Possibilities of marriage equality

[Texashiker]

I would like to have a somewhat serious discussion on marriage equality, and what it means to society.

Since the defense of marriage act is before the supreme court, I thought this thread would be better suited in the political section, rather than off talk.

One of the main points I would like to discuss is polygamy, both with multiple husbands and multiple wives.

From what I understand most gay people oppose polygamy. But shouldn't people who practice polygamy have the same rights as other married couples?

If people are going to fight for marriage equality, shouldn't that fight be for marriage equality for everyone, rather then a small monitory?

 

[sourn]

Yes and no about the polygamy. Should they be allowed to get married hell why not, but only 2 people should receive any benefit like tax breaks and what not.

A man and women get certain benefits for being married, x and x should get the same. But if you go down x + x + x +x were does it stop, who receives what (as far as benefits), and etc.

 

[Namira Fang]

I imagine it would mean much the same as it did when they allowed inter-racial marriage. To me this is not a big issue at all. In fact it's a non issue. Never minding the fact that I do believe gays should have the right to be married, even if I didn't, politically I don't care one iota what a person does on their own in their own pursuit of happiness. As long as it isn't infringing on my own pursuit then live and let live.

 

[First]

I don't have a problem with polygamy assuming consenting adults. Nor will most people once they realize no one really wants to be in a polygamous relationship.

Next?

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that polygamy is fraught with difficult social issues and a number of potential abuses and that's why it's illegal and should stay that way. This is a bias we have put in the law from bad experience. It is perfectly legal and rational to have such a law because the reasons to oppose it are rational and logically based on past events. It does not discriminate for irrational or illegal reasons such as gender, religion, or race. Folk who oppose same sex marriage do so for irrational and illegal reasons and will bring no rational reasons for their opinions to the table.

You can't ride on some Disney rides if you are too short. Discrimination, but there it is.

 

[Slew Foot]

I dont see why polygamy is illegal. No one with a brain wants more than one wife, heck, one is pretty much too many as it is.

 

[nehalem256]

I imagine it would mean much the same as it did when they allowed inter-racial marriage. To me this is not a big issue at all. In fact it's a non issue. Never minding the fact that I do believe gays should have the right to be married, even if I didn't, politically I don't care one iota what a person does on their own in their own pursuit of happiness. As long as it isn't infringing on my own pursuit then live and let live.

This is an argument against all marriage. Not in favor of same-sex marriage.

The whole point of marriage is that society does care about your relationship. And therefore grants it a special privileged status.

 

[monovillage]

There should be no governmental benefit or penalty for being married. Every citizen whether they are married or not should be treated exactly the same. The should be no laws preventing gay and lesbian marriage or from preventing multiple partners to enter into a marriage.
It's the 21st century, times change.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Polygamy has had a bad habit of grabbing under age women for be part of the family; some by force, other by arrangements.

People complain about arranged marriages happening over in Asia and Africa.

Polygamy has similar traits

 

[Moonbeam]

There should be no governmental benefit or penalty for being married. Every citizen whether they are married or not should be treated exactly the same. The should be no laws preventing gay and lesbian marriage or from preventing multiple partners to enter into a marriage.
It's the 21st century, times change.

Fucking liberals. No sense of morality.

 

[nehalem256]

There should be no governmental benefit or penalty for being married. Every citizen whether they are married or not should be treated exactly the same. The should be no laws preventing gay and lesbian marriage or from preventing multiple partners to enter into a marriage.
It's the 21st century, times change.

Isn't a clearer way of putting it is that from the perspective of the government marriage doesn't exist?

 

[First]

There are still tarded people who believe government should stay out of marriage? lol. As if people are going to hire lawyers and draft iron-clad contracts on their own en masse. I see no no possible way there are community property disputes when marriage is moved from public to private [sarcasm].

 

[nehalem256]

There are still tarded people who believe government should stay out of marriage? lol. As if people are going to hire lawyers and draft iron-clad contracts on their own en masse. I see no no possible way there are community property disputes when marriage is moved from public to private [sarcasm].

Because clearly there are no disputes now :hmm:

 

[thecoolnessrune]

As others have stated, remove Marriage as a government process, and remove all benefits associated with it (simply leave it as a provision for willing personal possessions and of course claiming of offspring).

From there, simply have civil unions that allow anyone under the sun to get unionized in any number or gender combination.

It's fair, its equal, there's no "religious" side to get tied up in knots over, and unless you're retarded it adds no new complications while removing several that currently exist.

 

[nehalem256]

As others have stated, remove Marriage as a government process, and remove all benefits associated with it (simply leave it as a provision for willing personal possessions and of course claiming of offspring).

From there, simply have civil unions that allow anyone under the sun to get unionized in any number or gender combination.

So are you transferring the benefits of marriage to civil unions? Or are creating a new type of union that also has no benefits attached to it?

And why should the government go getting involved in people's relationships?

