Since Charlie continues to wander to other issues while this long thread does as well, as far as polygamy is concerned, multiple spouses is already considered to be illegal as a form of bigamy which is also illegal. The history of Utah and other factors such as the recent episode in Texas with their marriage laws and the debacle that still continues may have been greatly influenced by the Southern Baptist Convention and their large numbers as from the pulpit they attempt to provide guidance related to the issue as it relates to the general election in November. Reuters today examines the over arching factor as it relates to the right wing base of the GOP. A review of this very long thread IMO will show that Charlie has greater concerns than simply the issue in CA as a member of the religious right base as it applies to the general election in November.  BTW, Charlie, it appears Obama and McCain both have avoided taking stands on the issue of same sex marriage by suggesting the Constitutional reality of leaving marriage laws to the states.

In the end since your state has already changed their constitution to please your views, the question remains as to why you concern is so deeply rooted, other than homophobia or self hate, take your pick, when the ruling in CA hardly effects your personal choice, but might well effect the choice of some in November. So once again there is the return to your circular argument that has little basis in your personal reality.

Gay marriage 2008: election sideshow or main event?
Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:11am EDT 

By Ed Stoddard - Analysis

DALLAS (Reuters) - This week's start of gay marriages in California has pushed a hot-button social issue into the U.S. presidential campaign, but will it be a sideshow or a main event?

When voters in California and Florida choose between presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican John McCain in November, they will also be asked to weigh amendments to the state constitutions seeking to ban same-sex marriage.

Such ballot initiatives played a key role in President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election as they galvanized the Republican Party's conservative Christian base.

But several key things are very different this year.

The complete analysis from Reuters can be accessed on the link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1835094920080619?sp=true

Uh, Charlie, straight people get and spread AIDS too. Shall we just outlaw sex?

Or will you admit that your "argument" is just special pleading?

It is based on political expediency.

Is it? Political expediency? So..it'll be up to the moronic Cass types or those like....you....to inform us who is being politically expedient...who is being bigoted...who is a homophobe?

Review your lame argument and see it for the stupidity level it attains. Un-f'n-believable.

Oh my God, how many times do I have to tell you that the Judiciary HAS jurisdiction here?

The court can't just go, "hey! I disagree with that, so let's bring it to a vote". A legitimate case has to go through a lengthy process including several lower courts before it gets to where it is now. Then, another formal trial is held and the court makes a ruling.

Regardless, if a person feels that their equality is in jeapordy they can challenge a law in court.

That's what's happening here.

Any other belief about "judicial activism" is a joke.


So DOMA is written in stone? It can't be challenged? It can't be wrong?

See, what I find hysterical is that you would call what the CA Supreme Court did to be "judicial activism and overreach" but wouldn't stop to apply the same kind of thought to DOMA itself. Basically, Congress has ZERO authority over marriage. By issue of the 10th ammendment, marriage is a STATE issue.

DOMA should have never been written.

But it was. But so were the Jim Crow laws.

It doesn't make either one right.


Why do you have so much trouble reading?

"A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision."


"You" the people still have a say.


... everything we write here is usually based on opinion.

Mine is backed up by the US Constitution, which ensures equality to everyone.

Your opinion is based on reactionary bull shit.


The US Congress should have never made it their jurisdiction in the first place.

I'm for state's rights. That's why I'm Conservative.

Three California Justices disagreed, so does the federal government in overwhelming numbers. So do the majority of Americans in dozens of states that took legislative measures to prevent judicial overreach. And Abraxas...perhaps a little review of your argument and frankly...a need to grow up. Because you've "how many times do I have to tell you", doesn't change reality. As many disagreeing with you will attest, this isn't a judicial decision, it's judicial overreach and needs a correction. Because you say so don't make it so.....Abraxas. Feeling your oats don't impress the more level headed members of the discussion.


And you're "conservative?" You're arguing a "court" should rule and you're "conservative?" Hardly.


Unless it's spelled out in the Constitution as not being relevant. A person can feel guns challenge their equality for whatever reason. No court should decide gun ownership within the states. A person may feel the Muslim neighbors are unequally celebrating their religion, no court can rule on this, freedom of religion a mainstay the court has no room rule on. They may interpret the law written and then the legislature move to rewrite or amend so there is no further confusion.


Not even close.


But agreed upon as judicial activism many including myself who will fight visciously and are responsible for the DOMA that will restrict this madness to California only. This 'joke' other states are having to gear up for as well as Cassie's links attest to. Other states where thse marriages will inevitable be challenged are having to prepare, they aren't afforded the notion that this is a joke. Reality proves you wrong again, Abraxas. Go figure.


I don't see how it could be interpretted wrong, no. It's spelled out fairly easily, who not post the short legislative initiative called DOMA and we'll talk about the parts you want challenged. Have you even read it?


Correct, marriage is a state issue. Please actually read the law, Abraxas and you'll understand. THe law protects OTHER states from individual state law. This is a perfect example. Should California decide to begin the madness...which they did...this law simply states other states do NOT have to honor that individual state's decision. So, if California legalizes and decides to license Bill and Bob.....that marriage need not be recognized by the more stable, law-abiding states.


But was overwhelming passed and signed by President Bill Clinton who would NEVER be called a bigot or filled with fear exposing the liberally driven selective outrage and political issue this is. This isn't about rights, it's about acceptance and it's easily exposed for what it is by its very supporters such as yourself and Cass.

[i
But, you wrote this first ".. everything we write here is usually based on opinion.". And your opinion is based and founded in absolute inexperience, lack of knowledge about our laws, and blindness to government overreach. My state was proactionary, not reactionary. Your's is the youthful emotion laced knee-jerk error-prone nonsense seen so many times, nothing new, easily dismissed.


Yes, I send my representatives to voice my representation. My voice demands a defense of marriage from the politically driven agenda of this homosexual platform. I got what I demanded. Representation works!


You're no conservative, Sir. Not even close.

But it is from the candidate of hope and change and trying so hard to convince us he's not poltically expedient. Secondly, the argument FOR same sex marriage often includes insults from its proponents blaming the opposition for "fear-mongering, ignorance, bigotry" or some other lame deflective process to take us off the issue. I point out how many heroes of the Left that SHARE my view and Cass cannot answer my questions. Hillary, Obama, McCain, many Senators, House members, legislatures, and clearly half the California population DOES NOT agree it's a civil right. All of those reasoned people cannot merely be fearful...or hateful.....or ignorant...because they're people Cass and other liberals voted for! Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law...would ANYONE EVER refer to Bill Clinton as a bigot...or a homophobe....? Did anyone label a single Democrat who voted for DOMA a homophobe..or any of the other made up words distractions this agenda has?

The selective outrage so blatant. The political agenda so clear. Opposition to it warranted, needed, and appropriate.