One step closer: Marriage Equality


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

pres man wrote:
It is starting.

... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is starting.
... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.

Sounds a lot like Baker v. Nelson. And we saw that ultimately didn't stop the same-sex marriage movement. So I would not be so confident that it will be "finished" anytime soon. Sure there will be lots of loses along the way, but ultimately the fundamental rights of marriage, recognition, and respect can not be oppressed forever. Obergefell v. Hodges just proved that.

EDIT: But more accurately, the current era of plural marriage rights actually began when part of Utah's cohabitation law was found unconstitutional. This is more akin to when the SCOTUS found sodomy laws unconstitutional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is starting.
... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.
Sounds a lot like Baker v. Nelson.

Or like a million other cases that were lost and weren't revisited later.

One key issue is that there are genuine public policy reasons that can be cited in favor of a ban on polygamy. Just looking at one paper, there's evidence suggesting that monogamy has "lower levels of inherent social problems" and that "institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large."

Specifically, "institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment." "Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds."

They were able to tie these improvements in society directly to the suppression of polygamous marriage in Mormon communities between 1830 and 1890, so this isn't just an abstraction from a study of distant, primitive, islanders.

This kind of evidence provides strong support to a public policy argument against polygamy in a way that was lacking when discussing same-sex marriage. As I pointed out earlier, it's difficult to find a non-religious based argument against same-sex marriage,.... but the courts have no issue with accepting "lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, [and] homicide" as desirable public policy goals.


pres man wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is starting.
... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.

Sounds a lot like Baker v. Nelson. And we saw that ultimately didn't stop the same-sex marriage movement. So I would not be so confident that it will be "finished" anytime soon. Sure there will be lots of loses along the way, but ultimately the fundamental rights of marriage, recognition, and respect can not be oppressed forever. Obergefell v. Hodges just proved that.

EDIT: But more accurately, the current era of plural marriage rights actually began when part of Utah's cohabitation law was found unconstitutional. This is more akin to when the SCOTUS found sodomy laws unconstitutional.

It's possible. At this point, as I've said before, regardless of the legal theory involved, the public support isn't there. Win the public support and the legal theory will follow.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is starting.
... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.

Sounds a lot like Baker v. Nelson. And we saw that ultimately didn't stop the same-sex marriage movement. So I would not be so confident that it will be "finished" anytime soon. Sure there will be lots of loses along the way, but ultimately the fundamental rights of marriage, recognition, and respect can not be oppressed forever. Obergefell v. Hodges just proved that.

EDIT: But more accurately, the current era of plural marriage rights actually began when part of Utah's cohabitation law was found unconstitutional. This is more akin to when the SCOTUS found sodomy laws unconstitutional.

It's possible. At this point, as I've said before, regardless of the legal theory involved, the public support isn't there. Win the public support and the legal theory will follow.

If they follow the same-sex marriage movement, they will first have to get all of the laws prosecuting these relationships to be deemed unconstitutional. You'll hear a lot of, "We don't need government recognition, we just don't want to be prosecuted for living our lives how we want." Once that is done, then they will start looking at getting some marriage type rights for the non-officially married "spouses". With a final call for full marriage rights. It certainly take awhile to get all of this done, but not nearly as long as it took for same-sex marriage, since the road has already been plowed. The public has already accepted that consenting adults should be able to form relationships without government interference.

@Orfamay Quest: Child welfare is irrelevant to the issue since it has been proven that marriage isn't about children. That argument has been dismissed, thus you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


I admit, in my younger days I was all about kicking government out of the whole marriage business. However we really are several hundred years (if not longer) too late to keep marriages separate from government civil unions. There are just too many legal privileges and rules bound up with the definition of marriage to change at this point.

As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:


@Orfamay Quest: Child welfare is irrelevant to the issue since it has been proven that marriage isn't about children.

Er,.... no. Child welfare is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex vs. opposite-sex marriage, but not to the issue of supporting plural marriage, and part of the reason for that is that extensive studies have shown that children are not harmed by being around same-sex marriages, or even in families containing same-sex couples.

Child welfare is very important as a public policy consideration. One of the findings presented in the paper I cited is that polygamy is associated with higher levels of violent crime, including crimes against children If that finding stands, it will be difficult (to the point of impossible) to get a court to agree that preventing violent crimes against children is not a suitable matter for the state to get involved in.

* "Attorneys for Montana, you are opposed to polygamy on public policy grounds?"
* "That's right, Your Honor. Among other things, we are trying to prevent violent crime against children."
* "I see. Attorneys for Plaintiffs?"
* "Your Honor, we stipulate that research has shown that polygamy is associated with a substantial increase in violent crimes, including homicide. But we contend that the prevention of homicide is not a suitable subject for State policy. The State has no interest in crime prevention or public safety."
* "Is that seriously your argument, Counselor?"
* "Yes, it is, Your Honor."
* "All right. Case is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is fined $1000 for showing up. Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit."

The Exchange

MMCJawa wrote:

I admit, in my younger days I was all about kicking government out of the whole marriage business. However we really are several hundred years (if not longer) too late to keep marriages separate from government civil unions. There are just too many legal privileges and rules bound up with the definition of marriage to change at this point.

As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...

I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.


Lord Snow wrote:


I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

The big one is that same-sex marriage is harmless to society. This has been a point hotly in dispute for a decade or more, but the bulk of the science confirms it. Same-sex couples do not appear to be any worse at child-rearing than opposite sex couples, nor does same-sex marriage appear to create any tangible negative externalities.

