But that's not the point of this thread. This (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/threesome-marriages/full/) is:


First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the "triad."

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England, to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker." In a triad, there would be no doubt in Elizabeth Edwards’ mind whether her husband fathered a baby out of wedlock; she likely would have participated in it.

There are no statistics or studies out there, but according to Robyn Trask, the executive director of Loving More, a nonprofit organization in Loveland (yes, really), Colorado, dedicated to poly-education and support, about 25 percent of the estimated 50,000 self-identified polyamorists in the U.S. live together in semi-wedded bliss. A disproportionate number of them are baby boomers. (Paging Timothy Leary: Janet Lessin claims on her Web site that she's able to travel astrally.)

As with a couple, the key to making a triad work is communication. The Lessins' group specifically advocates something called "compersion": taking joy in another person's joy. Thus, they know how to process jealousy. “We don’t have anything take place off-stage,” says Sasha Lessin. “You witness your lover making googly eyes and you share your feelings. It’s not difficult for most people to be compersive once they feel they’re not being abandoned.”

Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously), take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections. "We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous.”

That said, Valerie White, executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, a legal-defense fund for people with alternative sexual expression in Sharon, Massachusetts, says she believes that triads are actually a great way to raise a family. "Years ago, children didn’t get raised in dyads, they got raised with grandparents and aunts and uncles—it was much looser and more village-like," says White. "I think a lot more people are finding that polyamory is a way to recapture that kind of support.” For a year, Loving More's Trask and her then-husband were both involved with another woman, who was a part of the family. Trask's three children knew all about it. “I’m totally out,” says Trask.

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?

Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships....

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?Hello Steve:

One whacked out group does NOT a movement make. It DOES show how far you've got to reach to make your old "men will want to marry their dog", argument.

excon

I'm willing to support ANY kind of marriage that includes the following:

ADULTS (people over the age of consent) who are CONSENTING (and this should have to be proven through some kind of counseling--for ALL kinds of marriage, even the traditional versions) and WILLING to make it work.

I'd also like to outlaw divorce. If your'e willing to marry someone, it should be for LIFE, unless you can prove abuse.

Where does it end? What kind of "marriage" are you NOT willing to support?
We can leave it at consenting adults that are not in the same lineage.

Hello Steve:

One whacked out group does NOT a movement make. It DOES show how far you've got to reach to make your old "men will want to marry their dog", argument.

And a couple of years ago it was just a few gays pushing for "civil unions." I'm sure you know I don't make that old "men will want to marry their dog" argument so you can hand that one to someone else. Face it ex, the question is legitimate. You know as well as I do that legal precedents matter and there will be battles over all manner of marital configurations. Care to answer the question or not?

Hello again, Steve:

What Syn and NK said.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

What Syn and NK said.

excon

Thanks, that wasn't so hard was it?

We can leave it at consenting adults that are not in the same lineage.

Wait a minute. Why should the government engage in age descrimination? Isn't that against current descrimination laws? What do you have against kids? Why not allow men and young boys to marry each other as per NAMBLA?

What about animals? According to the sexuality experts at Masters and Johnson (specifically Masters, Miletski, Beetz, and Weinberg), bestiality is just misunderstood by the general public, and can be a rewarding, reciprocal relationship, not just a substitute means of expression. Beetz even believes that (like homosexuality) bestiality is not a "choice". Why should we engage in descrimination against animals? Or against people who love animals?

How about necrophelia? Why should we keep two lovers away from each other just because one of them happens to be dead? And while the dead person might not be able to give concent, he or she likely won't say "no" either.

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on? We can find justification for anything if we try hard enough. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?

Wait a minute. Why should the government engage in age descrimination? Isn't that against current descrimination laws? What do you have against kids? Why not allow men and young boys to marry each other as per NAMBLA?

What about animals? According to the sexuality experts at Masters and Johnson (specifically Masters, Miletski, Beetz, and Weinberg), beastiality is just misunderstood by the general public, and can be a rewarding, reciprocal relationship, not just a substitute means of expression. Beetz even believes that (like homosexuality) beastiality is not a "choice". Why should we engage in descrimination against animals? Or against people who love animals?

How about necrophelia? Why should we keep two lovers away from each other just because one of them happens to be dead? And while the dead person might not be able to give concent, he or she likely won't say "no" either.

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on? We can find justification for anything if we try hard enough. Where does it end? Where do we draw the line?


Oh for God's sake.

Start advocating for the repealing of divorces, too. Divorce is against God, and makes ALL marriages worthless because a FEW people can't make it work, or get married for the wrong reasons.

