Marriage Equality Warriors: "Not without Polygamy"

[OutHouse]

Let the dominos being to fall - time for incest next!

why would you say such a vile thing? are you a child molester?

 

[OutHouse]

polygamists have a long history of cultish sex slavery and horrific mental and physical abuse that is very much a part of their story

there are 10's of thousands of unofficial plural marriages in our country living in the shadows where religion is not the driving influence. They have healthy happy marriages where none of that shit you listed would ever be tolerated. they dont have a church/cult leader who has some form of leverage over them and are free to leave if they desire. The shady past of plural marriage has been with fucked up religious cults.

 

[OutHouse]

It reduces my chances of finding a female partner if some men have multiple partners.

lol try harder.

 

[bozack]

Not really. The list of Federally protected classes is pretty definitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

I'll say it again, sexual orientation is not a protected class last I checked.

There is no reason why this should be denied IMHO so long as all are adults and are ok with the arrangement.

 

[OutHouse]

Oh lordy, here we go with the polygamy argument yet again.

One person, one spouse..............end of story!!!

bigot.

 

[Retro Rob]

why would you say such a vile thing? are you a child molester?

??

No, it was a jab at the people who claim to be for "marriage EQUALITY" and the "love is love" campaigners.

 

[thraashman]

??

No, it was a jab at the people who claim to be for "marriage EQUALITY" and the "love is love" campaigners.

I could spend several minutes obliterating every one of your stupid posts in this thread, but honestly you won't listen because you're close-minded. So I think it's just easier to say this ... god you're dumb.

 

[Cozarkian]

I don't really have any ideological opposition to polygamy, but I don't see the discrimination at work in polygamy bans that existed with the bans on same-sex marriage. There is no class of citizens enjoying some right that some other class is being denied in this case. If the government can impose speed limits on everybody without being discriminatory, it can certainly legislate number-of-spouse limits.

It discriminates against the class of married persons based on familial status, which is a federally protected class.

 

[Retro Rob]

I could spend several minutes obliterating every one of your stupid posts in this thread, but honestly you won't listen because you're close-minded. So I think it's just easier to say this ... god you're dumb.

lol so?

 

[Cozarkian]

I'll say it again, sexual orientation is not a protected class last

Which is probably why Kennedy's opinion was carefully worded to refer to same sex couples rather than homosexual individuals. While the harm affected homosexuals, the actual discrimination was based on sex, I.e. men and women, not upon sexual orientation.

 

[JD50]

It discriminates against the class of married persons based on familial status, which is a federally protected class.

How so? I kind of see what you're saying but I'm not sure it makes sense. They're not being denied the right to get married, they're already married. They're still free to marry another person too, they just have to get divorced first.

 

[Cozarkian]

How so? I kind of see what you're saying but I'm not sure it makes sense. They're not being denied the right to get married, they're already married. They're still free to marry another person too, they just have to get divorced first.

Unmarried people are treated differently than married persons - they don't have to get divorced first before they can marry.

Pick two random people on the street and analyze whether they can get married. Note the information you need - age, relation to each other and whether they are already married. Those are the classes of citizens discriminated against by marriage laws. A month ago in some states you would have included gender on that list.

It isn't enough to simply say you can get married. Note that homosexuals were allowed to get married, they just couldn't marry the person they wanted.

I'm not saying we should recognize polygamous marriages, but the question is whether discrimination is justified, because the actual discrimination is definitely there.

 

[JD50]

Unmarried people are treated differently than married persons - they don't have to get divorced first before they can marry.

Pick two random people on the street and analyze whether they can get married. Note the information you need - age, relation to each other and whether they are already married. Those are the classes of citizens discriminated against by marriage laws. A month ago in some states you would have included gender on that list.

It isn't enough to simply say you can get married. Note that homosexuals were allowed to get married, they just couldn't marry the person they wanted.

I'm not saying we should recognize polygamous marriages, but the question is whether discrimination is justified, because the actual discrimination is definitely there.

