Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
Brian McConnell
bleport
halldg
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
Jon
goesdownbitter
jack3566Gay Marriage: explain the Difference From …
- POLYGAMY
- GROUP MARRIAGES
- MARRIAGE BETWEEN RELATIVES
Polygamy: A relationship between consenting adults with long religious and historical significance (unlike gay marriage). The ‘child marriages’ in places like Eldorado are illegal aberrations that cannot smear the actual concept.
Group marriages: My favorite science fiction (’The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ by Heinlein) accurately describes the potential of group marriages (there a shortage of women led to arrangements like 5 wives, 14 husbands, all interchangable) for being stable arrangements with the right mindset. Again consenting adults that should not be discriminated against.
Marrying within the family: originally rightfully banned by church doctrine for the problems of inbreeding. However, we know other problems of breeding now. My son has a serious genetic condition as a mutation (NF2) which is autosomal dominant and gets worse with every generation. Should the State ban my son from marrying based on genetic inadvisability of procreating? Especially if such people agree not to have children (other than adoption and/or surrogates, like gay couples must)? If not, what prevents an adult niece from marrying an uncle (I have family where those are in the same age ranges)? If nothing, what about an adult son marrying his widowed mother? (Our cultural disgust for that not withstanding; we’re talking the law here.)
I would be interested in hearing the arguments, because I see nothing in the tone of the ruling in California that would preclude any of these for anything other than poltical expediency in their unacceptability to most (and lack of an active lobby supporting them). Numbers involved do not a right make, do they?
A Gray Zone scenario, for certain.
Filed under: Politics
I’m not an expert on marriage law, but I’m not so sure why conservatives get so upset about this. Why is it so threatening for the state to allow marriages outside of the conservative view of the tradition? The argument I always hear is, “but this isn’t just allow same-sex relations, this is the state sanctioning those unions.”
Alright then, why is it ok for the state to sanction unions as described “ok” by one religious sect, but not as described by other veins of belief? How does legal marriage even fit into a system where church is supposed to be separated from state?
If you try to strip away the religious implications, marriage is a legal contract between two people for their mutual benefit. Generally, marriage only applies to two people because, once you start incorporating larger groups of people, you start overlapping with other groups -religious sects, clubs, parties, etc.
With regards to family, I’m not certain that an interfamily marriage can be considered ‘consenting’ when family pressure, expectations, and upbring are a factor. If a daughter marries her stepfather, it’s just too difficult to tell if, while she was too young to decide, she wasn’t pressured or conditioned to enter into the relationship when she came of age.
That’s my explanation. There are gray areas in my explanation, sure. Where should the line be drawn, etc. ::shrug:: It’s an imperfect system. Personally, I’m not entirely against group marriage / polygamy either, when it’s applied responsibly. I just think the legal issues get very strange once you start talking about more than two people.
Seriously, though, people should give homosexuals a break. If society is so concerned that homosexuals are smearing smut, debauchery, and ‘free love’ into our childrens’ minds, then why not let homosexuals opt for ‘responsible,’ married relationships like the rest of society?
What I’m saying is to differentiate between any of these is to give homosexual marriage ’special treatment’. Not stating for or against; as a great-grandson of a polygamous marriage, I won’t be that hypocritical. Just posing the question; what’s the difference?
Why two? Historically, the number is false is many societies and still is in quite a few. Clinging to that number is a false flag that is discriminatory.
Stepfather/daughter marriage; you assume pressure when there may or may not not be any (or no more than in other older/younger marriages). The case could be ages of 25/40 here, considering the ’step’ nature. “too young to decide’ is already defined by the law and meeting that requirement is a given in my scenarios.
And if you go based on age differential, there any number of Hollywood types you’d have to go after first. Personally, I consider Michael Douglas one of the luckiest SOBs on the planet; he’s older than me and wakes up with Catherine Zeta-Jones??
“Marriage” is a religious state granted by whatever religion the persons choose, and it is also a confusing term for a variety of contract recognized by the state.
All legitimate marriages in this country are required to be of the state contract type. If you also want a religious marriage, that is up to you.
