Sweden - Gay Marriage Now Legal In.....

[bwt42]

Now lets get polygamy legalized.

 

[Gardenlady]

Now lets get polygamy legalized.

Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bwt42]

Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. If we believe that anybody that loves someone should have the right to marry.

 

[Gardenlady]

Nm, edited

 

[southcitymom]

Sure. If we believe that anybody that loves someone should have the right to marry.

While I think it's reasonable to think that these recent gay marriage decisions might eventually open the gates for society to consider polygamy as a valid form of marriage, I doubt we'll cross that threshold soon, if ever. The thought of polygamous marriage doesn't bother me, but I may be in the minority.

And yes, of course two people who love each other should have the right to marry.

 

[bwt42]

While I think it's reasonable to think that these recent gay marriage decisions might eventually open the gates for society to consider polygamy as a valid form of marriage, I doubt we'll cross that threshold soon, if ever. The thought of polygamous marriage doesn't bother me, but I may be in the minority.

And yes, of course two people who love each other should have the right to marry.

How about mother & son, father & daughter, brother & sister, brother & brother, sister & sister?

 

[Nova]

Sure. If we believe that anybody that loves someone should have the right to marry.

Allowing two people to bond in marriage provides a significant amount of social stability, as each accrues some power to speak for the other; in community property states, each receives an interest in the property of the other. Even more importantly, each acquires RESPONSIBILITY for the other. This is true whether the two people in question are of the same or different genders.

Allowing three or more people to marry does no such thing.

Whether three people should live together as if they were married is certainly their business. But giving their union legal status equivalent to civil marriage only ADDS to the confusion. Imagine a community property state where three people own an equal 1/3 of everything held by the marriage, and the confusion that will result when one of them dies. Imagine the quarrels that will result when one partner dies or becomes unable to make decisions for himself: what if the other two partners disagree?

Try spending less time listening to Rick Santorum. I promise you he has only two digits in his i.q. and they aren't high numbers.

And just because the Catholic Church has traditionally lumped a lot of things (homosexuality, beastiality, polygamy, child molestation, rape) together DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME FOR LEGAL PURPOSES!

 

[Nova]

How about mother & son, father & daughter, brother & sister, brother & brother, sister & sister?

:SIGH: Incest is illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Will the legal system have to sort out why in cases where there is no possibility of pregnancy? Probably, yes.

But I disagree with scm on this: I think the courts will rule that incest between same-sex partners is inherently disruptive to society. I don't believe we will see legal incestuous marriages anytime in the foreseeable future.*

You see, each of these cases you and Rick raise must be evaluated on its own terms. There are perfectly good reasons why child molestation is illegal that have nothing to do with traditional definitions of marriage. The same is true of incest, polygamy, bestiality and any other form of non-consensual sex.

(ETA: Imagine an SNL version of the famous CHINATOWN scene: "She's my daughter. She's my wife. My daughter. My wife." Each relationship is governed by different laws. One can only imagine the chaos that would result from combining the two, not to mention the status of the father and any siblings.)

 

[Nova]

Finally, the courts that legalized gay marriage in California and then later overturned Prop 8 spent a great many pages of their published opinions on the concept of "official respect".

Their argument was that by according gay relationships official standing, the State accords them a civil and legal respect that promotes stability in the relationships.

It's hard for me to imagine a court making the same argument with regards to an incestuous partnership or one with a non-consenting child or animal. In such cases, public "respect" would not be a boon to society as a whole or to the non-consenting partner.

I admit I'm getting tired of explaining this over and over. In fact, the burden of proof is on Rick Santorum and bwt42 to prove that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the door to other kinds of non-traditional marriage. To do so, they might start by reading the court decisions that have legalized gay marriage in a dozen states.

Those decisions are available on line. It shouldn't be my job to repeatedly summarize them.

 

[Jan]

I'm wondering how the people in our state of Michigan were able to marry so fast after the ban on gay marriage was lifted. A couple of opposite sexes who want to marry have a 3 day waiting period before they can marry. I read that the governor appealed the court decision. What if people marry and then the governor wins on appeal. Will they still be legally married?

 

[bwt42]

Finally, the courts that legalized gay marriage in California and then later overturned Prop 8 spent a great many pages of their published opinions on the concept of "official respect".

Their argument was that by according gay relationships official standing, the State accords them a civil and legal respect that promotes stability in the relationships.

It's hard for me to imagine a court making the same argument with regards to an incestuous partnership or one with a non-consenting child or animal. In such cases, public "respect" would not be a boon to society as a whole or to the non-consenting partner.

I admit I'm getting tired of explaining this over and over. In fact, the burden of proof is on Rick Santorum and bwt42 to prove that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the door to other kinds of non-traditional marriage. To do so, they might start by reading the court decisions that have legalized gay marriage in a dozen states.

Those decisions are available on line. It shouldn't be my job to repeatedly summarize them.

I just joined this thread & have only read the last few pages. I don't know what Rick Santorum has said. I'm not saying I'm afraid gay marriage will lead to polygamy and other plural marriages. I would welcome it. I don't think government should bestow any special advantages to certain relationships but not others. Government should either sanction no marriages or sanction all. As for the courts reasonings, that could change at any time.

 

[southcitymom]

How about mother & son, father & daughter, brother & sister, brother & brother, sister & sister?

I'm from parts where cousins marry cousins, so :floorlaugh:

 

[southcitymom]

....
Those decisions are available on line. It shouldn't be my job to repeatedly summarize them.

It is totally your job.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

March 23, 2014 at 1:00 am

Gay marriages could remain in legal limbo with halt of ruling

Oralandar Brand-Williams and Lauren Abdel-Razzaq/The Detroit News

Gay and lesbian couples who became Michigan’s first group of married same-sex couples could find themselves in legal limbo after an appeals court halted further gay marriages in the state, some legal experts said.

Just hours after same-sex couples in four counties said “I do,” the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati temporarily suspended future marriages among gay couples until at least Wednesday in response to a request by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette while he appeals the ruling. Arguments could be heard Wednesday on whether the stay should be lifted or remain in place. The court already has two appeals filed in same-sex cases from Kentucky and Ohio.

Lawrence Dubin, a law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy, said the validity of the marriage licenses obtained by gay and lesbian couples Saturday will depend on “future events” of the 6th Circuit and whether it reverses or affirms U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman’s ruling that Michigan’s ban on gay marriage and same-sex adoption are unconstitutional...

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140323/METRO/303230010#ixzz2wnUE1HQB

 

[Nova]

I'm wondering how the people in our state of Michigan were able to marry so fast after the ban on gay marriage was lifted. A couple of opposite sexes who want to marry have a 3 day waiting period before they can marry. I read that the governor appealed the court decision. What if people marry and then the governor wins on appeal. Will they still be legally married?

Probably so, but I'm not an expert on Michigan law.

When the voters passed Prop 8 here in California, banning gay marriage, the courts ruled that the vote could NOT annul those marriages that had been performed when gay marriage was legal. So my partner and I (and 18,000 other couples) remained married even after my state banned the practice.

(Since then, as I'm sure you know, the courts have overturned Prop 8, so any same-sex couple can marry in California.)

 

[Nova]

It is totally your job.

ullhair:

 

[Nova]

I just joined this thread & have only read the last few pages. I don't know what Rick Santorum has said. I'm not saying I'm afraid gay marriage will lead to polygamy and other plural marriages. I would welcome it. I don't think government should bestow any special advantages to certain relationships but not others. Government should either sanction no marriages or sanction all. As for the courts reasonings, that could change at any time.

bwt42, I apologize. I should have noted your post count and considered that you might be new to this discussion.

But you can imagine--after nearly 40 years in a loving, same-sex relationship--how much I appreciate being associated rhetorically with people who have sex with animals and children (the latter being the worst problem with polygamy in practice).

I've explained why I think plural marriage poses a problem that same-sex marriage does not. (Look at the Fundamentalist Mormon communities in Utah and Arizona: since the law only recognizes the first marriage, polygamous families are able to force the State to support the rest of the wives and their children, on the ground that they are "fatherless".)

I certainly think three or more adults have every right to keep house together, but I'm not sure you and I should have to support their 27 children!

Again, I'm sorry for my harsh words. I'm not an expert on what is happening in every circuit, but if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them or ask one of my lawyer acquaintances for help.

 

[jaxibear]

How about mother & son, father & daughter, brother & sister, brother & brother, sister & sister?

Straight marriage is between 2 unrelated people.
Same-sex marriage is between 2 unrelated people.

How does same-sex marriage between two people who are not related lead to polygamy or incest any more than a straight marriage between 2 unrelated people does?

I have never understood that logic.

 

[bwt42]

Straight marriage is between 2 unrelated people.
Same-sex marriage is between 2 unrelated people.

How does same-sex marriage between two people who are not related lead to polygamy or incest any more than a straight marriage between 2 unrelated people does?

I have never understood that logic.

I didn't say it would lead to polygamy.

 

[Nova]

Straight marriage is between 2 unrelated people.
Same-sex marriage is between 2 unrelated people.

How does same-sex marriage between two people who are not related lead to polygamy or incest any more than a straight marriage between 2 unrelated people does?

I have never understood that logic.

Call it "ecclesiastical" logic. What people like Santorum do is take everything the Church condemns and then argue that if one thing is legal then ALL will become legal. That may be true of venal sins, but it has nothing to do with how our system of civil law works.

***

Again, bwt42 said NONE of the above. I'm afraid my assumptions about his position have now become attached to him, which is entirely unfair. I don't agree that polygamy is the same legally as same-sex marriage, as I have explained, but bwt42 isn't arguing from a religious standpoint.