The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[Skylar]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

 

[Skylar]

Remember kids, the topic is gay marriage on ice in Alabama until there is clarity on who has to abide by Obergefell (or not) and why...

You've said that federal rulings on same sex marriage apply to at all levels and are the law of the land.

When it was Windsor and you were claiming it bound California, that is.

Now you're insisting that federal rulings on same sex marriages don't apply to all levels and aren't the law of the land.

When its Obergefell and you're claiming it doesn't bind Alabama that is.

Seems your pseudo-legal gibberish is contradicting your pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[80zephyr]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Can you show me anywhere in Lawerence v. Texas, Windsor v. US or Obergefell v. Hodges....where the 'number of people' in a marriage was cited as a particular freedom?

Because I'm pretty sure that's just you citing you.

 

[80zephyr]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Can you show me anywhere in Lawerence v. Texas, Windsor v. US or Obergefell v. Hodges....where the 'number of people' in a marriage was cited as a particular freedom?

Because I'm pretty sure that's just you citing you.

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The brilliance of the South...

Fail. That's not a license plate from America.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

she had NO right to refuse to do her state job.

1st amendment says otherwise and our judges we install will ensure that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Based in the principle of comparing like situations. In this case we have law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse. No reasonable secular difference existed that justified such discrimination.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true. Same-sex Civil Marriage and different-sex Civil marriage, since they are both based on two people, function equally well under current law.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

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

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 polygamy 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 fifth 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.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Can you show me anywhere in Lawerence v. Texas, Windsor v. US or Obergefell v. Hodges....where the 'number of people' in a marriage was cited as a particular freedom?

Because I'm pretty sure that's just you citing you.

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Cited as a particular freedom.....by whom? You are in love with the passive voice, aren't you? Because neither the law nor the courts have ever recognized any number of participants as being a 'particular freedom'.

So I assume when you say 'cited', you mean by yourself?

 

[Skylar]

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Based in the principle of comparing like situations. In this case we have law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse. No reasonable secular difference existed that justified such discrimination.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true. Same-sex Civil Marriage and different-sex Civil marriage, since they are both based on two people, function equally well under current law.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

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

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 polygamy 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 fifth 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.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.



>>>>

Ah yes. The old 'if you legalize same sex marriage you have to legalize polygamy' horseshit. A classic! Still occasionally dropped as a rhetorical deuce as the only logical conclusion, despite the fact that its never actually happened.

Ever.

 

[Skylar]

she had NO right to refuse to do her state job.

1st amendment says otherwise and our judges we install will ensure that.

Actually, its the 1st amendment that forbid her from doing what she did. As when she used the State to impose her specific religious views on unwilling individuals.....she violated the 1st amendment prohibition against the Establishment of Religion.

She *might* have gotten away with refusing to do her job on the basis of her religious views. Its when she also forbid any other clerk in the office from issuing such licenses that your argument falls apart. As we're *way* past reasonable accommodation when her religion mandates that she get to control *other* people.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, its the 1st amendment that forbid her from doing what she did. As when she used the State to impose her specific religious views on unwilling individuals.....she violated the 1st amendment prohibition against the Establishment of Religion.

She *might* have gotten away with refusing to do her job on the basis of her religious views. Its when she also forbid any other clerk in the office from issuing such licenses that your argument falls apart. As we're *way* past reasonable accommodation when her religion mandates that she get to control *other* people.

And all that would be true if the premise of "just some of the Court's favorite minority repugnant sex BEHAVIORS are equal to race" wasn't patently false to begin with. And the fact that the Judicial Branch of Government can't fulfill the Legislature's duties to amend the Constitution's 14th language to include "just some of 5 people on the Court's favorite minority repugnant sex BEHAVIORS, but not others.." Because, polygamy is already technically legal, since the 14th means equality, not selectivity and playing favorites.. Gonna put people in jail for not issuing polygamy marriage licenses are you? No? Too "icky"? Ah...what a fucking quagmire those 5 dumbasses created...

And hence all the problems to follow. Since LGBT are behaviors, they are quasi-religion in and of themselves. More properly, a cult. So forcing government officials to abide by a cult is also forbidden. So it is Christianity (a religion) vs LGBT (a cult). And that is the legal standoff at this point.

I'm betting on Christianity. Been around longer as an organized religion.

And then there's the 100% secular stonewall. It's the old (and I mean OLD, ancient established Law) "infant-necessities and contract law" (see my signature). A marriage contract cannot deprive children newly of either a mother or father. Those were their contractual rights and undisputed necessities for children for thousands of years. And in fact the reason why the marriage contract was invented in the first place.

Any marriage contract that strips children of either a mother or father for life is void upon its face.

