Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- Thread starter
- #841
congratulations, you found some obscure references.
the recent Utah decision does show that maybe the slippery slope argument is valid. Tho I would say its use in interracial marriage was not valid as the only restriction u are lifting is the factor of race.
Your statement was "The slippery slope argument was not used to deny interracial marriages".
You were wrong. You should man up. BTW - Citing law journals which reference cases where arguments presented to the courts is not normally considered an "obscure reference".
Whether polygamy ever becomes legal or not is open to discussion. Probably at some point it will - might be 5 years, 50 years or 500 years. It's legalization though will be based on the merits for that decision. "Slippery Slope" though is not a valid legal basis for discrimination though because of what "might" happen in a different situation.
>>>>
Homosexuality is a deviant sexual BEHAVIOR. I have to constantly spell that in all caps because of the tenacious ferocity to divert the subject to something else once that fatal flaw is exposed in the gay argument.
Behaviors are not subject to special class status unless they are part of a federally-recognized religion. Homosexual behaviors were denied special protection as a class in DOMA because in DOMA, the Supreme Court discussed Loving v Virgina, and...pay attention class...went on to say that gay marriage is "only allowed" "in some states". And it gets worse for the gay hopes to be equivalent to "race". DOMA said that not only is gay marriage not a right in each state, but that to be a right in each state requires a broad consensus of the goverened. [And therefore since the Supreme Court is dominant in authority to any lower court, any findings in direct conflict with that are null and void. Or more succinctly: Prop 8 is binding law.]
States aren't allowed to vote whether or not this or that innate race of people can marry. They ARE however not just allowed to vote whether this or that sexual BEHAVIOR can marry, but also that vote is constitutionally-protected as an inaliable right.
Should any sweeping rights to gay marriage somehow be achieved by setting an unbelievable precedent that behaviors are equivalent to race, Brown v Utah will have polygamy legal in less than five years since it already is moving towards the appelate stage in the courts.
Last edited: