- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 3,216
- Location
- Benghazi
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Polygamy is acceptable in the Bible, so what is your beef this time?
So that's what marriage is all about? It's just about a bunch of legal "benefits"? Then why was everyone so opposed to civil unions?
I care. One reason: I don't know that we can afford it.Serious question:
Who cares if three people are married, and why?
I care. One reason: I don't know that we can afford it.
What's this going to do to welfare? How do you calculate survivor benefits for SS?
At this point there are just so many unanswered questions, isn't it foolish not to at least care about the issue?
Do you have an issue with more freedoms?
What would be great would be the freedom to elect judges, rather than having them appointed for me by my benevolent government. Democracy is the best kind of freedom.
Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.
Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.
Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.
I do have a question for anyone who opposes it to answer....
What is inherently wrong with polygamy? On what grounds do people oppose it?
I only oppose striking down the bans or repealing them without any changes to marriage/spousal laws because many of the concerns that we use spousal laws to address, are completely turned on their head when a person has more than one legal spouse. Plus, what is to stop someone from using this to their advantage. At the very least, it would cost the government more money. Such a thing would make immigration laws pertaining to spouses a nightmare. And in that one area alone, it could increase some huge costs for investigations almost overnight because a person could just marry 40, 60, 100 other people at a couple of thousand dollars a piece then retire with more money than Bruce Wayne. And all those investigations would cost the US a ton of money to deal with, even if the person didn't get away with it.
Oh, really? Exactly which "people" are you talking about? Apparently NOT the majority of citizens who support the decision, (which includes myself). Nor the minority of citizens who, as with any other decision of SCOTUS, might not agree with it but are willing to accept and adapt to it as the price of citizenship.
You must mean that OTHER minority of people, like yourself, who think either your religious-based objections OR non-religious personal prejudices make your claim that this decision is "unlawful," true?
if opposite sex marriages want to retain all the legal privileges and immunities of marriage granted to them no matter where they reside in the USA, then same-sex couples legally married in one state MUST have those same privileges and immunities protected in ALL states too.
That is a perfect application of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
So, again we limit freedom because it will cost us money.
He was only asking who cared--it seems to me it has the potential to affect everyone in the country, including me, so of course I care.So freedom should be limited to the POSSIBILITY that these marriages may require assistance of Welfare or Social Security?
If anyone wants to get married they should- be it man, woman, multiples, plants or beasts. I dont see how its anyone's business but themselves.
It is a lot of state money, which is in a government interest, and it doesn't do a whole lot for those involved, nor does doing so offer many protections to the spouses, given the nature of marriage laws and their point. Part of the reason for marriage is to protect the spouse. They get some say in various decisions in the other spouse's life, say that is automatically set up with the marriage license, but set up with other legal paperwork when there is no spouse and that paperwork limits people to only having one person identified as that legal representative. This is at least one law that revolves around a two person only marriage. There is also the matter of parental rights. People in the child's life from pretty much birth do get some rights concerning a child they helped raise, especially if they want to adopt, which legal marriage gives them the right to do. There is also the matter of if there is no limit on how many spouses a person can have, theoretically everyone on Earth could be legally married to everyone else. Also how much privacy within the marriages must be mandated by the law? Can a spouse simply separate from the "family"? Can a spouse with multiple spouses keep the other spouses secret? What then happens if they die? Which spouse takes precedent? If one spouses has 20 other spouses, all hidden from the others, how is the first spouse's assets calculated? As a married person, it is the joint amount between both spouses. What if there is not a will? Does each spouses now get 1/20th of the money? What about the children? What if one or more spouses bring children from previous marriages into the relationship?
These are but a few of thousands, if not more, questions that pertain to polygamy laws.
It's not. I'd love to know how these people who are saying "no" to non-traditional marriages would feel if somebody came up to them and said, "Nope. Not gettin' married today. We don't like your choice of partner. Find somebody else and come back later. We'll revisit the conversation then." :roll:
Why? All he needs to do is say, "yes, we can take care of that for you today" then switch places with the person standing next to him who has no such belief. Then everybody crosses their fingers and hopes that the world doesn't suddenly end.My state, despite the Republican Governor's veto, decided to overrule him and enact a "Religious Freedom" bull**** law for magistrates to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on "deeply held religious beliefs"..
Im waiting for that one troll magistrate to refuse to issue a marriage license based upon "deeply held religious beliefs" to a man/woman couple attempting to get married......
That **** would make my day.
So that's what marriage is all about? It's just about a bunch of legal "benefits"? Then why was everyone so opposed to civil unions?
My state, despite the Republican Governor's veto, decided to overrule him and enact a "Religious Freedom" bull**** law for magistrates to refuse to issue marriage licenses based on "deeply held religious beliefs"..
Im waiting for that one troll magistrate to refuse to issue a marriage license based upon "deeply held religious beliefs" to a man/woman couple attempting to get married......
That **** would make my day.
And nearly all of those questions are still at issue before the court during a typical Divorce or Estate proceeding. And each and every one today with typical marriages are completed on a case by case basis, and it will be no different with polygamy marriages. There is no law set in stone on these types of decisions that has to be re-created due to polygamy.
Look.... maybe you haven't been to North Carolina.... but pretending that every county has 2-50 Civil Magistrates working on any particular day is a stretch of the imagination.Why? All he needs to do is say, "yes, we can take care of that for you today" then switch places with the person standing next to him who has no such belief. Then everybody crosses their fingers and hopes that the world doesn't suddenly end.
If that's the sort of thing that makes your day, just wait till you finish painting that first room and then get watch it all dry.
Would certainly make the news, wouldn't it? :lol:
No, most of those questions are not any significant issues for the court in most divorce cases or estate proceedings. If there is no will, assets go to the spouse, so long as there is no evidence that it should go to somewhere else (something shady going on). There is little question about who is supposed to have the right to medical decisions or death decisions for a married person. These are things set in place with a legal marriage, that are only changed, vary for certain people because those people want specifically to have them changed.
Hell, one of them is absolutely specific to only being necessary to know if we did allow people to have more than one spouse. Would each spouse have to agree to a new spouse their spouse takes on?
In the military, if I plan to leave anyone else besides my spouse my base pay, death/missing benefits, life insurance, my husband has to agree to it because I'm married.
My objections to Obergefell are based…on my strong belief in democracy and the rule of law...
Obergefell is a substantive due process decision, pure and simple, with all the faults which have made that doctrine notorious--and then some.
As far as I am aware, no mainstream Christian group has ever advocated polygamy or tolerated it among their followers. That's about 2,000 years of history we are talking about.Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.
Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.
Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.