I am thinking that this is also going to eventually to pave the way for Polygamous Marriages to be legally recognize in the State of California also. Now that will really tick off the Brethren.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Brackite wrote:I am thinking that this is also going to eventually to pave the way for Polygamous Marriages to be legally recognize in the State of California also.
In footnote 52 of the court's opinion, it declared that its decision "does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives." So, at least for now, it appears the State of California can still discriminate against polygamous and incestuous couples.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Brackite wrote:I am thinking that this is also going to eventually to pave the way for Polygamous Marriages to be legally recognize in the State of California also.
In footnote 52 of the court's opinion, it declared that its decision "does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives." So, at least for now, it appears the State of California can still discriminate against polygamous and incestuous couples.
I don't understand why the courts can legally discriminate against incestuous couples. The genetic argument doesn't hold for me since we allow people with known genetic diseases to marry and produce offspring with everything from blindness, hemophilia, mental handicaps, or what have you.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:I don't understand why the courts can legally discriminate against incestuous couples. The genetic argument doesn't hold for me since we allow people with known genetic diseases to marry and produce offspring with everything from blindness, hemophilia, mental handicaps, or what have you.
The genetic argument would also be invalid against homosexual incestuous couples.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Brackite wrote:I am thinking that this is also going to eventually to pave the way for Polygamous Marriages to be legally recognize in the State of California also.
In footnote 52 of the court's opinion, it declared that its decision "does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives." So, at least for now, it appears the State of California can still discriminate against polygamous and incestuous couples.
So I guess it pays to be popular and have a strong lobby. Selective discrimination is in vogue.
While I do not agree with it, there is no reason to prohibit polygamy between consenting adults. Especially if Gays can marry.
Hopefully, it will galvanize conservatives in the election.
Great "wedge" thinking there, BC. Again, your incarnation of 4000 BC bronze-age goatherder morality and ethics, in the body of an otherwise capable human being, is a true horror to behold.
Let it go, bro. Your mind need not stay hostage to the man-made worldview you've subscribed to.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
It seems that the CA court is in violation of Baker v. Nelson
Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.
This case should go all the way.
Again, your incarnation of 4000 BC bronze-age goatherder morality and ethics, in the body of an otherwise capable human being, is a true horror to behold.
Have you been among the goats again? I always suspected you had a thing for ewes.
