CDZ Do you support polygamy?

[Pop23]

Can't support it, the legalization gives the wealthy an unfair advantage for the number of spouces. This leaves a smaller population for the poor to choose from.

And I'm afraid you might be wrong on this being the next challenge. It might indeed be incest.

Current Wisconsin law allows 1st cousins to marry. They must either be over 55 or prove both are sterile.

I think everyone would agree those restrictions make good public policy for straights, but gays?

There would be no compelling state interest in denying the gay couple, so Wisconsin will be forced to allow the gay couple easier access to marriage than straight couples.

Troubling to say the least

The rational solution of course would be to allow same sex first cousins to marry along with older or sterile opposite sex first cousins. There are many details to be tweaked now that SSM is legal. There is new legislation needed and case law is developing in a number of areas such as parental rights.

I have to wonder why Wisconsin requires both of the cousins to be sterile? That is in fact an imposition on heterosexuals.

That is not really a rational reason at all.

It is not rational to extend marriage rights to gay couples of a specific situation that you are denying straight couples. Again, if we treat marriage as a right then there should be pretty clear consistency in which we protect that right.

Given that marriage clearly has nothing to do with child birth, it is beyond the state powers, IMHO, to deny the exercise of that right based on arbitrary child birthing abilities.

Well, it is rational in the sense that that there is a common denominator, those who can't biologically have children as a couple. But I also see how it can be viewed as discriminatory, although there is a rational basis for it. That is the test that it must pass.

So you argue someone else's ability to procreate as an argument to deny someone else the ability to marry?

You see the paradox, right?

Procreation was not a valid reason to exclude same sex before, now we argue it is?

Dizzying I know.

On a side note, it will be interesting to see if this Wisconsin law is brought up quickly as a paradox within the ruling with Scott Walker as a Strong Presidential candidate.

Was Scott Walker the one who signed this into law?

No, But governors are responsible to uphold all laws, not simply the ones he signed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Consequently, there are no 14th Amendment 'violations' denying three or more people to marry because no law exists to accommodate such a configuration.

In your mind because you support that kind of legal barrier but not to those that are gay.

Sorry but the base reasoning is identical weather or not you wish to acknowledge it.

Is the base legal reasoning the same, or the moral reasoning? That's an important distinction.

Certainly I can see similarities in arguments for polygamous marriage and same sex marriage. However, a same sex marriage of 2 adults fits into already existing marriage law while a polygamous marriage does not. There are many details of a polygamous marriage which current marriage law does not cover.

I'm not trying to argue against polygamous marriages, I honestly have no problem with the idea. However, using the precedent of same sex marriage as a legal argument to legitimize polygamous marriage does not work IMO. A same sex couple was being denied access to existing marriage law (at least that was the gist of the ruling as I understand it, agree or disagree) while a polygamous marriage cannot exist under existing marriage law, new law would need to be created.

I think this would be far less of an issue if marriages were simply contracts taken out by the individuals involved rather than a set of predetermined rules set up by the state. That would require much more effort and likely money on the part of those entering marriages, and quite possibly would lead to even more contentious divorces than we already have, though.

Yes, they are the same however I would agree that the implications are quite different and would have to be explored.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Horseshit!''


I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulated it.

In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individualshttp://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. same Sex marriage has been established by SCOTUS as a legal right.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

So please, please, please, get over it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Private contracts? More horseshit! How exactly would that work.? I bet that you can't even begin to explain how that would work in reality. How would that work for government benefits for instance? I'm always amazed by the stupid ideas that are proposed to avoid the real issues.

 

[Steinlight]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Horseshit!''


I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulated it.

In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individualshttp://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. same Sex marriage has been established by SCOTUS as a legal right.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

So please, please, please, get over it.

If a marriage license were a "right", it wouldn't need to be granted by the State, it would be inherent to our nature, like speech or property. Rights by definition are limitations on the State from intruding the individual's natural state of freedom. Rights are freedom from interference by other people or the state. Individuals have the right to contract as free and sovereign individuals absent government intrusion. So they can create a "marriage contract", or use whatever word they like to describe the arrangement.

