Marriage Equality; does the end game begin?

[mikegriffith1]

"Marriage equality"?

How about "Let's ignore science and nature and redefine an institution that's vital to society's health to include a lifestyle that we know from a ton of evidence is physically and emotionally harmful"?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Marriage equality"?

How about "Let's ignore science and nature and redefine an institution that's vital to society's health to include a lifestyle that we know from a ton of evidence is physically and emotionally harmful"?

Science? Don't go there since it doesn't support you, not in the slightest, and neither does most of the nation now. So sad for you eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When someone mouths off with the "standards of the human race", you know he is talking about his standards. Step off. This is the problem with the far right progressives; they are inherently fascist.

As I have proven, you are as well. You just have lower standards than I have. Mark

What you have done is the equivalent of "neener neener". You are just blathering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is precisely because liberals have had such success with increasing the number of divorced that same sex marriage was able to rise, like scum, to the top and be an argument today. Had liberals never been able to expand divorce and make it popular we would never be having a same sex marriage discussion now.

That's inane as conservatives all want no abortion. You and zephyr are out of context

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.

(1) prove it; you can't

(2) show any even minimally significant movement for any of it

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Marriage equality"?

How about "Let's ignore science and nature and redefine an institution that's vital to society's health to include a lifestyle that we know from a ton of evidence is physically and emotionally harmful"?

Like heterosexual marriage that puts 50% of children into divorce?

 

[Skylar]

"Marriage equality"?

How about "Let's ignore science and nature and redefine an institution that's vital to society's health to include a lifestyle that we know from a ton of evidence is physically and emotionally harmful"?

What relevance does 'science and nature' have with marriage? Marriage is a social institution. It means what we agree it means.

 

[Redfish]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.

(1) prove it; you can't

(2) show any even minimally significant movement for any of it

arguments for gay marriage
1. discrimination
2. equal protection
3. equality
4. people should be allowed to marry who they love
5. civil rights

arguments for multiple person marriage

exactly the same.

Lawyers and courts will have a field day with this. the multiple marriage people will use exactly the same arguments now being made for gay marriage, and there will be no legal basis for denying them.

Now, if you want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and have the same rights as a man/woman married couple, set up civil unions for two people of the same sex. The problem arises when you insist on using the word 'marriage' for a gay couple.

Society and legal systems have defined marriage for centuries as one man and one woman, when you change that definition, you open the flood gates for all kinds of "marriage".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish, that is all only in your head. But, hey, if you want to work for your plural marriage, no skin off anyone's nose, butt nugget.

 

[Skylar]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.

(1) prove it; you can't

(2) show any even minimally significant movement for any of it

arguments for gay marriage
1. discrimination
2. equal protection
3. equality
4. people should be allowed to marry who they love
5. civil rights

arguments for multiple person marriage

exactly the same.

There's a major difference. The legal structure is perfectly set up to handle gay marriage. We have no legal structure for polygamy.

For example, lets say 4 people get married, first 2, then a third, then later a fourth. If there is a divorce, do all 4 get divorced, or just do they just spin one off while the other remains married?

We have no law for this.

If they do divorce, does property get split 4 ways equally? Or is it based on the time in the relationship?

We have no law for this.

What if two people want to get divorced, but two don't want to? Can any individual initiate a divorce, or do all parties have to agree? If so, is a successful divorce a matter of a vote?

We have no law for this.

When a child is born within such a union, are parental decisions made by the biological parents, or by any person in the union? If the latter, if they get divorced, do they all retain custody? And in what proportions, given that some may be newer to the union than others? How do you settled child support for say, non-biological shorter term members?

We have no law for this.

Gay marriage can easily answer any of these questions: the same as they would be for a straight couple.

 

[SwimExpert]

arguments for gay marriage
1. discrimination
2. equal protection
3. equality
4. people should be allowed to marry who they love
5. civil rights

arguments for multiple person marriage

exactly the same.

