MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage

[thegodfather]

If one is going to use the scientific argument for a particular argument the other side has to be presented. I do not personally agree with the passage of this law. Then again I respect the fact that the people of California for the time being feel that it is a social norm that they hold with some regard no matter my personal feelings on the issue.

However, it is a matter of law. Matters of law are decided by the judicial branch, not by majoritys and referendums. The people of California would NEVER be asked whether they agreed with Amendments 1-10, so I see no reason why they would be asked about any other negative freedom.

[MuscleScience]

However, it is a matter of law. Matters of law are decided by the judicial branch, not by majoritys and referendums. The people of California would NEVER be asked whether they agreed with Amendments 1-10, so I see no reason why they would be asked about any other negative freedom.

Then again the constitution also gives rights to the state to make and enforce laws as it sees fit as long as they follow the constitution. This isnt the only issue that has gone to referendum and been passed. Now if California's Supreme Court rules that the law violates its own state constitution then i can see them stepping in.

I do not feel that the state or any other entity should step in on someones personal freedoms. Can it not be argued though at some point there needs to be a line drawn in the sand that limits peoples freedoms on certain subjects. One can argue that preventing a group of people that believe in polygamy from marrying multiple partners is a violation of personal freedoms. Yet our society overwhelming rejects the practice.

Is not law nothing more than social acceptable behaviors that are set forth by the people?

I probably shouldnt try to battle you on this subject as I am not versed in this area.....

[Voice of Reason]

Who gives a fvck about marriage anyway... It's just more paperwork and a last name change with a party. Fvck the dumbshit and just have the party and live happily ever after homo's (when I say homo's I mean homo sapiens)...

[thegodfather]

Then again the constitution also gives rights to the state to make and enforce laws as it sees fit as long as they follow the constitution. This isnt the only issue that has gone to referendum and been passed. Now if California's Supreme Court rules that the law violates its own state constitution then i can see them stepping in.

I do not feel that the state or any other entity should step in on someones personal freedoms. Can it not be argued though at some point there needs to be a line drawn in the sand that limits peoples freedoms on certain subjects. One can argue that preventing a group of people that believe in polygamy from marrying multiple partners is a violation of personal freedoms. Yet our society overwhelming rejects the practice.

Is not law nothing more than social acceptable behaviors that are set forth by the people?

Sort of yes, and sort of no...There is a distinction between Malum In Se and Malim Prohibtum... The first is illegal because it is an evil in and of itself, and the second is that it is wrong because its a law or prohibited. I disagree with polygamy being banned as well, it serves no public health interests, and it just assuages(sp) the moral trepidations of ultra right wing religious zealouts, much in the same way that banning gay marriage does. States can get away with banning these things as "public health" interests, which was the original way that States began to be involved with marriage, requiring them to get tested for STDs and such.


I probably shouldnt try to battle you on this subject as I am not versed in this area.....

in red....