You're right bigamy isn't a big issue I just wanted to answer Rocket River since he was using the fact that no one answered his bigamy strawman as a rhetorical device. I felt it was important to point out why a polygamous marriage would present very different challenges than a marriage of two individuals of any gender.
Not exactly. I'm not up on the specific wording of the proposed federal Ammendment but several of the state Ammendments also ban civil unions.
My point is . . . Bigamy, Gay Marriage, etc they either ALL cheapen marriage or NONE of them cheapen marriage We need to Re-DEFINE what a Marriage is in this country *IF* we are going to say MARRIAGE HAS NO RELIGIOUS RELEVENCE WHAT SO EVER [Which is basically what we trying to do . . . basically religion or religious people should have no say over who should and should not get married] then Why not open up the Flood Gates? We scream . . the Rule of Hetero is wrong because it allows one kind of marriage but not another my point is it is hypocracy to say . . . We'll allow A and B but not C esp when we madd cause folx are says they wanna allow A but not B or C the folx that are down with allow b are ok against discriminating against others . . .as along as they get theirs Gay Marriages are not RECOGNIZE multiple marriages are ILLEGAL BIG DIFFERENT . . .one sends you to prison Advocating Multiple Marriage is like being a Member of Norml you put a big ole bullseye on ya back SirChang - I appreciate you answer because it is an Honest Answer at the end of the day . . .it is about BUSINESS ECONOMICS and POLITICS nothing else. Rocket River For the record. . . I still say Marriage is between a group of people and their church . . the d*mn Government should get itself our of the marriage business no special benefits WHATSOEVER for simply being marrieg is my solution
Yes, bigamy is the wrong word to use for what you were thinking of. Polygamy is more accurate. It's practiced in some countries abroad, in some Muslim societies, for instance. Quite a challenge to pull off, I would think! Certainly, it can lead to exploitation of women, but if a woman had two husbands, you're forced to look at polygamy a bit differently. That's very uncommon here, but not unheard of. I think those situations here, as are many of those with a man and two female partners, tend to be of the more, "experimental/alternative personal/sexual relationships," as opposed to polygamy as practiced by the old-style Mormon Church, or many Muslim societies. You saw a lot of, "alternative lifestyles," back in the '60's. I remember it well. Keep D&D Civil.
Rocket River: Your slippery slope argument (if you allow A, you have to allow C) could easily have been applied to interracial marriages in our very recent history, and probably was. And the idea that if you allow gay marriage you must allow polygamy (or, say, interracial marriage) is a made up thing. It has no more basis than saying if you allow blacks to vote (a thing that, as you know, was once not allowed) you have to allow them to steal or kill. I would never presume to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do (though in certain cases I would advocate withholding their tax status or government funds). This is America and they are free to practice bigotry if they choose. The government is not. And, as it was with interracial marriage, gay marriage will ultimately be legal. We have a proud history in this country of doing the right thing with regard to discrimination, even if it sometimes takes far too long, because ultimately Americans believe that discrimination is wrong. Certain interests will bleed the bigots for all they're worth until we say we've had enough. (It's happened before here. Plenty.) But America will eventually do the right thing. It's not a matter of "if," it's only a matter of when.
I think 2 individuals have a right to enter into the contract of marriage. Religion should play no part of it. DD
p.s. to RR: For the record, I'd be fine with the government getting out of the marriage business altogether or remaining in the mix. I'm not fine with the government endorsing or enforcing different standards for gays than for heteros.
I don't think they can get out all together as it would open up a lot of loop holes for Insurance etc, which could cost our big insurance companies money and lots of time in the courts to settle it. And courts should not be writing policy.... So, they need to define it, but religion can not play any part of it, or it would probably ruled unconstitutional due to seperation of church and state. DD
I don't expect the gov't to get out of marriage. I only said that to make the point that my beef is with inequal treatment (or discrimination) on the part of the government. I don't care what's decided as long as gays have the same rights as all other Americans. That goes for gays in the military, discrimination in the workplace and everything else, too. The idea of "activist" courts in this instance is utterly bogus. Courts interpret the law and the ones that have ruled in favor of gay marriage have done so on the grounds that discrimination is unconstitutional. It is their job to make rulings regarding constitutionality. What is "activist" is making an end run around that, particularly on a Civil Rights issue, through amendments or popular votes. We ultimately resolved that denying equal rights to minorities was a Civil Rights issue and, as such, could not be left to the states or the voters to decide. This is that all over again. We are equal or we are not, regardless of what brand of bigotry happens to be en vogue.
