USSC allows Mass Supreme court ruling to stand

[EagleKeeper]

Link

Seperate but equal is not legal.

 

[ForThePeople]

Excellent. As W likes to say "freedom is on the march!" I'm glad that silly little state referendums cannot override the rights of citizens, at least as long as the Constitution is still respected. Didn't work with segregation (despite its popular appeal) and it won't work with gay marriage - equal before the law means equal before the law. This is what is great about the land of the free - our history of granting equal rights to ever increasing sets of minorities (first it was blacks, then women, now gays).

 

[shrumpage]

sooo can any restrictions or requirements be placed on marriage?

 

[imported_tss4]

Good for them. Guess the conservatives will get to see whether gay marriage leads to all the social ills they claim.

 

[Abraxas]

Good.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
sooo can any restrictions or requirements be placed on marriage?

Yes, the same that there has always been. There must be consent of both parties (and that must be a meaningful and informed consent), the two parties cannot be related by close blood (thus no incest), you can only have 1 legal marriage at a time (no bigamy or polygamy), etc.

All of the usual restrictions. What is important to note is that each of these restrictions serve an actual purpose (in legalese a compelling state interest).

Basically the only difference is that now any 2 people, regardless of gender, can marry one another. Or more simply an American citizen has the right to marry the person whom he or she loves.

Land of the Free!

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: shrumpage
sooo can any restrictions or requirements be placed on marriage?

Yes, the same that there has always been. There must be consent of both parties (and that must be a meaningful and informed consent), the two parties cannot be related by close blood (thus no incest), you can only have 1 legal marriage at a time (no bigamy or polygamy), etc.

All of the usual restrictions. What is important to note is that each of these restrictions serve an actual purpose (in legalese a compelling state interest).

Basically the only difference is that now any 2 people, regardless of gender, can marry one another. Or more simply an American citizen has the right to marry the person whom he or she loves.

Land of the Free!

With of couse the exceptions that you listed above.

 

[piasabird]

Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

The problem with polygamy is that in the form it is currently practiced, mainly by fundamentalist Mormons, it has a predatory nature. It consists of depriving girls of education beyond the 8th grade, betrothing them as young teens, statuatory rape, sometimes wierd incestous relationships (ie a mother and daughter are both the wives of the same man), and otherwise harmful effects to an easily identified victim (the child-bride in question).

Polygamy is outlawed in Utah as a child protection measure. This is not at all similar to gay marriage - who is the victim when two consenting adults wish to marry?

So there really isn't a good test case for polygamy. It's not that common at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: piasabird
Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

The problem with polygamy is that in the form it is currently practiced, mainly by fundamentalist Mormons, it has a predatory nature. It consists of depriving girls of education beyond the 8th grade, betrothing them as young teens, statuatory rape, sometimes wierd incestous relationships (ie a mother and daughter are both the wives of the same man), and otherwise harmful effects to an easily identified victim (the child-bride in question).

Polygamy is outlawed in Utah as a child protection measure. This is not at all similar to gay marriage - who is the victim when two consenting adults wish to marry?

So there really isn't a good test case for polygamy. It's not that common at all.

So you'd be fine with consentual "legal age" polygamy? Heck, if people want to marry - let em, right?

CsG

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: piasabird
Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

The problem with polygamy is that in the form it is currently practiced, mainly by fundamentalist Mormons, it has a predatory nature. It consists of depriving girls of education beyond the 8th grade, betrothing them as young teens, statuatory rape, sometimes wierd incestous relationships (ie a mother and daughter are both the wives of the same man), and otherwise harmful effects to an easily identified victim (the child-bride in question).

Polygamy is outlawed in Utah as a child protection measure. This is not at all similar to gay marriage - who is the victim when two consenting adults wish to marry?

So there really isn't a good test case for polygamy. It's not that common at all.

So you'd be fine with consentual "legal age" polygamy? Heck, if people want to marry - let em, right?

CsG

Yep

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

They should say that it is illegal because it wouldn't allow a wife to marry as many men as she wished.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: piasabird
Next is plural marriage!

If Utah passes a law saying you can marry more than one wife, I wonder what the Supreme Court would do?

They should say that it is illegal because it wouldn't allow a wife to marry as many men as she wished.

Adding a woman can marry as many men as she wished, would take care of that.

 

[glenn1]

Seperate but equal is not legal.

Perhaps, but since the USSC declined without comment to hear the case we'll never know if that's their reasoning or not. It could have just as easily been based on federalism principles or something else. No matter what it was the proper decision for them to make.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

:thumbsup:

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So you'd be fine with consentual "legal age" polygamy? Heck, if people want to marry - let em, right?
CsG

No, and I can show why. This will be very complicated and mathematical so I suggest you skip it if that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you.

