Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

matchlight said:

You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.



Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.

Click to expand...

When was the last conviction, in any state?

matchlight said:

You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.

Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.

Click to expand...

It hasn't been prosecuted since 1983. This is like pointing out that not taking a bath except one day a week is technically a "crime" in at least one state. However, that "crime" has not been punished in so long that any court it showed up in would seriously question the use of such an outdated law. So yes, although it is still a "crime" on the books for several states (it is actually 21 now), it is not a crime that is prosecuted nor is it likely that it legitimately could be prosecuted now, given the length of time its been since the last prosecution.

As for the first part, I'm not talking about just a group of people together. I'm talking about people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage. It is about the relationships between the people.

Tetron said:

The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.

Click to expand...

No, that's not true. Marriage originated eons ago, when men wanted to be sure their women could have sex only with them, thereby being sure the offspring were theirs. It was a form of ownership, property rights, and such. Ironic, since as it evolved, men became apt to have commitment issues and want to avoid marriage. When it was their idea, to begin with.

roguenuke said:

it is still a "crime" on the books for several states (it is actually 21 now)

Click to expand...

You made a statement that is factually false. No quotation marks apply--adultery is a crime, period, in twenty-plus states. In several of them, it is a felony crime. First you characterized that twenty-plus as a "few," and now it is "several."

As for the first part, I'm not talking about just a group of people together. I'm talking about people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage. It is about the relationships between the people.

Click to expand...

If one of the persons in that group is legally married and cohabits with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy. Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony. If three or more people, none of whom is legally married, want to cohabit and consider themselves married to each other in some way, their cohabitation will not be a crime in most states.

How often laws against adultery, polygamy, and other acts relating to sex are enforced does not affect whether those acts are crimes. The state sodomy laws the Supreme Court was considering in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas had seldom been enforced, either, but that fact did not determine the law's validity in either case.

matchlight said:

If one of the persons in that group is legally married and cohabits with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

If that person attempts to legally marry another while currently legally married that is bigamy - an illegal act.

Simply fornicating or cohabitation with another is not bigamy. The key is attempting to legally marry more than one person at a time.

matchlight said:

Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony.

Click to expand...

Bigamy and polygamy are two different things. Terms commonly used interchangeably in layman discussions, but two distinct things under the law since persons can be in only one Civil Marriage at a time, but can (it varies by state) be in additional non-civil marriages at the same time.

matchlight said:

If three or more people, none of whom is legally married, want to cohabit and consider themselves married to each other in some way, their cohabitation will not be a crime in most states.

Click to expand...

In many states one can be legally married to one spouse and cohabitate with that spouse and another and as long as there is no attempt to legally marry both at the same time it legal.

Being grounds for divorce and being a criminal act are two different things and again vary by state.



Variations in state laws -->> Polygamy Laws > State Statutes > Against Bigamy > Bigamist

Dec 2013, Federal Court strikes down Utah limitation on cohabitation restrictions -->> http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidne...n-ban-on-religious-cohabitation-in#.fy2BL900Y



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Not quite.

If that person attempts to legally marry another while currently legally married that is bigamy - an illegal act.

Simply fornicating or cohabitation with another is not bigamy. The key is attempting to legally marry more than one person at a time.

Click to expand...

You are changing the hypothetical situation I was responding to. That situation had "people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage." And I stand by my statement of the law that would apply in that situation: If one of the persons in that group is legally married and lives together with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy. The reason is that in most states, at least, the cohabitation as husband and wife between the person who is legally married and other persons to whom he is not legally married does not create relationships to which no law applies. Instead, it creates common law marriages to those persons.

Bigamy and polygamy are two different things. Terms commonly used interchangeably in layman discussions, but two distinct things under the law since persons can be in only one Civil Marriage at a time, but can (it varies by state) be in additional non-civil marriages at the same time.

Click to expand...

State laws make the two separate crimes, although the Supreme Court has blurred the distinction (see below).

In many states one can be legally married to one spouse and cohabitate with that spouse and another and as long as there is no attempt to legally marry both at the same time it legal.

Click to expand...

I question that. As I said, if a legally married person lives together with more than one other person as husband and wife, it constitutes polygamy under most state laws. If you know of states where it would not be polygamy as long as the married person lived together as husband and wife with only one other person, what are those states?

Neither bigamy nor polygamy has ever been favored in this country. In an 1878 decision, Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the case of a Mormon in Utah Territory who had been convicted under a federal law for purposely marrying a second woman while he was already married. The law said that "every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy." The Court upheld the law, rejecting the man's claim that it violated his right to free exercise of religion.

It is interesting that the man plainly considered what he had done to be polygamy, but never tried to deny that the federal bigamy law applied to it. The Court noted that at trial he "proved that he had received permission from the recognized authorities in said church to enter into polygamous marriage." And the Court referred throughout the decision to what the man had done as "polygamy":


"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society....

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity."


Polygamy has been so strongly opposed in this country that Congress required several territories, as a condition of being admitted to the Union as states, to pledge in their state constitutions to ban polygamy by law forever.

matchlight said:

You are changing the hypothetical situation I was responding to. That situation had "people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage." And I stand by my statement of the law that would apply in that situation: If one of the persons in that group is legally married and lives together with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy. The reason is that in most states, at least, the cohabitation as husband and wife between the person who is legally married and other persons to whom he is not legally married does not create relationships to which no law applies. Instead, it creates common law marriages to those persons.

Click to expand...

Didn't change anything, I was responding to your self claimed structure:

1. Cohabitation equal Civil Marriage and that "Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony."

2. And now that living together creates "common law marriages to those persons". The ability to enter into common law marriage isn't as widespread as it used to be, currently you can only enter into CLM's in 12 states. (Which states allow common law marriage? - Nolo.com)



I supplied a link showing the wide variety of laws that exist amongst the various states and many do not have what you said.

Now you say that if a married couple co-habitate with another person that it creates common law marriages (a form of legally recognized Civil Marriage). Every state has laws against bigamy (being legally married to more than one person at the same time) and since you can't enter into a valid legal marriage (which common law marriage is) to a third party if you are prohibited by law from entering into that civil marriage to begin with. If you are already married you are barred from entering into a 3rd marriage so no "common law marriage" can be created. Not saying some states don't have laws against cohabitation, the do, but such cohabitation does not create a common law marriage.


>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Didn't change anything, I was responding to your self claimed structure:

1. Cohabitation equal Civil Marriage and that "Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony."

2. And now that living together creates "common law marriages to those persons". The ability to enter into common law marriage isn't as widespread as it used to be, currently you can only enter into CLM's in 12 states. (Which states allow common law marriage? - Nolo.com)



I supplied a link showing the wide variety of laws that exist amongst the various states and many do not have what you said.

Now you say that if a married couple co-habitate with another person that it creates common law marriages (a form of legally recognized Civil Marriage). Every state has laws against bigamy (being legally married to more than one person at the same time) and since you can't enter into a valid legal marriage (which common law marriage is) to a third party if you are prohibited by law from entering into that civil marriage to begin with. If you are already married you are barred from entering into a 3rd marriage so no "common law marriage" can be created. Not saying some states don't have laws against cohabitation, the do, but such cohabitation does not create a common law marriage.


>>>>

Click to expand...

And laws against cohabitation are not likely to be upheld if challenged under our Constitution, just as we see with other laws, such as adultery. There simply is no legitimate state interest furthered by such laws.