The Evidence Supporting Prop 8 As Law In California Becomes Overwhelming

[WorldWatcher]

Correction. The law already does agree with him. The highest Law in the Land. In June this year the US Supreme Court Upheld that each state's consensus to choose yes or no on gay marriage is a constitutional right of theirs back to the founding of the country. It cited that each state's populace has a vested and protected interest in setting social norms via marriage as a distinct social institution for doing so. Read the dicta. Future lawyers will be...

1. No it didn't, the DOMA decision was that when the State says "Yes" to SSCM, then the Federal government cannot not recognize it. States that said "No", were not addressed at all. The DOMA was about the Federal government discriminating against couples that were legally Civilly Married, it was not about requiring (or not requiring) States to grant such legal Civil Marriages.

2. Dicta is not stare decisis.

3. Future lawyers would laugh at you if you came in with the idea that DOMA (Section 3 was unconstitutional because it discriminated) and that decision established stare decisis that the discrimination could continue while in the very same term and issued at same time the SCOTUS let stand the Prop 8 case because they didn't vacate the District Court ruling.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Correction. The law already does agree with him. The highest Law in the Land. In June this year the US Supreme Court Upheld that each state's consensus to choose yes or no on gay marriage is a constitutional right of theirs back to the founding of the country. It cited that each state's populace has a vested and protected interest in setting social norms via marriage as a distinct social institution for doing so. Read the dicta. Future lawyers will be...

1. No it didn't, the DOMA decision was that when the State says "Yes" to SSCM, then the Federal government cannot not recognize it. States that said "No", were not addressed at all. The DOMA was about the Federal government discriminating against couples that were legally Civilly Married, it was not about requiring (or not requiring) States to grant such legal Civil Marriages.

2. Dicta is not stare decisis.

3. Future lawyers would laugh at you if you came in with the idea that DOMA (Section 3 was unconstitutional because it discriminated) and that decision established stare decisis that the discrimination could continue while in the very same term and issued at same time the SCOTUS let stand the Prop 8 case because they didn't vacate the District Court ruling.
>>>>

Yet Dicta is referred to in order to settle other matters in such a way that two cases don't come up with conflicting Rulings. Yes, you already know this.

Here's what the direct quote from the DOMA Opinion says:

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

The way you put it, you're saying "consensus" means "only if there is a yes vote to uphold gay marriage". That is wrong. That would be then a mandate instead. And de facto a constitutional Upholding of gay marriage as an undeniable right state to state.

But you know for a fact that is not what was Concluded. What was concluded was each separate state's constitutional right, retroactive to the founding of the country to say EITHER "yes' OR "NO" to gay marriage.

THAT is what California did and THAT is the law there, constitutionally supported. No other decision or Ruling past or present may interfere with the lawful outcome of the Prop 8 CONSENSUS on gay marriage that in CA's case said NO to gay marriage there. The only way to make gay marriage legal there is to introduce another consensus law [initiative] to overturn Prop 8. It cannot be undone by a ruling or another vote not superior to the initiative consensus. Why waste time? Instead of trying to trample the constitutional rights of 7 million, which you're going to get caught and called up short on, put your money and time into convincing Californians to vote for a new initiative [consensus] to overturn Prop 8 and make gay marriage legal there finally. If you don't do this, you do not have the option of denying the constitutional rights of the 7 million voters who banned gay marriage and polygamy there with the Prop 8 wording.

You cannot strip people of their constitutionally-protected rights. And those rights are of the 7 million in California who denied gay marriage there by CONSENSUS.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correction. The law already does agree with him. The highest Law in the Land. In June this year the US Supreme Court Upheld that each state's consensus to choose yes or no on gay marriage is a constitutional right of theirs back to the founding of the country. It cited that each state's populace has a vested and protected interest in setting social norms via marriage as a distinct social institution for doing so. Read the dicta. Future lawyers will be...

