Comments on: Letter to Court Regarding Televised Trials

By: Chairm

Chairm — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:00:22 +0000

Emma, the truth is that polygamy is a series of husband-wife marriages.

The first wife does not marry the second wife; neither of the first two wives marries the third wife.

They'd have in common the same man who married each of them in turn. The practice comes with the expectation that each wife is monogamous while the man is polygamous, which is different than bigamous where polygamy is lawful.

May ask, do you object to society issuing licenses for polyamous arrangements?

If you object, why?

If you do not object, why?

If polygamists were plaintiffs instead of the two couples Olson has chosen to represent, they's explain that their marital practice was loving, consensual, and that they desired all the emotional validation and uplift that Olson's plaintiff's have talked about in their testimony. They'd also describe the stigma they experience. They're part of a group that is classifiable as lacking political power to change the marriage laws.

Indeed, Olson could have made pretty much the same oral argument for polygamists that he has made in this anti-8 trial.

Likewise, he could have made the same basic argument on behalf of people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction.

By: TC Matthews

TC Matthews — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:39:03 +0000

Doug, those are fairly biased assumptions aided by a large set of blinders. Do you honestly believe that the only arguments against SSM are based in hate and discrimination? How convenient for you. . . how then do you account for the GLBT population who also voted for proposition 8?

By: Doug M

Doug M — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:02:58 +0000

TC - the voters didn't use discrimination, lies, and hatred when they voted, NOM, the LDS church and the Catholic Church (and the list goes on) used discimination, lies, and hate to persuade voters to vote FOR prop 8.

By: TC Matthews

TC Matthews — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:08:07 +0000

"The pretext for the suit, brought by homosexuals seeking to marry in California, is that the voters of the state used discrimination and hatred rather than a rational, cultural, or legal basis when they passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Plaintiff's case was legally thin and emotionally hysterical. The so-called expert witnesses introduced "evidence" that merely repeated the often debunked propagandist rhetoric of homosexual activists so common in today's biased media. It was the equivalent of "those nasty, mean, intolerant, homophobes are picking on us."

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:06:15 +0000

Irreparable harm in that the anti-marriage folks might be intimidated by the pro-marriage folks? Judge Walker didn't buy that argument (appointed by a Republican president, just by the by) and neither did almost half of the Supreme Court.

I think the real reason the Prop-8 side didn't want the trial open to the American people is that they didn't want us to see their arguments. And I don't blame them for that! When one of your expert witnesses is explaining that though polygamy was quite common throughout the world until recently, it was still marriage between one man and one woman, since the man only married one woman at a time after all! -- you might not want the public seeing your case, either.

By: TC Matthews

TC Matthews — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:25:43 +0000

Did you read the case presented to the court about irreparable harm? The competence of the American people had nothing to do with it. Federal trials are not televised by rule and for good reason. Judge Walker broke those rules to try to favor one side of the case. The U.S. Supreme Court was not amused.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:15:47 +0000

An open trial would have been a boon to everyone -- wouldn't it be great to hear all sides of the argument, straight from the people who care about it most?

I don't really understand why the Supreme Court decided that the American people aren't competent enough to watch this trial. It seems rather belittling.

By: Chairm

Chairm — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:14:44 +0000

Each of us can be a minority of one, depending on the circumstances.

I agree with TC Matthews and Dee.

No one is a minority based on sexual orientation when it comes to marriage law which does not impose a sexual orientation criterion for eligiblity nor for ineligibility.

SSM argumentation might, but marriage does not.

The SSM argument, Dan, is one red herring after another.

By: TC Matthews

TC Matthews — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:14:18 +0000

Dan, why do you keep trying to paint yourself as a blighted minority? You have every right I have to marry. Nothing is withheld from you, nothing is beyond your reach. How can you sit there and demand special rights in the name of equality? Oxymoron?

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:09:00 +0000

Dee, you said: when twice the voice of the people has passed it....
This is the whole point of those fighting Prop 8. We are the ONLY country on earth that has voted on this important civil rights issue (which is what it is). This is immoral, in my view. The rights of the minority should NEVER be up for a vote by the ignorant majority. This is a founding principle of our country, and our founding fathers would be outraged that we have voted on civil rights. John Adams said:
"That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world"

So, let's allow the courts to do their job, and interpret the constitution (not legislate from the bench, but provide PROTECTIONS for the minority).