In response to:

Nine Justices or Fifty States? Who Should Decide Gay Marriage?

Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:32 AM
The Supreme Court ruled that multi-gender marriage is a fundamental right. Can I expand upon this to include whatever marital definition I fabricate today? This is a serious question and I'd appreciate opinions from any side?
Viva la Muerte! Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:40 AM
Also, in this scenario, will polygamy be okay? We're all about "changing demographics," so will "Progressives" be okay with it if I marry 4 women, have seven children by each, and all 33 of us go vote Republican? Polygamy has a lot more historical precedent than homosexual "marriage."
Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:43 AM
According to Darwin was is natural and the other is popular in prisons.
Captain-Jeff Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:51 AM
We wish you would vote Republican! The more the better. But since we're talking about voting, is it better that we exclude homosexuals, libertarians, and every other "deviant thinker" from our party, or is it better that we include them in a big tent that wins elections?
Captain-Jeff Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:53 AM
We wish you would vote Republican! The more the better. But since we're talking about voting, is it better that we exclude homosexuals, libertarians, and every other "deviant thinker" from our party, or is it better that we include them in a big tent that wins elections?

To answer your first question, yes polygamy is okay. I'd rather see a man marry two women, treat them well, and have a loving relationship than many of the abusive marriages I see out there today.
Captain-Jeff Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:35 AM
Why is government or SCOTUS involved in defining marriage at all? Why does government write laws that favor married couples over singles?
Cambermeister Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:42 AM
Jeff, did you just answer a question with a question? I'll answer your question in turn. You first.
Captain-Jeff Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 10:49 AM
Yes, I did. The point is that government has no reason or responsibility to define marriage. Writing laws that favor one couple who stood before a judge, JP, minister, or priest over another couple (or group) who live together, eat together, pray together, etc. is simply wrong (and unconstitutional).
eddie again Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:17 AM
because opposite sex couples are what keep society alive?

because a child has a right to have both a mother and a father?
eddie again Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:18 AM
as long as a court can redefine words, there is not need for a legislature because passing laws is futile if a judge can make the words in the law mean whatever the judge believes it should mean.

I would like to think that Supreme Court justices are smarter than I am.

At one level, they surely are. Their years of devotion to the practice and analysis of law involves countless pages of book-learning I will never undertake. Their brains must fairly bulge with minutiae I cannot grasp.

But there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. There are high school dropouts who have deep wells of astuteness about how to think, act and live in an enlightened way. And there are Ph.D.’s I would not let into my house.

In one stunning moment Tuesday from the Supreme Court...