Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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 - divorces would be interesting if multiple people are involved. Would several people have to pay alimony?

Someone even suggested a while back that potential taxation issues could be overcome by having people file as "single" rather than "married". I can totally see that working... Other than being blatantly discriminatory, what would be the point of "marriage" if all the benefits that come with it are cut back?

Contrary to they way it is being portrayed by some folks here, gay marriage isn't a radical alteration of the contract of marriage - plural marriage absolutely is. At the end of the day it's just bait and switch.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

What facts is this supposition based on?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What facts is this supposition based on?

Danno doesn't do facts. You should know that by now.

[mawilson 2,133]

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?

Exactly. Let's legalize those as well. The more, the merrier.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, puppy. You can deny that you don't intend to make a religious argument for gay marriage, but the evidence defeats you. All of the justifications you have put forth by citing the Constitution, Lawrence and Olsen - equality under the law, basic human rights, the pursuit of happiness, freedom from government intervention in our private affairs - are all derived from this statement:

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.

It states plainly, that the Creator, not another human being, not a government, grants us the right to liberty [from government abuse] and the right to pursue happiness. The Constitution was written as a granting of enumerated right to the government, with others allowed to the states. But, the primary goal of the government is to do its duty and while doing so, to not impede our God-given freedoms.

While you argue that there are a variety of religions to consider, it is historically inaccurate to argue that. While the founders were rather aware of other faiths, they were mostly Christians and Deists, not Buddhists or Hindus.

A proper discussion of the intent of the founders, the Federalists paper, John Locke, and all the other elements that formed the US Constitution and the first ten amendments, or what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights, would take far more time than we have today. However, any jurist worth his salt cannot deny that our law is steeped in religious considerations, and always has been. Following that legacy, any pro-gay marriage stance has no choice but to argue that the rights granted by God cannot be denied by a government that is mandated to protect them.

For example, the 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Herein, you have a justification for the right of gays (and polygamists) to be free of a governmental expression of religious oppression by citing that there is not only a freedom of religion, but also a freedom from any religious tenents which would prevent gays (and polygamists) from pursuing happiness between consenting adults. Ironically, God gives them this right and, howeber S/He feels about gays or polygamist, S/He is not allowed to be cited to block their desire to marry outside of the traditional American norm.

The argument that the government has no privilege allowing it to interfere in one's private affairs is derived from the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments, directly, and less directly, from the 9th and 10th. The 14th Amendment is more explicit in relation to the states, and, since marriage laws are primarily under the purview of the states, it tends to control. It says:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Lawrence drew directly from this provision:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”

When advocates of gay marriage rights go thru that open door, they are holding it open for plural marriage advocates. How can any of them claim that the government, a government whose Constitution is required to protect God-given unalienable rights, demean their personal liberty, deny their right to define their own concept of existance, or to make their private sexual conduct between consenting adults a crime?

Tell me, please.

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are trying to argue that because the 'inalienable rights' in the American constitution derive from a premise of these rights being 'god given' that derived benefits must be god approved? That's insane.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry, puppy. You can deny that you don't intend to make a religious argument for gay marriage, but the evidence defeats you.

No, actually, it doesn't. Not until we can arrive at some consensus on exactly who that creator is. When the gazillion religions out there have arrived at a consensus on that point, wake me up. Actually, no need to do that either since the consensus did not exist when either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution or it's various amendments were crafted. On top of that, since when does man decide which rights God - whichever God - meant for him to have? Sorry, dear.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

There is no implied requirement for monogamy or sexual exclusivity or even love in anything other than religious marriages. There's not even a requirement that the couple have sex between themselves at all. Most states have abolished laws that allow for civil suits against parties that facilitated or engaged in adultary with one's spouse, however, in a few states do "alienation of affection" statutes are still active. The husband is assumed to the legal father of any child born to the wife during the marriage, but studies have proven that this is not often the case. Sex outside of marriage is not illegal in the US.

Polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) has been practiced in nearly every society, including this one. It has a far longer history of acceptance than does gay marriage. The legalization of plural marriage in the US could not limit the practice only to polygyny, but would also allow for polyandry - women with more than one husband.

It certainly is possible to contract with more than one person in marriage for sexual exclusivity among the group, and, extending Lawrence would end the government's ability to prohibit polyamory. Unless . . . the allowance that provides for an overwhelming interest of the state to preclude legitimizing such activity because of some perceived damage it would do to society or its ability to govern properly was enjoined. And, that has been the argument that states have put forward to this date to bar the legalization of polygamous unions.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No, actually, it doesn't. Not until we can arrive at some consensus on exactly who that creator is. When the gazillion religions out there have arrived at a consensus on that point, wake me up. Actually, no need to do that either since the consensus did not exist when either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution or it's various amendments were crafted. On top of that, since when does man decide which rights God - whichever God - meant for him to have? Sorry, dear.

Sorry for you, pup. The primary source of interpretation of laws is the intent of its authors, not a consensus of the population at any given time. The intent of the authors has established that there are not a gazillion religions to consider when interpreting that clause and all derivitives of it. You would lose any debate in first year law school putting forth that argument.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is no implied requirement for monogamy or sexual exclusivity or even love in anything other than religious marriages.

And yet, adultery is grounds for divorce in most, if not all, states. Without any implied requirement for monogamy, that would hardly be possible.

[Peikko 1,575]

No love is required, but monogamy is. That's an implicit part of the contract, it's what the contract is based upon regardless. Sex outside of marriage is not illegal no, but once you indulge in sex outside of marriage the contract is legally voidable.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

And yet, adultery is grounds for divorce in most, if not all, states. Without any implied requirement for monogamy, that would hardly be possible.

Divorces are civil matters between the couple. Most state have no fault, these days, but there is still no generally implied requirement for monogamy, except between the parties. The state doesn't require it. Its interest in primarily in the disposition of property and the best care for any children involved.

[Peikko 1,575]

And yet, adultery is grounds for divorce in most, if not all, states. Without any implied requirement for monogamy, that would hardly be possible.

It's the entire basis of the contract. What VW seems to be trying to say is that because American society does not legally punish the spouse for their infidelity as a separate legal action, that means the notion of infidelity within marriage has been removed. Wrong.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No love is required, but monogamy is. That's an implicit part of the contract, it's what the contract is based upon regardless. Sex outside of marriage is not illegal no, but once you indulge in sex outside of marriage the contract is legally voidable.

The contract is legally voidable for any reason, not just marital infidelity. It also isn't automatically voided by infidelity; that requires action on the part of an injured party. Also, the adulterous party may divorce their spouse to marry their lover. In any case, the state will not prosecute anyone because it does not requie monogamy.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's the entire basis of the contract. What VW seems to be trying to say is that because American society does not legally punish the spouse for their infidelity as a separate legal action, that means the notion of infidelity within marriage has been removed. Wrong.

I'm not saying that there is never an expectation of fidelity. I'm saying that that is between the couple, and they may or may not require it. For sure, the state doesn't require it. And, because the state doesn't require it, how can that be a reason for barring the legalization of polyamorous unions?

Edited March 7, 2010 by Sofiyya