1. No it didn't, the DOMA decision was that when the State says "Yes" to SSCM, then the Federal government cannot not recognize it. States that said "No", were not addressed at all. The DOMA was about the Federal government discriminating against couples that were legally Civilly Married, it was not about requiring (or not requiring) States to grant such legal Civil Marriages.

2. Dicta is not stare decisis.

3. Future lawyers would laugh at you if you came in with the idea that DOMA (Section 3 was unconstitutional because it discriminated) and that decision established stare decisis that the discrimination could continue while in the very same term and issued at same time the SCOTUS let stand the Prop 8 case because they didn't vacate the District Court ruling.
>>>>

Yet Dicta is referred to in order to settle other matters in such a way that two cases don't come up with conflicting Rulings. Yes, you already know this.

Here's what the direct quote from the DOMA Opinion says:

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other

The way you put it, you're saying "consensus" means "only if there is a yes vote to uphold gay marriage". That is wrong. That would be then a mandate instead. And de facto a constitutional Upholding of gay marriage as an undeniable right state to state.

But you know for a fact that is not what was Concluded. What was concluded was each separate state's constitutional right, retroactive to the founding of the country to say EITHER "yes' OR "NO" to gay marriage.

THAT is what California did and THAT is the law there, constitutionally supported. No other decision or Ruling past or present may interfere with the lawful outcome of the Prop 8 CONSENSUS on gay marriage that in CA's case said NO to gay marriage there. The only way to make gay marriage legal there is to introduce another consensus law [initiative] to overturn Prop 8. It cannot be undone by a ruling or another vote not superior to the initiative consensus. Why waste time? Instead of trying to trample the constitutional rights of 7 million, which you're going to get caught and called up short on, put your money and time into convincing Californians to vote for a new initiative [consensus] to overturn Prop 8 and make gay marriage legal there finally. If you don't do this, you do not have the option of denying the constitutional rights of the 7 million voters who banned gay marriage and polygamy there with the Prop 8 wording.

You cannot strip people of their constitutionally-protected rights. And those rights are of the 7 million in California who denied gay marriage there by CONSENSUS.

1. And yet Prop 8 remains overturned as recognized by the State, the California Supreme Court (which has turned down appeals) and the United States Supreme Court (which has turned down appeals).


2. The ruling in the DOMA case applied to the FEDERAL government in it's actions to not recognize State law where the state said "Yes".


3. It had nothing to do with States that say "No". That will be a different case and since the SCOTUS pointed out in it's dicta that defining the law (DOMA) the way it did to target a group (homosexuals) and that it was unconstitutional - you should be very worried about when they decide to take a "no" case.



>>>>

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.

That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.

Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.

Only the interpretation of law and the Constitution matters, try to stay on topic instead of deflections and tangents. You want to talk about the IRS, start another topic thread.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.

This is either ignorance or demagoguery on your part, and you clearly have no idea how our legal system works.

Marriage law can accommodate same-sex couples now, currently, without being rewritten or changed, that is not the case with bigamy and polygamy, where neither conform to current marriage laws, as currently written – consequently there is no ‘slippery slope.’

What Redfish is saying, is there is no basis to deny consenting adults from choosing a life of polygamy. What argument can you provide for allowing one lifestyle while denying the lifestyle of another? Any denial argument weaves into a web of discrimination under the same argument as same sex couples. Do you want to dare state denial based on some form of "morality" legal issue? When has this country pursued that route of morality in the last 20 years? Truth is there is no basis to deny a lifestyle of consenting adults without encroaching on discrimination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.

That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.

Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.

Go ahead and pit IRS tax codes agains the states' recent Affirmation of their constitutional right to choose yes or no [consensus] on gay marriage and see if an IRS tax code trumps a state's right to constitutional consensus on gay marriage in front of SCOTUS.

You miss the point yet again. The states will not pay to inventory every single tax return to find out who is same sex on the federal form to find out who is claiming it on the state form.

Too costly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.

That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.

Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.

Only the interpretation of law and the Constitution matters, try to stay on topic instead of deflections and tangents. You want to talk about the IRS, start another topic thread.