CONSENT is the key word here. And a minor cannot give consent to sex now until a SPECIFIC age in every state.

If you cannot give LEGAL CONSENT, you cannot get married. Period.

But of course, there's that slippery slope! Let's stop ALL marriages! They're ALL going to lead to EVERYONE wanting to get married! I mean, if straights can get married like now, that's going to lead to GAYS wanting to get married, which is going to lead to the whole world practicing bestiality and necrophilia! Stop the insanity before it starts and make it so that NO ONE can get married! Otherwise we're ALL going to slide down the slopes to hell!

Do you see the slippery slope that we're on? No.
You're making irrational arguments.

No.
You're making irrational arguments.

Why is it irrational?

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

I didn't ask if having sex with 5 year olds and dogs was rational, I asked why Elliot's arguments (plural) were irrational. Perhaps you can answer the question without the diversions?

Because in order for the slippery slope theory to work, then ANY use of something could cause the slope to slide out from under you.

Therefore, if you declare that allowing something is a slippery slope to adding something worse, then you can't have ANY version of that something.

THEREFORE, if allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to pedophilia and bestiality and god knows what else, then NO marriage should be allowed, since allowing straight marriage was only setting up the slippery slope for gay marriage to begin with.

So--if there's a slippery slope here, it's because there is ANY marriage at all!

Oh for God's sake.

Start advocating for the repealing of divorces, too. Divorce is against God, and makes ALL marriages worthless because a FEW people can't make it work, or get married for the wrong reasons.

Synnen,

Before I comment any further, please note that YOU are the one who brought up religion in this thread, not me. I think that it's going to come up later at some point.

In the past, when Conservatives like myself have used the "slippery slope" argument, we have been accused of using a strawman argument... creating a false agument so that it can be shot down to prove our point.

Based on this article, it seems that the slippery slope argument wasn't a strawman after all. It is, in fact, exactly what is occurring. Now that gay marriage has been permitted, other alternative lifestyles are coming out and demanding the same equal rights as gay couples. Which is exactly what we said was going to happen.

And yet, despite the fact that it is happening RIGHT NOW, you refuse to see the validity of the slippery slope argument.


CONSENT is the key word here. And a minor cannot give consent to sex now until a SPECIFIC age in every state.

Why not? Isn't that age descrimination? Why is a 17-year-eleven-month-old any less capable of consenting than an 18-year-old? (The same argument as why a minor who commits a multiple rape-murder is worthy of a lower punishment than an adult. It makes no sense.)


If you cannot give LEGAL CONSENT, you cannot get married. Period.

Not quite true. In several states, there are laws still on the books that allow parents to give consent for their minor children to get married. What if Daddy is a NAMBLA supporter and agrees to let little Billy get married to his neighbor, Big John? And Billy loves Big John. LEGALLY consent is in place, there is a reciprocal relationship, all the legalities and emotional components are in place. By your argument, we should allow it.


But of course, there's that slippery slope! Let's stop ALL marriages! They're ALL going to lead to EVERYONE wanting to get married! I mean, if straights can get married like now, that's going to lead to GAYS wanting to get married, which is going to lead to the whole world practicing bestiality and necrophilia! Stop the insanity before it starts and make it so that NO ONE can get married! Otherwise we're ALL going to slide down the slopes to hell!

Or... we could keep to the historical definition of marriage which has worked for the entire history of the human race.

What is the purpose of marriage?

From a sociological perspective, marriage is there to create a relatively save environement for children to be conceived, raised and nurtured. From a sociological perspective there is no other purpose for marriage. There may be other EMOTIONAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC or RELIGIOUS reasons for marriage, but there are no other sociological reasons for it.

Ergo, anything that does not promote that purpose... the conception, birth, raising and nurturing of children... is counterproductive from a sociological perspective.

Gay marriage is counterproductive from a sociological perspective. So is beatiality.

It MIGHT be argued that polygamy is actually a better environment for the raising of children, because it creates redundancies... if one mommy or daddy dies, there are substitute mommies or daddies to care for the child. I'm not actually against polygamy per se... there is an historical basis for polygamy. And being Jewish, I have a religious-historical basis for it as well. But if we are to look at the Bible as a source of knowledge on the practice of polygamy, what we see is generation after generation of fraternal infighting. Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Essau, Joseph and his brothers... not exactly good examples of children growing up emotionally healthy and loving of each other. I don't know if polygamy is the contributing factor to this unhealthy fraternal hatred, but the circumstantial evidence is somewhat strong.

I won't even get into bestiality as being socialogically unviable. I assume you understand the basic biology of reproduction.