The evidence that is available does not say the same thing about polygamy; as I cited above, it's associated with "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud" as well as "child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict." It also results in lower levels of "long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment." So, at least according to the best findings I've been able to dig up, polygamy is strongly associated with some pretty negative effects on society.

Now, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that one swallow does not make a summer and that further research may refine or even refute what we believe we know today. But courts need to decide based on what the current science is today, not on what may or may not be found at some distant point in the future.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

The big one is that same-sex marriage is harmless to society. This has been a point hotly in dispute for a decade or more, but the bulk of the science confirms it. Same-sex couples do not appear to be any worse at child-rearing than opposite sex couples, nor does same-sex marriage appear to create any tangible negative externalities.

The evidence that is available does not say the same thing about polygamy; as I cited above, it's associated with "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud" as well as "child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict." It also results in lower levels of "long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment." So, at least according to the best findings I've been able to dig up, polygamy is strongly associated with some pretty negative effects on society.

Now, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that one swallow does not make a summer and that further research may refine or even refute what we believe we know today. But courts need to decide based on what the current science is today, not on what may or may not be found at some distant point in the future.

I don't consider this a legitimate argument. Seems like a pretty standard mix up between cause-effect relationships and simple correlation.


Lord Snow wrote:


I don't consider this a legitimate argument. Seems like a pretty standard mix up between cause-effect relationships and simple correlation.

You might want to read the paper. They were able to show that the negative effects disappeared as the Mormons suppressed polygamy over the period from 1830-90, which supports the causal hypothesis.

But beyond that, correlation is a perfectly acceptable reason (in law) to support a public policy. Legal decisions are made based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you wish you had. If the polygamists wanted to to prevail, they'd have to show positive (empirical) evidence that polygamy was, in fact, harmless.

To my knowledge, that evidence is not available to be shown.


pres man wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
pres man wrote:
It is starting.
... and in a week, it will be finishing. The local clerk will deny the application, Mr. Collier will sue and lose at the first round, and continue to lose for as far as he can push the appeal.

Sounds a lot like Baker v. Nelson. And we saw that ultimately didn't stop the same-sex marriage movement. So I would not be so confident that it will be "finished" anytime soon. Sure there will be lots of loses along the way, but ultimately the fundamental rights of marriage, recognition, and respect can not be oppressed forever. Obergefell v. Hodges just proved that.

EDIT: But more accurately, the current era of plural marriage rights actually began when part of Utah's cohabitation law was found unconstitutional. This is more akin to when the SCOTUS found sodomy laws unconstitutional.

It's possible. At this point, as I've said before, regardless of the legal theory involved, the public support isn't there. Win the public support and the legal theory will follow.

If they follow the same-sex marriage movement, they will first have to get all of the laws prosecuting these relationships to be deemed unconstitutional. You'll hear a lot of, "We don't need government recognition, we just don't want to be prosecuted for living our lives how we want." Once that is done, then they will start looking at getting some marriage type rights for the non-officially married "spouses". With a final call for full marriage rights. It certainly take awhile to get all of this done, but not nearly as long as it took for same-sex marriage, since the road has already been plowed. The public has already accepted that consenting adults should be able to form relationships without government interference.

If they follow the gay rights movement, they will spend decades becoming more and more accepted by the mainstream and building support for such acceptance. That will inevitably be followed by legal recognition of such acceptance.

You're getting it backwards by focusing on the legal steps and changes and ignoring the far more important public opinion. Also by focusing only on marriage. There is and was no "same-sex marriage" movement. There is a "gay/LGBTQ rights" movement, for which same-sex marriage is the latest victory, but for which there were previous victories, which weren't just steps leading to the real marriage equality goal and for which there are still goals to be attained.
Ending DADT was an important victory on it's own and almost completely unrelated to marriage. ENDA is still a goal and again, not directly related to marriage.

Thinking of it as a "same sex marriage movement" may be part of what's leading you astray.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


I don't consider this a legitimate argument. Seems like a pretty standard mix up between cause-effect relationships and simple correlation.

You might want to read the paper. They were able to show that the negative effects disappeared as the Mormons suppressed polygamy over the period from 1830-90, which supports the causal hypothesis.

But beyond that, correlation is a perfectly acceptable reason (in law) to support a public policy. Legal decisions are made based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you wish you had. If the polygamists wanted to to prevail, they'd have to show positive (empirical) evidence that polygamy was, in fact, harmless.

To my knowledge, that evidence is not available to be shown.

the Mormons' version of polygamy is far from the only viable approach to it and is, in fact, entangled with all other sorts of belief systems that complicate things.

You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right? The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless. Even if doing them "wrong" could be harmful. That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.


Lord Snow wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


I don't consider this a legitimate argument. Seems like a pretty standard mix up between cause-effect relationships and simple correlation.

You might want to read the paper. They were able to show that the negative effects disappeared as the Mormons suppressed polygamy over the period from 1830-90, which supports the causal hypothesis.

But beyond that, correlation is a perfectly acceptable reason (in law) to support a public policy. Legal decisions are made based on the evidence you have, not the evidence you wish you had. If the polygamists wanted to to prevail, they'd have to show positive (empirical) evidence that polygamy was, in fact, harmless.

To my knowledge, that evidence is not available to be shown.

the Mormons' version of polygamy is far from the only viable approach to it and is, in fact, entangled with all other sorts of belief systems that complicate things.

