i actually agree with mentat on this. just have it so anyone can have a wedding ceremony how ever they like, but if they want it to be recognized by the state they need to get a civil union preside over by a judge. keep religion out of the government and the government out of religion.

I think that (in some form) is the best solution, personally.

What exactly is the gay agenda?
Does it involve making everything pink? And those fruity alcoholic drinks with umbrellas?

I wasn't aware that the gays had an agenda.

Marriage is not a religious institution.

I don't think stupidity comes into play. Take Wolfy's initial examples of gay marriage and bestiality (not because they're in any way similar, but because they illustrate a very important difference). Prop. 8 was an example of a majority imposing its preferences on a minority, and also of majority tyranny. I think most proponents of gay marriage would vote against legalizing bestiality. That, too, would be an example of a majority imposing its preferences on a minority. Another example of majority tyranny?

The difference, of course, is that no one's constitutional rights are violated by a law against bestiality. Tyranny of the majority has to mean something more than simply the majority outvoting the minority. Unless rights are being voted away, it's not tyranny.

So yeah. All that to say, I stand by what I said before, that Wolfy is asking a fair question. But it's not an unanswerable one, and I don't think that gay marriage advocates are being hypocritical when they describe something like Prop. 8 as tyranny of the majority. On some level, they recognize the difference, even if not all of them are able to articulate it.



This isn't right. The spousal privilege is not a constitutional right, it's merely an evidentiary privilege. It's not in any way a constitutionally necessary rule, and it's arguably not even a very good one. But as a rule of evidence, it can be modified by legislatures and courts. It could easily be changed to include same-sex unions, whether they're called marriage or something else.

To be honest, if a man can't **** his goat in this country, I don't really know if America is worth fighting for anymore...

If it does not, it ought to.

Also, lots of rainbows.

Also, as a guy who used to bartend in the American city with the second highest population of gays in the country, those fruity drinks are not to be doubted. All those things have like 8 shots of liquor in them.

I've then misinterpreted Wolfy's question. I didn't realize it was meant solely to assess whether the two groups (which have contrasting levels of acceptance from the majority) are equal by definition of a legal term used by proponents of the other to object to lacking rights, and that if this in turn renders it hypocritical for them to use (because I do acknowledge that it's a fair assumption that they would mostly vote against legalizing bestiality). I actually didn't know "tyranny of the majority" was a real legally defined term, either.

I'm sorry, now I've given you wrong impression. Let me be clear: "Tyranny of the majority" is not a legal term of art. I'm not even sure that the definition I've suggested is the most widely accepted one, though it makes the most sense to me.

I think Wolfy's question (and he's free to correct me on this) at its most basic is, "Isn't the term 'tyranny of the majority' an arbitrary criticism that minority groups acknowledge only when it suits them?" I'm sympathetic to that, I suppose, because it echoes my feelings about the badly overused term "judicial activism." My answer, put roughly as basically, is "Sometimes, probably, but it doesn't have to be, and it's appropriate in this case."

Michael hit it on the head - I only chose polygamy and beastiality because it's fair to say they don't enjoy majority support. I guess I could have used proponents of marriage to tomatoes, which isn't necessarily as polarizing of an issue.

I think "tyranny of the majority" isn't an actual legal term, but just a phrase that gets thrown around alot. I agree that Proposition 8 was a wrongful oppression of a minority because it was a revocation of someone's rights (regardless of whether or not it was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution).



The question is, what defines a right to marry? We both agree, obviously, that it encompasses man and woman, woman and woman, and man and man. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that bans beastiality, nor explicitly defines what "marriage" is. It's by consensus that we determine that beastiality is wrong - for whatever various reason - and keep it as such. The concept of a "right" isn't absolute and can change (as the past 200 years alone in the U.S. has demonstrated), and the only reason that we agree that no rights are being revoked by banning beasitality is that we both agree that no one has the right to marry / have sex with animals.

My point is, the term "tyranny of the majority" is highly subjective and to try and use it only in situations where you agree with the minority is a bit hypocritical.

[ Edit: "judicial activism" is another minefield, good point. It's a term I try to avoid, though I do find it hard to reconcile consistent interpretation with the Constitution. Perhaps I should just come to the conclusion that - dare I say it and excommunicate myself from the USA? - the Constitution is not always right. ]

Definition of marriage with few loopholes.

Union between two members of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, of consenting age.

Heh, Homo.

You'd deny the right of Homo Habilis to marry? Jerk.

and how many of those are living in the world today, eh?

A few people here could be mistaken for them.

Bestiality is a misdemeanor in Arkansas, California, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Wisconsin.

Bestiality is a felony in Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington.

By state law, I'd wager. But those laws aren't explicitly backed by the U.S. Constitution, which defines the power of the federal government and its relationship with state governments. To reiterate, though, beastiality is an arbitrary example of something has only minority support - my point remains, "tyranny of the majority" is highly subjective and is selectively applied by those who use it.

This assumes that marriage is solely a religious institution. It is not. As Judge Walker states in his ruling, marriage is "the most socially valued form of relationship"--that is, it is a public, social (and therefore secular) declaration of two people's commitment to each other. I'm an atheist, raised in a secular family, and I still value my marriage and what it says to society. I wouldn't be pleased to say that I'm merely "civilly united" with my partner.

Darth wasn't saying marriage is solely a religious institution. The problem is that marriage is extremely mixed up in religion, and as such a lot of whacky ideas come out of it.

Ted Olson actually might not be the greatest advocate in America today. I think I have to clarify this, because after watching the video below, it might be difficult to conclude other than that Ted Olson is the greatest advocate in America today.

(Seriously, the guy doesn't even miss a beat. I think he may actually be toying with his interviewer.)

Haha... I almost feel sorry for that reporter.

"You're saying millions of Californians can't decide...?"

deadman hit the nail right on the head. i dont think that marriage is or even should be solely a religious institution. i am saying that perhaps the religious/social ceremony that is presided over by a member of clergy/whoever should not be what is used to determine what box you fill out on your federal tax returns and other legaly binding documents.

Maybe it shouldn't be a religious institution but isn't that where it came from?

i believe that marriage started out as just kind of agreements between members of two families more as a business arrangement, then somewhere probably got hijacked by the catholic church. to put it briefely...

so now even though marriage is not a "religious institution" exclusively, religion and marriage are often horribly interwoven today.

I mean if gays want to be miserable like the rest of married people and end their relationships in divorce like everyone else, I say go for it.

The Judeo-Christian religious groups will argue that religion was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden (beginning of time) when he created Eve so that "the two may become one flesh."

This is impossible to prove; however, it does have a small hint of truth -- the concept of marriage has existed since the earliest recorded histories. It's impossible to determine the origin of the concept marriage.



I got married late last year. I realized something about marriage just recently: 50% of marriages end in divorce. This means that I have a 50% chance of BEING STUCK IN THIS FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!

It's worse than that. You've got a 60% chance of being stuck in it, as first marriages only have about a 40% divorce rate.

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it yet;

The judge is gay.

So what?

The more I look for something to confirm this, the less certain I am that it's true. It seems that this entire aspect of the story can be traced back to a single San Francisco Chronicle article, which said only that Chief Judge Walker's homosexuality was an "open secret." It doesn't appear that the Chief Judge has ever openly admitted to being gay.

I don't think it really matters, and I'm definitely not attacking you for bringing it up. But I think it's interesting how much traction that rumor has gained, apparently without much to support it.

He looks less gay than Lindsey Graham.

So, it's hilarious. Maybe the case ended up in front of him for a reason.