Outstanding News-Mass. High Ct. Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

What a nice twist of words. Notice he says polygamists have a meaningful right to marry someone. True. But gay citizens also have a meaningful right to marry someone.

Gay citizens cannot meaningfully marry anyone - so they can't legally marry who they want. True. But the same is also true of polygamists.

Both these groups CAN marry someone. However, neither group can marry who they WANT to marry.

The rules that civil marriage currently mandate are not exactly the rules gay citizens want to follow....that's the point of the whole debate. Again, the same way with polygamists.

For the record, I am NOT a polygamist. I just do not see any reason why homosexual marriage should not be allowed, nor do I see any reason why polygamy should not be allowed. However, the underlying arguments seemed linked to me, and I don't know why the supporters of homosexual marriage seem so vehemently against polygamy. To me, they go hand-in-hand. That was a major sticking point for me for a long time (probably this is the reason for the vehemence). However, I have not seen solid arguments for why polygamy should be outlawed. The laws and court decisions I found were all pretty much based on 'tradition' and 'morals', which is not solid legal footing IMHO. Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that, even though I may be religiously opposed to it, homosexual marriage and polygamy should be legalized.

On a side note, nice post GV.

 

It's because polygamy is a lifestyle choice. You can be straight and a polyamorist or gay and a polyamorist. But if you are gay, you are gay. I know that some people think that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". But the majority of gay people don't consider homosexuality a lifestyle. Rather, it's an integral part of who they are, as integral as heterosexuality is to straight people. Not something they have a choice about.

So I think that's why you see the vehemence. And it's why many gay (and straight people) are so offended by the equation of homosexuality with polygamy, bestiality, etc....

 

I don't know about polygamy being a 'lifestyle choice' any more than being gay is or is not. From a lot of the people I know, it's pretty natural to be attracted to more than one person at the same time. In fact, I would argue that it's pretty hard-wired into a lot of people to procreate as much as possible with as many partners as possible, a logical result of Darwinism. In fact, in the mists of ancient times, I would not doubt that the roots of marriage came about to stem these natural urges. But I don't really want to go into the sociological implications of the foundation of marriage if I can avoid it.

And as far as comparing homosexuality to bestiality, I have not done that. I would present my beliefs on that if necessary, but I'm pretty sure that we agree that those are two wholly different subjects.

 

I don't even understand why this is even an issue.

If 2 people want to get married, so what? Why is that any of my business? Will it hurt my family? No. My community? No. My country? No.

It is inevitable. It will change, might as well be now. The reasons against it are too weak to deny these folks a fair shake... equal rights.

 

What's to stop individuals from "procreating as much as possible" while being married to one person? you don't need to be married to someone to find them attractive/have sex with them. You can have a harem of 20 women if you like but you can only be legally married to one of them at a time.

The problem with polygamy arrises when the spouses are kept in the dark. For example a man who has 2 or more wives who don't know about the other one. Technically he isn't committing adultery since he is married to both. Not to mention alimony and inheritance issues (who gets what?).

The comparison is apples and oranges to me. The government should be able to regulate how many people you can be married to simultaneously but not who you can be married to.

 

If everybody consents - then why should the government regulate how many you can be married to more than who you can be married to? I am not promoting it, but I would see the reason why you made that last statement.

 

The argument shouldn't even make it to polygamy. It's a given that the government determines what constitutes a marriage in the legal sense. What the government should not be doing is implement laws that treat people unequally. Polygamy laws, right or wrong, treat all people the same. Marriage laws, except maybe in Mass., do not.

 

Exactly. And if 3 people want to get married, so what?

 

The laws are NOT treating polygamists the same as they treat others (the same with gay marriage, hence my opposition in the legal arena to the bans on these practices). Neither group can marry those that they want to. In some cultures and religions, it a practice that has been around for a long time. In the previous gay marriage thread, it came up that people from Cameroon still have polygamy and consider it a stable way to build a family. Mormons used to practice it widely, and a small minority still do it.

I mean, if a guy can marry a woman, have a kid, get divorced, and get married again and have another kid in a few weeks, what is the big problem (in a legal, not moral sense) with marrying both at the same time? Inheritance issues are not a big problem in my eyes. The current laws would need tweaking, but inheritance has been handled in the context of polygamy in many cultures throughout history. I really don't think that's a big issue.

 

Yes it does. You just worded your statement incorrectly.

No one begins in a state of marriage. Everyone should have equal rights to marry who they chose. Whether polygamy is right or wrong or should be lawful or not is not an issue at this stage, because no one starts out as a polygamist.

