View Poll Results: What say you?

Voters
97. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. All humans should be protected under the law.

    27 27.84%
  • No. Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    20 20.62%
  • No. Only homosexuals and heterosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    6 6.19%
  • I donít care what they do as long as they stay out of my business.

    34 35.05%
  • My catís name is Mittens.

    10 10.31%
Page 55 of 73 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 725

Thread: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

  1. #541
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
    See post #540...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  2. #542
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors.
    Well, that's worked out well, huh? Obviously, marriage does not encourage certain behaviors. I cannot see the logic in how you would think a marriage certificate would alter the way someone would normally behave or to encourage them to behave in a certain way.

    That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
    I don't think this is the sort of issue that should be voted upon.

    Also, I don't see who would be harmed by allowing others besides heterosexual couples to marry. What's the big deal?

  3. #543
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    As long as marriage licenses are still required, I don't see polygamy being any more of a problem when it comes to age of consent than any other marriage.
    Age of consent isn't the problem with multiple spouse restrictions. The state can show a legitimate state interest is being furthered in just the fact that it is a restriction on how many spouses a person can legally claim, therefore it limits the amount of legally recognized "closest relatives" a person has. This prevents a large number of civil lawsuits from coming up. And limiting the number of people allowed in a contract is not something that doesn't happen in other contracts. For example, a contract that is covered by marriage absent a specific one that grants the right to someone other than a person's legal spouse, is the medical power of attorney. A person can only name one person legally as their medical decision maker in case of their incapacitation. And a person may only have one legal medical POA at a time (the most recent one is considered the legal one, just like a will). This prevents two people from fighting over a medical decision for that person. The way the laws are now, any person who is considered a person's legal spouse is that person's legal decision maker. It makes no provisions in the law for multiple spouses because no one is allowed to have more than one spouse legally. This law would have to be changed, at least slightly, to accommodate multiple spouses. And it isn't the only law that would require modifications to accommodate multiple legally recognized spouses. This is a legitimate state interest in maintaining a legal limit on how many spouses a person can have.

    Personally, I don't care if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, as long as they provide documentation that the vast majority of legal issues that would arise just from having legal spouses alone were covered in prearranged agreements beforehand. (And I am all for repealing any laws that say a person cannot privately have multiple spouses or live with whoever the heck they want to.) But I do recognize that the state can most likely successfully argue that there is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting the number of spouses any person can have. They have done so several times in the past.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #544
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Well, that's worked out well, huh? Obviously, marriage does not encourage certain behaviors. I cannot see the logic in how you would think a marriage certificate would alter the way someone would normally behave or to encourage them to behave in a certain way.



    I don't think this is the sort of issue that should be voted upon.

    Also, I don't see who would be harmed by allowing others besides heterosexual couples to marry. What's the big deal?
    It has to do with the way society views the act. If it is considered as a commodity that can be entered into and be released from easily, it does lose its original intentions...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  5. #545
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Age of consent isn't the problem with multiple spouse restrictions. The state can show a legitimate state interest is being furthered in just the fact that it is a restriction on how many spouses a person can legally claim, therefore it limits the amount of legally recognized "closest relatives" a person has. This prevents a large number of civil lawsuits from coming up. And limiting the number of people allowed in a contract is not something that doesn't happen in other contracts. For example, a contract that is covered by marriage absent a specific one that grants the right to someone other than a person's legal spouse, is the medical power of attorney. A person can only name one person legally as their medical decision maker in case of their incapacitation. And a person may only have one legal medical POA at a time (the most recent one is considered the legal one, just like a will). This prevents two people from fighting over a medical decision for that person. The way the laws are now, any person who is considered a person's legal spouse is that person's legal decision maker. It makes no provisions in the law for multiple spouses because no one is allowed to have more than one spouse legally. This law would have to be changed, at least slightly, to accommodate multiple spouses. And it isn't the only law that would require modifications to accommodate multiple legally recognized spouses. This is a legitimate state interest in maintaining a legal limit on how many spouses a person can have.

    Personally, I don't care if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, as long as they provide documentation that the vast majority of legal issues that would arise just from having legal spouses alone were covered in prearranged agreements beforehand. (And I am all for repealing any laws that say a person cannot privately have multiple spouses or live with whoever the heck they want to.) But I do recognize that the state can most likely successfully argue that there is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting the number of spouses any person can have. They have done so several times in the past.
    Thank you! Finally an explanation that makes sense to me. I can understand how multiple spouses in relation to things like wills and medical issues, etc., might impact the state. Maybe they would have to choose one spouse as a decision-maker in such instances. I'm sure a lot of those issues could have some simple solutions, but of course I'm not a lawmaker or a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

  6. #546
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors. That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
    If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

    The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #547
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by AlabamaPaul View Post
    It has to do with the way society views the act. If it is considered as a commodity that can be entered into and be released from easily, it does lose its original intentions...
    And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.

  8. #548
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

    The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
    just had to quote you because many people seem not to understand these facts

    or they just double talk around it and ignore this fact
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #549
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.

    The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
    No, the entire point of the 14th was to ensure slavery was destroyed. You seem to miss that point as do many others. The last time I checked the 10th hadn't been overturned by some other amendment to the Constitution. The courts should be deferring to the States in most instances...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  10. #550
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    re: What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.
    It was and will always be about umm hmm.

Page 55 of 73 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •