Support forcing churches to wed same sex couples?

Harshaw said:

OK. So what?

Click to expand...

Because there are some who seem to not want to separate private marriage from legal marriage.

Legal marriage is just about a document proving two people are married. Private marriage can be any damn thing anyone wants, a man and a woman, two men, two women, 1 man and multiple women, 1 woman and multiple men, multiple men and multiple women, of any combination of races and/or religions. The only thing that limits private marriages is if their is someone who is trying to claim a legal marriage that is not recognized as one or if someone tries to do something illegal (violate some consent law) and claim marriage as an excuse.

Goobieman said:

If 'saying so' was all that mattered, there's be no fuss over same-sex marriage.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I'm not one of those trying to claim that SSM should not be allowed by the states because homosexuality is recognized as a sin or wrong by fill-in-the-blank(s) religion. I recognize that there are important legal rights and responsibilities that come with a legal marriage. This is why it should be given to same sex couples. The legal rights are important.

MissLToe said:

I don't see anything wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult.

Click to expand...

It promotes societal instability by creating an imbalance between the sexes, it's unduly complicated when it comes to property rights, and it allows for some people to hold multiple marriage licenses which isn't very fair.

CriticalThought said:

It promotes societal instability by creating an imbalance between the sexes, it's unduly complicated when it comes to property rights, and it allows for some people to hold multiple marriage licenses which isn't very fair.

Click to expand...

Some people to hold multiple marriage licenses? I think it would be available to all. Your other points are more supportable, but I don't think insurmountable.

Dezaad said:

Some people to hold multiple marriage licenses? I think it would be available to all. Your other points are more supportable, but I don't think insurmountable.

Click to expand...

The current law is that every individual is allowed to hold one marriage license. That makes it fair. If people were allowed to hold multiple marriage licenses then some people may choose to marry several different people for no other reason that to profit. Take for example if the top 10 wealthiest people decided to all marry each other as a tax dodge and in order to unify their corporations and assets. That would have fundamentally different effect on society than if 10 of the poorest people married each other.

CriticalThought said:

The current law is that every individual is allowed to hold one marriage license. That makes it fair. If people were allowed to hold multiple marriage licenses then some people may choose to marry several different people for no other reason that to profit. Take for example if the top 10 wealthiest people decided to all marry each other as a tax dodge and in order to unify their corporations and assets. That would have fundamentally different effect on society than if 10 of the poorest people married each other.

Click to expand...

Come now, this is quite a stretch. The ten wealthiest people don't need the pathetic little tax breaks you get for being married; they have FAR better tax shelters to avoid paying any significant percentage. Also, if they wished to merge their assets it could be simply done corporarately, no need to involve marriage, just merger.

Nor is there any need for multiple marriage licenses, as that would indeed be cumbersome. Just one single "group marriage" contract that spells out the details of the arraingement, what the proceedure will be if one person decides to opt out or if the whole group decides to dissolve their marriage.

This argument is specious.

Goshin said:

Come now, this is quite a stretch.

Click to expand...

Moreover, its irrelevant. Why people want to get married is of no concern to anyone, especially the state.

Not only no, but HELL NO! Religion shouldn't dictate politics and politics shouldn't dictate religion. End of story.

Goshin said:

Come now, this is quite a stretch. The ten wealthiest people don't need the pathetic little tax breaks you get for being married; they have FAR better tax shelters to avoid paying any significant percentage. Also, if they wished to merge their assets it could be simply done corporarately, no need to involve marriage, just merger.

Nor is there any need for multiple marriage licenses, as that would indeed be cumbersome. Just one single "group marriage" contract that spells out the details of the arraingement, what the proceedure will be if one person decides to opt out or if the whole group decides to dissolve their marriage.

This argument is specious.

Click to expand...

It's not that much of a stretch. Historically speaking, polygamy has been primarily practiced among the wealthy. Marriages were often simply contracts between rulers or wealthy merchants. Imagine one rich merchant wants to set up a permanent trade deal with another rich merchant so the former marries the daughter of the latter. The new father in law of course will be incentived to see that his daughter and grandchildren are well taken care of, and so a good trade deal is no problem. Of course, the wealthy merchant can do this with several other wealthy merchants and become considerably more wealthy while at the same time building himself quite a nice little harem of wives. This is not something that a poor man could accomplish.

roguenuke said:

Because there are some who seem to not want to separate private marriage from legal marriage.

