• 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

Yep, there is all that, and then there is footing.

The constitution is ours to amend. The marriage 'protectors' could stave off all these issues by conceding gay marriage in an amendment that defines it as "two humans." The gay community and the moderates would go for it to secure gay marriage. Isn't this how it's supposed to work?
 
Deacon923 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I agree with your point about tax considerations, but inconvenience to governing bodies is a pretty weak argument if something is deemed a constitutional right. It would be a legal stretch to say the least to say, in effect, we can do this for gay folks, but we won't do it for you cuz it'll just mean more work for politicians in writing the tax code. And that would actually be a separate consideration, I would think. The feds could say we will only recognize your first marriage (of the several) for tax purposes, whereupon the polygamous interests could challenge that portion of tax code separately in court.

There are other things to consider here, such as the outright criminalization of polygamy. How does that stack up against the criminalization (since overturned) of sodomy?

The bestiality/pedophilia arguments are just stupid from a logical standpoint. I think they get lumped in there because they bring about similar amounts of recoil or disgust from a lot of straight folks, but as a legal argument, it's not even fool's gold. The polygamy analogy is valid, however.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I agree with your point about tax considerations, but inconvenience to governing bodies is a pretty weak argument if something is deemed a constitutional right. It would be a legal stretch to say the least to say, in effect, we can do this for gay folks, but we won't do it for you cuz it'll just mean more work for politicians in writing the tax code. And that would actually be a separate consideration, I would think. The feds could say we will only recognize your first marriage (of the several) for tax purposes, whereupon the polygamous interests could challenge that portion of tax code separately in court.

There are other things to consider here, such as the outright criminalization of polygamy. How does that stack up against the criminalization (since overturned) of sodomy?
Click to expand...

My point wasn't so much that legalizing polygamy would require law changes so it shouldn't be done. Rather, I was pointing out that one of the big pro-same-sex marriage arguments is equal protection under the law - similarly situated people should be treated the same under the law. I didn't make my point very well - it really gets to the "similarly situated" part. Dan and Steve are pretty clearly "similarly situated" to Mary and Joe as the only difference is sexual behavior. It is not as clear that Dan and Sarah and Steve are similarly situated to Mary and Joe.
 
Deacon923 said:
My point wasn't so much that legalizing polygamy would require law changes so it shouldn't be done. Rather, I was pointing out that one of the big pro-same-sex marriage arguments is equal protection under the law - similarly situated people should be treated the same under the law. I didn't make my point very well - it really gets to the "similarly situated" part. Dan and Steve are pretty clearly "similarly situated" to Mary and Joe as the only difference is sexual behavior. It is not as clear that Dan and Sarah and Steve are similarly situated to Mary and Joe.
Click to expand...

i think your point was clear and well put. just requires the reader to have a brain and not equate the yuckiness of gay sex to donkey sex.
 
"No no no, you're not supposed to say 'I do' to both chicks, just DO THEM at the same time. Christ."
 
Deacon923 said:
My point wasn't so much that legalizing polygamy would require law changes so it shouldn't be done. Rather, I was pointing out that one of the big pro-same-sex marriage arguments is equal protection under the law - similarly situated people should be treated the same under the law. I didn't make my point very well - it really gets to the "similarly situated" part. Dan and Steve are pretty clearly "similarly situated" to Mary and Joe as the only difference is sexual behavior. It is not as clear that Dan and Sarah and Steve are similarly situated to Mary and Joe.
Click to expand...

You hang with some wild peeps, man. This Dan guy is a fucking nut
 
Deacon923 said:
My point wasn't so much that legalizing polygamy would require law changes so it shouldn't be done. Rather, I was pointing out that one of the big pro-same-sex marriage arguments is equal protection under the law - similarly situated people should be treated the same under the law. I didn't make my point very well - it really gets to the "similarly situated" part. Dan and Steve are pretty clearly "similarly situated" to Mary and Joe as the only difference is sexual behavior. It is not as clear that Dan and Sarah and Steve are similarly situated to Mary and Joe.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but where is the "only difference" code written? Couldn't a polygamist come back and say, "Well, the only difference is I want one more spouse"?
 
94Deac said:
And then it'll be onto marrying animals and objects... it'll be moral anarchy, right? Somewhere a Mormon former presidential candidate is smiling.
Click to expand...

Exactly where is that in my post? The argument for Homosexual and Polygamous marriages are almost identical. If one is a constitutional right then the other seems to be as well. Consenting adults making the choice that seems right to them.

bigdoublezero said:
I can't tell if Wrangor's posts are dense on purpose or what.
Click to expand...