A marriage license, where one is granted tax and legal advantages over non-married individuals and unique recognition, is privilege granted by the State, it isn't inherent to the natural state of man.

 

[Steinlight]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Private contracts? More horseshit! How exactly would that work.? I bet that you can't even begin to explain how that would work in reality. How would that work for government benefits for instance? I'm always amazed by the stupid ideas that are proposed to avoid the real issues.

No, there wouldn't be no government benefits.It would be a private arrangement.

But you could go do whatever silly religious ceremony you wanted to "make it official", and draw up a contract to merge assets. That is basic contract law. Take a business law course at your local community college to familiarize yourself with the concept of contract law.

 

[PratchettFan]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Horseshit!''


I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulated it.

In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individualshttp://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. same Sex marriage has been established by SCOTUS as a legal right.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

So please, please, please, get over it.

If a marriage license were a "right", it wouldn't need to be granted by the State, it would be inherent to our nature, like speech or property. Rights by definition are limitations on the State from intruding the individual's natural state of freedom. Rights are freedom from interference by other people or the state. Individuals have the right to contract as free and sovereign individuals absent government intrusion. So they can create a "marriage contract", or use whatever word they like to describe the arrangement.

A marriage license, where one is granted tax and legal advantages over non-married individuals and unique recognition, is privilege granted by the State, it isn't inherent to the natural state of man.

If property were a right, you wouldn't need a deed or bill of sale.

 

[pauls]

The state (government at any level) has decided that they must register who gets married because being married to two people has been determined to be illegal. There are many benefits that married couples have that would have to be supported by contract in order to get the recognition necessary. For instance:
The right of survival inheritance.
The right to be with your partner in health care.
The right to automatic power of attorney in the case of death or disability.

These rights are automatically given to married couples and cannot be refused. the marriage license is a way for the state to track the rights and benefits of married couples. When you buy a license you have given consent to be registered once you are married. For that consent you get some tax advantages and protections in dissolution, disability, and death.

If you own your car why do you have to license it?
I own my property, but I pay taxes on it and I hold the deed because it is paid for. Are trying to tell me that I don't own the property? I pay taxes for community support for emergency services. The deed tracks who it belongs to and who is responsible for the taxes. The right to own property is a natural right.

 

[PratchettFan]

The state (government at any level) has decided that they must register who gets married because being married to two people has been determined to be illegal. There are many benefits that married couples have that would have to be supported by contract in order to get the recognition necessary. For instance:
The right of survival inheritance.
The right to be with your partner in health care.
The right to automatic power of attorney in the case of death or disability.

These rights are automatically given to married couples and cannot be refused. the marriage license is a way for the state to track the rights and benefits of married couples. When you buy a license you have given consent to be registered once you are married. For that consent you get some tax advantages and protections in dissolution, disability, and death.

If you own your car why do you have to license it?
I own my property, but I pay taxes on it and I hold the deed because it is paid for. Are trying to tell me that I don't own the property? I pay taxes for community support for emergency services. The deed tracks who it belongs to and who is responsible for the taxes. The right to own property is a natural right.

There is no such thing as a natural right. Rights are a fiction which exist because our society says they exist, and they exist only so long as our society says they do. The right to marriage exists for that reason and so does the right to property. If there actually was a natural right to property, you would be paying rent to a native American.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, I always believe in a "lifeboat" of polygamy in seas of our Titanic relationships in modern times.

bad girls are always welcome to just come up to me and tell me it is my turn to use them, merely for a free sample of my practice of the Art of the Husbandman.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

Funny.. you probably think your wife has been faithful.

 

[danielpalos]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

I believe we should end our useless wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and start a really really important war on communicable diseases.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

I believe we should end our useless wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and start a really really important war on communicable diseases.

"Disease is this country's biggest industry."

"A patient cured is a customer lost."

No economic reason to address diseases more than we are if letting themc ontinue and be treated makes somebody money.

People that think government should do other things than they do are under the mistaken impression government gives a damn. Everyone elected to office is there bebcause they made promises the business to maintain the status quo. It's why nothing ever changes.