Legal marriage is just about a document proving two people are married. Private marriage can be any damn thing anyone wants, a man and a woman, two men, two women, 1 man and multiple women, 1 woman and multiple men, multiple men and multiple women, of any combination of races and/or religions. The only thing that limits private marriages is if their is someone who is trying to claim a legal marriage that is not recognized as one or if someone tries to do something illegal (violate some consent law) and claim marriage as an excuse.

Click to expand...

Great. Why are you saying this to me?

It IS interesting the lengths that some people are going to here in order to come up with a rationale to keep polygamy illegal. (Or hey, polyandry, for that matter. Why assume?)

Harshaw said:

It IS interesting the lengths that some people are going to here in order to come up with a rationale to keep polygamy illegal. (Or hey, polyandry, for that matter. Why assume?)

Click to expand...

Not sure why that is so. Possibly there is a reluctance to admit that once you overturn the traditional institution of marriage, there is really no valid ground to stand on to deny polygamy, polyandry, or group marriages. Much the same arguments used to validate SSM can be used to validate GM (Group Marriage).

Heinlein postulated a number of formulae for group or line marriage systems in novels he wrote in the 60's and 70's. This "it's too complicated" business is nonsense; if group marriage is too complicated for legalization, then so are business partnerships and corporations.


Frankly, I think to support SSM (which has no historical basis as it was never anything other than a rare exception to the usual male-female rule) while denying GM (which at least one form, polygamy, has extensive historical basis), is a bit hypocritical.

Goshin said:

Not sure why that is so. Possibly there is a reluctance to admit that once you overturn the traditional institution of marriage, there is really no valid ground to stand on to deny polygamy, polyandry, or group marriages. Much the same arguments used to validate SSM can be used to validate GM (Group Marriage).

Heinlein postulated a number of formulae for group or line marriage systems in novels he wrote in the 60's and 70's. This "it's too complicated" business is nonsense; if group marriage is too complicated for legalization, then so are business partnerships and corporations.


Frankly, I think to support SSM (which has no historical basis as it was never anything other than a rare exception to the usual male-female rule) while denying GM (which at least one form, polygamy, has extensive historical basis), is a bit hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Certainly it's hypocritical, and I think that's right -- much as legalized polygamy/andry was derided as a "slippery slope" argument before all this really got going, as more and more SSM victories are won, people are starting to realize that yes, indeed, the basis on which they're being decided DOES take away any valid arguments against marriages of more than two -- and now they're scrambling to justify keeping it illegal.

Which leads me to wonder -- why? What do they have against it? If consenting adults want to make those kinds of relationship commitments, why do they want to stand in the way?

My suspicion is that it's the "ewww" factor and not a small amount of religious bigotry. Or both.

Because group marriages, in any form, come with many more complications than a legal union of two people. At the very least, it would require a different set of rules and a different form in order to ensure that everyone within the partnership is protected against abuse from one or more within the group and to ensure that legal issues are covered prior to them becoming an issue.

Some people, like myself, are open to the idea of group marriage. However, it is not nearly the same thing as SSM. SSM involves merely naming a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex as being a person's closest living relative. Without protections in place to ensure that a person is not able to marry multiple people without the knowledge of any previous spouse, then there is a high potential for abuse and/or fraud, not to mention huge legal issues if the person is incapacitated or dies. These are things that should be worked out prior to opening up marriages to groups.

roguenuke said:

Because group marriages, in any form, come with many more complications than a legal union of two people. At the very least, it would require a different set of rules and a different form in order to ensure that everyone within the partnership is protected against abuse from one or more within the group and to ensure that legal issues are covered prior to them becoming an issue.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, "protected from abuse"?

Some people, like myself, are open to the idea of group marriage. However, it is not nearly the same thing as SSM. SSM involves merely naming a person of the same sex rather than the opposite sex as being a person's closest living relative. Without protections in place to ensure that a person is not able to marry multiple people without the knowledge of any previous spouse, then there is a high potential for abuse and/or fraud, not to mention huge legal issues if the person is incapacitated or dies. These are things that should be worked out prior to opening up marriages to groups.

Click to expand...

That's a logistics matter which doesn't stand up to the fundamental rights at issue. Certainly not under the arguments that these cases are winning on. There's no cost/benefit analysis being done, nor provisions for easing into anything. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right.

Harshaw said:

What do you mean, "protected from abuse"?

Click to expand...