You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right? The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless. Even if doing them "wrong" could be harmful. That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.

But then we get into much more complicated arguments about which versions and variations of polygamy are legal.


pres man wrote:

It is starting.

As others have touched on, the reason why the so called "marriage equality" advocates do not wish to show support for plural marriage is due to the nature of the majority of the people that live in these relationships. The majority of these relationships are religious in nature (most often fundamental Mormons or Muslims).

Due to the rocky relationship between marriage equality advocates and religious individuals, it should not be any surprise that marriage equality advocates are not willing to fight for a group of religious individuals' marriage rights.

I wonder if this is actually true. I know a good 40+ people in long term poly relationships, many of whom would probably like to be married to multiple partners. The vast majority of them are atheists or some eclectic new age mix. One problem with discussing polygamy is that it takes drastically different shapes within different communities.


Lord Snow wrote:


the Mormons' version of polygamy is far from the only viable approach to it and is, in fact, entangled with all other sorts of belief systems that complicate things.

Granted.

Quote:


You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right?

"Assumes facts not in evidence." One interpretation of the paper I cited is that it leads to increased homicide rates. I'd say homicide is wrong in principle.

Quote:
The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless.

And it does. But this argument shifts the burden of demonstration on to the proponents of polygamy. The state of Montana can, if necessary, produce testifying experts backed up by peer-reviewed journal articles showing that, in the opinions of the relevant experts, polygamy is harmful.

It will take more than a suggestion that the judge should "agree in principle" to show that that evidence should be disregarded.

If you want to say, for example, that Mormon-style polygamy is harmful, but that [random other style] is not.... well, that's an argument that could (in principle) be made, but you'd need some strong empirical evidence to back up that separation. There's no reason for a judge (or the public) to accept that assertion based solely on your say-so.

Where are the studies of the differential harm to society of different types of polygamy? For that matter, where's the accepted taxonomy of polygamy, and which are the ones you choose to exclude?

Quote:
That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.

But the State has no Constitutional problem with outlawing swimming if it so chooses.


Lord Snow wrote:
You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right? The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless. Even if doing them "wrong" could be harmful. That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.

In principle, no. It's not something I feel is reasonable to object to. Practical implications in a range of legal areas need working out before, in practice, it comes about. Tax, inheritance, divorce, and a range of others matters are currently affected by marital status of the parties involved and they're currently done so on the principle that a marriage involves two people. This isn't affected by same-sex marriage, since that's between two people. It is affected by the variety of group marriage possibilities that exist, and rather than go straight to, "Group marriages are allowed now!" I'd rather see some effort made to determine the legal consequences before rather than after they take effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, in New Jersey you aren't allowed to pump your own gas.

A state could totally ban swimming as long as the ban wasn't discriminatory.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

The big one is that same-sex marriage is harmless to society. This has been a point hotly in dispute for a decade or more, but the bulk of the science confirms it. Same-sex couples do not appear to be any worse at child-rearing than opposite sex couples, nor does same-sex marriage appear to create any tangible negative externalities.

The evidence that is available does not say the same thing about polygamy; as I cited above, it's associated with "significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud" as well as "child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict." It also results in lower levels of "long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment." So, at least according to the best findings I've been able to dig up, polygamy is strongly associated with some pretty negative effects on society.

Now, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that one swallow does not make a summer and that further research may refine or even refute what we believe we know today. But courts need to decide based on what the current science is today, not on what may or may not be found at some distant point in the future.

Of course, you should look into WHY those stats say that. Not long ago people would ALSO quote studies that showed that children reared by homosexuals were connected to pedophilia, rape, and other negative connotations. In fact, not long ago homosexuality and NAMBLA/pedophilia were connected at the hip as far as some "studies" go.

I find those studies as responsible as the ones that point to polygamy as having significantly higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud.

In truth, children in divorced families with parents who are very angry with each other typically have one of the higher levels of kidnapping, murder, robbery and fraud (though not rape) if one really gets into these things.

If you get biased researchers (and almost all of them ARE in the studies that you would use that condemned the effects on children from polygamy [and in some of those same studies it was also homosexuals...SAME STUDY even) you can find problems with almost anything.

Now there are problems in some of the polygamist communities of which I am very opposed...HOWEVER...to say this item in regards to children is true of every polygamist marriage is to agree with the research that ALSO was anti-homosexuals (perhaps because a LOT of that research was done by the same people...they seem to be against any type of marriage which is not their idea and will show evidence against any of it).

In addition, if it ever gets to a FEDERAL level (as opposed to simply county or state), that has a little less impact on the decision than what is actually the LEGAL recourse.

That was the problem with the Gay Marriage argument (which used all those items you listed above against polygamy) in that one was arguing about the constitutional rights of it, NOT the society effects of it.

I think they will first have to get past the local level if a polygamist marriage wants to get the same rights (and as has been noted, they don't have the support Gay Marriage did, and typically have FAR more extreme discrimination these days than homosexuality or Gay Marriage has in the past decade) unless they get REALLY LUCKY with the judge (Which means it's possible but highly unlikely).

However, the same reasons why Gay Marriage was ruled on by the Supreme Court the way it was, SHOULD also legalize Polygamy. Not that it will...but it should.

And one should note, just like Gay Marriage did NOT legalize things that people tried to associate with it (such as pedophilia based on the same researchers that also have associated a LOT of things with polygamy)...a similar ruling on Polygamy should not either. Hence, Polygamy that DOES have things like you listed associated with it would STILL be illegal anyways.