 

[Smoblikat]

Man + women = benefits.
anything else = 100% legal with no benefits.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

There really are no benefits - the main benefit the Fed Govt provides to married people is the ability for SSI benefits to be transferred to a spouse or child if they die. You are also able to claim your spouses income as your own benefit provided you were married for 10yrs. I have no problem with this in a two party relationship as those benefits would have been transferred if they were MF relationship anyway.

There are no tax breaks for being married.

If being gay is considered an alternative lifestyle to the majority of Americans - roughly 3% of the population identifies themselves as gay - and that is a huge minority - why not give marriage rights to triads or polygamists.

Cap the benefits - that is all that needs to be done. Not sure how 1-working persons SSI benefit gets split between 6-poly wives - but perhaps only the first wife gets benefits.

Medical & Dental - 1 Spouse only. The kids is a much more difficult issue as the Husband can claim them all as he is the father, but marriage has no effect on childrens benefits anyway.
And if Allen Iverson can have 8-children by 5 women, then why cant the polygamist?

Its a slippery slope for sure -

I agree that the Govt should get out of the marriage business - but they are in the retirement and health care business which they tie to marriage so they are in the marriage business by default.

 

[thraashman]

There should be no governmental benefit or penalty for being married. Every citizen whether they are married or not should be treated exactly the same. The should be no laws preventing gay and lesbian marriage or from preventing multiple partners to enter into a marriage.
It's the 21st century, times change.

Well even if you don't give privileges such as tax benefits, there are still some that make too much sense to remove. Such as being automatically next of kin, being allowed to make end of life and medical decisions, and even community property laws where when one partner dies the other isn't all of a sudden on the hook for inheritance taxes.

 

[Texashiker]

There really are no benefits - the main benefit the Fed Govt provides to married people is the ability for SSI benefits to be transferred to a spouse or child if they die.

One of the main reasons why Europe developed a system to register marriages in the middle ages was to ensure the transfer of property.

Several other cultures had marriages, such as the Romans. The idea of marriage has been around for several thousand years, and before Christianity was ever thought of.

Registering a marriage with the government ensured there was a equal division of community property during a divorce. Before having to register your marriage, no your honor, we were not married when I bought that 10 acres. I paid for that land out of my money.

 

[nehalem256]

Well even if you don't give privileges such as tax benefits, there are still some that make too much sense to remove. Such as being automatically next of kin, being allowed to make end of life and medical decisions,

Which is largely only relevant if marriage is a permanent relationship. Not the "divorce because I feel like it" relationship.

and even community property laws where when one partner dies the other isn't all of a sudden on the hook for inheritance taxes.

Why should you get to inherit someone's property without paying taxes?

 

[Dr. Detroit]

One of the main reasons why Europe developed a system to register marriages in the middle ages was to ensure the transfer of property.

Several other cultures had marriages, such as the Romans. The idea of marriage has been around for several thousand years, and before Christianity was ever thought of.

Registering a marriage with the government ensured there was a equal division of community property during a divorce. Before having to register your marriage, no your honor, we were not married when I bought that 10 acres. I paid for that land out of my money.

Back in the middle ages we didn't have courts of law to decide on these issues and woman had no rights. We also have sites like Legalzoom where you can pay a few hundred bucks and have all of your rights recorded.

Aside from the biblical hedonistic behavior that people object to - the monetary benefits from the Feds are tiny and should not factor into the argument against gay marriage or alternative marriages.

 

[monovillage]

Isn't a clearer way of putting it is that from the perspective of the government marriage doesn't exist?

There are always legal and contractual obligations that come along with every partnership. They just need to be clear cut and open, really no different then they are now. There should be no big tax benefits for being married and no big tax penalties for being single. In terms of early or arranged marriage those are already handled by existing law, all the government has to do is enforce the laws already on the books. The religious area of marriage will stay exactly the same, but it will only be a concern for the people involved and the religion they belong to.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Man + women = benefits.
anything else = 100% legal with no benefits.

you forgot man + man and woman +woman = benefits.....anything else no!!

 

[stlc8tr]

There really are no benefits - the main benefit the Fed Govt provides to married people is the ability for SSI benefits to be transferred to a spouse or child if they die. You are also able to claim your spouses income as your own benefit provided you were married for 10yrs. I have no problem with this in a two party relationship as those benefits would have been transferred if they were MF relationship anyway.

There are no tax breaks for being married.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

"We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges."

As far as tax breaks for being married, that really depends on the incomes of the partners. Last I heard, more folks got the "marriage bonus" than the "marriage penalty".

Here's a calculator:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/marriagepenaltycalculator.cfm

(And yes, it's weird that the link is "marriagepenaltycalculator.cfm" instead of simply "marriagecalculator.cfm")

 

[Texashiker]

Polygamy has had a bad habit of grabbing under age women for be part of the family; some by force, other by arrangements.

People complain about arranged marriages happening over in Asia and Africa.

Polygamy has similar traits

Lets take the example of sister wives. It is one man, 4 wives and lots of children.

Since polygamy is illegal, the husband is only legally married to one of the women. What about the property, the children, health insurance,,,,.