No, they are not treated differently. Married people can get married, that's how they got married in the first place. What you're saying is that married people can't marry more than one person. Neither can single people.

You can't really compare it to gay marriage. Before it was legalized a woman could marry a man, but a man could not marry a man. However, no one can marry more than one person, not a single person or a married person. No one is being denied something that someone else can do.

I currently own my home (well, the bank does), are you being discriminated against because you can't also buy my house?

Edit - Rethinking it a bit, that might be a bad analogy because I can buy multiple houses, but I think it kind of gets my point across.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Other than the Mormons, you have to go way back in western history to find either state or church sanctioned polygamy. Even that never was strictly legal. Anti-polygamist fervor was a big part of why they fled en masse to Deseret. Holding to polygamy delayed statehood for decades. The practice if not the paperwork has never been 100% suppressed, obviously.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_ch...ssive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html

There are current recognised and practiced religions that currently sanction polygamy. The Covenant of the Goddess has several million members and is one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, they are not treated differently. Married people can get married, that's how they got married in the first place. What you're saying is that married people can't marry more than one person. Neither can single people.

You can't really compare it to gay marriage. Before it was legalized a woman could marry a man, but a man could not marry a man. However, no one can marry more than one person, not a single person or a married person. No one is being denied something that someone else can do.

I currently own my home (well, the bank does), are you being discriminated against because you can't also buy my house?

The argument for polygamy is not based on discrimination. There are two similar arguments going forward: religious freedom and unnecessary burden.

The religious freedom argument simply states that there are recognised religions in the US that sanction plural marriage, and that to deny them this is an abridgment of their right to practice their religion. They state that the State's reason for doing so can be served in other ways that do not infringe on their rights to practice their religion.

The other argument goes that the State has no compelling reason to deny it. That all the reasons stated are better handled with other laws already. The State should not abridge freedom without a compelling reason.

 

[JD50]

The argument for polygamy is not based on discrimination. There are two similar arguments going forward: religious freedom and unnecessary burden.

The religious freedom argument simply states that there are recognised religions in the US that sanction plural marriage, and that to deny them this is an abridgment of their right to practice their religion. They state that the State's reason for doing so can be served in other ways that do not infringe on their rights to practice their religion.

The other argument goes that the State has no compelling reason to deny it. That all the reasons stated are better handled with other laws already. The State should not abridge freedom without a compelling reason.

But some people are trying to make that argument, Boober and Rob for example. I'm trying to understand how that makes sense, so far I'm not seeing it. I can be persuaded with a rational argument though.

 

[Cozarkian]

No, they are not treated differently. Married people can get married, that's how they got married in the first place. What you're saying is that married people can't marry more than one person. Neither can single people.

You can't really compare it to gay marriage. Before it was legalized a woman could marry a man, but a man could not marry a man. However, no one can marry more than one person, not a single person or a married person. No one is being denied something that someone else can do.

I currently own my home (well, the bank does), are you being discriminated against because you can't also buy my house?

John Doe, a married person, can't marry jane smith. James Doe, an unmarked person can marry Jane Smith. There is no denying it is discrimination. The argument that john die is already married to a person is the rational for the discrimination.

With regard to your house, the government would allow me to have joint title.

Now if the law prohibited you from purchasing a second house, that would be discrimination based on your status a homeowner and we would turn to the question of whether that was justified, which would be a low threshold test since property owner is not a protected class.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unmarried people are treated differently than married persons - they don't have to get divorced first before they can marry.

Pick two random people on the street and analyze whether they can get married. Note the information you need - age, relation to each other and whether they are already married. Those are the classes of citizens discriminated against by marriage laws. A month ago in some states you would have included gender on that list.

It isn't enough to simply say you can get married. Note that homosexuals were allowed to get married, they just couldn't marry the person they wanted.

I'm not saying we should recognize polygamous marriages, but the question is whether discrimination is justified, because the actual discrimination is definitely there.

