Arguing the law is fun ain't it?
Indeed, its been good discussing things with you.
The discrimination is in personal identity, (personhood - I just made it up) and freedom to associate, and enter into contracts. Currently, there is a legal definition of marriage roughly being that of two consenting adults, one man, and one woman uniquely singular.
Alright, I'm tracking with you I think.
By not allowing anyone to marry whomever they want, or as many times as they want is discriminatory, because there is no rational justification to allowing only one person to marry another person. (more on that later)
Ah, but see, already you're failing to do as i asked and that I have proceeded to be able to do with regards to gender.
You're not showing clearly HOW they're being discriminated against, or more to the point, who is getting UNEQUAL treatment.
In the example regarding blacks, they were clearly able to show that they recieved different treatments than whites because whites can marry whites and they can't.
In my example regarding gender, I can clearly show that they recieve different treatments because men can marry women but women can't marry women.
You've still not shown where the disparity is. Your making an assertion that not allowing them to marry whoever or how many times they want is discriminatory. However you don't show why that's discriminatory by showing WHO is getting different treatment then they are and how that disparity is presented.
You still need to do that. Simply saying "its discriminatory" isn't showing that. As I said, you need an actual tangible, clear example. I've presented one, you have not. As such the notion that it is hypocritical for me to support one but not the other is unfounded because they are not on equal ground regarding my argument and thus able to be reasonable viewed differently.
None of which are uniquely intrinsic to marriage as a fundamental right, all of which are bestowed on the happy couple by way of legislation, independent of any constitutional authority.
Indeed I'm not claiming those are fundamental nor constitutional rights. They are "rights" though, as the government says "By entering into marriage you all get [x]" essentially. Its a state given right rather than a constitutionally protected right or a natural right. But really, it doesn't even matter if you don't consider them a right.
They're benefits the government is giving to people who are married, and based on equal protection under the law must be provided in equal means baring specific circumstances.
If contracted for, there is no compelling reason to deny the privilege of marriage to any number of relationships, and multiple couplings. even if children are produced, the family law of most states is well defined. No problem, in other words.
I did not ask if there was compelling reason. Compelling reason is IRRELEVANT to the question I was asking. I was asking is it RATIONAL to suggest that assigning multiple individuals with the same standard typically assigned to a single spouse would create the potential for conflicts over who say matters most.
You went off on a completely different tangent that didn't answer my question in the least.
Of course it's rational to conclude this. It happens now every single day with traditionally married couples, despite the intrinsic presumption of shared equity. It's called family court, or probate. Still no compelling reason to deny other multiple person marriages.
Okay, so you answered this one. Thank you. You acknowledge this would likely cause court cases to ensue. You then try to equiviocate that court cases already ensue. That is irrelevant. Let me explain why.
Would the issues your subscribing to two person couples ALSO routinely apply to multi-person couples?
Would the issues I'm suggesting with regards to mulit-person couples, where multiple people are claiming spousal privledge over final say over [x] marriage granted power, ALSO routinely apply to two person couples?
If the answer is "Yes" to the first one and "no" to the second one then your point concerning it "already happening" isn't actually correct in line with what I'm speaking about.
It might, it might not, but the simple increase in marriages alone do this already, (For instance if marriages go up by 10% year over year then it follows so too do court actions) not to mention that no fault divorce, has had a dramatic affect on divorce in general in this nation. Should no fault be repealed because a direct correlation to the increase in divorce on demand can be attributed?
Yes, increasing in marriage does already do this. That doesn't change whether or not this change in law would add even more on TOP of that.
As I was stating above, if one can rataionally assume normal court issues for two individual marriages are going to occur in multi-person marriage while also rationally assuming new ones unique to multi-person marriages will arrise, then it is rational to suggest that with all other things being equal there will be more court cases under multi-person marriage being legal then under individual person marriage being legal.
I'm not honestly familiar with no fault enough to comment on it. However, your argument against an entire different issue has no real impact on this particular issue. Something else being wrong and needing fixing doesn't necessarily mean THIS is or isn't going to have an impact on the court system.
No it's completely irrational. The courts are to serve justice to the people, period. There is no expressed or implied limitation on this function.
So you're saying its irrational to suggest the courts serve the people in a positive way if they spend less money?
So you're saying its irrational to suggest the courts serve the people by allowing for more speedy occurances of trials?