Voting to stealing is kind of a stretch and apples and oranges We are comparing marriage to marriage InterRacial to Gay to Multiple Marriage IMO belongs in your religious institution not for the government to say yea or nay that being said Interracial was ILLEGAL Multiple is ILLEGAL gay . . isn't illegal . .just not recognized it is a severely different thing The ReDefinition of Marriage IMO what we are talking about here either a stricter one or a looser one on a constitutional level that shouldn't even be an issue I think someone suggested that if multiple marriage were allowed it would required a big list of contracts etc I think if we just honor and allow these type of 'life partner' contracts. . it would end so much stuff Rocket River
I think the thing is that it is asking for an expansion of right AS OF THIS MOMENT *ANY MAN* can Marry *ANY WOMAN* If the man is gay . . he can still marry a woman If the woman is gay . . she can still marry a man whether you are gay/black/hispanic/cripple/etc if you are a man . .you can marry a woman if you are a woman . . you can marry a man so . .. the ability for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman is an expansion of the ideal or marriage. . . it is more of a redefinition of marriage than a discrimination issue Discrimination is saying GAYS CAN NEVER MARRY what is being said that the definition of marriage is too limiting for Gay folx . . the issue now is Gays want the ability to 'marry who they love' If we say . . it is ok for people to marry 'who they love' well . . why be bound to ONE LOVE? which is the crust of my argument about bigamy the ability to marry 'who you love' is a bit ambiguous Rocket River
It isn't just saying that GAYS CAN NEVER MARRY. Just like with Brown vs. the Board of Education. The argument was that minorities could still get an education. discrimination would have been saying that MINORITIES COULD NEVER GET AN EDUCATION. Luckily that logic was tossed out. Discrimination is saying that some people get to marry the people they choose, and those whom they love while some others can't. It is as BJ pointed out earlier with the interracial marriage thing. The parallel still holds. Interracial couples could still marry. There were just limitations on who they could marry.
Discrimination in the Educaton thing was that blacks were not getting the resources that their white counter parts were getter If the resources had been even . . had they gotten their EQUAL part it would not have been an issue As with interracial dating AS I POINTED OUT the discriminatory part was A RACE 1 Man . . could not marry a RACE 2 Woman and vice versa Race was removed from the equation now we want to remove gender As I stated what is being asked for is a request for the expansion of the definition of marriage let's call it what it is An Revision .. a change. . a ReDefining of Marriage My point about the bigomy is .. if we gonna start redefiing let's go all the way Rocket River for the record . . this constant attempt to make the perils of being homosexuality equal to the perils of being black are ridiculous and honestly offensive to me
Substitute race for sex in the interracial thing and you still have discrimination. I understand what you are saying about the education, but the argument was that it could be seperate but equal. The courts said that seperate was not equal. I am not saying that homosexuals are under equal discrimination as blacks were during the height of the civil rights movement. Homosexuals can vote, attend the same schools, etc. It isn't the same. I'd rather it never got there. I would like to think that the nation learned something. They are beaten, killed, not allowed to marry people they love, not allowed to serve in the military, mocked openly in the media, and have stereotypes that aren't true propogated about them. Just because their current struggle isn't as comprehensive doesn't mean we shouldn't address it. It isn't a contest about who suffered most. It is a matter of doing the right thing, and ending discrimination. Polygamy isn't an issue now, because there is no group of polygamists being attacked and used as a devisive wedge. I think one issue at a time should be dealt with. Right now people are trying to discriminate against a particular group of people in our society. I am against that. I would rather not approve discrimination now, because later on polygamists might want to have their marriages sanctioned.
