And where is the right to marry, period?

This is mistaken. Marriage - the State's recognition of your commitment to another by the extension of State powers to protect and abet that relationship - is properly a privilege, not a right.

Because you pay for a right with the commensurate exercise of responsibility, not with advantages conveyed by or impact to State coffers.

This is not "freedom of association". Marriage is a contract in which the State has an interest. For proof, simply attend probate court!

Marriage is a contract and anyone who is legally able to enter a contract should be able to enter into a marriage contract. The state's role should be no different than for any other contractual agreement.

A well-known columnist once said that this is really about the separation of church and state.

this is bullshit. no court other than the scotus has any say over a state issue. Jeebus we have destroyed the founding fathers visions of the role of the judicial branch of government and of course the executive branch has extended it's powers ten fold over where they should be. Viva la revolucion

He makes a strong case that marriage is, indeed, a constitutional right. If not, interracial marriage wouldn't have been protected. There is simply no just reason why any of us should seek to discriminate and prohibit gays from marrying the person of their choice. You may not like it, just as you may not like interracial marriage, but you can't prohibit it. We all get to choose ONE ADULT person (at a time) to marry. That's fair across the board. Equal protection.

It does not open up the case for polygamy or marrying children - or all the other fearmongering suggestions - because that isn't allowed for ANY of us. The main issue is that, as it stands, some of us have special rights and privileges, while others don't. That disparity cannot stand.

"It does not open up the case for polygamy or marrying children - or all the other fearmongering suggestions - because that isn't allowed for ANY of us. "

For now. I am certain that the same argument will be used by the Mormons to legalize their practices in the future.

The Equal Protection comes from the Thomas Jefferson's writing that "all men are CREATED equal." So if gays can argue that they were CREATED as gays and it has nothing to do with their CHOICE of life style, they are certainly entitled of the marriage financed by the other taxpayers.

Then, we are opening the doors wide open for the Mormons to argue that they were CREATED by the God to love many women. Also, I cannot wait to hear the argument from a man, who were CREATED by the God to love his donkey.

Doesn't work, Chang. Laws against pologamy are not likely to be lifted, and none of us have the right to marry multiple people now. Nor can we marry donkeys or other farm animals. Therefore, equal protection is not at issue.

Pologamy usually involves one legal marriage and the rest "sister wives". It is questionable whether there is even support among those who practice pologamy for making all those relationships legal. Certainly, if so, it would be a very small movement, which would not garner enough mass support to overturn our two-person marital concept.

It is different with gay couples. They are merely asking to be able to do what the rest of us do - choose another adult to be their legal spouse.

"He makes a strong case that marriage is, indeed, a constitutional right. If not, interracial marriage wouldn't have been protected. There is simply no just reason why any of us should seek to discriminate and prohibit gays from marrying the person of their choice. You may not like it, just as you may not like interracial marriage, but you can't prohibit it."

Our legal precedence is based off of common law jurisprudence which came from England (except Louisiana - there's is the only state which operates off of French jurisprudence).

Anti-miscegenation laws has ZERO history of precedence back in England or in the entire history of common law. This was legislated here in the United States (true racism)in an attempt to *eradicate* the legal status of real marriages by intervening the condition that both parties of the marriage be of the same race. This was done to keep races "pure" and to prohibit legitimate access to wealth creation for blacks.

In common law, one of the conditional requirements for a legitimate marriage was male and female, race was NEVER a factor prior to the anti-miscegenation laws .

The miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work, and it is quite clear those you use it are either 1) ignorant of the facts of the case, 2) ignorant of the purposes for which they were created or 3) enjoy twisting the facts and ignoring historical context in order to give them the upper-hand in an argument. I say THIS will not stand. You don't get to rearrange the facts and context and legalities for your own purposes. I say, use another argument and fairly debate this.

Furthermore - the reason why interracial marriages were band was because of racial purification - so this meant they could naturally produce offspring. THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH SAME-SEX marriages.

Here's what I detest most of all, people who use this argument are ripping off the LEGITIMATE ugliness of what was done to blacks way back when. This is the LEGITIMATE claims of racism - and what the same sex movement is doing is absolutely muddying the waters more and more.

