
you say that, but aren't the homosexuals who want so badly to have marriage legalized conspicuously silent on polygamy, et. al.? The others for whom marriage is not legal are certainly posturing to use rulings in this issue to bolster their case (see aclu ref i posted earlier). As far as this being offensive: since when does that matter? Haven't gay marriage opponents been offended by gay marriage proponents?
if i ever left the impression that religion be a plank in this issue, allow me to state for the record that i'm not using that. It would be rediculous to make that claim when so many straights enjoy the priveledge of marriage w/o having any belief system, or one that is not "in line with the founding fathers". Yes, it's a civil issue. What's so wrong with civil unions? All legal aspects of a marriage are covered.
It isn't an issue with the hospital, if something like I mentioned can be enacted.......
Legal or religious...LO and Silver are doing a far better job of arguing this than I can, but I wanted to weigh in on this one point. The above is a common misconception. A "civil union" is legally inferior to a "marriage" on both state and federal levels. It is not recognized by any state other than the issuing state (which applies to both taxes and hospital-related issues), and it is not recognized by the federal government (which applies to federal income and inheritance taxes). As soon as you call it "marriage" other states and the federal government must recognize it.
i'm no legal expert, but i seem to recall the military offered many a legal vehicle for personal dispensation which was readily recognized everywhere. In fact, it was mandated to fill out a power of attorney if you were ever on a mobility unit. Similarly, you may designate who gets your assets when you croak, so i still fail to see where a gay couple would get cheated if they did the most rudimentary paperwork, taking all of a few minutes. To use paperwork as a hurdle to one's rights (i'm not making this your argument), seems to fly in the face of one of the most successful activist communities in our midst.
...which is a felony, btw. Punishable up to 3 years for each cert.
As many a frustrated husband will tell you, marriage and sexual intercourse are not the same thing.
Again, this doesn't address tax issues, and taking a step back, you're simply proving that a civil union is NOT equal to marriage, by the fact that yoe would HAVE to do the paperwork. No, paperwork isn't hard to do, but the point is not to save time or bureacracy, it's to provide equal protection under the law as constitutionally guaranteed.
You and the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
