Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/archi...up/1017603.htm
The link above is the MA Supreme Court decision that ruled that gay marriage was required under the MA constitution.
Can anyone point out an argument that they have advanced in support of gay marriage that cannot also be used to argue for polygamy?
TIA.
|
Look, here is how deep I can get into the issue: "It is fucked up that people mess with Gay people, and they have to argue for such basic rights." That is my only position substantively.
Next week, when you and Ty continue your discussion I would note that procedurally one win in Con. Law cases by carefully picking your plaintiff.
Say NYC passes a law saying "Vehicles cannot carry ads." The city thinks ads on vehicles distract drivers.
A NYC resident owns a company that carts ads around on trucks. He challenges the law, but loses. The city need only show a legitimate reason for the restriction against the guy's freedom to K.
But, what if he had a Newark cabbie bring the suit? Ad on top of cab, can't bring fairs from the airport into the city- RESTRICTION ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE- bad law!
That hypo, and my agressive use of Plaintiff picking made me the "Atticus" of my Con Law class, and got me out of having to even take the final, "Why bother wasting time grading a paper I'll barely be able to comprehend," she said.
So remember, pick you a good plaintiff. Pick a Mormon, Atticus will show a link that the church ruled out polygomy in 18whatnot. You hypo a splinter sect, or query if the change wasn't due to the law, and ask whether Mormons aren't in fact entitled to reparations.
ps I spelled edict right on FB. what did you mean with your response to ncs?
