[SpardaSon21]

Okay.  Well, let's say Prop. 8 does get overturned, and homosexual marriage is allowed, which seems extremely likely.  Do any of you think that the polygamists will climb out of the woodwork and claim that they are being discriminated against since they aren't allowed to have multiple spouses?

[General Battuta]

Since nobody has the right to polygamy, it's not as if an existing majority right is being denied to a minority.

Fundamentally different from the current case.

[SpardaSon21]

Okay.  I'm probably just being paranoid then.

[karajorma]

Actually if more people would ask those questions instead of assuming they will happen I doubt Prop 8 would have passed in the first place.

Too many people said that they'd vote for it because they didn't want their churches to be forced to marry gay people. As you've seen that issue could have been cleared up in a few minutes if they'd been willing to listen.

[Bobboau]

The very last sentence of the statement, clearly set apart and easily visible, was "It is unconstitutional."

This was not the first time it was mentioned.

Read, dammit!

I did read it, I read that line I didn't see how he was planning on proving that statement.

"discriminatory and fulfills no valid purpose."

what part of the constitution does this violate, has sexual orientation been added to the list of protected minorities? (not rhetorical, I'm asking the question I don't know)

I suppose the fourteenth amendment is a good place to work from

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

they could win on that argument. he should have specifically mentioned it if that was what he was planning though.

[General Battuta]

He specifies the constitutional rights that he believes are being violated in the statement.

[Bobboau]

I meant he should have said something along the line of "I shall prove that this is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment"

but what ever I guess that answers my question, they might win with that argument, I just hope they time it so it happens after the election not right before like California did. or else well have the same mess that started this only on a national level.

[Rian]

The thing is, it’s a hell of a lot harder to amend the national constitution than to amend a state constitution. California did it by a popular vote. Amendments to the US constitution have to be passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states.

While a Supreme Court ruling against gay marriage could set us back a couple years, or several years, and a lot of people are worried about it, it seems highly unlikely that a discriminatory definition will be codified in the constitution.

[Bobboau]

I am worried that the momentum for it could be made