Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition.
>It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it.
No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period.
> You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue.
Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word".
> I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned.
So then, it's not discrimination that you oppose. You just want to be the one to decide the target of the discrimination.
Love is love, right?
I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word".
None of which are among my justifications for my position.
It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law.
That is true. It is also society's prerogative to overrule the courts via a constitutional amendment, if they so choose. However, this wouldn't be a concern if the underlying issue had been decided by the people in the first place.
It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.
Don't delude yourself. Everything is subject to the tyranny of the majority, if two thirds of the elected officials can be persuaded.
Once again, prohibition of polygamy says marriages that consist of more than two individuals are illegal, it doesn't matter who those individuals are, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight; the law applies evenly to all peoples regardless of who they are.
Just like the prohibition on same sex marriage, the prohibition against polygamous or polyamorous marriage is about the imposition of arbitrary criteria placed upon what does or does not constitute a marriage.
You are fine with one but not the other. You are being hypocritical.
Which didn't happen
Prop 8 was an amendment to the California state constitution. It did happen and the judicial activist wing of the SCOTUS found the flimsiest of excuses to invalidate it.
The legalization of same sex marriage was the agenda behind both of President Obama's supreme court nominations.
Once again you're stating the obvious to no logical effect
The logic evades you, that isn't the same thing as it being absent.
Both kinds restrictions are arbitrary limits placed on the institution of marriage by society.
prohibition of poly marriage does not meet the definition of discrimination since the law affects all people equally without regard for their individual traits.
Completely arbitrary and immaterial. The institution of marriage belongs to society and society has the right to define it.
to suggest otherwise is like saying prohibiting black people from entering your restaurant is the same as prohibiting more than 10 people from entering your restaurant... Give me a break.
Not at all. I find it more akin to a baker refusing to bake a cake for a 3 person wedding.
Two different things. Polygamy is prohibited based on the total number of individuals, gay marriage prohibition is based on the identity of the individuals; it's a critical distinction as far as the protection of individual rights are concerned. When you prohibit gay marriage you're saying "these types of people cannot be married" you must evaluate their individual identity to enforce the prohibition, when you're prohibiting polygamy you're saying "a marriage cannot exceed two individuals" where specific qualities of the individuals have no bearing on the application of the prohibition.
>It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it.
No it's not, so lets just dispense with that strawman. What is said of marriage is irrelevant; bigotry is denying people the legal right to be married because of their sexual orientation. Period.
> You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be... Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue.
Wrong. I am not projecting or setting up a strawman, I am heading off common arguments in advance of their appearance in the discussion, that is why I said "culture", "tradition" OR "god's divine word".
> I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.... Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
It is the prerogative of the courts to weigh in on the constitutionality of the law. It doesn't matter if society wants to prevent gay people from being married, the constitution is pretty clear about protecting the rights of individuals from the government as well as from the tyranny of the majority.