There are certainly some groups, FLDS comes to mind, who would use such a thing to be able to marry more young girls. Since it only takes a parent's permission in many states for someone under the age of 18 to get married, it certainly sets someone up to be abused.

It could also lead to someone being taken advantage of.

Harshaw said:

That's a logistics matter which doesn't stand up to the fundamental rights at issue. Certainly not under the arguments that these cases are winning on. There's no cost/benefit analysis being done, nor provisions for easing into anything. If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

It is a matter that needs to be covered prior to opening up such an idea. One of the more important things that the marriage contract does is establish a person who is considered to have the final say in medical and/or legal matters for that other person. Which spouse would have that say in a group marriage? What if a person wanted one spouse to make a decision on life support, while another decides on what happens to the body after death?

There is also the question on whether it would be an actual group marriage thing or a person is able to have multiple marriage contracts. The group marriage thing would definitely work better than just making it so that a person can have multiple marriage contracts. Multiple marriage contracts would easily open it up so that the spouses might not be aware of each other. This could have major complications. In a group marriage, everyone would essentially be consenting to actually marry everyone else. This way everyone would definitely know who all was considered a spouse of their spouse.

Along with these though, to just look at SSM as a equal rights issue would be wrong. We must look at why the marriage contract/license exists and comes with what it does. What benefits does marriages provide society? What benefits are provided to citizens who marry? These are important aspects of marriage. All the main benefits of marriage to both society and individuals easily come from and will go to same sex couples just as they do opposite sex couples. Raising children in loving households (hopefully) should the couple choose to have children, stability, someone to take responsibility for debts and/or medical/final decisions of a person all are benefits to society. And marriages benefit individuals by making them a legal member of another person's family. In fact, a marriage makes a spouse another person's closest legal relative. This ensures (99% of the time anyway) that important decisions are left up to the spouse. It also ensures that the spouse is entitled to the other person's possessions without a will (obviously a will that doesn't leave everything to a spouse would trump this). There are many other benefits/rights that individuals gain from being married.

roguenuke said:

There are certainly some groups, FLDS comes to mind, who would use such a thing to be able to marry more young girls. Since it only takes a parent's permission in many states for someone under the age of 18 to get married, it certainly sets someone up to be abused.

It could also lead to someone being taken advantage of.

Click to expand...

I'm only referring to consenting adults.

It is a matter that needs to be covered prior to opening up such an idea. One of the more important things that the marriage contract does is establish a person who is considered to have the final say in medical and/or legal matters for that other person. Which spouse would have that say in a group marriage? What if a person wanted one spouse to make a decision on life support, while another decides on what happens to the body after death?

There is also the question on whether it would be an actual group marriage thing or a person is able to have multiple marriage contracts. The group marriage thing would definitely work better than just making it so that a person can have multiple marriage contracts. Multiple marriage contracts would easily open it up so that the spouses might not be aware of each other. This could have major complications. In a group marriage, everyone would essentially be consenting to actually marry everyone else. This way everyone would definitely know who all was considered a spouse of their spouse.

Along with these though, to just look at SSM as a equal rights issue would be wrong. We must look at why the marriage contract/license exists and comes with what it does. What benefits does marriages provide society? What benefits are provided to citizens who marry? These are important aspects of marriage. All the main benefits of marriage to both society and individuals easily come from and will go to same sex couples just as they do opposite sex couples. Raising children in loving households (hopefully) should the couple choose to have children, stability, someone to take responsibility for debts and/or medical/final decisions of a person all are benefits to society. And marriages benefit individuals by making them a legal member of another person's family. In fact, a marriage makes a spouse another person's closest legal relative. This ensures (99% of the time anyway) that important decisions are left up to the spouse. It also ensures that the spouse is entitled to the other person's possessions without a will (obviously a will that doesn't leave everything to a spouse would trump this). There are many other benefits/rights that individuals gain from being married.

Click to expand...

You're talking about best practices, but that doesn't matter anymore. The reality is what is and is increasingly shaping up to be. This is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the way the law is shaping up and the precedents which are being established. And those precedents are going to make it pretty tough to argue against legalized marriages of more than one.

These arguments would still matter if the issue were being decided as it should be, through societal consensus and legislation. But that's not how it's going down, and a lot of people who are fine with how it's going down are starting to realize that yes indeed, the polygamy/andry issue is barreling down the pike.

I thought this was about SSM?