Let's look at polygamy from a different perspective. Let's ignore the legal arguments and focus only on what I would call the ideal case: people who are in love and want to marry one another.

So for 2 people we put the requirement that two are in love with each other and wish to marry. So Person A consents, as does Person B, and we validate the marriage. We will call this "consent" and see that it takes 1, namely between A and B.

Now consider 3 people; A, B, and C. Person A must consent to both B and C, B to A and C, C to B and A. That is a total of 3 consents. Remember our initial condition that they are madly in love and wish to marry.

How likely do you find it that all 3 are equally in love with each other? I don't think it is rare for a person to be in love with 2 people at the same time but it is very rare for those 2 people to also love each other.

Here is the inherent problem: with each new person you add you increase this little impropability.

So for 4 people you need 6 consents: A, B, C, D form a square and the diagonals.

5 people need 10 consents: an outer pentagram and an inner star.

Really, how likely is it that 5 people really and truly all equally love each other?

So the idea of large polygamous marriages based on love become untenable as you add more and more people because the idea of all of the people being in love with each other is very improbable.

At this point you should be saying "but I have heard about marriages with 5 or more people." Which is true, they exist, but we should take note of how they exist.

These marriages are undoubtably structured in a certain way, namely that of the fundamentalist Mormons - one man and a harem of women. There is a power structure there with the man at the top. (It would work the same if it was a woman with many husbands, what is important is the power structure). In this situation the women aren't equal partners and do not equally love each other - they are only bonded to the man. Our earlier square and pentagrams become little more than a wheel with spokes where the women are not, in fact, married to the other women by love.

These cases look more like some kind of parallel marriage with one man and many wives than they do a meaningful multi-partnered marriage.

And now what happens when you add another partner, a wife? Well she would come into a pre-existing power structure where the man is at the top; and as it really happens, the other wives form a hierarchy of power with her at the bottom rung.

She is bargaining from an inferior position, and it is a little coercive. It strains the idea of a free, meaningful consent.

In this way polygamy is predatory. It is not the coming together of many people equally in love but rather the establishment of a hierarchal power structure.

That is why I am against it in principle. But like I said I would be hard pressed to deny 3 people a marriage if they were all equally in love, I just doubt that happens very often (and I doubt 4 people has ever happened).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So you'd be fine with consentual "legal age" polygamy? Heck, if people want to marry - let em, right?
CsG

No, and I can show why. This will be very complicated and mathematical so I suggest you skip it if that kind of thing doesn't appeal to you.

Let's look at polygamy from a different perspective. Let's ignore the legal arguments and focus only on what I would call the ideal case: people who are in love and want to marry one another.

So for 2 people we put the requirement that two are in love with each other and wish to marry. So Person A consents, as does Person B, and we validate the marriage. We will call this "consent" and see that it takes 1, namely between A and B.

Now consider 3 people; A, B, and C. Person A must consent to both B and C, B to A and C, C to B and A. That is a total of 3 consents. Remember our initial condition that they are madly in love and wish to marry.

How likely do you find it that all 3 are equally in love with each other? I don't think it is rare for a person to be in love with 2 people at the same time but it is very rare for those 2 people to also love each other.

Here is the inherent problem: with each new person you add you increase this little impropability.

So for 4 people you need 6 consents: A, B, C, D form a square and the diagonals.

5 people need 10 consents: an outer pentagram and an inner star.

Really, how likely is it that 5 people really and truly all equally love each other?

So the idea of large polygamous marriages based on love become untenable as you add more and more people because the idea of all of the people being in love with each other is very improbable.

At this point you should be saying "but I have heard about marriages with 5 or more people." Which is true, they exist, but we should take note of how they exist.

These marriages are undoubtably structured in a certain way, namely that of the fundamentalist Mormons - one man and a harem of women. There is a power structure there with the man at the top. (It would work the same if it was a woman with many husbands, what is important is the power structure). In this situation the women aren't equal partners and do not equally love each other - they are only bonded to the man. Our earlier square and pentagrams become little more than a wheel with spokes where the women are not, in fact, married to the other women by love.

These cases look more like some kind of parallel marriage with one man and many wives than they do a meaningful multi-partnered marriage.

And now what happens when you add another partner, a wife? Well she would come into a pre-existing power structure where the man is at the top; and as it really happens, the other wives form a hierarchy of power with her at the bottom rung.

She is bargaining from an inferior position, and it is a little coercive. It strains the idea of a free, meaningful consent.

In this way polygamy is predatory. It is not the coming together of many people equally in love but rather the establishment of a hierarchal power structure.

That is why I am against it in principle. But like I said I would be hard pressed to deny 3 people a marriage if they were all equally in love, I just doubt that happens very often (and I doubt 4 people has ever happened).

What are the chances that 2 people are equally in love? Hmmm...