 

[80zephyr]

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Based in the principle of comparing like situations. In this case we have law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse. No reasonable secular difference existed that justified such discrimination.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true. Same-sex Civil Marriage and different-sex Civil marriage, since they are both based on two people, function equally well under current law.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

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

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 polygamy 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 fifth 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.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.
homosexual marriage


>>>>

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage, and yet, concessions were made to accommodate those.

Those who insist expansion of freedoms for some while limiting others who think differently are exactly like the folks who protested gay marriage.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Can you show me anywhere in Lawerence v. Texas, Windsor v. US or Obergefell v. Hodges....where the 'number of people' in a marriage was cited as a particular freedom?

Because I'm pretty sure that's just you citing you.

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Cited as a particular freedom.....by whom? You are in love with the passive voice, aren't you? Because neither the law nor the courts have ever recognized any number of participants as being a 'particular freedom'.

So I assume when you say 'cited', you mean by yourself?

Thanks for making my point.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Based in the principle of comparing like situations. In this case we have law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse. No reasonable secular difference existed that justified such discrimination.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true. Same-sex Civil Marriage and different-sex Civil marriage, since they are both based on two people, function equally well under current law.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

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

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 polygamy 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 fifth 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.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.



>>>>

Ah yes. The old 'if you legalize same sex marriage you have to legalize polygamy' horseshit. A classic! Still occasionally dropped as a rhetorical deuce as the only logical conclusion, despite the fact that its never actually happened.

Ever.

Logic dictates that if "freedom to chose" is the reason, then any distinction is invalid.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage,...

OK, here is your chance. From a legal secular perspective please explain the unique difference as applied to man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman civil marriages that applies to law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse.

Remember excemptions that apply to man/woman civil marriages would apply to man/man and woman/woman marriages also.


Go...


>>>>

 

[80zephyr]

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage, and yet, concessions were made to accommodate those.

Those who insist expansion of freedoms for some while limiting others who think differently are exactly like the folks who protested gay marriage.

Mark

OK, here is your chance. From a legal secular perspective please explain the unique difference as applied to man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman civil marriages that applies only law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse.

Remember excempts that apply to man/woman civil marriages would apply to man/man and woman/woman marriages also.


Go...


>>>>

I already have. One man, one woman is unique to all other combinations. You are using PARAMETERS SET BY YOU as a "gotcha" question.

When you set up a question that will "funnel" an expected answer, I will give the correct one.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

I already have. One man, one woman is unique to all other combinations. You are using PARAMETERS SET BY YOU as a "gotcha" question.

When you set up a question that will "funnel" an expected answer, I will give the correct one.

Mark

Unique isn't the criteria. The criteria is equal treatment under like situations.

So what is the unique standard that is applies to man/woman Civil Marriages that does not apply to same-sex Civil Marriages that would disqualify them? A criteria that would apply equally to same-sex and different-sex couples?


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Well, there is also a fundamental difference between regular marriage and homosexual marriage,...

OK, here is your chance. From a legal secular perspective please explain the unique difference as applied to man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman civil marriages that applies to law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse...Remember excemptions that apply to man/woman civil marriages would apply to man/man and woman/woman marriages also....Go...

Answer: "Children's contractual rights re: marriage contract, to both a mother and father..." Natural born or adopted into marriage.

...End...

 

[Skylar]

Well, before gay marriage was legalized, was it cited as a particular freedom? IOW's, why is gender unimportant in a marriage and the number of participants is?

Mark

Based in the principle of comparing like situations. In this case we have law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in different-sex relationships who are allowed to Civilly Marry in all 50 states and law abiding, tax-paying, non-related, infertile, US Citizens, consenting adults in same-sex relationships who were denied Civil Marriage based solely on the gender of the prospective spouse. No reasonable secular difference existed that justified such discrimination.

The idea there is no difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is not true. Same-sex Civil Marriage and different-sex Civil marriage, since they are both based on two people, function equally well under current law.

With same-sex marriage the current marital laws work just fine. They deal with two people establishing an intimate legal relationship, establishing a new primary next-of-kin if you will.

On the other hand polygamy does not allow for the use of existing marital laws.

There are many arguments against polygamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.

1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous (1 man, multiple women) and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.

Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.

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

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 polygamy 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 fifth 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.

A fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.



>>>>

Ah yes. The old 'if you legalize same sex marriage you have to legalize polygamy' horseshit. A classic! Still occasionally dropped as a rhetorical deuce as the only logical conclusion, despite the fact that its never actually happened.

Ever.

Logic dictates that if "freedom to chose" is the reason, then any distinction is invalid.

Mark

Or......polygamy has nothing to do with same sex marriage logically. Lets check the historical record to see if the former logically followed the latter.

Checking......checking....and nope. Never once has it ever happened. What has every government that has ever recognized same sex marriage as legally valid know that you don't?