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. This is the primary argument for gay marriage:

People who are not hurting other people should be free to live their lives however they wish.

All the other stuff about discrimination and civil rights....those are arguments objecting to government interference in people's lives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The structural obstacle to polygamy can easily be resolved by statute.

Since law and Constitution often follows a gathering consensus for change, legal polygamy does not seem to be in the cards anytime soon.

The simplest way to keep it out of "marriage" is to pass legislation creating Civil Union Law that permit such relationships, etc.

 

[Skylar]

The structural obstacle to polygamy can easily be resolved by statute.

That would be a pretty elaborate set of changes to our laws.

Gay marriage is simply a matter of who is allowed to marry. All the same laws still apply. While polygamy would require extensive overhauls of much of our legal system.

The simplest way to keep it out of "marriage" is to pass legislation creating Civil Union Law that permit such relationships, etc.

Call it 'marriage', 'civil union', or 'Ham sandwich', the legal overhaul you're describing wouldn't be anything close to simple.

 

[Dana7360]

Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases
Supreme Court to discuss whether to take up same-sex marriage cases KSL.com

The time has arrived to end the whining.

If SCOTUS takes it up, I predict marriage equality nationally by the end of the term.

then get ready for brother/sister, mother/daughter, sister/sister, 3 men/4 women, et al. Because such a SCOTUS ruling would open the door for all forms of "marriage" using gay marriage as a valid legal precedent.

thats the real danger, the abnormality of homosexuality is just the foot in the door.

How? What is the judicial reasoning that could be used to allow 3 men/4 women to marry?

same argument being used for gay marriage--------equality, discrimination, being allowed to marry who you love, fairness, tolerance. EXACTLY the same legal arguments.

If they use that they will lose.

No one in America has the right to marry more than one person so no one is being discriminated.

If it is legal for some to marry multiple spouses at the same time the equal protection clause would apply but it's not legal for people to have multiple spouses in America.

 

[Dana7360]

Why would you discriminate against someone who wants 8 wives.

If a man wants 8 wives nobody should stand in his way. He'll learn his mistake soon enough.

Will he learn his mistake if he marries his pet monkey?

Sorry humans can't marry animals. For the reason that an animal can't sign it's name to a marriage license. An animal doesn't have the free will to choose whether to marry a human being or not. An animal doesn't know what marriage is and has no awareness of it happening.

Why do you suggest such ridiculous things?

 

[Kosh]

It is so cute to watch the far left push the far left religious scriptures without question or hesitation.

They honestly believe that gay's can not marry, based on far left programming to enslave a group to the political needs of the far left..

 

[Dana7360]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.

Either you're a liar or you just aren't aware of the world around you.

The legal arguments aren't the same.

The legal argument for gay marriage is the equal protection clause in the constitution. That is heterosexuals have the right to marry and all the benefits from it and gays don't.

Multiple spouse couples are usually legally married to one person in that group of people. They're also getting the benefits from legal marriage to that one person in that group. No one in America has the right to legally marry another person while they're still married to someone else. So their rights to equal protection under the law have not been violated. If no one in that group of people are legally married that's by their choice. The government didn't prevent one couple from legally marrying.

My personal belief on this is I don't give a care whether someone enters a plural marriage. Marry all the people you want. Just as long as it's consenting adults and they don't look to the government to support them and all the many kids they have or will have.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It is so cute to watch the far left push the far left religious scriptures without question or hesitation.

They honestly believe that gay's can not marry, based on far left programming to enslave a group to the political needs of the far left..

The fags can marry now, in 36 or 37 of 50 states. So sad for you eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is so cute to watch the far left push the far left religious scriptures without question or hesitation.

They honestly believe that gay's can not marry, based on far left programming to enslave a group to the political needs of the far left..

You are babbling. Work out what you are trying to say, then please write clearly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish is guilty of both in this description of him: "Either you're a liar or you just aren't aware of the world around you."

Only the far right apparently wants to marry their pet ponies. No one else cares.