How can you be against it in principle when you would be "hard pressed to deny" it? WTF? Do you have any clue what "principle" means? You meant to say you are against it because of the practicality of it - not the principle.
You see, if you want to play the "love" card - then it opens up a huge door. Why just leave it to 2? Aren't you discriminating against those who are in love? Who made you the arbiter of how many people can be included in a "marriage"?

Ofcourse I'm being sarcastic and all that but the point still stands. You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage".

CsG

 

[Jhhnn]

From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What are the chances that 2 people are equally in love? Hmmm...

How can you be against it in principle when you would be "hard pressed to deny" it? WTF? Do you have any clue what "principle" means? You meant to say you are against it because of the practicality of it - not the principle.
You see, if you want to play the "love" card - then it opens up a huge door. Why just leave it to 2? Aren't you discriminating against those who are in love? Who made you the arbiter of how many people can be included in a "marriage"?

Ofcourse I'm being sarcastic and all that but the point still stands. You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage".

CsG

You missed the entire point of my post. It went completely over your read.

It was that polygamy doesn't work the same way that a two person marriage does - in a two person marriage there is an expectation of a partnership between the two and it entered into by way of a meaningful consent.

Polygamous marriages are predatory in nature - there is no equal partnership; they inevitably become hierarchical power structures (therefore not equal) and the junior partner, namely the newest addition, bargains from a position of lower power (which is a naturally coercive position to be in, which in turn makes one question whether there could have been a meaningful and informed consent ).

Polygamous marriages are about power and not love and are predatory. I oppose these on principle - as does our society and our laws - and think they are wrong.

In our society you must consent to be married and thus arranged marriages and predatory marriages are rightfully outlawed.

What I meant at the end still stands - show me a polygamous couple based on love and free from power structures or predatory practices and I will champion their right to marry. These people just don't exist.

I object to the nature of the relationship and not the number of people involved.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

It doesn't matter, the Bush Regime will ram through Congress the Constitutional Ammendment.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

It doesn't matter, the Bush Regime will ram through Congress the Constitutional Ammendment.

Do not think so.

A Consititional ammendment must pass the states muster as well as Congress. Congress socially is not as hard-charging as to changing the Constitution as Bush appears. Bush was also playing to his radial base. by the time an ammendment worked its way through the system, Bush will have been long gone and maybe(not likely) the Dems will have smartened up and regained some leverage in either Congress or the WhiteHouse.

Also, if it conlficts with the Constitution, it would be invalid.

 

[Baltazar325]

The restriction on marriage is governed by the Zablocki cas. Basically if the ability to marry is completly impeded the the court will look at the law with what amounts to strict scrutiny, although its a little less, and the state must have a signifigant state interest in the law for it to stand. If the law merely delays the right to get married, than it's viewed under rational basis.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

It doesn't matter, the Bush Regime will ram through Congress the Constitutional Ammendment.

I don't think so. They were nowhere near it last time, and although they have picked up a few seats, this won't be enough to make a difference. Then they will never get the urban states to go along, either. Fortunately, the constitution is strong enough to withstand this particular challenge. (Unfortunately, the same holds for fixing the electoral college.)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: daveshel (Unfortunately, the same holds for fixing the electoral college.)

For any fixing of the EC, the states must have a vested interest. The best for the EC and to stay in line with the original frameers intent would be for each state to have proportional EC representation instead of a winner-take-all. But this is up to each state.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

It doesn't matter, the Bush Regime will ram through Congress the Constitutional Ammendment.

Do not think so.

A Consititional ammendment must pass the states muster as well as Congress. Congress socially is not as hard-charging as to changing the Constitution as Bush appears. Bush was also playing to his radial base. by the time an ammendment worked its way through the system, Bush will have been long gone and maybe(not likely) the Dems will have smartened up and regained some leverage in either Congress or the WhiteHouse.

Also, if it conlficts with the Constitution, it would be invalid.

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From CsG-

"You'll have to allow for other types of relationships to be "marriages" if you allow homosexual "marriage". "

That's not true at all, and I'm sure you're well aware of it. So long as marriage is legally defined as "two people", which seems likely, your observation and argument are pure FUD. The point stands on thin air and rhetorical hyperbole...

It doesn't matter, the Bush Regime will ram through Congress the Constitutional Ammendment.

I don't think so. They were nowhere near it last time, and although they have picked up a few seats, this won't be enough to make a difference. Then they will never get the urban states to go along, either. Fortunately, the constitution is strong enough to withstand this particular challenge. (Unfortunately, the same holds for fixing the electoral college.)

We shall see, so far everything the Bush Regime says it will do they have done especially made up reason for a War. Have to bookmark this to see in 3 years after the Ammendment is passed on why you guys felt it couldn't be done.