You may think they're less important than your percieved discrimination, but I think its entirely irrational to suggeset its not to the benefit of the state to:
1. Save money
2. Reduce the time it takes for a trial to occur
Honestly, no. It might survive some arbitrary basis test, but not a rational one, nor a strict scrutiny test to be sure.
And I presonally disagree, I think it absolutely would pass a rational basis one, though likely not a strict scrutiny test. However no one has presented even close to a legitimate argument of polygamy being anything but at best the lowest tier of the EPC.
I see three potential basis to bring suit. One, discrimination of multiple person marriages based on some arbitrary ideal of marriage being between a single man, and a single woman. If marriage is arbitrarily decided that it be only between one man, and one woman, or one person and another person, the court would need to clarify why is marriage restricted to only two individuals, as intrinsic to marriage in and of itself.
You have to present where the discrimination is. You've still yet to do that. You're just declaring "There's discrimination" and expecting it to be gospel. I've CLEARLY shown the discrimination present in my argument. You've still yet to do it. Who is getting something that someone else is not getting, and what is that something?
Secondly, personhood is the identity of oneself with respect to the environment in which that person chooses to pace themselves in, within the confines of the law. Carrying with it, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without jurisdiction. If the state wishes to infringe on this fundamental right, it needs to show a compelling reason to do so. The burden doesn't rest with the plaintiff, it rests with the respondent. In legal circles it's called - "showing cause".
Here's the problem.
Anyone is free to choose to consider themselves "married". The government doesn't prevent this.
However if one wants to be LEGALLY married then you must meet the requirements of the law. As a society the government is absolutely able to restrict and regulate your rights in exchange for getting government benefits. If you don't want the government benefits then simply declare yourself "married" to whoever you want, you're free to do so.
But the government must give out its benefits equally unless it meets the standards needed to not, and so far you have no shown where the inequality is in this case.
Thirdly, people have the fundamental right to enter into contracts, and the contract of marriage, although independent of any meaning of marriage traditionally, are not mutually exclusive of each other, and more a formality that anything intrinsic to marriage itself.
Yes, you can enter into contracts.
However, people are not free to dictate to the government what said contracts must say or be. IE, said person can't demand that the government allow them to claim to have signed a property contract because they agreed to get married, because by god they believe the woman is property and they have a right to enter into contracts so the government is constitutionally mandated to let them dictate what that contract is called or is.
Again, if Person A and Person B would like to create a contract that says they will consider themselves married and that they will agree to sign power of attornies, wills, and other individual recognized contracts giving the other most of the benefits that married couples get automatically through the marriage contract I have no issue with that and neither should the government. They're free to do that.
However, they're not free to go to the government and tell them that the Power of Attorny contract also must do 3 things that it doesn't do under the law because by god they have a right to enter into contracts.
Contracts by the government can be created by the government and in doing so the people entering into them do so knowingly with the limitations and benefits that the contract has. They do not get to redfine said contract because they dislike it. However, said contract is bound by the laws of the land and the constitution.
Again, for your suit to work in my mind, you'd need to prove that polygamists are not getting equal protection. Again, you have failed to clearly show how someone is doing/getting something, and what that something is, under the law that they do not get.
Yes, true, but the "certain conditions" are in the due process clause. Are polygamists afforded due process? I say no, not at all.
Sure, I'd conceed at most their afforded the same right as other bottom tier people in the EPC....with the state needing to show a rational argument for any beneficial state interest to be able to do it.
Is any legal argument against the status quo, fantasy? Then maybe this attempt by the homosexual lobby is also fantasy? Surely you meant that to come out differently?
No, any legal argument against the status quo isn't fantasy. However, an argument against the status quo that uses ANOTHER argument against the status quo...I don't know if I'd say fantasy, I'd say its a hypothetical that has no basis in a rational discussion of reality.
You're not simply suggesting something opposite the status quo. You're suggesting the status quo that the equal protection clause applies to marriage is wrong because the status quo that marriage is a right is wrong. To make your one leap that goes against court precedence you're requiring ANOTHER leap that goes against court precedence. This is moving rather far out of the realm of a reasonable realistic argument against mine and into a purely philisophical realm.
Which isn't necessarily bad...but is something I'd rather discuss in another thread rather than one talking about the issue as it stands today in this world.
Only time will tell.
Thanks for the debate, Zyphlin!
Sadly I must cut this short because I need to leave, as work ended 2 minutes ago and I have an doctors appointment in a half hour. Let me say your arguments are interesting, even if I don't agree with them, and you've delivered them in a rather reasonable and intriguing way. Thanks for the good debate as well.