You are deflecting the point: the IRS has made the ruling. The states have to inventory every state tax return matched against the federal tax return by the filers. The filers have every right to follow federal procedure.

The states are in a pickle. Now I want you guys to stay on topic, hear?

 

[Seawytch]

Look folks, we are probably going to sanction gay marriage in this country. If you don't think that is a slippery slope to bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage" then you don't know how lawyers work or how our legal system works.

This is either ignorance or demagoguery on your part, and you clearly have no idea how our legal system works.

Marriage law can accommodate same-sex couples now, currently, without being rewritten or changed, that is not the case with bigamy and polygamy, where neither conform to current marriage laws, as currently written – consequently there is no ‘slippery slope.’

What Redfish is saying, is there is no basis to deny consenting adults from choosing a life of polygamy. What argument can you provide for allowing one lifestyle while denying the lifestyle of another? Any denial argument weaves into a web of discrimination under the same argument as same sex couples. Do you want to dare state denial based on some form of "morality" legal issue? When has this country pursued that route of morality in the last 20 years? Truth is there is no basis to deny a lifestyle of consenting adults without encroaching on discrimination.

Don't Do Unto Others = The difference between gay marriage and polygamy

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.

That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.

Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.

Only the interpretation of law and the Constitution matters, try to stay on topic instead of deflections and tangents. You want to talk about the IRS, start another topic thread.

You are deflecting the point: the IRS has made the ruling. The states have to inventory every state tax return matched against the federal tax return by the filers. The filers have every right to follow federal procedure.

The states are in a pickle. Now I want you guys to stay on topic, hear?

I don't think it will end up meaning what you think it means Jake.

IIUC, in the past SSCM couples who lived in states where their marriage was legal but was not recognized by the IRS - they would end up creating multiple tax forms (but submitting only one). And with tax software it's not that hard. They would create two sets of federal returns (one married, one single). They would file the single returns individually to the IRS. Then they would take the sample "Married Filing Jointly" return (not submitted) and use those calculations to file a joint state return.

Probably they will be doing the same procedure - two sample federal returns. But now they would file the married return to the IRS and use the single one as the basis for filing singly for the state return. The instructions will simply say take the figure from IRS Form _____ and enter it here. That doesn't mean the form actually had to be submitted, just calculated.

In the past if they were married but in a State without recognition, they each filed out a single "single" return for each.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any denial argument weaves into a web of discrimination under the same argument as same sex couples.

No it doesn't. "Discrimination" buy it self is neither "good" or "bad", it is how that discrimination is arrived at that is the important criteria from a legal standpoint. When discrimination is enacted to target a specific group for different treatment, the measure is a "compelling government interest" for treating like situated groups differently. In other words given the same circumstances and applying the same standards - what is the underlying basis for the different treatment.

Take for example Driver's Licenses, we discriminate all the time - but not on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin, etc. Discriminating against those who demonstrate a willingness to operate the vehicle on public roads in an unsafe manner for example. Or against people that are blind as another. The compelling government interest being public safety on public roads.

In the case of SSCM then the government must provide a compelling government interest for like groups being treated differently when establishing a family relationship where one did not exist before. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a different sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in a same sex relationship. To date no compelling interest has been put forward. The arguments usually center around tradition (not a valid interest of the government), it's against the dogma of some religions, it's immoral, or it's "icky" - none of which are valid government interests resulting in capricious and invidious laws.

What Redfish is saying, is there is no basis to deny consenting adults from choosing a life of polygamy. What argument can you provide for allowing one lifestyle while denying the lifestyle of another?

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Unwieldy and a burden legally? You mean like today's current Family Law system bogged down with the rights of parent, grandparents, stepparents, aunts, uncles. Or inheritance rights? Prenups solve all that for polygamy. In fact, a polygamous marriage with prenups provides more clarity than what is going on now in Family Law.

It's funny that you should cite law as a reason to not allow a certain type of marriage. Odd especially since gays arguments to allow gay marriage is "have compassion, forget about existing laws and make new ones!". Your hypocrisy is not lost on this poster for sure.

