xsited1
Agent P
Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.
And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?
Because if there are 6 people legally capable of claiming rights to the various aspects of the dead husband then the courts would be tied up with 6 cases of varying wishes fighting to have their rights respected while it would be impossible. It would also cost a fortune in court costs which would likely be funded in large through taxes, of which because of the tax laws of marriage the entire group would have paid much less than they use. Even if we assumed that this would have no impact on us, there are the burial arrangements, hospital care decisions, the list goes on. It's been a mess more often than not, so the legal decision to make only one spouse both accountable and liable solves all the problems.
So if a mother and father have 6 kids, why not give one child full rights over the estate?
(Nice effort, though.)