Explain the vast differences between 2 women and 1 man deciding they want to enter into a lifelong relationship with each other and 1 man and 1 man making that same decision. Do those 3 not have the right to be happy? Who are you to decide for them who they can love and who they cannot love. Don't they deserve equal rights?

The arguments are the same. We aren't talking bestiality, incest, or pedophilia. These are consenting adults that want to be joined in marriage in a way that has been done for thousands of years. What right do you have to stand in between them and their happiness?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I understand that, but where is the "only difference" code written? Couldn't a polygamist come back and say, "Well, the only difference is I want one more spouse"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if we are disagreeing or agreeing. I said it was a close case and that many of the arguments are similar. I was trying to point out where they differ, and those arguments are relatively nuanced. Remember the major right that same sex couples are trying to have vindicated is not some fundamental right to marry whoever they want. It's the constitutional due process and equal protection right to be treated the same as any other similarly situated citizen. In that context, I think there is an argument to be made that polygamous relationships may not be "similarly situated" to two-person same sex or opposite sex relationships.

Also remember that all the legal (as opposed to religious) arguments put forward in court by anti-marriage equality people were trying to make distinctions between gay and straight people to try and prove they weren't similarly situated. Thus all the arguments about how marriage is for producing children and gay people can't have children, so they're not similarly situated. Many courts have rightly determined that these arguments were nonsense. The arguments are stronger in the polygamy context.

For example, in most states, if a person gets sick and can't speak for themselves, their spouse is automatically entitled to make medical decisions. No reason why the same default setting can't be applied in a same-sex marriage. But what happens when the polygamist patriarch goes into a coma, and two wives want to keep him alive and the third wants to pull the plug? Do they hold a vote? Does the first-married wife make the decision? These families are not "similarly situated" and the laws that apply to two-person families cannot be applied "equally" to them.
 
"Exactly where is that in my post? The argument for Homosexual and Polygamous marriages are almost identical. If one is a constitutional right then the other seems to be as well. Consenting adults making the choice that seems right to them. "

This is batshit crazy bigotry. It's EXACTLY what Southern whites said would happen if interracial marriages weren't banned.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on polygamy: It's not something I would choose for me or my children, but I can't think of any reason others seeking that lifestyle should be prevented from doing so. I hope one day that folks who have personal objections to same sex marriage could arrive at a similar conclusion.
 
RJKarl said:
"Exactly where is that in my post? The argument for Homosexual and Polygamous marriages are almost identical. If one is a constitutional right then the other seems to be as well. Consenting adults making the choice that seems right to them. "

This is batshit crazy bigotry. It's EXACTLY what Southern whites said would happen if interracial weren't banned.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you are talking about. I am a bigot because I believe that under our current set of rules that polygamous marriages should be allowed? I think polygamy is just as valid a form of a lifestyle as homosexuality. Therefore they are equal under the law. They are not lifestyles that I would choose, but the arguments for both are very similar (not identical as 923 has wisely made note). Please point out my bigotry for saying that polygamous couples should be given the right to marry under our current system of laws.

I beg you.
 
What I said is your "reasoning" is exactly what was said in the 50s-70s to try to keep the ban on interracial marriages in place in the south. I didn't say you were a bigot. I said the excuse that you used is the same as what they used.

You still haven't answered this:

"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? "

Don't use The Bible as your source as many of the greatest heroes in the OT were polygamists.
 
RJKarl said:
What I said is your "reasoning" is exactly what was said in the 50s-70s to try to keep the ban on interracial marriages in place in the south. I didn't say you were a bigot. I said the excuse that you used is the same as what they used.

You still haven't answered this:

"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? "

Don't use The Bible as your source as many of the greatest heroes in the OT were polygamists.
Click to expand...

I think our culture has made it clear that they don't see a difference. I personally see homosexuality and polygamy as outside the intent of marriage, so I do not agree with either. Our society has made its rules, and I am fine playing by them even if I disagree with them. I am not a marriage zealot by any means. I personally would divide marriage and civil unions, but that is largely a semantics battle.

US society has defined marriage as between loving/committed individuals. If that is the rule, then I see no reason to keep a polygamous marriage apart anymore than I would see any reason (under our current definition) to keep a homosexual relationship apart. I believe both are wrong, but I believe divorce and any sex outside of marriage is wrong too...You are barking up the wrong tree here RJ. You are insinuating a viewpoint upon me that doesn't exist. Chill out.
 
avalon said:
This is worth watching, if you can handle listening to Katie Couric say the word "genitalia." I looked up Laverne Cox on youtube after watching this because it made me want to hear more from her about transgender issues.
Click to expand...

HAWT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top