 

[quorthon]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

I agree that everyone needs much sex and promiscuity would deal this problem. But Huxley wrote about the society that was ruined because of too many good things were allowed and given to people, there were no barrier between people and what they wanted.

 

[danielpalos]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

I believe we should end our useless wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and start a really really important war on communicable diseases.

"Disease is this country's biggest industry."

"A patient cured is a customer lost."

No economic reason to address diseases more than we are if letting themc ontinue and be treated makes somebody money.

People that think government should do other things than they do are under the mistaken impression government gives a damn. Everyone elected to office is there bebcause they made promises the business to maintain the status quo. It's why nothing ever changes.

I believe we could be lowering our Tax burden through that form of Socialized medicine.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Bible's ok with polygany (note the 'n') so guess anyone hostile to polygany is hostile to the Lord. Lessee, what's the BIble say to do about that sort of person...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Promiscuity is a citizen's duty." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"

I'm all for promiscuity. World's screwed up after centuries of monogamy and sex waits for marriage. So let's try the other end of the spectrum and encourage everyone to have sex at the drop of hat. See how that works.

I believe we should end our useless wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, and start a really really important war on communicable diseases.

"Disease is this country's biggest industry."

"A patient cured is a customer lost."

No economic reason to address diseases more than we are if letting themc ontinue and be treated makes somebody money.

People that think government should do other things than they do are under the mistaken impression government gives a damn. Everyone elected to office is there bebcause they made promises the business to maintain the status quo. It's why nothing ever changes.

I believe we could be lowering our Tax burden through that form of Socialized medicine.

Only sensible if the government wishes to tax its citizens' income, thye should pay ensuring they can work and pay those taxes. Shooting yourself if the revenue-foot letting people become unhealthy, forgo treatment, and go on welfare.

No tax revenue.
AND, paying out the welfare.
AND, paying more for their 'emergency room' healthcare.

vs.

Receiving tax revenue
AND, paying out a comparatively small amount for free healthcare.

We give active duty military free healthcare because it makes sense to keep them healthy and able to do their jobs. Why isn't that same logic acceptable for your entire country so everyone can contribute GDP, taxes, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

Bible's ok with polygany (note the 'n') so guess anyone hostile to polygany is hostile to the Lord. Lessee, what's the BIble say to do about that sort of person...

Would we really have the same moral forms of absolutism we have now through the Nurture of the Socialism of Religion, if there were no communicable diseases in our historical record?

 

[Steinlight]

It shouldn't be a question of what an individual "supports", because marriage shouldn't be a function of the State. All individuals have a right to free association and a right to contract. If an individual or multiple individuals want a polygamist arrangement, a same sex arrangement etc, they can do so without a state license through a private ceremony and appropriate assets as they wish through contracts.

You don't have a "right" to a government license, that is a privilege.

Horseshit!''


I maintain that marriage is a right. Call it a natural right, a human right, or a fundamental right-it matters little. Natural rights are closely associated with human rights –those rights that we enjoy simply by virtue of being human. Rights that cannot be given or taken away by government. Rights are bestowed upon us at birth. So is marriage a human or natural right? There are some who say that since it is sanctioned by government, in that sense it’s not. However, marriage is an ancient institution that predates recorded history and government as we know it, so we can also say that government did not create marriage but simply imposed itself on it and regulated it.

In addition, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individualshttp://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Furthermore The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. same Sex marriage has been established by SCOTUS as a legal right.

Still not convinced? Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

So please, please, please, get over it.

If a marriage license were a "right", it wouldn't need to be granted by the State, it would be inherent to our nature, like speech or property. Rights by definition are limitations on the State from intruding the individual's natural state of freedom. Rights are freedom from interference by other people or the state. Individuals have the right to contract as free and sovereign individuals absent government intrusion. So they can create a "marriage contract", or use whatever word they like to describe the arrangement.

A marriage license, where one is granted tax and legal advantages over non-married individuals and unique recognition, is privilege granted by the State, it isn't inherent to the natural state of man.

If property were a right, you wouldn't need a deed or bill of sale.

You don't have a right to a deed or bill of sale.