You are consistent and persistent and capable of infinite repetition, RN. I'll give you that.
Because I know I'm right.
You're arguments make perfectly good sense to me.
That's quite an endorsement, LOL. if that doesn't get RN trying to figure out what's wrong with her position, nothing will.
I can't help it if you can't understand her position or mine. Neither are really that complicated.
I understand your position. You're right. They're very simple.
This is a clear sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument. :lol: That's okay. Keep on insulting. It just makes you look weak.
This is a clear sign of someone who is on the losing side of an argument. :lol: That's okay. Keep on insulting. It just makes you look weak.
Given the courts now decide who loses and who wins, I'm not sure there is a societal "side" any longer...
That's true, but if the question was if the state is discriminating against certain groups of people by denying them marriage certificates, that would probably be the court's domain. It really doesn't seem like a voters issue.
Are those desiring a polygamous lifestyle not being discriminated against given your viewpoint?
Are those desiring a polygamous lifestyle not being discriminated against given your viewpoint?
They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
I think any consenting adults or adults should be able to be legally married. I can't think of one good reason why they wouldn't be allowed to. Some people keep complaining about the integrity of marriage and how divorce rates are so high, but that has only to do with heterosexual couples because any other kind of marriage is quite rare right now.
I really have never heard about polygamists protesting about being unable to marry though, at least not widespread or newsworthy.
They have the right to challenge the laws and see what the state comes up with for a legitimate state interest being furthered in the restriction on how many legal spouses they can have. In all likelihood though the state can show at least a legitimate state interest is furthered in some way by restrictions on how many spouses any person in the US can have. It doesn't take much. The problem with restrictions on marriage based on sex/gender is that there are no legitimate state interests being furthered. It is still just two people, so there is no conflict within the laws based on that (whereas, with a person having more than one spouse, there is a conflict). No one is harmed (which can be shown to happen in some cases of polygamy, but can't really be shown in all so not really a good argument pertaining to multiple spouse restrictions). And marriage laws are gender-neutral (which still wouldn't pertain to multiple spouses, but marriage laws are not number of spouses neutral in their operation).
Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors.
That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
As long as marriage licenses are still required, I don't see polygamy being any more of a problem when it comes to age of consent than any other marriage.
Well, that's worked out well, huh? Obviously, marriage does not encourage certain behaviors. I cannot see the logic in how you would think a marriage certificate would alter the way someone would normally behave or to encourage them to behave in a certain way.
I don't think this is the sort of issue that should be voted upon.
Also, I don't see who would be harmed by allowing others besides heterosexual couples to marry. What's the big deal?
Age of consent isn't the problem with multiple spouse restrictions. The state can show a legitimate state interest is being furthered in just the fact that it is a restriction on how many spouses a person can legally claim, therefore it limits the amount of legally recognized "closest relatives" a person has. This prevents a large number of civil lawsuits from coming up. And limiting the number of people allowed in a contract is not something that doesn't happen in other contracts. For example, a contract that is covered by marriage absent a specific one that grants the right to someone other than a person's legal spouse, is the medical power of attorney. A person can only name one person legally as their medical decision maker in case of their incapacitation. And a person may only have one legal medical POA at a time (the most recent one is considered the legal one, just like a will). This prevents two people from fighting over a medical decision for that person. The way the laws are now, any person who is considered a person's legal spouse is that person's legal decision maker. It makes no provisions in the law for multiple spouses because no one is allowed to have more than one spouse legally. This law would have to be changed, at least slightly, to accommodate multiple spouses. And it isn't the only law that would require modifications to accommodate multiple legally recognized spouses. This is a legitimate state interest in maintaining a legal limit on how many spouses a person can have.
Personally, I don't care if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, as long as they provide documentation that the vast majority of legal issues that would arise just from having legal spouses alone were covered in prearranged agreements beforehand. (And I am all for repealing any laws that say a person cannot privately have multiple spouses or live with whoever the heck they want to.) But I do recognize that the state can most likely successfully argue that there is a legitimate state interest furthered by limiting the number of spouses any person can have. They have done so several times in the past.
Marriage, in this country, is a State construct that was set up to encourage certain behaviors. That is now, and has been, bastardized by the courts in the name of supposed "rights". I'm sorry, the courts should not be dictating those behaviors under a citizen established government, or do we now acquiesce our control of government to the courts? CA did it the right way. The question was put before the people, and they decided. Did it matter? No, as the court decided it knew better.
It has to do with the way society views the act. If it is considered as a commodity that can be entered into and be released from easily, it does lose its original intentions...
If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.
The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
If this were true, marriage laws concerning interracial restrictions, restrictions based on being behind on child support, and restrictions based on being an inmate would never have been struck down. Marriage laws, like all state laws, are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.
The entire point of the 14th Amendment is to limit the powers of the states because the states will try to become small tyrannies of the majority if allowed to violate the Constitutional protections that the federal government must abide by.
And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.