But the single most important need of the human race is survival, at the individual level, the family level and the Human race level. The only form of family arrangement that has consistently worked, and has produced 6.77 billion people (despite us being constantly at war with each other for all our history, despite famine, disease, and natural and man-made disaster) is heterosexual, manogamous marriage.

And THAT is the reason we need marriage in its historical form to continue, and why any other form of family grouping is detrimental to human survival.

Survival is the key.

Elliot

Thanks Synnen, but I was really interested in whether NK could justify his charge.


Because in order for the slippery slope theory to work, then ANY use of something could cause the slope to slide out from under you.

THEREFORE, if allowing gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to pedophilia and bestiality and god knows what else, then NO marriage should be allowed, since allowing straight marriage was only setting up the slippery slope for gay marriage to begin with. So--if there's a slippery slope here, it's because there is ANY marriage at all!

So we're to assume there should never be a starting point for anything? Or should there just be no rules?

There is a centuries old commonly accepted tradition/definition of marriage so we have a starting point.

This commonly accepted definition is between one man and one woman with commonly accepted purposes/fulfillments; love, companionship, etc. and procreation - which of course has only one natural method of fulfillment.

This commonly accepted definition has been codified into law.

That law has been challenged by advocates and changed to include marriage between homosexuals in some states, setting a precedent on which to make other challenges.

There are advocates for other forms of marriage such as in my OP, and 3 of you have advocated basically anything between consenting adults.

Other groups advocating even more forms of marriage/legal relationships have been identified such as NAMBLA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#The_founding_of_NAMBLA), which has existed formally for over 30 years and advocates for "the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males," which not only targets the form of the relationship but the age of consent.

Since we have a starting point, legal precedents and active advocates we have a logical chain making Elliot's a rational and logically valid slippery slope argument.

Rational people want to have sex with 5 year olds and dogs in your world?

Do rational people want to stick parts of their bodies into places they were never designed to go in your world?

Rational people, like the scientists at Masters & Johnson have rationalized bestiality. Do I think it's rational? No. That's one of the reasons that I'm against the practice.

Rational people have been able to justify NAMBLA and it's activities. Do I think it's rational? No.

RATIONAL people have justified tieing each other up and beating and mock "raping" (with prior consent) each other as part of "sexual diversity". There is a whole BDSM sub-culture based on this. Do I think it's rational? No.

But other people do.

People can justify anything if they try hard enough. And they will also try to justify it to others. And when that fails, they often tend to try to force it onto others... legislatively, if they can get enough political backing to do it.

We've seen that happen with Gay marriage. Many people (perhaps most --- a lot of people voted against Prop 8) were not in favor of it, but proponents of Gay marriage have managed to legislate it into existence anyway by having courts rule bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, have local legislators vote down popular votes against gay marriage, etc. It was forced on people who didn't want it and voted against it repeatedly.

Why should we believe that the same thing wouldn't happen with polygamy? Or beatiality? Or homosexual pedophelia? Given enough political clout, ANYTHING can be made legal, and we are seeing that play out right now. Why is this argument so hard to visualize as a possibility?

Elliot

Too many things to quote here.


So we're to assume there should never be a starting point for anything? Or should there just be no rules?

Why SHOULDN'T the starting point be gay marriage? Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed? There is precedent, at least for polygamy. Why does the "traditional" method of marriage have to stand?


This commonly accepted definition is between one man and one woman with commonly accepted purposes/fulfillments; love, companionship, etc. and procreation - which of course has only one natural method of fulfillment.

So because I'm infertile, my husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to marry, either? We can't procreate, not without a LOT of medical help! And if adoption is not a "natural" method of fulfillment, why allow it at all? If two parents, regardless of gender, aren't better than being raised by the state, then let's outlaw adoption, too!

The thing is this: Just because we already have a starting point doesn't mean that it can't be modified. And just because you have a starting point doesn't mean that it's a GOOD thing. Slavery, after all, was justified by tradition and the Bible for YEARS. Inter-racial marriage was thought to be unnatural until very recently. Being a single mother out of wedlock was a source of shame until the last couple of decades.

Are you saying we should go back to what it was in 1950?

Talking about the LEGAL sanction of marriage of minors--why is Billy marrying John Bob any worse then Susan marrying Joe, assuming that both Susan and Billy are 16 year old minors that got parental permission? Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?

Talking about the LEGAL sanction of marriage of minors--why is Billy marrying John Bob any worse then Susan marrying Joe, assuming that both Susan and Billy are 16 year old minors that got parental permission? Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?

I'm not saying it is. In fact, I think that Suzie and Billy ought to both wait till their of age.

