Sister Wives File Polygamy Suit

[Avatar4321]

I'm not at all surprised to hear about this.

Interestingly they spell out the fundamental problem I have with the gay "marriage" movement. A personal can contract any type of relationship with others. It's the forcing others to accept it that's the problem.

 

[catzmeow]

So, I'm perplexed. How does an adult consent to an arranged marriage?

If it's arranged, it's obviously not either party's personal choice in a spouse, thus my being perplexed at what seems to be an oxymoronic point.

I'm familiar with several Indian, Nepali, and other East Asian people who are in arranged marriages that were arranged by their families (as adults).

Commonly in urban areas and increasingly in rural parts, parents now arrange for marriage-ready sons and daughters to meet with multiple potential spouses with an accepted right of refusal.[20] These arranged marriages are effectively the result of a wide search by both the girl's family and the boy's family.[21] Child marriages are also in steady decline and deemed unlawful in India (with legal age of marriage at 21 years for men and 18 years for women), so the term "arranged marriage" now increasingly refers to marriages between consenting adults well past the age of sexual maturity.[20] Due to this, a strong distinction is now drawn by sociologists and policymakers between arranged marriages (which involve consenting adults that have choice and unhindered rights of refusal) and forced marriages.[22]

Arranged marriage in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you've mistaken an arranged marriage for a forced marriage.

Arranged marriages aren't common in the U.S., but they are common in other parts of the world. Arranged marriages often involve matchmakers, dowry exchanges, parental meetings and agreements, etc. I don't have a problem with them, as long as the parties involved are consenting adults, and aren't being forced into an unwanted marriage.

 

[Si modo]

So, I'm perplexed. How does an adult consent to an arranged marriage?

If it's arranged, it's obviously not either party's personal choice in a spouse, thus my being perplexed at what seems to be an oxymoronic point.

I'm familiar with several Indian, Nepali, and other East Asian people who are in arranged marriages that were arranged by their families (as adults).

Arranged marriage in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I understand all that.

What I'm not really wrapping my head around is how the two parties - bride and groom - can consent to a marriage when it is to someone who is not their personal choice?

They may consent to their families, but they have made no personal choice in choosing their spouse.

If it's not a personal choice, it doesn't seem quite right to call it consenting.

 

[catzmeow]

No, I understand all that.

What I'm not really wrapping my head around is how the two parties - bride and groom - can consent to a marriage when it is to someone who is not their personal choice?

They may consent to their families, but they have made no personal choice in choosing their spouse.

If it's not a personal choice, it doesn't seem quite right to call it consenting.

Apparently, from what I understand, the groom and bride meet each other and can decline the match (right of refusal) or accept it (consent). But, they don't go through a dating or courtship process, per se. They are introduced via a third party or matchmaker, or the families negotiate the match.

That makes it quite different from polygamist situations I'm familiar with from Utah where the family essentially gives a minor girl to a man, sometimes against her will.

 

[Si modo]

No, I understand all that.

What I'm not really wrapping my head around is how the two parties - bride and groom - can consent to a marriage when it is to someone who is not their personal choice?

They may consent to their families, but they have made no personal choice in choosing their spouse.

If it's not a personal choice, it doesn't seem quite right to call it consenting.

Apparently, from what I understand, the groom and bride meet each other and can decline the match (right of refusal) or accept it (consent). But, they don't go through a dating or courtship process, per se. They are introduced via a third party or matchmaker, or the families negotiate the match.

That makes it quite different from polygamist situations I'm familiar with from Utah where the family essentially gives a minor girl to a man, sometimes against her will.

If they have a right to refuse, then OK.

Otherwise, eh.

And, I agree about the polygamists.

 

[catzmeow]

If they have a right to refuse, then OK.

Otherwise, eh.

And, I agree about the polygamists.

Basically my feeling about it. Not for me, but as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't harm children or fluffy mammals, what people do in their bedrooms and homes is their own damn business.

p.s. That dude Cody, from Sister Wives, is super creepy, though. Ugh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

The connection with Lawrence v. Texas, a case that broadened legal rights for gay people, is sensitive for those who have sought the right of same-sex marriage. Opponents of such unions often refer to polygamy as one of the all-but-inevitable outcomes of allowing same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=1&hp

Comments?

If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and they haven't filed for multiple marriage licenses, I can't imagine what possible business it could be of the state's or anyone else's.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no problem with polygamy, religious or not. My only issues are with how such an arrangement would work from a legal standpoint (which spouse gets power of attorney, who has what responsibility for which children, medical decisions, what happens in the case of divorce, etc.). I suppose you can say I'm morally unopposed, I just question the technicalities involved.

I don't know if this suit will work or not. I suppose it depends on what state and federal laws may apply.

Those questions are properly settled, as in all marriages, by the involved parties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not at all surprised to hear about this.

Interestingly they spell out the fundamental problem I have with the gay "marriage" movement. A personal can contract any type of relationship with others. It's the forcing others to accept it that's the problem.

True. I'm very grateful to hear that they're not suing to have anyone recognize anything. They're just asking to be left alone, provided they don't harm anyone or otherwise violate the law. How people live their lives in private - with those provisions - is really no one else's business.

 

[sparky]

God save us from your followers.....

 

[CitizenPained]

Good. I've been waiting for this one. I hope they win.

Let Freedom Marry.

Scalia said this would happen. Let's see what the Court says. I don't know if the current makeup of the Court will be favorable to the family, but I fucking hope so. Our original ban on polygamy was racist and ethnocentric bullshit. SCOTUS called polygamy a practice of 'Asiatic and African nations' and said that it was a 'blight on civilized European society' (loosely paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

Yeah.

Bout time.

 

[Douger]

The chick in the black shirt is hot. The rest need to go to auction.