[Vision2020] California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

[Scott Dredge]

Explain your logic of why you think a person/animal,
person/person/person/(optionally n times more persons)
deserves equal protection to a person/person union.

Laws/rights that are applied to man/women unions can
easily be applied to man/man or women/women unions. 
The same can not be said for your person/animal union
scenario or your multi-person union scenario.

Is there a big demand for equal rights from bigamists,
polygamists, and animal lovers?  I don't see huge
numbers of them clamboring for equal rights.

-Scott


--- "David M. Budge" <dave at davebudge.com> wrote:

> Your answer is non-responsive.  Answer my question
> please.
> 
> "So explain to me why, under your argument of the
> 14th Amendment,  
> polygamists and animal sodomists are not deserving
> of equal protection."
> 
> I agree with your point.  I can't agree with your
> logic.  It fails.
> 
> db
> 
> Art Deco wrote:
> 
> > You cannot be arguing seriously.
> >  
> > If a man and a woman can enter a marriage contract
> which insures the 
> > application/protection of certain civil laws, the
> applying the 
> > language of the 14th Amendment below, then a man
> and man or a woman 
> > and woman deserve the same protection of the laws.
>  Marriage is a 
> > legal, civil union in law.  Pedestry is not.
> >  
> >
> > Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> > deco at moscow.com <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >     From: David M. Budge
> <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
> >     To: Art Deco <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> >     Cc: Vision 2020 <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >     Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:35 AM
> >     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California
> Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
> >     Unconstitutional
> >
> >     Sure I've read it.  We can obviously take the
> implication to your
> >     point to ridiculousness.  Does a bigamist
> require equal
> >     protection, or pedophiles, animal sodomists, 
> or those who
> >     practice incest require the same?  The
> implications of morality
> >     are cause for public consensus.  That
> consensus thereby made under
> >     the legislative process of a democratic
> republic.   It does not
> >     hold to reason that we cannot legislate
> morality.  We do it all
> >     the time - murder, theft, child abuse, spousal
> abuse, rape,
> >     incest, polygamy, pornography....   So explain
> to me why, under
> >     your argument of the 14th Amendment, 
> polygamists and animal
> >     sodomists are not deserving of equal
> protection.
> >
> >     So when the time comes, as now,  that the good
> argument can be
> >     made that the morality of homosexual partners 
> fits the larger set
> >     of morality of the public, laws should be
> passed, amended, or
> >     repealed.  If they are not, legislatures may,
> with the support of
> >     popular opinion, change constitutions so the
> the rights that
> >     should be afforded will be become
> constitutionally unattainable.
> >     Ergo - blowback.  That is exactly what the
> Federal Marriage
> >     Amendment is about. 
> >
> >     Listen, I'm pro gay marriage, as I've said. 
> But the 14th
> >     Amendment argument does not pass intellectual
> scrutiny.
> >
> >     The proper argument is that these are good
> members of society that
> >     do not harm others in their practices and do
> not threaten a
> >     deleterious effect on society.  They should be
> afforded the rights
> >     and privileges that others have as to property
> succession and
> >     custodianship.  Simple as that.
> >
> >     If, however, the government would get out of
> the marriage business
> >     this would all become moot and spousal rights
> could be afforded in
> >     a construct of contract law.
> >
> >     db
> >
> >
> >     Art Deco wrote:
> >
> >>     David,
> >>      
> >>     Have you not read the 14th Amendment to the
> United States
> >>     Constitution?  I thought this amendment was
> one of the
> >>     cornerstones of libertarian philosophy.
> >>      
> >>
> >>
> >>             Amendment XIV
> >>
> >>     Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in
> the United States,
> >>     and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
> citizens of the
> >>     United States and of the state wherein they
> reside. No state
> >>     shall make or enforce any law which shall
> abridge the privileges
> >>     or immunities of citizens of the United
> States; nor shall any
> >>     state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
> property, without
> >>     due process of law; nor deny to any person
> within its
> >>     jurisdiction the equal protection of the
> laws...
> >>
> >>
> >>     Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> >>     deco at moscow.com <mailto:deco at moscow.com>
> >>
> >>     --- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>         From: David M. Budge
> <mailto:dave at davebudge.com>
> >>         To: Tom Hansen
> <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> >>         Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>         Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 7:20 AM
> >>         Subject: Re: [Vision2020] California
> Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled
> >>         Unconstitutional
> >>
> >>         Hail Machiavelli!  But I warn all that
> think the ends justify
> >>         the means of the potential blow-back of
> judges over-ruling
> >>         legislation may just disable judges from
> doing just that. 
> >>         The CA statute that makes marriage
> between one man and one
> >>         woman is an issue of democracy by
> legislation.  Legislatures
> >>         have the upper hand and can change
> constitutions.  Hence the
> >>         notion of of "three equal legs of
> government" is false. 
> >>         One's reliance on judicial interpretation
> may some day come
> >>         back and bite one on one's ass.
> >>
> >>         Listen, I'm for love and equal rights. 
> The libertarian in me
> >>         says that government should stay the hell
> out of the marriage
> >>         business (to which I have the concurrence
> of Nick Gier.) 
> >>
> >>         But just as the Supreme Court made
> unconstitutional the
> >>         practice of executing minors (the outcome
> with which I
> >>         approve as I  approve of the outcome of
> the decision in
> >>         question) the upshot is a loss of
> democracy for residence of
> >>         the states.  Preferably the law should be
> changed by
> >>         democratic process.  In other words, the
> day will likely come
> >>         when a law that you favor and is mandated
> by majority
> >>         representation will be overturned by
> judicial fiat.  This is
> >>         the wrong way to run a democracy or a
> republic.
> >>
> >>         Justice Brandies may be rolling over in
> his grave.
> >>
> >>         db
> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>