Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

Originally posted by Annee
[
Seriously - - multiple marriages are not even in the equation right now.

FIRST - - we need to guarantee all couples.

Like the majority of couples in California who voted against gay marriage?

Originally posted by fred call

Originally posted by Annee
[
Seriously - - multiple marriages are not even in the equation right now.

FIRST - - we need to guarantee all couples.

Like the majority of couples in California who voted against gay marriage?

By what 2% or less.

I know there was a targeted TV blitz days before this vote - - claiming elementary schools would be forced to teach gay sex education.

I know - the majority demographic of voters for Prop8 were Hispanic & Black Women of school age children.

This was a dirty campaign of lies and Religious Money.

Why this Religious backed attack on Equality was allowed to happen - - is beyond my understanding.

I only know - - that Equality will happen. It might take longer - but it will happen.

reply to post by Annee


So, it's equal until people believe in God and families have children? Then you did not mean equality for ALL people. Now that that's cleared up.......

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by Annee

 

So, it's equal until people believe in God and families have children? Then you did not mean equality for ALL people. Now that that's cleared up.......

God - has no business in government
God - has no business in government
God - has no business in government.

God is a belief and a choice - - that not ALL choose.

Government is for ALL by law - - not by god belief.

So, you are saying that those who believe in God have no business voting in the California elections.

Okay. Got ya.

Ah, what about gays who believe in God?

[edit on 6-8-2010 by fred call]

Originally posted by fred call
So, you are saying that those who believe in God have no business voting in the California elections.

Okay. Got ya.

Ah, what about gays who believe in God?

I did not say that. I said the methods used to push Prop8 were dirty.

However - - - if the reason to deny gays equal rights is Religious based - - it should be invalid.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Sparkly_Eyed777
reply to post by fred call

 

I hope you realise that your basic premise is flawed? Just because a person is bisexual does not mean, as others have said, that they want to have two partners at the same time.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by Sparkly_Eyed777]

No, your premise is the one that's flawed.

No one said that all bisexuals would want to be in such a relationship. They're simply saying that an "anything goes" interpretation of the constitution would make such relationships possible AND legal.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. Maybe I didn't say it the best way I could, but I suppose that's what you get for posting when you're tired lol.

This is how I see it: it seems to me that fred call thinks that just because a person is bisexual, it automatically means they want (need?) to be in a relationship with a man and a woman at the same time. Which isn't the case, and he's based his whole argument on that. To me, that just doesn't make sense.

As others have also said, most people whether they're bisexual, homosexual or straight, want to be in a monogamous relationship.

Being in a polyamorous relationship isn't really the norm, as far as I can tell anyway.

EDIT: to elaborate a bit more

[edit on 6/8/2010 by Sparkly_Eyed777]

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by felonius

 

12 year olds and dogs cannot give consent.
The fact that you even mention such cliched things shows that you have zero comprehension of the issue.
This is why the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the majority. From people like you.
A little education would help, a lot of education would help more!
It's just a little more complex than "dope smoking hippies".

12 year olds cant give consent. ok....

WHY? A law? Based on what? That can all change if enough pressure is brought to bear or the "right judge" is found.

The judge in this case was gay. No agenda here though. Oh no. Nevermind them telling our elementary kids that being gay is great and natural. Nevermind them telling kids about sex toys in middle school.

Dogs? They give dogs prozac for "psychological issues". Do you really want to argue that one?

The point I'm making is if this law was strangled for a bunch of freaks, what others are next?

Dont question my education pal, you dont know me. Your liberal elite-ness is the reason the constitution is the wreck it is now.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by fred call

 

HAHA this made me laugh, sorry but really, there is no way they would legalise polygamy for bisexuals whist legalising homosexual marriage. I’ll have a read through all the post later thanks that made my night. Do you think they legalised murder, rape and paedophile as well for bisexuals while they were at it cause you know..... they are bisexual.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kevinunknown]

They have groups that push for paedophilia. Nambla?

When they take something as sacrosanct as marriage and re-write something that has been a "standard" in the West since day one, it IS a big deal. It is a further erosion of society.

One judge that votes his "opinion" not the constitution. One judge that votes his "opinion" and everyone else be damned!

reply to post by fred call

Yep, you're a liberal, all right. You think you speak for the majority of liberals. Don't be ashamed of being what you are. Stand up to proubly proclaim you are a liberal. It could be worse....somehow. Though at the moment I don't want to think of anything getting worse.