Essentially, what you are saying then is that law is a way to discriminate, to define who is a law breaker and who is not and so long as the laws are not struck down by the courts, they are in fact the law and they are thus not struck down if they are deemed to be unconstitutional. This would mean then that in a society of laws where laws are determined to place restrictions on people so they don't offend other people's rights, it would be natural and normal to find there are laws, in a nation of laws, that there are in fact laws about all kinds of things including about who can marry whom when.

Now what this ultimately means to me then is that laws are legal opinions about how society governs itself and that laws against polygamy are thus matters of moral discrimination based on traditions and experiences of the past that persuade those that hold them that such laws make for a better society and that as with other laws that stand, none of that discrimination is illegal. We are left them with the sense that the meaning of marriage is something that takes place between two people and not three or more, and not between people and toasters or dogs or folks who are deemed to be too young.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that all of the arguments for traditional marriage made by bigots against gay marriage would actually hold up against polygamy. Don't mess with the definition of marriage as something that happens between two mature, unrelated people. We have decided as a society that marriage between two people is the best way to go for our society.

Also, why, when you can have as many partners as you want at any time that you want and can, would you want to change the definition of marriage which is a declaration that you want to leave that lifestyle behind. What would be the purpose of marriage if not to declare ones love for one other person. It's the ultimate point of marriage. You can't marry two people and have it be marriage, can you? Marriage IS one on one.

 

[SMOGZINN]

But some people are trying to make that argument, Boober and Rob for example. I'm trying to understand how that makes sense, so far I'm not seeing it. I can be persuaded with a rational argument though.

They are not making serious arguments for Poly-marriage. They are trying to use this to make arguments against SSM.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Now if the law prohibited you from purchasing a second house, that would be discrimination based on your status a homeowner and we would turn to the question of whether that was justified, which would be a low threshold test since property owner is not a protected class.

A law needs to be more than nondiscriminatory against a protected class. The state needs a compelling reason to abridge any freedoms.

In the example you states the court would have to ask if there is a compelling reason for the state to limit land ownership. Lacking a compelling reason to do so they would strike down the law.

 

[Cozarkian]

A law needs to be more than nondiscriminatory against a protected class. The state needs a compelling reason to abridge any freedoms.

In the example you states the court would have to ask if there is a compelling reason for the state to limit land ownership. Lacking a compelling reason to do so they would strike down the law.

Okay. That is a separate argument which I have not discussed in any post.

 

[Victorian Gray]

??

No, it was a jab at the people who claim to be for "marriage EQUALITY" and the "love is love" campaigners.

And a damned stupid one at that.

 

[JD50]

John Doe, a married person, can't marry jane smith. James Doe, an unmarked person can marry Jane Smith. There is no denying it is discrimination. The argument that john die is already married to a person is the rational for the discrimination.

With regard to your house, the government would allow me to have joint title.

Now if the law prohibited you from purchasing a second house, that would be discrimination based on your status a homeowner and we would turn to the question of whether that was justified, which would be a low threshold test since property owner is not a protected class.

Interesting point, I'll have to think about that. However, John Doe can still marry Jane Smith, he just can't be married to Jane Doe at the same time. The limitation is not that John Doe can't marry Jane Smith, it's that Jane Smith can't marry John Doe because he's already married. No one can marry John Doe if he's already married.

The limitation as it stands is that you can't marry more than one person, no matter if you're single or married. No one can marry a married person. This is different than gay marriage or interracial marriage because someone (but not everyone) could marry a {man,woman} and someone (but not everyone) could marry a {white,black} person.

Edit - I think this discussion is a good example of why the discrimination argument won't work, it's incredibly hard to make sense of. Gay and Interracial marriage is very clear cut, there's an obvious group of people that were being discriminated against. Trying to argue that a married person is discriminated against because they can't get married even though they're already married probably won't get you very far.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Keeping with the marriage equality theme....should Bruce Jenner be able to marry Caitlyn Jenner???

 

[lotus503]

Keeping with the marriage equality theme....should Bruce Jenner be able to marry Caitlyn Jenner???

hmm implications for multiple personality disorders too?

These darn slippery slopes.