Most of the objections to Polygamy are also religious rather than anything dealing with constitutional law.

Polygamy has negative connotations, and a lot of things against it that Gay Marriage did not have...I'll admit that...but there is ONE plus and that is that Polygamy of one type has already been in practice legally in the US in large numbers. Serial Polygamy (or Monogamy...however one wants to view it) where one gets divorced and then remarried many times is already being practiced by both genders.

Personally, as I said, I think Polygamy should have been allowed already as I think the biggest reason it's been outlawed in the past and currently are the same reasons Gay Marriage was outlawed (and also homosexuality in the past which was associated the same way with Polygamy).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Of course, you should look into WHY those stats say that. Not long ago people would ALSO quote studies that showed that children reared by homosexuals were connected to pedophilia, rape, and other negative connotations. In fact, not long ago homosexuality and NAMBLA/pedophilia were connected at the hip as far as some "studies" go.

So do better studies. Because if you're going to court and all you have is "but those studies might be biased!" you're going to lose.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Not long ago people would ALSO quote studies that showed that children reared by homosexuals were connected to pedophilia, rape, and other negative connotations.

Wow -- it's almost as if we're able to learn stuff over time! Imagine that!

As soon as all your hypothetical "new, improved" studies showing no statistically-significant societal issues with polygamy are released, then sociologists can compare them with the previous ones already completed, and see if the old understanding has been overturned, or if the new one is trumped-up, or maybe some of each. At that point, you can present the argument you're trying to make. Until then, you're presenting wishful thinking as fact.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
If you get biased researchers (and almost all of them ARE in the studies that you would use that condemned the effects on children from polygamy [and in some of those same studies it was also homosexuals...SAME STUDY even) you can find problems with almost anything.

But despite this, thalidomide, for example, isn't going to be re-approved anytime soon. Funny, that.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Of course, you should look into WHY those stats say that. Not long ago people would ALSO quote studies that showed that children reared by homosexuals were connected to pedophilia, rape, and other negative connotations. In fact, not long ago homosexuality and NAMBLA/pedophilia were connected at the hip as far as some "studies" go.

So do better studies. Because if you're going to court and all you have is "but those studies might be biased!" you're going to lose.

Or simply point out to the same evidence in the homosexual marriage cases where it was pointed out those studies were wrong. The homosexual marriage cases did have further research, and in many cases invalidated the previous studies of which are utilized against polygamy.

If the study has already been invalidated...utilizing it once again is rather stupid.

But, hey, I suppose this is one reason why it would have to get past the local level...and could also be a difference between a jury and a judge. The jury can be convinced of anything using any study...a judge that was non-biased on the other hand probably would observe that such studies were already debunked when the research that connected both homosexuals, pedophilia, and polygamy were found to be in error...

As well as noting...the question isn't about the legality of individuals...but the constitutional right of whether it should be allowed or not.

Trying to address the morality of the marriage is NOT the same as addressing the constitutionality of the marriage...which is one of the big weaknesses of what the Gay Marriage opposition debate was as well as the big flaw of their logic.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
The homosexual marriage cases did have further research, and in many cases invalidated the previous studies of which are utilized against polygamy.

Claiming =/= demonstrating.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


That was the problem with the Gay Marriage argument (which used all those items you listed above against polygamy) in that one was arguing about the constitutional rights of it, NOT the society effects of it.

That's, er,... not how the history actually went.

The reason that it eventually ended up as a 14th Amendment case was because the other arguments against it (such as harm to society) had already been explored in other cases and found to be specious. (E.g., Baskin v. Bogan, 7th Ct.)

Let's start with the case law:

Quote:


“whether embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment or inferred from the Fifth, equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.”

Even a classification that infringes fundamental constitutional rights can be upheld if there's a "compelling state interest" involved -- that's why felons often can't vote. The example given in Baskin was "Does the discrimination, even if based on an immutable characteristic, nevertheless confer an important offsetting benefit on society as a whole? Age is an immutable characteristic, but a rule prohibiting persons over 70 to pilot airliners might reasonably be thought to confer an essential benefit in the form of improved airline safety."

So the argument that was made in Baskin was (among other things) that outlawing same-sex marriage benefitted child welfare. "First up to bat is Indiana, which defends its refusal to allow same-sex marriage on a single ground, namely that government’s sole purpose (or at least Indiana’s sole purpose) in making marriage a legal relation (unlike cohabitation, which is purely contractual) is to enhance child welfare. Notably the state does not argue that recognizing same-sex marriage undermines conventional marriage."

Let me unpack that a bit. The claim that "same-sex marriage undermines conventional marriage" was not made, because it had been previously made (and soundly rejected) in other cases. That dog, to put it in terms familiar to Indiana, won't hunt. However, the claim that "same sex marriage is harmful to child welfare" is, at least, superficially, a reasonable argument and a rational basis. In fact, that's the whole reason this case was heard in the first place.

The same-sex marriage proponents were able to produce masses of evidence showing that same-sex marriage didn't actually accomplish the goal of improving child welfare, and the lawyers for Indiana were forced to agree that same-sex couples can do quite well as child-raisers. `At oral argument the state‘s lawyer was asked whether “Indiana’s law is about successfully raising children,” and since “you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn’t the ban be lifted as to them?” The lawyer answered that “the assumption is that with opposite sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.” In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage.'

