Comments on: Supreme Court takes up Prop 8 and DOMA: Will political victories endanger equal protection claims?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 01:57:16 +0000

So, “not a lawyer,” does that mean immediate family members should be allowed to marry? And polygamists? “Object-sexuals?” Practitioners of beastality? The latter three are currently still viewed as morally aberrant, but I have a hard time seeing why, once one accepts the divorce of marriage from procreation.

Although it could be seen as a somewhat pedantic observation, nevertheless I think it’s important to point out that homosexuals are NOT currently prevented from marrying. What is specifically disallowed is not the marriage of homosexuals, but the marriage of two people who are the same sex. As well as various and sundry other “marriages” (to siblings, to more than one person, to children, to animals, to inanimate objects, etc.) that do not conform to procreation.

Realize that once you disregard the procreative nature of marriage, you logically open a Pandora’s Box that could likely have effects that you do not foresee and do not want. Ideas have consequences.

By: Ferde Rombola

Ferde Rombola — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:45:38 +0000

Historically heterosexuals have been allowed to marry persons of the opposite sex, and not allowed to marry persons of the same sex. The same applied to homosexuals. Where’s the discrimination? What’s absurd is homosexuals complaining that, because they CHOOSE not to marry the opposite sex they are somehow being mistreated. Even more absurd is they have got legislatures, judges and millions of sympathizers agreeing with them.

By: not a lawyer

not a lawyer — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:32:08 +0000

Totally absurd and unhinged from any jurisprudential history.

equal protection means equal protection, period. Obstacles one grou encounters that other do not are blatant violations; the idea that “hopelessness” is required is the worst kind of judicial activism