Can you be anti-gay marriage

[ready4ONE 5,400]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't argue with that, but it could happen here, too if the definition of marriage is changed under the auspices of equal protection and the "right" to marry beyond one man and one woman.

Anything could happen but such a development is not particularly likely. Same sex marriage is legal in a number of states already, domestic partnerships are sanctioned in a few others and yet, there's no movement that I am aware of that seeks to extend the institution of marriage to a contract between more than two people. Nor is there any such development to be detected in any of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage.

What you have in California today is a pretty interesting situation: There are your "traditional" marriages - those between a man and a woman. These unions can be dissolved without stripping the parties of the right to re-marry - even the same partner. You can get married whether you're a wife beater, a crook or a convicted felon on death row just as long as you marry a person of the opposite sex. Then there are your same sex marriages that were entered into prior to Prop 8 passing - those are still valid marriages in the State of California. All 18,000 or so of them. Of course, if parties to a same sex marriage were to dissolve their union, they wouldn't have the right to re-marry - not even the partner they are legally married to today. And then, of course, there are your same sex couples that cannot marry today because of Prop 8. One of the issues that California has is that a voting majority stripped a minority of a right they enjoyed.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minority rights from majority rule. The VA law struck down in Loving vs. VA or the Texas law struck down in Lawrence vs. Texas all enjoyed majority support. They were struck down despite that support precisely because the majority vote cannot under the Constitution deny the minority their constitutionally guaranteed rights such as the fundamental and basic human right to marry.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Not being aware of any significant movement to legalize polygamous unions is not enough to dismiss that it could happen or that it is unlikely. I lived for more than 50 years before the idea that gays should be allowed to marry ever became an issue. It is actually MORE likely that polygamy will be validated because of gay marriage because the arguments for it - marriage is an unalienable right, citizens have a right to choose who they marry, government barriers to same sex marriage is an unconstitutional intervention, etc, - are just as valid arguments for plural marriage as they are for gay marriage.

I've noticed several court cases regarding just that. In fact, Lawrence is cited as a basis for allowing polygamy because in its ruling against Bowers, it declared that individuals have "...the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." If that is true, and marriage is private conduct, and this is one of the reasonings applied to allow same sex marriage, how long can majority belief sustain the assault on their hypocrisy of disallowing a polygamous minority to marry more than one?

If minority rights are dominant over majority rights, then legal polygamy will become a reality, and it won't take long. Polygamists are a minority who merely want government out of their private affairs and the right to marry whom they choose.

BTW, for those who claim that law and religion are separate and that the faithful need to keep out of law making, it is clear that you do not know where your beloved concept of basic or unalienable rights comes from. It is from the founders' belief in a Creator and His blessings upon us as a nation. This concept is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, but it is found in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of this nation, which references God and His allowances several times.

I post the relevant text here to refresh your memories. Emphasis mine:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. . . .

It goes on to relate the circumstances under which the People have a duty to overthrow their government. That time may come again in our lifetime.

So, know that when you are referencing basic rights that allow marriage for gays in contrast to the arguments against gay marriage citing morality, you are actually usurping an argument that derives from religion and a belief in a Creator greater than ourselves. In summary, you are making a religious argument.

A few states have allowed same sex marriage, fewer than 10. In contrast, at this writing, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have laws banning same-sex marriage either by statute or by amendment.

So, your religious arguments hold no bar to plural marriage except via hypocrisy and majority oppression over the private, God-given rights of a minority. If we, as a nation, cross over the boundary that forbids same sex marriage, then we will be on an inevitable trajectory to plural marriage.

We told you so.

Anything could happen but such a development is not particularly likely. Same sex marriage is legal in a number of states already, domestic partnerships are sanctioned in a few others and yet, there's no movement that I am aware of that seeks to extend the institution of marriage to a contract between more than two people. Nor is there any such development to be detected in any of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage.

What you have in California today is a pretty interesting situation: There are your "traditional" marriages - those between a man and a woman. These unions can be dissolved without stripping the parties of the right to re-marry - even the same partner. You can get married whether you're a wife beater, a crook or a convicted felon on death row just as long as you marry a person of the opposite sex. Then there are your same sex marriages that were entered into prior to Prop 8 passing - those are still valid marriages in the State of California. All 18,000 or so of them. Of course, if parties to a same sex marriage were to dissolve their union, they wouldn't have the right to re-marry - not even the partner they are legally married to today. And then, of course, there are your same sex couples that cannot marry today because of Prop 8. One of the issues that California has is that a voting majority stripped a minority of a right they enjoyed.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minority rights from majority rule. The VA law struck down in Loving vs. VA or the Texas law struck down in Lawrence vs. Texas all enjoyed majority support. They were struck down despite that support precisely because the majority vote cannot under the Constitution deny the minority their constitutionally guaranteed rights such as the fundamental and basic human right to marry.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not being aware of any significant movement to legalize polygamous unions is not enough to dismiss that it could happen or that it is unlikely. I lived for more than 50 years before the idea that gays should be allowed to marry ever became an issue. It is actually MORE likely that polygamy will be validated because of gay marriage because the arguments for it - marriage is an unalienable right, citizens have a right to choose who they marry, government barriers to same sex marriage is an unconstitutional intervention, etc, - are just as valid arguments for plural marriage as they are for gay marriage.

I've noticed several court cases regarding just that. In fact, Lawrence is cited as a basis for allowing polygamy because in its ruling against Bowers, it declared that individuals have "...the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." If that is true, and marriage is private conduct, and this is one of the reasonings applied to allow same sex marriage, how long can majority belief sustain the assault on their hypocrisy of disallowing a polygamous minority to marry more than one?

If minority rights are dominant over majority rights, then legal polygamy will become a reality, and it won't take long. Polygamists are a minority who merely want government out of their private affairs and the right to marry whom they choose.

BTW, for those who claim that law and religion are separate and that the faithful need to keep out of law making, it is clear that you do not know where your beloved concept of basic or unalienable rights comes from. It is from the founders' belief in a Creator and His blessings upon us as a nation. This concept is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, but it is found in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of this nation, which references God and His allowances several times.

I post the relevant text here to refresh your memories. Emphasis mine:

It goes on to relate the circumstances under which the People have a duty to overthrow their government. That time may come again in our lifetime.

So, know that when you are referencing basic rights that allow marriage for gays in contrast to the arguments against gay marriage citing morality, you are actually usurping an argument that derives from religion and a belief in a Creator greater than ourselves. In summary, you are making a religious argument.

A few states have allowed same sex marriage, fewer than 10. In contrast, at this writing, 30 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have laws banning same-sex marriage either by statute or by amendment.

So, your religious arguments hold no bar to plural marriage except via hypocrisy and majority oppression over the private, God-given rights of a minority. If we, as a nation, cross over the boundary that forbids same sex marriage, then we will be on an inevitable trajectory to plural marriage.

We told you so.

Anyone willing to torture themselves with plural marriages deserves what they get. Anyone willing to be somebodies third, fourth or sixth wife also deserves what they get. I am not sure I can successfully argue they don't have some sort of right to get it. You do have a point.

Of course if we go with plurality Middle East style, we would need to modify our Domestic Violence statutes.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would have thought it would not be hard to argue that a plural marriage fundamentally alters the nature of the contractual agreement that is the basis of marriage. A couple is unique because the rights and the responsibilities are implicit, they do not need to be explained. For example, no one needs to be designated decision maker, there is no problem establishing a right of succession of possessions etc not to mention the very notion of monogamy which is important for many couples who are not religious. All these very real, very legal problems are suddenly manifest as soon as you change the numbers. From a legal stand point, I can't see how it would be hard to preserve the integrity of such a unique contract.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, know that when you are referencing basic rights that allow marriage for gays in contrast to the arguments against gay marriage citing morality, you are actually usurping an argument that derives from religion and a belief in a Creator greater than ourselves. In summary, you are making a religious argument.

I am not in any way, shape of form making a religious argument. Quite the contrary, actually. Basic rights have nothing at all do with religion. If they did, then what religion do these basic rights derive from? The fact of the matter is that the various religions take various different stances on an any given issue - otherwise, there would be no need for various religions to begin with. To illustrate: while relegating women to a lesser status than men might be acceptable in some religions, it is not in others. While relegating homosexuals to a lesser status in some religions, it is not in others. Bottom line, there is no universal model of religion out there and hence universal human rights and universal rights of citizens of this nation are not and cannot be derived from religion.

While the Constitution explicitly protects the right of any individual to practice their religious beliefs, it equally prohibits any individual from forcing their beliefs on others. And it prohibits the government from favoring one religion over the other. Basing the case against against same sex marriage on religious values of any kind, amounts to little less than the forcing of religious beliefs on others - that the Constitution specifically does not allow.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I would have thought it would not be hard to argue that a plural marriage fundamentally alters the nature of the contractual agreement that is the basis of marriage. A couple is unique because the rights and the responsibilities are implicit, they do not need to be explained. For example, no one needs to be designated decision maker, there is no problem establishing a right of succession of possessions etc not to mention the very notion of monogamy which is important for many couples who are not religious. All these very real, very legal problems are suddenly manifest as soon as you change the numbers. From a legal stand point, I can't see how it would be hard to preserve the integrity of such a unique contract.

To be sure there would need to be a lot more done than simply scratching the domestic violence codes. We would need to revert to the status of women as property to be owned, not individuals with their own inalienable rights. Since we are bowing down to the logic that not allowing plural marriages equates to 'religious' persecution we would need to lower the age of eligibility to reflect the times in which folks married sometimes before age 10 because after all, it is in their good books. We would need to designate which gay male or female was the property owner, which spouse(s) the property with very limited legal rights in the arrangement. [Assuming we also get to gay plural marriages.] Or we we could reject the ME model of plurality in favor of say the Mormon model, which is really a different animal altogether.