So, having heard this case, the 7th Circuit made a determination that `[a]t the very least, “a [discriminatory] law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.” Indiana’s ban flunks this undemanding test." The judges didn't buy that argument, and spent several pages disposing of it in a clear and convincing fashion that could be cited in any subsequent proceeding. That's why it wasn't argued at the SCOTUS, because the lawyers knew it would be a loser, and they fell back on state's rights.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Trying to address the morality of the marriage is NOT the same as addressing the constitutionality of the marriage...which is one of the big weaknesses of what the Gay Marriage opposition debate was as well as the big flaw of their logic.

Yes and no.

Basically the same-sex marriage opposition tactics were sound, they just weren't based on logic or the constitution. Nor, for that matter were the winning tactics of the gay rights side. The tactics of the opposition were based on convincing the public that gays were dangerous and sinful and scary and that you'd be forced to abandon your religion and get gay married and they'd recruit your children and on and on. That was countered largely not by any specific arguments on the other side, but by more and more gay people coming out and just showing by example that all of that was nonsense.
None of that makes good constitutional or legal arguments, but that doesn't really matter. If they'd been able to keep enough of the public convinced, they wouldn't have needed good legal arguments because it never would have gotten that far.
Fundamentally any change like this is a social and politic change. The legal aspect follows that.
If polygamy laws change, that's what has to happen. Studies will help, a little, but following just a legal and scientific strategy is doomed.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Of course, you should look into WHY those stats say that. Not long ago people would ALSO quote studies that showed that children reared by homosexuals were connected to pedophilia, rape, and other negative connotations. In fact, not long ago homosexuality and NAMBLA/pedophilia were connected at the hip as far as some "studies" go.

So do better studies. Because if you're going to court and all you have is "but those studies might be biased!" you're going to lose.

Or simply point out to the same evidence in the homosexual marriage cases where it was pointed out those studies were wrong.

That won't work.

Quote:
The homosexual marriage cases did have further research, and in many cases invalidated the previous studies of which are utilized against polygamy.

And that's the key difference. As far as I know, no one's got the counter-studies. Saying "this study has already been debunked" doesn't count. Show the study that debunks it.

Quote:


As well as noting...the question isn't about the legality of individuals...but the constitutional right of whether it should be allowed or not.

That's easy.

"Whether embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment or inferred from the Fifth, equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."

If there's a rational basis for the classification, then it's constitutional to so classify. It's also constitutional for the government to outlaw swimming.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

But then we get into much more complicated arguments about which versions and variations of polygamy are legal.

Eh, not so much. If all parties are consenting adults it is then a matter of numbers not of variation/version. Just as there are good and bad monogamous marriages, so to will there be good and bad polygamous marriages. It is the nature of human relationships to run the gamut.

But, all that aside, as to the original topic of this thread, I just gotta say the SCOTUS decision was long overdue. It is a definite step forward along the road of equality. Many congrats to those amongst my friends (and to those who are not) who will be able to finally be able to take part in a ceremony so many others take for granted.

EDIT: posted after the other illithid to confuse matters. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
zylphryx wrote:

EDIT: posted after the other illithid to confuse matters. ;)

I was wondering how I managed to post such a well-reasoned piece without remembering it.


zylphryx wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But then we get into much more complicated arguments about which versions and variations of polygamy are legal.

Eh, not so much. If all parties are consenting adults it is then a matter of numbers not of variation/version. Just as there are good and bad monogamous marriages, so to will there be good and bad polygamous marriages. It is the nature of human relationships to run the gamut.

Well, there's a question. Do all parties need to all be married to each other? Or can you have A married to B and B married to C, but not A & C?

It's not about good or bad, but about the increased complexity that comes with more possible combinations.


zylphryx wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But then we get into much more complicated arguments about which versions and variations of polygamy are legal.

Eh, not so much. If all parties are consenting adults it is then a matter of numbers not of variation/version.

The notion of "consent" is problematic in this context. Check the Wikipedia entry for "placement marriage", one of the practices that distinguishes the FLDS from the more mainstream Mormons, and tell me that you're not squicked out at least a little bit:

Quote:

Under the placement marriage system, young members of the FLDS Church are not allowed to court or date before marriage and are discouraged to fall in love until after they are married. They are permitted to become acquainted with one another through the community, church, school, or family ties, but they are not allowed to be more than just friends with anyone until the Priesthood Council arranges a spouse for them.

When a young man, generally around the age of twenty-one, feels ready to be married he approaches the Priesthood Council and then they decide who he will marry. They select a wife for the young man through a process of inspiration and revelation. When a woman feels prepared to be married, around the ages of 16 to 25, she informs her father of her own readiness, and is taken to meet with the prophet to tell him that she is ready to be married. While most women are approved, some are asked to wait for a time. If the prophet agrees to place her, then the future spouse is notified, and a ceremony is performed generally within the week and sometimes immediately. A woman's opinions relative to the selection of her husband are sometimes considered but not always, and she can decide against marrying a man who is selected for her, although this does not happen very frequently.

There were suspicions that Warren Jeffs may have done away with the volunteer feature for young women who didn’t come to him and say they were ready to be married. Underage marriage and marriages between close relatives has apparently been common in the FLDS Church. Arranged marriages of young girls to much older men, whom they may not even know, are not out of the ordinary. It is also common for these men to be relatives who already have wives. One writer believes incest is permitted and considered doctrine in a large number of groups."

It's not an insoluble problem, but it definitely demands very careful statutory construction to make sure that the law matches my understanding of "consent," and not Warren Jeffs'.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But then we get into much more complicated arguments about which versions and variations of polygamy are legal.