You got to be kidding me? This is your response?? Preprogrammed rhetoric?

Furthermore you appear to only be concerned with state rights and seem to have no regard for individual rights. There is nothing more "liberal" then that. You are attempting to conceal your liberal view points by labeling yourself a "conservative".

BTW if you are so concerned about State rights there are far better examples of the usurpation then this. Why not focus on those? Why are you so focused on an example where there was no new precedents set and has little impact on anyone but homosexuals? Smells like a liberal agenda?

In my opinion the legal marriage contract doesn't matter.

These people are free to make a commitment to each other without being legally married. As long as their freedom to be with as many people as they choose is not taken away, I don't see an issue. Assuming all three, four or five parties are in agreement and it is consensual.

Polygamy is unlawful and is prosecutable under The State Of California's penal code and forbids marriage to anyone else besides who the person is already married to. Monogymous relationships and partnerships are the only ones covered.

A guy cannot marry 2 girls and a girl cannot marry 2 guys especially where one or two of the three already hold a valid marriage license. You can only be married to one person at a time regardless of gender or sexual preference.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

First off I really tried resisting posting to this thread, for the obvious reason: one, no matter how much common sense you speak to a bigot they will never admit they are wrong, and two this whole debate is mute anyways because like it or hate it soon homosexual partners will be entitled to the protection of equal rights under the law. Gay marriage will be found to be legal under our sacred constitution which always wins in the end, especially whenever historically it applies to discrimination, it’s always just a matter of time. However, being an academic historian I wanted to drop just some specific historical context to this whole debate. I find it very ironic how in the present the debate over homosexual marriage resembles the same debate our country use to have over miscegenation laws (these were laws prohibiting marriage between races). Before these laws were struck down with the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, the same group of mainly white social Christian conservatives was using extreme paranoia based fears in hopes of keeping miscegenation laws legal. For example, they would say if we allow the races to mix where would the line ever be drawn; they used the same polygamist arguments, with the additional fear tactic of even saying the government would eventually even have to allow bestiality marriage. The trial judge in the case which originally ruled against the Lovings actually said this in his legal opinion, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” Regardless, as aforementioned this whole debate is really mute; anyone with an open mind realizes the legal ban of gay marriage will soon end.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

Originally posted by fred call
The topics of gay marriage and marijuana legalization and the state's right to regulate their own arms' industry and the state's right to determine illegal immigration laws and a whole host of topics all come under the heading of the Tenth Amendment.

This is just another incorrect statement from the bigots who still wish to keep same sex couples from being treated equal under the law. This is really an argument of the protection of privacy which is protected under provisions in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment, it is not an argument about the 10th amendment, and again historically those who favored keeping miscegenation laws in place tried and failed to make the same argument. The way society in general (and I agree with) believes in the present is people should be able to live their lives in their own homes as they so choose to do, it’s ironic social conservatives use to think “Big Brother” government should not have their eyeballs monitoring the social interactions of citizens in the privacy of their own homes. If anyone needs a refresher of the protections of privacy the courts have ruled on which are covered by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment I will list the cases and those protections found in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment below:

Cases

Meyer vs Nebraska (1923)
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
Stanley v Georgia (1969)
Ravin v State (1975)
Kelley v Johnson (1976)
Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990)
Lawrence v Texas (2003)

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy

Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

Originally posted by fred call
Liberals seem not to have a clue about metaphors or analogies or the Constitution.
You don't want any laws of any kind. Or if you do want a law, it is a law that outlaws all the other laws.

I wish what you state here was at least a little bit true. Again I use to believe social conservatives were strict constitutionalists. However, in light of tea partiers, birth-ers and other neo-cons wanting to bash and change the 14th amendment in the present I would have to strongly disagree. There is a reason the 14th amendment guarantees the rights of anyone born in the United States as a citizen. A question I like to propose to this new neo-con unconstitutionality anarchists is this: would you consider the child of a person whose father is a legal citizen and mother is a undocumented immigrant a citizen, or for that matter what if a undocumented immigrant male impregnates a female citizen, would either of their children be considered a citizen, and how the heck do you think you’re going to regulate and enforce all of this discriminating quagmire?

Originally posted by fred call
What makes you think a legal precedence is predicated on your personal sexual preferences....because it doesn't. Nobody cares what you feel about gay marriage or polygamy or bestiality or whatever. The important factors are the legal precedence’s involved.