But that is just one more step in the slippery slope I'm talking about. Just one more argument of it just being another "lifestyle choice".

Thanks for making my point for me, though. Allowing one deviation from the historical norm opens the exact argument you just made. "Why is one form of sexual relations with a minor okay with you while the other isn't?" You just used the slippery slope argument. Congratulations.

Elliot

No, I just used the "if one is okay and the other isn't, then you're a hypocrite" argument.

There's a difference between walking on a slippery slope and being a hypocrite.

Do rational people want to stick parts of their bodies into places they were never designed to go in your world?You mean like married christian heterosexual couples do now? Then yes! Yes they do! Ever heard of oral sex?

Why SHOULDN'T the starting point be gay marriage? Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed? There is precedent, at least for polygamy. Why does the "traditional" method of marriage have to stand?

Because it is not the centuries old commonly accepted tradition/definition. Sure there have been variations, but this is the most widely accepted and codified definition. You can't change the starting point, which for the sake of this discussion I've firmly established, into whatever you want.


So because I'm infertile, my husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to marry, either? We can't procreate, not without a LOT of medical help! And if adoption is not a "natural" method of fulfillment, why allow it at all? If two parents, regardless of gender, aren't better than being raised by the state, then let's outlaw adoption, too!

You've swerved completely off the path. Follow my argument and answer it, nowhere did it include infertility as invalidating that definition of marriage and nowhere does it say anything about adoption. Caring for children is a good thing, much better than aborting them and I have no problem with whoever of whatever persuasion doing so as long as they are competent and have the means and best interest of the child in mind.


The thing is this: Just because we already have a starting point doesn't mean that it can't be modified. And just because you have a starting point doesn't mean that it's a GOOD thing.

I think it's safe to say that historically marriage has not only been a good thing, it's been essential.


Slavery, after all, was justified by tradition and the Bible for YEARS. Inter-racial marriage was thought to be unnatural until very recently. Being a single mother out of wedlock was a source of shame until the last couple of decades.

Are you saying we should go back to what it was in 1950?

How did we get to slavery? I realize some marriages may seem like slavery but let's stick to the subject. As far as I know being a single mother wasn't illegal, and interracial marriages fit within the context of my last argument, which established the logic and rationality of Elliot's slippery slope argument.

Hello:

I'd be happy if the state let you homophobes keep marriage. You may have it as a religious ceremony, with all the religious connotations you want to put upon it. Of course, anybody can get married in their own church or shule, and any church or shule can prevent anybody from getting married that they want.

If the state wants to give benefits to committed couples, they can, and they can call it anything they like, except marriage.

That should make you happy - but, it won't.

excon

Hello:

I'd be happy if the state let you homophobes keep marriage. You may have it as a religious ceremony, with all the religious connotations you want to put upon it. Of course, anybody can get married in their own church or shule, and any church or shule can prevent anybody from getting married that they want.

If the state wants to give benefits to committed couples, they can, and they can call it anything they like, except marriage.

That should make you happy - but, it won't.

excon

Nope, it won't. You know why it won't? Because a) I'm tired of the courts establishing the law and overruling the will of the people and b) the left's idea of compromise is pummeling your opponent into submission.

Take Carrie Prejean for instance, that poor woman only took a stand that 20 years ago was perfectly normal in a freakin' beauty contest and she's being crucified in the media. I'm not going to be steamrolled into accepting whatever societal norm of the day is by the most hateful, intolerant, bigots posing from their hypocritical moral high ground without a fight. I'm perfectly willing to not give a hoot what happens behind their closed doors and they can call it whatever they want. I've granted equal benefits under the law for gay unions, defended their right to adopt children, but there is only one traditional commonly accepted definition of marriage and it has a purpose that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. Stop trying to call everything else something it can never be.

If you take away STATE benefits from ALL "marriage", and give benefits ONLY to "civil unions", then allow ALL churches to decide who can get "married" within their church---you meet both sides being fair.

MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a STATE ceremony. If you want the benefits of both, then you have to GET both.

If you take away STATE benefits from ALL "marriage", and give benefits ONLY to "civil unions", then allow ALL churches to decide who can get "married" within their church---you meet both sides being fair.

MARRIAGE is a religious ceremony. A civil union is a STATE ceremony. If you want the benefits of both, then you have to GET both.

And my argument is the proponents on the left won't be satisfied with that compromise. Their idea of compromise is "you'll do it my way and like it."

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

You mean proponents on the right?

Funny---that's EXACTLY how I see the proponents on the left. Their attitude is "NO Change! We like it the way things are right now, and you'd better do it our way and like it!"