Eh, not so much. If all parties are consenting adults it is then a matter of numbers not of variation/version.

The notion of "consent" is problematic in this context. Check the Wikipedia entry for "placement marriage", one of the practices that distinguishes the FLDS from the more mainstream Mormons, and tell me that you're not squicked out at least a little bit:

Quote:

Under the placement marriage system, young members of the FLDS Church are not allowed to court or date before marriage and are discouraged to fall in love until after they are married. They are permitted to become acquainted with one another through the community, church, school, or family ties, but they are not allowed to be more than just friends with anyone until the Priesthood Council arranges a spouse for them.

When a young man, generally around the age of twenty-one, feels ready to be married he approaches the Priesthood Council and then they decide who he will marry. They select a wife for the young man through a process of inspiration and revelation. When a woman feels prepared to be married, around the ages of 16 to 25, she informs her father of her own readiness, and is taken to meet with the prophet to tell him that she is ready to be married. While most women are approved, some are asked to wait for a time. If the prophet agrees to place her, then the future spouse is notified, and a ceremony is performed generally within the week and sometimes immediately. A woman's opinions relative to the selection of her husband are sometimes considered but not always, and she can decide against marrying a man who is selected for her, although this does not happen very frequently.

There were suspicions that Warren Jeffs may have done away with the volunteer feature for young women who didn’t come

...

Of course, there is in principle no reason monogamous marriages have to be voluntary either. In fact, throughout history arranged marriages are probably closer to the norm than otherwise. Nor for that matter were marriages of young girls to much older men, whom they may not even know.

Arguably there are more incentives for such in a polygamous system. OTOH, bringing the existing informal polygamous cultures into legalized marriages would bring more scrutiny and possibly make it harder to abuse.


thejeff wrote:
Arguably there are more incentives for such in a polygamous system. OTOH, bringing the existing informal polygamous cultures into legalized marriages would bring more scrutiny and possibly make it harder to abuse.

... and since there's no clear-cut answer and rational arguments on both sides, the courts are required to support the government's stated policy. Which means no polygamy until the legislature acts.


Lord Snow wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...
I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

Well in the case of legalizing gay marriage, it is an example of one group being denied a privilege that is legally always available for another. I.e. we grant straight couples the rights to marry (and all the associated benefits), but do not do the same for gay couples.

In contrast...no one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry multiple partners. You are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another. So I think its a lot harder to find a legal ground to dig in on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...
I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

Well in the case of legalizing gay marriage, it is an example of one group being denied a privilege that is legally always available for another. I.e. we grant straight couples the rights to marry (and all the associated benefits), but do not do the same for gay couples.

In contrast...no one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry multiple partners. You are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another. So I think its a lot harder to find a legal ground to dig in on.

That comes perilously close to a (specious) argument used against gay marriage.

"No one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry someone of the same sex; you are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another."

Denying people who aren't interested in polygamy the ability to marry multiple partners isn't the same as denying people who are interested in it. Similarly, a law against serving kosher food is facially neutral because it applies both to Jews and to Gentiles.... except no one would be deceived for an instant.


Lord Snow wrote:


the Mormons' version of polygamy is far from the only viable approach to it and is, in fact, entangled with all other sorts of belief systems that complicate things.

You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right? The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless. Even if doing them "wrong" could be harmful. That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.

Here in the states...the largest groups that supports legalization of polygamy are the various Mormon splinter groups. So In affect it is really about Mormon (and also muslim) polygamy, since those are the groups with the largest numbers of polygamous proponents in the states.

I know there are polyamorous relationships composed of multiple men/women, where each person has an equal say in the relationship and feelings are shared amongst the entire group. I wouldn't mind granting marriage rights to people in such relationships. I just don't think that describes most polygamous relationships in the USA. I'd hazard a guess that, for many if not most of the mormon splinter sects, woman don't have a whole lot of say in their choices search of extra wives, and they certainly would not support a woman having multiple husbands.

The Exchange

Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...
I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

Well in the case of legalizing gay marriage, it is an example of one group being denied a privilege that is legally always available for another. I.e. we grant straight couples the rights to marry (and all the associated benefits), but do not do the same for gay couples.

In contrast...no one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry multiple partners. You are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another. So I think its a lot harder to find a legal ground to dig in on.

That comes perilously close to a (specious) argument used against gay marriage.

"No one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry someone of the same sex; you are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another."

Denying people who aren't interested in polygamy the ability to marry multiple partners isn't the same as denying people who are interested in it. Similarly, a law against serving kosher food is facially neutral because it applies both to Jews and to Gentiles.... except no one would be deceived for an instant.

This is an issue I take with the French version of "equality" - apparently they refuse to have special meals with no pork in them for Muslim students who study in the same school with Christian kids. The refusal is legal because "equality" demands that no child will be given different food from the others. The result, of course, is Muslims being forced to bring their own food from home rather than use the services of the food court. Yay for equality.


On the other hand, it's absurd that schools should need to add kitchens (to avoid cross-contamination) and double the cafeteria staff, so to cook twice as many meals in the same amount of time.

And that only covers pork (Muslims). What about beef (Hindus), meat in general (vegetarians), any other animal products (vegans), any non-Kosher food (Jews), nuts (allergic people), wheat or other foods containing gluten (celiacs), sugar (diabetics), etc., etc., etc.

