I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.pattylou said:Hi ratings are so low, no doubt he didn't want to lose his few supporters.
On the other hand, it was stupid decision - he could have easily gotten my support back and others (I'm sure) if he'd signed it.
The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?honestrosewater said:Seriously, I don't get it. There seem to be three options: a) let a couple get married, whatever their gender, b) don't let any couples get married, or c) strike equal protection from the Constitution.
No, by itself, it doesn't.vanesch said:The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?
Well, as long as mutual consent is required (amongst all the parties involved), there's no reason to *forbid* it because you'd reasonably expect that those consenting estimate that their union is more fullfulling than when not, so it would only occur in exactly those circumstances you think cannot be present. So or 1) you are right that bigamy is not fulfilling for all partners, in which case you can allow for it, because nobody will do so (they'll never mutually consent) or 2) there are (even only a few) cases where bigamy IS fulfilling, and then it is sad that it is against the law.arildno said:No, by itself, it doesn't.
There aren't any reasons to accept any bigamic relationships unless you find empirical evidence (by testimonies, for example) that all partners in the bigamic relationship finds their union fulfilling, contributing to each person's sense of worth&happiness and so on..
Ousted from the party?arildno said:I am not altogether certain that the analysis as presented in the article (that is, that Schwarzenegger did this because he wants to pander right-wing voters) is correct.
It might be that sufficient pressure has developed within the Republican Party so that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be re-elected as their candidate unless he vetoed the bill.
That is, he might have done this in order to avoid being ousted from the party rather than increase his chances of getting re-elected as governor by the people of California.
In my view then, he deferred to the party line on this issue, and thereby shows the primary quality of a traditional politician:
If you are to retain your rank in the party (or wish to rise), pay more heed to the majority view in the party even if that goes against your own, personal view.
This analysis, at least, seems consistent with the fact that as a Republican governor, there cannot have been much party pressure on Arnie to accept and push through several measures that have been hailed as "gay-friendly".
I.e, we might regard these actions as indicative of his own views, and that resentment over this has grown within the party over time.
It wouldn't be too surprising if the party finally set their foot down, and would refuse to acknowledge Scwarzenegger as a worthy Republican any longer if he continued to press his own views forth, at the expense of the party line.
The state must have a 'good enough reason' to discriminate.vanesch said:The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?
Gender and number of spouses are two different classifications. Preventing bigamy and preventing gay marriage are two separate issues, with their own set of reasons. Determining whether one set of reasons is good enough won't necessarily determine whether another set of reasons is good enough. In this case, no, I can't see how allowing gays to marry would allow bigamy.Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." (emphasis mine)
Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?vanesch said:The same reasoning then leads to the acceptance of bigamy too, no ?
I think you've just answered your questions.Townsend said:Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?
Why not? Again, how is a person's private life the business of the government? What purpose does such a law serve?arildno said:In other words, relationships and practices that are known to be in general abusive shouldn't be officially sanctioned for that reason, even if there exist a theoretical possibility that a specific example might not be abusive.
Fine....I personally don't care about bigamy any more than I care about homosexuality. Both are perfectly fine by me since I don't feel the need to impose my moral values on others. What I am concerned about is the government involving itself with marriages at all. Eliminate government involvement in a religious practice and this all becomes moot.honestrosewater said:I think the bigamy issue is fallacious and it should just be dropped. Does anyone want to challenge me on this? It's an appeal to consequences, emotion, and tradition, and falsely equates two different issues.
The government clearly grants marriage rights to people under the influence of religious principles.honestrosewater said:The government grants marriage rights to people. What other institutions or people do is irrelevant.
And clearly that is where the problem is...:grumpy:honestrosewater said:The government grants marriage rights to people.
And theres your problem. You women expect guys to change for you :tongue2: :tongue2:honestrosewater said:Okay, great, not letting any couples marry is an option. Anyway, I think I'm leaving to work on my new theory: PWA threads are like ex-boyfriends. You get involved with them again hoping they've changed, but...