I'm pro gay marriage and pro bigamy too
I'm pro gay marriage anti bigamy
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
2) dead people
4) garden utensils
6) bank accounts
...................................an so on.
And lest people forget, we could also be talking about a woman with multiple husbands.
No option for the not pro ssm and not pro bigamy.
I will say that making the wrong decision on SSM doesn't mean that we should then also make the wrong decision on bigamy.
However, it is also worth pointing out that increasingly we no longer have the ability to make decisions on what constitutes marriage. So what the "sovereign" people think is irrelevant. They have a "right" now, and polygamists can claim First Amendment justification as well.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
My reasoning for supporting same sex marriage is my personal belief that our marriage laws are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause on the basis of gender discrimination.
I've still yet to be presented with an argument for bigamy that convinces me it'd fall under an Equal Protection Clause protection. I see no way it'd fit into a middle or upper tier category, which would make it the lowest tier at best which is a very low threshold to jump through. Considering the SIZABLE structural change...instead of language change...that would have to occur by allowing those who are married to marry other people and the multitude of new legal issues that would cause, I think the state has a legitimate interest in not moving forward with such.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
WTF does someones views on homosexual "marriage" have to do with Polygamy?
I don't see anything wrong with Polygamy myself, not that I intend to do it, as long as it is between men and women who are mature enough to actually make that choice, it's no business of mine. Hell, the only reason I'm really against the homosexuals on the issue is because the won't STFU and let others live their lives the way they choose but instead, insist on rubbing everyones face in it and calling people names over it.
At least Polygamy is a natural order for sexual behavior.
Last edited by DVSentinel; 11-04-14 at 10:30 AM.
Be sure to work hard and get lots of overtime. People on welfare want more steaks and free upgrades to smart phones with unlimited data packages.
This is one of several reasons why I believe only those 18 and older should be allowed to legally marry, and parents shouldn't be able to sign off on a lower age.
"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.
Philosophically speaking I don't have a problem with multiple-partner marriages on the condition that each individual has to accept the new dynamic. In other words person "A" legally marries person "B". A year later person "A" marries person "C" without the knowledge or consent of person "B". That establishes a legal relationship between "A" and "B" and "A" and "C" but no ties between "B" and "C". Think of community property. "A" owns 50% and "B" owns 50%. If "A" then legally marries "C" does that mean (s)he has 0% and "B" retains 50% and "C" acquires "50%"? (Not likely.) Or does "A", "B", and "C" then have 33.3% with "B" having no say in the matter.
So in the event of multi-partner legal marriaces "A" & "B" & "C" need to be all legally married to each other with all parties agreeing.
From a legal standpoint (government rights, benefits, and responsibilities) there are arguments that such a situation creating a 1:N, instead of a 1:1 relationship, creates a complexity that our family law is not ready to handle.