The First Amendment prohibits the state from granting the religious status, so the only thing the state can grant is recognition of the state contract.
Under the equal protection rights, I don’t think states will be able to limit the sex of persons making a contract. Other types of contracts are not limited by the sex of the contracting parties. This type can not be limited either.
The state can limit rights to make a contract by limiting legal purpose, competent parties and such, but it can not limit the right to contract for no other reason than discrimination.
This is a trivial issue as it will involve less than one half of one percent of marriages. Wingnuts and homophobes will try to make it into a big deal this election year, but it isn’t.
Frankly, most homosexuals don’t truly care about getting married only that they should be allowed to if they choose to. Couple that with a larger separation/break up/partner change rate when compared to heterosexual couples and you might wonder why they would need the extra label in the first place? I am not attempting to sidestep the same argument which can and is used in general society for increased divorce rates and an overall hesitance to get married. As far as practical concerns, big business is most against this because of increased insurance costs.
The only legitimate issues to me are moral(generally not prescribed as law in our society), undue pressure on minor’s similar to those with limited mental reasoning or in difficult situations, and states rights. Marriage in one state should not be automatically accepted in another. Makes divorce a bit tricky when you have to go back to the state that married you.
Adoption is a much more important issue to me than same sex marriage. For example a couple questions I have bounced around are whether children of same sex couples are at a disadvantage to children of heterosexual couples. This thought also relates to whether children of polygamist relationships arer more susceptible to emotional damage to their adult psyche. You can get on a real slippery slope here though because this line of reasoning could lead to denying adoption to celebrity marriages since they are much more likely to fail and children are consequently more likely to have problems when their parents are divorced.
While I disagree that a couple needs to have a $75,000 yearly income to properly raise a child, I do feel that situational concerns can and maybe should play a larger part. If insurance companies can make all these statistical judgments why can’t others?
Here’s a simplification of my rambling post:
a. In a legal sense, marriage is defined as a contract between 2 people, but it should be applied equally to any two people. If you include “man and woman” in the definition, obvious gray areas arise - transexuals, sex changes, eunichs, etc. which I think reveals a discrimination in the system. How do you legally define sexuality, anyway? The concept of 2 people is much clearer, imho, except for conjoined twins. In that case, I’m not sure what happens. Probably, Scalia’s head explodes.
b. Interfamily - I’m not assuming pressure. It’s about the idea of consent. Technically, the courts can’t guarantee that a 13 year old isn’t mature enough to pick their life partner, but it’s a safe bet. When families get involved, there’s no certainty that there will be coercion or ‘pressure’ (oh lord, the innuendos…), but it’s pretty likely that there will be enough emotional involvement that it’s not a completely free choice. The decision of which family members are ok and which are not is difficult, I agree.
“Probably, Scalia’s head explodes.”.OMG………..I’m in stitches over here. To funny!
Ryan, you are still fixated on the number, which is not even historically the only acceptable value; it did figure significantly in the logic of the California decision, but none of the reasons given for the reversal would inherently preclude more.
You are also fixated on underage marriage (which is indeed clearly wrong) that is not a requirement of intra-familial marriage (the example I gave was 25 and 40, both clearly adults).
BTW: it is now apparent that the State of Texas is deliberately exagerrating the number of ‘teen bride/mothers’ at the Eldorado Ranch, even after they have proof of some being adults. Polyphobia, anyone?
I know I’m beating a horse here but as for the underage thing…
what I’m getting at is, even if the two people grow to an appropriate age, there’s no knowing if during the youth’s upbring they weren’t conditioned to accept the marriage when they did come of age. Does this make sense?
Plus, even when the parent / child are ‘of age,’ the parent still has excessive emotional influence over their offspring. This problem even applies to slightly more distant relatives. How can a court decide that the two adults married consensually if there’s already familial emotional bonds involved?
As for the number, I agree, it’s pretty hard to argue against multiple partners, but what I’m saying is that if you allow marriage to be between any number of people, you overlap other territory. If a large group with similar religious beliefs marries for legal purposes, shouldn’t they just register as a religious group instead?