Well, Fred I can only hope I can hold you to your word here. When same sex marriage is finally legalized are you going to swallow your pride and bigotry, and just accept the country has moved on?

Originally posted by fred call
Like the majority of couples in California who voted against gay marriage?

Here is the central problem I find with states which use proposition votes to enact laws or regulations. You see we are not a true democracy, we are a republic. Plato once said, “A true democracy always leads to dictatorship”. Our founding fathers knew and understood this concept, its disappointing so many in the present don’t understand this historical concept. In a republic the rights of the minorities are protected by the persecutions of the majority. In a true democracy the rights of all can easily be manipulated away by charismatic and self-serving individuals and groups who use fear and paranoia to prey upon the fears of the majority; just like they are doing now with their personal faith based bigotry of same sex couples.

Originally posted by fred call
Because nobody cares what your sexual preference is. That is not the important point of this entire conversation. The important part of this conversation is about state's rights, equal rights, etc. etc. Again, nobody cares what your personal sexual preferences are. The voters of California did not vote one way or the other on your sexual proclivities.

Please be so kind as to show in the constitution were it states that I should NOT be allowed to marry more than one person?

This shouldn't even be an issue of state or federal rights, as neither should have the legal capacity to bar me from holding religious cerimonies with as many people as I choose to.

Originally posted by felonius
12 year olds cant give consent. ok....

WHY? A law? Based on what? That can all change if enough pressure is brought to bear or the "right judge" is found.

It's based on psychology and brain development. It's supported by scientific evidence.

Originally posted by felonius
The judge in this case was gay. No agenda here though. Oh no. Nevermind them telling our elementary kids that being gay is great and natural. Nevermind them telling kids about sex toys in middle school.

Do they even teach elementary school kids about regular sex? I've never heard of it. Even so, homosexual sex should be taught as well as heterosexual, it's not like it doesn't exist. People shouldn't be left ignorant, they should be made aware and allowed to develop their own opinions.

Originally posted by felonius
Dogs? They give dogs prozac for "psychological issues". Do you really want to argue that one?

Dogs can develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Animals have brains too, there's no reason that some shouldn't be able to develop psychological disorders.

Originally posted by felonius
The point I'm making is if this law was strangled for a bunch of freaks, what others are next?

According to you they are freaks, but according to the law they are citizens with equal rights.

Originally posted by felonius
Your liberal elite-ness is the reason the constitution is the wreck it is now.

The constitution hasn't been seriously amended for decades, and it's only a wreck NOW?

Originally posted by felonius
When they take something as sacrosanct as marriage and re-write something that has been a "standard" in the West since day one, it IS a big deal. It is a further erosion of society.

There isn't anything in the constitution that defines marriage, so nothing is being rewritten. Homosexual unions have existed through-out history with no adverse affects on their societies. The Spartans practiced homosexuality in their military, it made them closer to each other helped to solidify them as a fighting force.

Originally posted by felonius
One judge that votes his "opinion" not the constitution. One judge that votes his "opinion" and everyone else be damned!

If you read the ruling, you will see that he cites where he sees violations of the constitution. His job is to see whether or not laws that are passed are actually legal. If he sees a place where it might be unconstitutional, he will make his argument. Just because it's a public vote does not make it infallible.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by peck420

Please be so kind as to show in the constitution were it states that I should NOT be allowed to marry more than one person?
This shouldn't even be an issue of state or federal rights, as neither should have the legal capacity to bar me from holding religious ceremonies with as many people as I choose to.

Hmmm……..ok……not that I’m strongly anti-polygamist, but I can relate to you how polygamy became illegal. In 1862 congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act it was targeted to stop Mormons from taking multiply wives. The act was also an attempt to keep all the land from being bought up and controlled in Utah by the Mormon Church. The first challenge to the law was Reynolds vs. United States case in 1878, where the Supreme Court upheld the ban against polygamy.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

reply to post by AmosGraber


And what part of that shows where it is in the constitution?

Unfortunately, what the government does, and what is in the constituion are not always the same.

Originally posted by peck420

And what part of that shows where it is in the constitution?

Uh? When Congress passes a bill in the Senate and then the House of Representatives, and then being signed by the President that becomes the law of the land. The Constituion gives the legislature, the executive, and the judicial the right to create and/or review laws of the land, they are all intertwined. In accordance with polygamy, the legislature passed a bill (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862), the executive signed it into law, and then the judicial up held their decision, its called checks and balances, which is all part of the Constitution.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmosGraber]