CA Supreme Court oversteps its authority

[Pandora]

Just because it's a pain in the a** shouldn't prevent constitutional rights, if polygamy does in fact qualify for constitutional protection.

Polygamy should be legal. Polygamists have more rights to having their marriages recognized than any other group that is currently not given the right. In their case it’s a first amendment right.

It makes me sick, I mean totally sick beyond words that if a group pesters, cries and wines enough they get something that is by far more deserved to another group. I would rather see polygamy legal and then talk about homosexual marriages.

Polygamists have waited FAR FAR LONGER and there are 3 major religions that I know of who has it in their history and would have them if it were not for the government.

Homosexuals have “gay day” at dizzy world, they have lobbyists, and they have judges and politicians in their pocket. They may as well be a corporation. Polygamists still have to hide in shame, and are treated like garbage.

The whole thing just makes me sick!


I don’t care how many judges pass it; I don’t care how many people accept it. I will not even think about it until the Polygamists are given at the very very least the same rights!

 

[Bunz]

As long as the marriage is between consenting adult humans. I dont care. My problem with polygamist is when under aged people are either forced, or incapable of making that decision on thier own is involved. But you get into a legal issue here with this. Because it is illegal to be married to two different people at the same time. Not so much as a response to polygamy, but to deal with fraud etc.

I think it is more than reasonable for gays/lesbians to be married.

 

[Pandora]

As long as the marriage is between consenting adult humans. I dont care. My problem with polygamist is when under aged people are either forced, or incapable of making that decision on thier own is involved. But you get into a legal issue here with this. Because it is illegal to be married to two different people at the same time. Not so much as a response to polygamy, but to deal with fraud etc.

I think it is more than reasonable for gays/lesbians to be married.

All I am saying is Polygamist have waited far far far longer, and have been treated with far far far far far far far far far more prejudices. If they were allowed to be out in the open not hiding in the dark, it would be simple to monitor the child bride problem. Mandatory age 16 with parent consent and of course the child has to be willing. Father can not be more than 21 unless she is over 18. If it was out in the open CSD or DHS or what ever name the go by these days could easily monitor it.

But as long as people treat them like 3d class and they have to hide in shadows, there will be problems like kids marrying.


I am just frustrated with all of this attention to homosexual marriage when there are other people with far more rights to it and they are treated horribly and with massive discrimination.

 

[bododie]

I want to marry a tortoise. They live a really long time, and I want a tortoise to be able to collect my social security long after I'm dead.

 

[top gun]

What if you wanted to decriminalize it for constitutional reasons?

You bring up good points on polygamy. The act of having multiple wifes "of legal consent age" in and of itself is not far off from someone say having both a wife and a mistress.

But I still go back to the gay marriage thing as hurting no one while protecting someone because of pure legal status. To me a word "marriage" holds no mystical or religious powers.

I always joke by using the comparison...

Don't let gays have Drivers Licenses.

They can be issued little rectangular pieces of plastic with their picture, name and identification on them that allows them to operate a motor vehicle but they must not be called Drivers Licenses... they must be called Operator Cards.

A rose is still a rose... I see no problem with it all being called a Drivers License... or a marriage.

 

[mark964]

who care what they do...so long as they don't kiss in public

 

[Sharon den Adel]

It is my belief that the court was right in its ruling. Yes, the people of California did not wish to see homosexual marriage made legal - but can any of them actually come up with a half decent reason as to why?
Most opponents to homosexual marriage seem to belong to a religion - namely Christianity. Does a persons religion influence their beliefs? Does religion, or lack of, influence the court to rule the way they did?
I support the court ruling because there is simply no reason why homosexual marriage should not be legal. Religious arguements cannot apply here, because of the separation of church and state.
People will soon realise that nothing will change if homosexuals are legally permitted to wed. The 'sanctity' of marriage will not be affected by homosexual marriage, as it is my belief that heterosexuals are doing a fine job of destroying the sanctity of marriage themselves.