By the time you run down the list, you realize that being "fair" to everyone, in that case, means that no one gets to eat -- i.e., everyone has to bring their own food from home. Yay for equality?

The Exchange

MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:


the Mormons' version of polygamy is far from the only viable approach to it and is, in fact, entangled with all other sorts of belief systems that complicate things.

You will agree that there is nothing wrong in principle with say four people deciding to bond the way two people more normally do, right? The law should allow for actions that are, in themselves, harmless. Even if doing them "wrong" could be harmful. That's why swimming is allowed despite having strong cause-effect relationships with drowning.

Here in the states...the largest groups that supports legalization of polygamy are the various Mormon splinter groups. So In affect it is really about Mormon (and also muslim) polygamy, since those are the groups with the largest numbers of polygamous proponents in the states.

I know there are polyamorous relationships composed of multiple men/women, where each person has an equal say in the relationship and feelings are shared amongst the entire group. I wouldn't mind granting marriage rights to people in such relationships. I just don't think that describes most polygamous relationships in the USA. I'd hazard a guess that, for many if not most of the mormon splinter sects, woman don't have a whole lot of say in their choices search of extra wives, and they certainly would not support a woman having multiple husbands.

I agree with every single thing you said in your post except for the implicit conclusion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized. I figure the role of the written law is to separate right from wrong (to the extent that it can), and other entities - such as the police - are the one in charge of seeing the law carried through. In a harmful (usually patriarchal) polygamy done the Muslim/Mormon style, there are enough laws being broken with need of assistance from an anti-polygamy law to provide justification to stop them. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

This view is a bit naive, but I actually think that when it comes to law making, some naivete is actually a good thing, since the law gives a society an ideal to aspire to.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


As for polygamy...Hypothetically I am all about extending those privileges. But...There is nowhere near enough support for that currently, and gay marriage doesn't really provide a precedent the way people thing it does. Also...to be fair I think a lot of polygamy is still bound up in some unhealthy ideas about women and patriarchy that I would rather see go away...
I agree with the general gist of your post but I can't figure out what you mean in the bold part. Which pro same-sex marriage argument is not also valid for polygamy.

Well in the case of legalizing gay marriage, it is an example of one group being denied a privilege that is legally always available for another. I.e. we grant straight couples the rights to marry (and all the associated benefits), but do not do the same for gay couples.

In contrast...no one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry multiple partners. You are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another. So I think its a lot harder to find a legal ground to dig in on.

That comes perilously close to a (specious) argument used against gay marriage.

"No one, gay or straight, white or black, is allowed to marry someone of the same sex; you are not granting a special privilege to one group and not another."

I see what you are saying, but I do think there is a difference. You are still using the law to deny a group of a basic right that both groups want. Whereas in altered example you provide you are depriving a group of something they would have no reason to ever want.

In the case of polygamy...there is just no legal basis anywhere in the law for marriages containing multiple people. You would probably need to first establish some baselines for multiple partners before you could lay the groundwork. And before you do that you would need polygamy to receive popular support and actually make it a national issue. There are gay people in every state of the union...I am not polygamy has that spread of occurrence.


I'm gonna have to agree with Jawa here—one law prohibits a specific cluster of minorities from a government institution, while the other prohibits everyone from using a government institution in a very different way. It's the difference between saying "Lactose-free ice cream is illegal" and "Having two scoops of ice cream is illegal"—one obviously affects a specific minority (those with lactose intolerance), while the other just sort of affects everyone who prefers two scoops.

I have nothing against polygamy, but I believe that the argument for it will have to follow different tracks than the argument for gay marriage.

The Exchange

Kirth Gersen wrote:

On the other hand, it's absurd that schools should need to add kitchens (to avoid cross-contamination) and double the cafeteria staff, so to cook twice as many meals in the same amount of time.

And that only covers pork (Muslims). What about beef (Hindus), meat in general (vegetarians), any other animal products (vegans), any non-Kosher food (Jews), nuts (allergic people), wheat or other foods containing gluten (celiacs), sugar (diabetics), etc., etc., etc.

By the time you run down the list, you realize that being "fair" to everyone, in that case, means that no one gets to eat -- i.e., everyone has to bring their own food from home. Yay for equality?

There's a far cry between demanding that facilities will be raised to secure the needs of every subgroup who has special culinary needs and actually prohibiting such an action by law. What is a school is 40% Muslims? Isn't it reasonable to find a way for them to have food as well?

This is a delicate subject, but I believe France took their stance a step too far.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arguably there are more incentives for such in a polygamous system. OTOH, bringing the existing informal polygamous cultures into legalized marriages would bring more scrutiny and possibly make it harder to abuse.
... and since there's no clear-cut answer and rational arguments on both sides, the courts are required to support the government's stated policy. Which means no polygamy until the legislature acts.

Or, more polygamy until there is sufficient public demand. Which is pretty much how gay marriage and everything else in politics works.

How much public demand is necessary depends on a number of things, partly the practical, moral and legal arguments for it, partly how much that public demand is backed by or opposed by money, but without the demand, it won't happen. And near as I can tell, right now, it's a very small minority, without a strong voice.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed posts and responses. Keep it on topic.


Holy crap dude, I was just shown this video.

...there are like fifty things going through my head right now but I'll just let people make up their own minds about it.


What I'm seeing here, are any arguments AGAINST polygamy have no reasoning in legal or constitionality currently. They are basically the same arguments that have or were used against Gay Marriage.

