Gay rights advocates score wins in NY, Calif.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

getting married with animals..

I vote we leave marrying dogs and other animals to India http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

so that's vj troll's motive here in supporting gay marriage........

I'm already married to my laptop so all the rules have been broken anyway.

i'm not gonna ask if it has a floppy drive.....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

The courts have ruled in cases where a religious practice and civil law collided, often on the side of civil law. For example, if a religion permitted 12 year old girls to marry, no court would say that our laws against it are discriminating against one's right to practice their religion.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

As I said - the mormon version of polygamy is inherently sexist, relying on an archaic idea of patriarchal dominance that is at odds with our broader civil liberties. In essence, it would be a step back. And that's without considering how to enshrine polygamy into the broader framework of laws that deal with marriage - child custody, immigration, taxation etc.

Whether or not its "fair" its simply problematic - however you look at it. Not from an ideological point of view of discriminating against a minority group (a very small minority group I might add), but out of simple practicality. That's what you don't seem to want to address.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Number 6

[Alex+R 0]

ROFL. I haven't read any farther than this post. Did anyone say anything ignorant yet?

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

The courts have ruled in cases where a religious practice and civil law collided, often on the side of civil law. For example, if a religion permitted 12 year old girls to marry, no court would say that our laws against it are discriminating against one's right to practice their religion.

Minors are allowed to marry with their parent's consent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

The courts have ruled in cases where a religious practice and civil law collided, often on the side of civil law. For example, if a religion permitted 12 year old girls to marry, no court would say that our laws against it are discriminating against one's right to practice their religion.

Minors are allowed to marry with their parent's consent.

At 12?

[Alhamdulillah 0]

At 12?

I'm not sure if there's a legal age limit stating what age minors are allowed to get married if their parent consents to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stina, the way I see it is marriage is not so much being redefined from being between 2 consenting adults, but removing any discrimination. Forty years ago, mixed marriages like yours and mine were against the law in many states until the courts ruled it as unconstitutional. While we can define marriage by non-discriminating means (between 2 consenting adults, not 3 or more), to define by race, color, religion or sex is discrimination.

Many mormons believe that having more than one wife gives them more reward in heaven and even consider it their religious duty to marry more than one.

Many ppl of other religions also believe it to be a better alternative than all the sex outside of marriage that is rampant in this country.

That may well be the case, but the courts, IMO, would never rule that limiting civil marriage to being only between two consenting adults as discriminatory towards someone's religious views of polygamy.

Why not? If a person's religion calls for them to marry more than one and the govt forbids that then it's discrimination.

The fact that the law was actually made just to discriminate against the mormons helps my point a little too.

The courts have ruled in cases where a religious practice and civil law collided, often on the side of civil law. For example, if a religion permitted 12 year old girls to marry, no court would say that our laws against it are discriminating against one's right to practice their religion.

Minors are allowed to marry with their parent's consent.

Each state has a different age of consent, but I'm not aware of any that allow 12 year olds to marry even with parental permission. In any case, restricting the number of people marrying to two as well as age requirements is NOT a denial of one's civil rights.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Each state has a different age of consent, but I'm not aware of any that allow 12 year olds to marry even with parental permission. In any case, restricting the number of people marrying to two as well as age requirements is NOT a denial of one's civil rights.

It seems Mass is the only state that allows a girl of 12 to marry with parental consent. NH - 13, HI and MO - 15 and all other states 16, 17 or does not apply. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

[Alhamdulillah 0]

There is no reason why the US couldn't have some kind of special provision for multiple marriages, like consent from the other spouse(s) before the man could remarry. I know of several countries that have this restriction. Of course, as long as we're of the opinion that anything contrary to "American" is "archaic", it doesn't really matter what those countries do

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no reason why the US couldn't have some kind of special provision for multiple marriages, like consent from the other spouse(s) before the man could remarry. I know of several countries that have this restriction. Of course, as long as we're of the opinion that anything contrary to "American" is "archaic", it doesn't really matter what those countries do

I know we have a history of polygamy here in the U.S. so I would imagine there are court cases which struck down any challenge as to the constitutionality of keeping polygamy illegal. It might be worth looking into. I suppose someone can try to challenge the law, but again, I believe it's been tried already and lost.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is no reason why the US couldn't have some kind of special provision for multiple marriages, like consent from the other spouse(s) before the man could remarry. I know of several countries that have this restriction. Of course, as long as we're of the opinion that anything contrary to "American" is "archaic", it doesn't really matter what those countries do

Nice misinterpretation of what I wrote. Polygamy as it is practiced in this country (unless you have some other example of the practice within the US where this isn't the case) - and we are talking specifically in regard to changes in State/Federal laws to accommodate such people (yes?) - is archaic because its relies on a model of the family that is male-dominated and therefore fundamentally sexist. In short - a man can have as many wives as he likes but a woman can't have as many husbands as she likes. The reason for this is obvious - without a common factor to create an insular family unit there would be nothing (in theory) to stop polygamous bigamy. While that eventuality is plainly ridiculous - it highlights why it would be not only very difficult to enshrine into practical, workable law - but also why it is so much more radical of an idea than the one that homosexual monogamous couples should be allowed to marry (and indeed why polygamy is not really comparable to gay marriage)

[Peikko 1,575]

Currently there is nothing to stop you from having a sexual/emotional relationship with more than one person if that is what you want to do. As for the idea of making a legal 'marriage' contract between multiple adults - I agree with #6 it could prove very difficult to implement, if not impossible.

As for the emotional side to polygamy, personally, I find the complexities of a monogmous marriage enough to be getting on with. I don't think I need to complicate life any further trying to relate to multiple wives/husbands.

[Peikko 1,575]

As for the OP, excellent news. It is really good to hear that same sex couples will soon enjoy the legal protections afforded other couples.