Skip to main content

View Diary: Louisiana judge decides marriage is for heterosexual parents only (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, the full-on slippery slope argument (17+ / 0-)

    trotted out without the benefit of any judicial-grade thinking intervening.

    I hope to see a reasonably quick response from the inevitable appeal. And I also hope to see the implicit dishonesty of the ruling have direct consequences for the judge's future career.

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 10:18:38 AM PDT

    •  Slippery slope indeed... (15+ / 0-)
      [the]major argument was that the people have spoken and it's anti-democratic for the courts to impose equality if the people don't want it ...
      Am I reading that correctly?? Just what IS the court's duty here? Equality is anti-democratic! Can that even be a coherent sentence??

      Scratch the surface of someone claiming that religion is needed to legitimize government, and odds are underneath you'll find a petty dictator who wants to order people around "Because God says so!"

      by rreabold on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:01:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, democracy CAN be anti-equality, and, thus (9+ / 0-)

        equality can be against what the people want, and therefore "undemocratic."

        It's properly called, "they tyranny of the majority."

        That is precisely why we have a bill of rights.

        It is rather shocking that this judge doesn't know anything about that; it's one of the fundamental tenets that the USA was founded upon - that we shall not have the tyranny of the majority here.

        Oh, it still happens (CA prop 8, for example), but it's relatively rare and, thankfully, such things usually get thrown out by the SCOTUS on a regular basis.

        Change the charter of corporations to serve the public interest BEFORE fiduciary concerns. 100% of Republicans and HALF the Dems are AGAINST We The People. We need TRUE Progressives, NOT Republican-Lite Dems - like Hillary, Pelosi, Feinstein...

        by RTIII on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:17:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  formed by two biological parents (10+ / 0-)

      WTF does that mean.  I can see linking marriage to procreation.  I can see a marriage that provisional until a child is born, and then a paternity test to make sure the husband is the father, and at that point granting all the rights of a married couple to those two people.  That is a slippery slope that some would consider valid.  A civil union until a child is born and proof of no infidelity.

      Or what would be more fun is demanding a child is born before marriage so that we are sure that the the couple is indeed biological parents.  Why take the risk that two people are getting married just so they can have sex for pleasure?

      Of course the ultimate interpretation of this phrase is that any two biological parent can marry.  It would be a great loophole.  Two men who want get married each find some women who wants a kid.  Impregnate the women through clinical means, have the child born.  Presto, the two men are biological parents and are free to marry each other.

      She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

      by lowt on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:16:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like your new rule! (0+ / 0-)

        "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

        by merrywidow on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 11:38:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  a birth certificate should be (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean, AJayne

        the marriage certificate! That's it exactly. As soon as you give birth you are married to the father of the child.

        Voila! Solves all society's problems, doesn't it! No need to worry about letting the gays marry in order to maintain a consistent marriage policy. Because, as we all know, once we keep the gays out of the marriage picture the picture is all lovely and beautiful and things are just fine!

        "Everybody wants to leave ... some mark upon the world. Then you think, you left a mark on the world if you just get through it." -- drag artist Dorian Corey
        my book blog: Dare I Read

        by LuvSet on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:17:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it's not like this would to, say, strikin... (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, it's not like this would to, say, striking bans on polygamy.

      •  Well, that was a good decision in that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ebohlman, AJayne, skrekk

        it took the government out of the sex lives of consenting adults. What was weakened was legislative overreach.

        Marriage is a government-recognized legal assignment of two people selecting each other as a permanent partner and next of kin. That can't be done with more than two in a marriage.  

        Polygamy would require a whole new set of legal processes for partial divorce, inheritance, proxy consent etc. which same-sex marriage does not.

        This is not a sig-line.

        by Joffan on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 04:21:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  He has very little future left. He's 80. Last g... (0+ / 0-)

      He has very little future left. He's 80. Last gasp of the old guard.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site