In that essence, all the arguments are not based on whether they should be constitutional or they break constitutional rights, but how one feels their personal morality is affected.

This is the same flaw that was presented with Gay Marriage (as I believe I explained briefly). The reason why Gay Marriage should be allowed is the same as Polygamy.

Gay Marriage being allowed had NOTHING to do with how moral or immoral bigots believed it was or should be. Instead, it was based upon the rights they are guaranteed (freedom of speech, freedom of religion [as I explained previously], and equality).

It has nothing to do with what some groups perceived moral compass states, and everything to do with what is constitutional and under that constitutional idea...legal.

It is NOT the Christian (or any other religion's) moral legalities...which is what was pushed in regards to the opposition to Gay Marriage (and yes, you had people that used examples of pedophilia, rape, non-Christian morals, and all other items mentioned against polygamy in this thread was also used against Gay Marriage...memories shouldn't be THAT short that this is forgotten), and it isn't even the old definitions that we hold to.

If those items occur in a Gay Marriage, they are STILL illegal. Legalizing Gay marriage did NOT legalize rape, slavery, pedophilia, or any other item against the law. The same would apply to polygamy.

The question isn't the MORALITY of it, but the constitutional legality, and as far as I see, unless we are all Scalia minions that are driven more by our personal moral outlook than an unbiased view of what the Constitutional rights that are guaranteed to us...then I find it very hard for someone to have supported Gay Marriage, but NOT polygamy.

Not saying it would apply to anyone here, but to support Gay Marriage against the naysayers, but then turn around and be against polygamy (which by the way is FAAAAR older and if viewed in legal terms has FAR more precedent [which is an important feature of legal arguments] for the SAME reasons that Gay Marriage was opposed...

At least outwardly from all I can see...

Seems a tad hypocritical.

Why would you allow one group the right to Marry as they desire, but discriminate and forbid another group that same right?

AS for the case above, ALL parties in that Montana case are consensual from what I can tell, no pedophilia was involved, no rape or forced marriage, in fact, it is completely normal except the discrimination which have made a legal marriage illegal.

Why should they not be allowed to marry, doesn't the constitution apply to them just as much as anyone else?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'm gonna have to agree with Jawa here—one law prohibits a specific cluster of minorities from a government institution, while the other prohibits everyone from using a government institution in a very different way. It's the difference between saying "Lactose-free ice cream is illegal" and "Having two scoops of ice cream is illegal"—one obviously affects a specific minority (those with lactose intolerance), while the other just sort of affects everyone who prefers two scoops.

I have nothing against polygamy, but I believe that the argument for it will have to follow different tracks than the argument for gay marriage.

Not really, that's one of the EXACT same arguments used against gay marriage.

This should sound familiar...

In regards to Gay Marriage...opponents would say something like...

One law prohibits a specific cluster of minorities (interracial marriage) from a government institution, while the other prohibits everyone from using a government institution in a very different way (Gay Marriage). It's the difference between saying "Lactose-free ice cream is illgal" and having two scoops of ice cream is illegal. Those Homosexuals all have access to a marriage between a man and a woman. They are trying to redefine it to be something very different than what it is. One obviously affects a specific minority (those could be seen as two races and different), while the other just sort of affects everyone that prefers two scoops (two men together or two woman).

It's the same argument utilized against Gay Marriage worded just slightly differently.

I don't mean to single you out, it's just your item is the easiest to quote. All the arguments against polygamy in this thread that I've seen are the exact same arguments utilized against Gay Marriage.

Which is odd as the events surrounding Gay Marriage and the arguments that were pushed against it are not old, and in fact very recent. I would imagine most people would remember these things.

Now, I've repeatedly said, I think there are some bad things that happen to FLDS people, but at the same time, not all of them do what the media spreads about them.

I was in Texas when they arrested all the men, took away the children, and didn't let their mothers see them. I found it excessively heartbreaking to see children wanting their mothers only to have Southern Baptists (no kidding, they actually used Southern Baptists vehicles among government busses and other government vehicles to aid them in moving the children and assisting them) advisors, Child Protective custody, and other things basically telling them their parents were criminals and they shouldn't be allowed near them.

And then, to see the mothers wanting to see their children (And remember, they weren't even the ones that were charged...which I might add for most of the men the charges were not even valid anyways) and having to fight to do that.

A WHOLE community of them....like the concentration camps from the 1940s. We've stated time and time again what we did to the Jews was horrible, what we did to the Japanese Americans was horrible...and then we did it again just a few years ago.

So, In this aspect I AM biased...but it's because legally I see it's the same fight against the same arguments (and in fact it's normally against the SAME people) as Gay marriage...it's just not a mainstream idea and so they are truly a minority in this fight currently.

It's also because, of all the people that have had to recently live in those circumstances that we swore we'd never do or allow again...we've done it again to these people and I find that unconscionable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Those Homosexuals all have access to a marriage between a man and a woman.

They are trying to redefine it to be something very different than what it is. One obviously affects a specific minority (those could be seen as two races and different), while the other just sort of affects everyone that prefers two scoops (two men together or two woman).

Mm...no, I'm not buying it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that "polygamist" is anything but a lifestyle choice (not a wrong one, but it's a choice based on developed preferences). Meanwhile, the science is in and settled on what homosexuality is. It ain't that. ;)

I'm not trying to say polygamist rights aren't important or anything like that. I just do not believe they're the same issue. The only link they have is that they happen to involve marriage.

401 to 450 of 530 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / One step closer: Marriage Equality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.