Anyway, marriage isn't a right. But equal protection under the law is. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th amendment. If you can show that polygamy is in violation then you'll have legal standing.

Your Star said:

I thought this was about SSM?

Anyway, marriage isn't a right. But equal protection under the law is. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th amendment. If you can show that polygamy is in violation then you'll have legal standing.

Click to expand...

Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. :shrug: I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.

Harshaw said:

Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. :shrug: I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.

Click to expand...

Not really. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th based on gender, you can't deny someone the right to enter a contract based on their gender without a state interest, and being able to show that by denying it, it protects that state interest. If you can show that with polygamy, I'm all ears.

Personally, I really don't care, and to be honest, polygamist aren't really into marriage, so I don't think it would be accepted by the polygamist community all too well. Plus it would be a legal nightmare, while SSM, would just inherit all the rules of opposite sex marriage.
The only problem I have is that when people try to marry(no pun intended) the two concepts when they are really very different things.

Harshaw said:

Under every prevailing argument which says denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, so too is denying marriages of more than two. :shrug: I'm not advocating for or against it, so I don't have a stake in it (though I have no problem with it). But that's the way it's going down.

But I don't know why any advocate of SSM should be against it.

Click to expand...

IF the argument around denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, there would be some inconsistency in not advocating for plural marriage. I, however, never argue that denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment. My argument is completely different, and based on my position, not advocating for plural marriage is entirely consistent.

CaptainCourtesy said:

IF the argument around denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment, there would be some inconsistency in not advocating for plural marriage. I, however, never argue that denying SSM is a violation of the 14th Amendment. My argument is completely different, and based on my position, not advocating for plural marriage is entirely consistent.

Click to expand...

I know what your position is, and indeed, you may be an exception. However, your position is not one that pretty much any other SSM advocate takes. I'm sure they wouldn't be hostile to it, but it's certainly not their own core argument. (Of course, they MAY be hostile to it, because your view would change if further research yielded different data from that which you're currently operating.)

But, you raise a qualification which does lead to a pretty solid rule: if one advocates for SSM on fundamental rights grounds, it will be hypocritical to then advocate for the denial of the right to marriages of more than one.

Harshaw said:

I know what your position is, and indeed, you may be an exception. However, your position is not one that pretty much any other SSM advocate takes. I'm sure they wouldn't be hostile to it, but it's certainly not their own core argument. (Of course, they MAY be hostile to it, because your view would change if further research yielded different data from that which you're currently operating.)

But, you raise a qualification which does lead to a pretty solid rule: if one advocates for SSM on fundamental rights grounds, it will be hypocritical to then advocate for the denial of the right to marriages of more than one.

Click to expand...

I think there could certainly be an argument that the pro-SSM, anti-plural marriage position based on fundemental rights COULD indeed be hypocritical. I think it's less simple and more complex, though, and I would like to see the arguments from some pro-SSM folks against plural marriage, completely on 14th Amendment rights. I think it would be a tough debate to win.

And I agree. Not too may argue SSM from my position, but I think that the hostility to my position, NOT a rights position at all, makes some of them feel that it disparages gays. On the contrary. It places everyone in the same boat.

Your Star said:

Not really. Denying SSM is a violation of the 14th based on gender you can't deny someone the right to enter a contract based on their gender without a state interest, and being able to show that by denying it, it protects that state interest.

Click to expand...

Gender-based discrimination arguments have not prevailed (and for the most part have not even been argued). It's all been on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality.

If you can show that with polygamy, I'm all ears.

Click to expand...

What state interest is protected by denying marriages of more than one?

The larger point, of course, is the general argument that it's nobody's business who people choose to marry. If those of the same sex wish to marry, who's to say they shouldn't be able to? Likewise, if more than two people wish to marry, what business is it of anyone else?

Personally, I really don't care, and to be honest, polygamist aren't really into marriage, so I don't think it would be accepted by the polygamist community all too well. Plus it would be a legal nightmare, while SSM, would just inherit all the rules of opposite sex marriage.
The only problem I have is that when people try to marry(no pun intended) the two concepts when they are really very different things.

Click to expand...

"Polygamy" is marriage. If there are those who call themselves "polygamists" but reject marriage, then it's they who are using the wrong term. If there's confusion, then it's their fault.

But that's neither here nor there; this is obviously about marriage, not some other arrangement.

Well it's darn near unanimous that the government shouldn't force ssm requirements on churches.