Since we're citing law as a basis for denying marriage, let's cite the legally enacted consensus of Prop 8 which is now a constitutionally-protected initiative as a means for denying gay marriage in CA.

 

[Seawytch]

However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.

Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.

In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.

Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D

Add a fith spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D

Add another, etc...


So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.


So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

Unwieldy and a burden legally? You mean like today's current Family Law system bogged down with the rights of parent, grandparents, stepparents, aunts, uncles. Or inheritance rights? Prenups solve all that for polygamy. In fact, a polygamous marriage with prenups provides more clarity than what is going on now in Family Law.

It's funny that you should cite law as a reason to not allow a certain type of marriage. Odd especially since gays arguments to allow gay marriage is "have compassion, forget about existing laws and make new ones!". Your hypocrisy is not lost on this poster for sure.

Since we're citing law as a basis for denying marriage, let's cite the legally enacted consensus of Prop 8 which is now a constitutionally-protected initiative as a means for denying gay marriage in CA.

Prop 8 violated the Constitution.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yup, the IRS recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level for income tax purposes.

That forces hetero-only marriage states to accept the federal regulation instead of their own, since almost all of them used the federal form as the platform for their state.

Yup, shakes and silhouette, you have nothing but a dead argument walking.

Only the interpretation of law and the Constitution matters, try to stay on topic instead of deflections and tangents. You want to talk about the IRS, start another topic thread.

You are deflecting the point: the IRS has made the ruling. The states have to inventory every state tax return matched against the federal tax return by the filers. The filers have every right to follow federal procedure.

The states are in a pickle. Now I want you guys to stay on topic, hear?

I'm not the one who moved from the law and "legal" argument surrounding Proposition 8, DOMA, and the United States Supreme Court into a discussion about tax law. Do pay attention and try to follow the discussion here, your ADD is getting the best of you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

All divorces are messy and costly, show me one that isn't. Any custody issues usually side with the mom, however what about adopted children of a lesbian couple? There is a first in everything, as legal matters meet new challenges when the "state" of the relationship changes. Believe me, with all the money involved in legal fees.... I'm sure the courts can handle it. That excuse is rather weak, as traditional marriage supporters used the same example of "the effects of the relationship on children" as a means to prove their case against redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Now we have those who desire rights for same sex couples, making excuses against another consenting group from desiring THEIR right to pursue a polygamist lifestyle. I find those excuses to be rather ironic to say the least. Congratulations, you just graduated yourself into the labeled "hate" group.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since we're citing law as a basis for denying marriage, let's cite the legally enacted consensus of Prop 8 which is now a constitutionally-protected initiative as a means for denying gay marriage in CA.

No it didn't, the DOMA decision was that when the State says "Yes" to SSCM, then the Federal government cannot not recognize it. States that said "No", were not addressed at all. The DOMA was about the Federal government discriminating against couples that were legally Civilly Married, it was not about requiring (or not requiring) States to grant such legal Civil Marriages.

The SCOTUS allowed the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to stand, they did not vacate the District Court decision. If it was as your wish suggests, then the SCOTUS would have vacated the District Court decision. They didn't.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

All divorces are messy and costly, show me one that isn't. Any custody issues usually side with the mom, however what about adopted children of a lesbian couple? There is a first in everything, as legal matters meet new challenges when the "state" of the relationship changes. Believe me, with all the money involved in legal fees.... I'm sure the courts can handle it. That excuse is rather weak, as traditional marriage supporters used the same example of "the effects of the relationship on children" as a means to prove their case against redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Now we have those who desire rights for same sex couples, making excuses against another consenting group from desiring THEIR right to pursue a polygamist lifestyle. I find those excuses to be rather ironic to say the least. Congratulations, you just graduated yourself into the labeled "hate" group.

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".



>>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".

Gay marriage is not accepted in Calfornia. So said 7 million in their constitutionally-protected consensus in Prop 8. Please be accurate when you're talking about the issues. A "no" vote on gay marriage is not "acceptance" of it. The crime of forcing away 7 million's constitutional rights to consensus on marriage parameters is like raping them away from their Rights. Are you suggesting this forced imposition is "acceptance'?

So much for the values that come along with the Gay Agenda. Forced acceptance of sexual perversions. How is that not like rape?

 

[Seawytch]

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".

Gay marriage is not accepted in Calfornia. So said 7 million in their constitutionally-protected consensus in Prop 8. Please be accurate when you're talking about the issues. A "no" vote on gay marriage is not "acceptance" of it. The crime of forcing away 7 million's constitutional rights to consensus on marriage parameters is like raping them away from their Rights. Are you suggesting this forced imposition is "acceptance'?

So much for the values that come along with the Gay Agenda. Forced acceptance of sexual perversions. How is that not like rape?

There is no constitutional protection for violating the Constitution...which is what Prop 8 did (as determined in a court of law).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.

You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...

So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.


>>>>

All divorces are messy and costly, show me one that isn't. Any custody issues usually side with the mom, however what about adopted children of a lesbian couple? There is a first in everything, as legal matters meet new challenges when the "state" of the relationship changes. Believe me, with all the money involved in legal fees.... I'm sure the courts can handle it. That excuse is rather weak, as traditional marriage supporters used the same example of "the effects of the relationship on children" as a means to prove their case against redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Now we have those who desire rights for same sex couples, making excuses against another consenting group from desiring THEIR right to pursue a polygamist lifestyle. I find those excuses to be rather ironic to say the least. Congratulations, you just graduated yourself into the labeled "hate" group.

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".



>>>>>

Bigamy concerns criminal, not civil, law – in this case fraud.

Same-sex couples are already eligible to enter into marriage contracts, as the laws exist now, bigamists clearly not; the only issue is states refusing to allow same-sex couples access to that marriage law.

‘Bigamy,’ ‘polygamy,’ ‘sibling “marriage,”’ ‘father/daughter “marriage,”’ ‘child “marriage,”’ etc, are all irrelevant red herrings, examples of the desperate demagoguery used by those hostile to homosexuals and hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, motivated solely by fear, ignorance, and hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bigamy may eventually become accepted when society is ready to accept it as they are now with same-sex Civil Marriage.

I was simply pointing out a compelling government interest as to why it is not viable. One not based on religion, tradition (since bigamy has a long history in both secular and religious realms), on morality, or that it is "icky".

Gay marriage is not accepted in Calfornia. So said 7 million in their constitutionally-protected consensus in Prop 8. Please be accurate when you're talking about the issues. A "no" vote on gay marriage is not "acceptance" of it. The crime of forcing away 7 million's constitutional rights to consensus on marriage parameters is like raping them away from their Rights. Are you suggesting this forced imposition is "acceptance'?

So much for the values that come along with the Gay Agenda. Forced acceptance of sexual perversions. How is that not like rape?

However many in California voted to deny same-sex couples their 14th Amendment right of equal access to marriage law, they were not at liberty to do so. The Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, which means the people of each state are subject only to the rule of law, not men, and not the voters.

You hate homosexuals, that’s clearly understood by all.

And you are entitled to that hate, ignorance, and fear; you are not, however, entitled to attempt to codify your hate, ignorance, and fear.

Indeed, the fundamental tenet of the Constitution and its case law is to protect citizens from the hate you so clearly demonstrate, and to prevent you and others who share your hate from violating the civil liberties of homosexuals, first and foremost citizens of the United States.

Last, there is no ‘gay agenda,’ to believe so is a manifestation of your hate, it’s also ignorant and hateful to maintain that homosexuality is a ‘perversion,’ when it clearly is not. Again, you might perceive it as such in the context of your ignorance and hate, but your subjective opinion is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The values expressed by homosexuals are the values shared by all Americans: to live one’s life in accordance with his good conscience, free from interference by the state, protected by the individual liberty guaranteed by Constitutional case law.