 

I don't know. This thread isn't on polygamy.

 

There are two different ways to look at this. One is the view that the law is equally applicable to everyone. The marriage laws are equally applicable to everyone, whether they are straight, gay, polygamist, etc.

The other view is that the law isn't equally protective to everyone's desires. Straight people can marry any single other person that they choose of the opposite sex. However, gay and polygamists have restrictions that prevent them from expressing their choices.

 

This thread is about changing existing marriage laws to give people the freedom to marry who they want, even if it isn't popular in society. I am not the only one that has made the link between the two, though I am the most vocal about trying to get some responses.

 

I am not really passionate about this subject, I am just curious from the point of view of understanding the argument from both sides, and like you, I am not sure why one thing is so different from the other one in that both are about changing current marriage laws to allow different forms of legal bonds between consenting adults than one man and one woman tying the knot.

Anyway, I don't really care as long as I don't have to marry a guy or more than one woman!

 

Originally posted by goophers
There are two different ways to look at this. One is the view that the law is equally applicable to everyone. The marriage laws are equally applicable to everyone, whether they are straight, gay, polygamist, etc.

The other view is that the law isn't equally protective to everyone's desires. Straight people can marry any single other person that they choose of the opposite sex. However, gay and polygamists have restrictions that prevent them from expressing their choices.

Even if there exist some similarities between the two issues, there are material differences. Everyone should be allowed to marry at least one person of their choosing to be fair and equal for ALL.

Now, whether ANY of us have the right to marry additional folk, animals, aliens, or refrigerators are separate and distinct issues.

 

How is that fair and equal to polygamists any more than the current law is fair and equal to homosexuals? One is discrimination based on gender, the other is discrimination based on number. I still have not seen anyone put forth any logical reason why the government should change its stance about gender and not number. Believe me, it would be much easier for me if I could find one.

Interesting that you said "at least one person"

I never brought up animals, fridges, aliens (though I would support marriage to sentient aliens, but that's sci-fi realm) etc. I believe I said earlier that those are different. I have logical explanations why those are different, but my reasoning doesn't work for polygamy.

 

Polygamy and homosexuality are two completely different issues. Mixing the two only clouds the issue.

 

Majority Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Foxnews.com
Friday, November 21, 2003
By Dana Blanton

Despite this week’s lifting of the same-sex marriage ban in Massachusetts, a majority of Americans continues to oppose same-sex marriage, and nearly half oppose civil unions.

According to a FOX News poll conducted in the days following the Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, 66 percent of Americans oppose and 25 percent favor same-sex marriage. These new results are similar to those from August 2003, as well as results from 1996, when 65 percent of the public said they opposed allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search ) conducted the national poll Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, November 18 and 19.

Tuesday’s ruling said it was illegal under the Massachusetts Constitution to block gay couples from the "protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex."

Fully 80 percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage, as do 66 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats. More men than women oppose allowing gays to marry (72 percent and 62 percent respectively), and seniors are more likely than young adults to oppose same-sex marriage (80 percent versus 54 percent).

Americans are more supportive on the issue of allowing gay and lesbian couples to form "civil unions that are not marriages." Today, 41 percent support and 48 percent oppose civil unions. These new poll results show a small increase in opposition to civil unions — two months ago 46 percent supported and 44 percent opposed (September 2003).

"It is interesting to note that a few years ago 'civil unions' were regarded as wildly controversial in states like Vermont," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman (search). "Now the whole country is just about evenly divided on that notion, since they see it as an alternative to full marriage. Given the age patterns in the data, it is hard to see how some form of union won't be the national norm in the future."

Similar to the issue of same-sex marriages, Americans under age 30 are more accepting of civil unions (58 percent). Majorities of Democrats (53 percent) and those living in the Northeast (56 percent) also support allowing homosexual couples to form civil unions.

 

i'm not saying you're wrong...but i think you can see that if you take the 14th amendment...and you say that because of that, state government has no place telling you who you can be married to...no place limiting your right to the pursuit of happiness or your liberty...no place legislating any moral concerns...then you open up a pandora's box where literally anything is possible. i mean, how many people 50 years ago would have thought that the constitution would be interpreted like this.

ulitmately...it seems to me...that if this document means everything yet means things competely different from one generation to the next...then it's ultimately meaningless.

 

Yes, I agree. I think most people would be quite open to civil unions or marriage rights enacted by the legislature. Then we don't have to worry about screwing up the meaning of the Constitution.