[Peikko 1,575]

Any model of plurality negates the fundamentally implicit notions that are inherent in a contract that is between two people.

For example, using monogamy once again. For most people that get married, monogamy is an essential requirement of marriage, indeed it is the reason for it. Restricting marriage to two people ensures that from a legal perspective the contract can implicitly be bound by sexual exclusivity. However, as soon as you allow plural marriages, that implied certainty that your legal contract demands sexual exclusivity disappears. All marriages would be on the basis that at any time one partner can demand plurality no matter what was promised at the point the original contract was made.

How one would settle property rights, and as you say the various legal responsibilities of marriage without allowing for one or more parties to be automatically thrust into a disadvantageous state, a second class marriage status if you will, no matter how 'voluntarily' is anyone's guess. A legal minefield springs to mind.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Any model of plurality negates the fundamentally implicit notions that are inherent in a contract that is between two people.

For example, using monogamy once again. For most people that get married, monogamy is an essential requirement of marriage, indeed it is the reason for it. Restricting marriage to two people ensures that from a legal perspective the contract can implicitly be bound by sexual exclusivity. However, as soon as you allow plural marriages, that implied certainty that your legal contract demands sexual exclusivity disappears. All marriages would be on the basis that at any time one partner can demand plurality no matter what was promised at the point the original contract was made.

How one would settle property rights, and as you say the various legal responsibilities of marriage without allowing for one or more parties to be automatically thrust into a disadvantageous state, a second class marriage status if you will, no matter how 'voluntarily' is anyone's guess. A legal minefield springs to mind.

Indeed, the notion that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow leads down the path of polygamy, incest, bestiality or some other free-for-all makes little sense. In case of the latter two, it really does nothing else but unjustifiably putting homosexuals into the same boat as those engaging in those type of activities - it's an argument designed to fan the fears and prejudices that exist rather than extinguishing them.

[Danno 1,228]

To be sure there would need to be a lot more done than simply scratching the domestic violence codes. We would need to revert to the status of women as property to be owned, not individuals with their own inalienable rights. Since we are bowing down to the logic that not allowing plural marriages equates to 'religious' persecution we would need to lower the age of eligibility to reflect the times in which folks married sometimes before age 10 because after all, it is in their good books. We would need to designate which gay male or female was the property owner, which spouse(s) the property with very limited legal rights in the arrangement. [Assuming we also get to gay plural marriages.] Or we we could reject the ME model of plurality in favor of say the Mormon model, which is really a different animal altogether.

It's time you update yourself on whats going on in this modern community.

People living in multi partner relationships are everywhere and the majority I would bet have no Religious motivations.

The internet has thrown gas on their fire and they are growing rapidly as a movement.

If gay marriage were the law across the land, I know I would not object to any other marriage rights movement.... what would be the point?

Who do you imagine would object.... you non-judgemental types?

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno, it's not a question of making a judgment about the lifestyle of those who wish to pursue multiple partner relationships. Marriage is a unique legal contract because sexual exclusivity is legally implicit in the contract that binds two married people. One does not have to add anything to the contract, one does not have to make a list of what ifs and wherefores. We know that getting married legally requires us to behave monogamously. We don't actually have to do it, but from a legal stand point, for the contract to remain binding, we do.

[Peikko 1,575]

Indeed, the notion that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow leads down the path of polygamy, incest, bestiality or some other free-for-all makes little sense. In case of the latter two, it really does nothing else but unjustifiably putting homosexuals into the same boat as those engaging in those type of activities - it's an argument designed to fan the fears and prejudices that exist rather than extinguishing them.

No kidding, and how successful it is.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, it's not a question of making a judgment about the lifestyle of those who wish to pursue multiple partner relationships. Marriage is a unique legal contract because sexual exclusivity is legally implicit in the contract that binds two married people. One does not have to add anything to the contract, one does not have to make a list of what ifs and wherefores. We know that getting married legally requires us to behave monogamously. We don't actually have to do it, but from a legal stand point, for the contract to remain binding, we do.

OKay, MC, rather than speak in broad terms, why not throw out a specific stumbling block at how 3 people could not manage say.... PTA meetings or Child custody.

I'm betting the fine folks here at VJ can work out a solution to any road block you come up with.

[jundp 191]

It's time you update yourself on whats going on in this modern community.

People living in multi partner relationships are everywhere and the majority I would bet have no Religious motivations.

The internet has thrown gas on their fire and they are growing rapidly as a movement.

If gay marriage were the law across the land, I know I would not object to any other marriage rights movement.... what would be the point?

Who do you imagine would object.... you non-judgemental types?

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno, do you not understand what I said regarding the implicit understanding of marriage as a sexually exclusive contract?