I'm sure you meant the right also. I'm sure you also recall previous discussions here where some of us on the right have been willing to compromise. I just did for crying out loud. I also remember the reaction from the left was "not good enough" even though virtually all of there grievances were satisfied in the compromise.

I did mean the right--thank you for taking that the way it was meant.

Let's admit it, folks.

Both parties have their philosophies and ideals, and neither one of them is really willing to compromise those ideal and philosophies.

So when one side accuses the other of being unwilling to compromise... well, they're right. But they are also just as guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be so interested in getting the other guy to change his stance.

I admit it. I am a conservative and I have absolutely no intention of compromising my positions. My goal is not to create unity, it is to convince those who are undicided on the issues to take the same stance I have. THAT is how one wins elections. That is how parties gain and maintain power. They convince people to vote for them based on self interest.

And Dems are no different from Reps in that.

So why don't we all agree to stop calling each other insulting names because we have stances that we don't compromise on. We ALL have stances we won't compromise on. We are all equally "guilty" of that, though I don't see it as a matter of guilt, but rather conviction. I happen to think that Dems' convictions are misplaced. Dems clearly feel the same regarding myself and other Reps. And we are not going to convince the others that we are right and they are wrong. We are not going to convince others to give up their convictions.

Let's just move on and stop pretending that OUR party has the bigger tent. We are both guilty of throwing those who disagree with us out of our tent. The Dems did it with Joe Lieberman. They are just as guilty of doing it as Reps.

Now... let's move on from there and stop the name-calling so that we can get back to the issues at hand.

Both parties have their philosophies and ideals, and neither one of them is really willing to compromise those ideal and philosophies.... Now... let's move on from there and stop the name-calling so that we can get back to the issues at hand.Hello again, El:

Wow. I thought I missed a real knock down... But, couldn't find it. You righty's are too sensitive.

You keep on saying this has to do with philosophies and ideals, but it doesn't. YOUR argument does, but mine is based on the LAW. It comes straight from the Constitution, to wit:

The Ninth Amendment; "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..."

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says,. "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

excon

Hello again, El:

Wow. I thought I missed a real knock down... But, couldn't find it. You righty's are too sensitive.

You keep on saying this has to do with philosophies and ideals, but it doesn't. YOUR argument does, but mine is based on the LAW. It comes straight from the Constitution, to wit:

The Ninth Amendment; "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..."

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says, ... "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

excon

You have a very bad habit of quoting only part of what is written and it constantly comes back to bite you. I recommend against that practice.

There is no "right" to gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT marriage... or at least it hasn't been until legislators and the courts decided to redefine "marriage"... mostly against the will of the people who voted against it.

Marriage is a binding between a man and a woman. It always has been, and it always will be. The fact that gay people cannot have a "gay marriage" is not an abrogation of any rights, because straight people cannot have a gay marriage either. Furthermore, the granting of all the rights of heterosexual marriage to those who have gay civil unions means that there is no abbrogation of any rights. The 14th Amendment is satisfied.

You, however, are not. That is not based on the law. It's based on stubbornness. The law is perfectly satisfied.

Elliot

And the Fourteenth Amendment which says, ... "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

To me, it's clear as a bell, that if some group is given rights by the government, then ALL groups are eligible to receive those rights... It can't be read any other way. THIS issue is exactly why the Amendment says what it does.

Thanks for making our point that other whacked out groups - including NAMBLA and their perverted desire to legalize pedophilia - will expect equal treatment under the law.

The problem is this: The state cannot give benefits to marriage (of ANY sort) if they are not available to ALL.

The compromise that comes up is this:

1. RELIGIOUS institutions (ANY religious institution recognized in the US) declare whether a couple is married, whether gay or straight.
2. EVERY couple, in order to get the LEGAL benefits, must have a civil union.

So... you can get married in the church, but have no legal rights to inherit, or you can get civil unionized by the state and have legal rights but no right to use the word "marriage". Or you can do both, and have both.

Again--MY religion has no problem with gay marriage or polygamy. I see a lot of converts coming in the future.

California Supremes upheld Proposition 8 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grllk_nt63q2NPIotyM9xpL4hwkwD98E2DO00)...


The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Durn California bigots got their way...

Must be some of that conservative judicial activism... all that upholding of the law that the people passed. The Justices voted 6-1 to uphold the ban

I love that line about it's just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process.

Isn't that like ummm democracy ?

I love that line about it's just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process.

Apparently we'll see how that argument pans out in the near future. "Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8."


Isn't that like ummm democracy ?

Only to be used as a last resort.