• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Marriage Equality

People keep saying that the future of the GOP is libertarian, but I don't think today's GOP will ever stop fighting marriage equality. They didn't after don't ask don't tell was repealed with 65 votes in the Senate and 70% approval and with 15 states now on board a constitutional amendment would never be ratified. Their last best chance is the Supreme Court and that's dicey especially if the GOP loses the presidency in 2016. There were a ton of anonymous Jim Crow free riders between reconstruction and the 1940s, but history doesn't recall Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox fondly. A lot of nasty crap happened after the freedom rider bus burned in 1961, but for most of America the battle was over then. Same thing with the DADT repeal. Today's GOP is on a kamikaze mission and it won't end well for them.
 
"@petersagal: FINALLY. It was totally embarrassing that Iowa was gayer than we were. http://t.co/uWjbRTHpfX"
 
Gay Couples Wed in Utah After Judge Overturns Ban

Others had a similar reaction after a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that declared Utah's voter-approved ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The recent appointee by President Barack Obama said the ban violates the constitutional rights of gay couples and ruled Utah failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if there will now be a Utah based "Brother Husbands" reality show.
 
avalon said:
Gay Couples Wed in Utah After Judge Overturns Ban
Click to expand...

Sounds like the 10th District Court in Denver will rule relatively quickly (within months) on Utah and the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court this Fall with a decision in 2015. It appears that the Roberts' Court doesn't want to get too far out in front of public opinion ala Roe vs Wade. They upheld the 9th District decision against Prop 8 not based on merit, but because CA didn't contest the case. Utah will definitely contest the decision, but the Supreme Court did rule the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court does want to buy some time, they could decline to take the case if it's overturned in the 10th District. I don't see how they can duck a decision based on the individual merit of the case if it's upheld in the 10th Circuit since the exact same Justices just ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
 
I don't see the big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. If the rule is consenting adults, then that should be the rule. I am not sure how it works with tax law and everything, but if two chicks want to marry one dude, then what is the difference between that and two dudes jumping the broom? If we are going down this road, then it seems a logical next step. I don't see any reason that a multiple spouse family couldn't care for their children just as well as a monogamous homosexual couple could.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't see the big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. If the rule is consenting adults, then that should be the rule. I am not sure how it works with tax law and everything, but if two chicks want to marry one dude, then what is the difference between that and two dudes jumping the broom? If we are going down this road, then it seems a logical next step. I don't see any reason that a multiple spouse family couldn't care for their children just as well as a monogamous homosexual couple could.
Click to expand...

And then it'll be onto marrying animals and objects... it'll be moral anarchy, right? Somewhere a Mormon former presidential candidate is smiling.
 
not sure we need to be looking at "next steps" quite yet
 
I have no political objections to polygamy. It's certainly the Biblical definition of marriage.
 
I can't tell if Wrangor's posts are dense on purpose or what.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't see the big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. If the rule is consenting adults, then that should be the rule. I am not sure how it works with tax law and everything, but if two chicks want to marry one dude, then what is the difference between that and two dudes jumping the broom? If we are going down this road, then it seems a logical next step. I don't see any reason that a multiple spouse family couldn't care for their children just as well as a monogamous homosexual couple could.
Click to expand...

Using this "logic" what's the difference between heterosexual monogamy/marriage and polygamy?

How is two guys or two girls loving each other, committing to monogamy and wanting to create a family any different than a guy and a girl wanting to do the same thing?

Would someone copy this to see if Wrangor will answer. I also give anyone who wants to the right to make this their own post to see if he'll answer.
 
Wrangor said:
I don't see the big difference between polygamy and homosexuality. If the rule is consenting adults, then that should be the rule. I am not sure how it works with tax law and everything, but if two chicks want to marry one dude, then what is the difference between that and two dudes jumping the broom? If we are going down this road, then it seems a logical next step. I don't see any reason that a multiple spouse family couldn't care for their children just as well as a monogamous homosexual couple could.
Click to expand...

It will be the next step. Indeed, there is much more of a historical basis and argument to be made for polygamy than homosexual marriage, and many of the same arguments are shared for them both. There is no logical basis upon which to grant same sex marriage and deny polygamy, except of course for the entire states making public policy thing, which the courts and citizens seem to have completely ignored for a number of years now in order to fabricate Constitutional crises to address their grievances.
 
We need a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as 1 person to 1 other person. That will solve all of our problems.
 
DeaconSig said:
We need a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as 1 person to 1 other person. That will solve all of our problems.
Click to expand...

But that would allow you to marry a corporation, they are people.

do you Sig take Maxim to be your partner?
 
Polygamy will not be the next step. For one, 99% of american women aren't interested in polygamy, and 99% of men aren't interested in having more than one wife. The only people who would bring polygamy before the courts for constitutionality would be fringe elements who could not garner the necessary support (and money) to take it to the SCOTUS.

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is popular among all gays and a large percentage of straights because they have friends and family members who are gay. Not so for polygamists.

I see the progression from a constitutional argument re marriage perspective, but in the real world it wouldn't get that far IMO.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
Polygamy will not be the next step. For one, 99% of american women aren't interested in polygamy, and 99% of men aren't interested in having more than one wife. The only people who would bring polygamy before the courts for constitutionality would be fringe elements who could not garner the necessary support (and money) to take it to the SCOTUS.

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is popular among all gays and a large percentage of straights because they have friends and family members who are gay. Not so for polygamists.

I see the progression from a constitutional argument re marriage perspective, but in the real world it wouldn't get that far IMO.
Click to expand...

So it's simply a matter of being well-heeled? NVM, I see that you concede the constitutional argument (or maybe not concede it, but understand it).
 
I think it is a close case. Most of the same arguments work (notably, and importantly, the same arguments do NOT apply to pedophiles and bestiality, due to the lack of consent of one partner).

There are some distinctions. For example, throughout history polygamy has been closely associated with second-class citizenship, abuse, and economic hardship for females involved in these relationships. There is also some modern anecdotal evidence about harm to children and coerced marriage in religious groups practicing polygamy (Warren Jeffs). Hard to say whether that is representative of all or most or even a meaningful percentage of polygamists. I doubt there is much reliable statistical evidence on how women and children fare in modern polygamous relationships - very small sample sizes I would think.

I think it is a harder case to make on an "equal protection" argument. Dan+Joe = Stan+Mary is an easy argument to make - it's all the same except for what they do in the bedroom. Stan+Mary = Dan+Jane+Jill is harder. Brings up all kinds of really difficult issues around inheritance, equitable distribution of the marital estate in case of divorce, etc. There are tons of legal assumptions and default settings in family law that are based on a two-adult family unit. Dealing with legal polygamy would require a pretty big overhaul of state family law. Dealing with same sex marriage just involves a change in pronouns. Because of all that, a polygamous couple will have a hard time saying that they should have equal protection of law - it's more like special protection.

ETA: laughing at my choice of words "polygamous couple". What's the right phrase? Polygamous group? School? Pride? Herd?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top