I am not saying there are not arguments to make in favor of same sex marriage - this just happens to be the one that is the least persuasive, most insulting and damaging to our legal precedence because of the perversion of the facts that must be done to make the argument.

But, whatever, cuz like, gays deserve to marry so the ends justify the means.

You don't get to deny rights to an individual because another individual might try for further rights in the future.

lovelysoul, you are right on here - and so clearly stated. I posted your comment, quoting you as lovelysoul, not only in the blog item above, but on a friend's Facebook page where I saw the Olson video.

Thanks, Amy.

"Laws against pologamy are not likely to be lifted, and none of us have the right to marry multiple people now."

Then don't you think it would have been wise for the judge to have included SOMETHING, ANYTHING about that in his opinion? Some clarification? Some intention? Some sorting out. Nope - nothing. He had the chance to do it - it was a big hot topic...why did he not choose to clarify this?

You can go on feelings all you want. What is "fair" all you want - but you don't get to bring that into the court room, wave a magic wand and not be the slightest bit discerning about how this NEEDS to work to not open the door for polygamy.

This judge didn't do it. So we have the right to question it until he decides its important enough to clarify and put everyones worry at ease.

"Doesn't work, Chang. Laws against pologamy are not likely to be lifted, and none of us have the right to marry multiple people now. Nor can we marry donkeys or other farm animals. Therefore, equal protection is not at issue."

I was not talking about NOW. I am talking about the FUTURE once we allow the gay marriages as constitutional right under Equal Protection Clause.

The ban on interracial marriages were unconstitutional as we were CREATED as Asians, Whites or Blacks. We have no CHOICE on that matter.

Let's say I was CREATED by the god as a misanthrope. Now deny my right to marry my donkey once we pass the law for the gays' right to marry as a Constitutional Right.

"And I'll say again that I don't think the state should be in the marriage business"

100% with you. Than why not work to do that instead of creating more government control over the nuclear family?

...i meant over what constitutes a nuclear family?

"Furthermore - the reason why interracial marriages were band was because of racial purification - so this meant they could naturally produce offspring. THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH SAME-SEX marriages."

That wasn't the main reason, although it may have been an excuse. Interracial marriage disgusted certain people. Same as gay marriage does.

However, the truth was that even some of our founding fathers had interracial love affairs. Just as countless same sex couples fell in love throughout history. It was simply hidden, closeted, driven underground.

This is, essentially, about society finally acknowledging that love is a fundamental, undeniable part of human happiness. People who love each other may have children, or may not, yet this has NEVER been cause for denying them the option to marry.

By the same token, the state arguably has an interest in forcing couples who produce children to marry, but it doesn't. Why? Because it would be counterproductive to force those who are not in love to marry, just as it's counterproductive -- and not in the state's interest - to demand that those who are in love deny this bond or take it underground, just because they are different colors or the same sex. The principle is the same - what interest does the state have in keeping two people who love each other from making a commitment towards each other's long-term welfare and happiness? None that I see.

First of all, can we take a moment to make fun of LS for her moniker again? If I decided to sign my blog comments Enormouspenis or Brilliantguitarist, would anyone be suspicious?

Second, there's the blind, deaf, wholly insensate illogic of this argument:

> We all get to choose ONE ADULT person (at a
> time) to marry. That's fair across the board.
> Equal protection.

The CAPITAL LETTERS of 'ONE ADULT' convey no extra clarity through the pixels they darken. The rule has been, for the whole of human society without meaningful exception for the whole of recorded history, ONE PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. Deployment of the Caps Lock key doesn't change the meaning of the words. LS's infantile insistence that she can hold her breath until she turns blue doesn't exactly kick the ball forward:

> It does not open up the case for polygamy
> or marrying children - or all the other
> fearmongering suggestions - because
> that isn't allowed for ANY of us.

But the POINT is, you see, that it MIGHT be allowed for ALL at some point in the future, JUST as you are ARBITRARILY changing the standard in THIS manner TODAY. You are showing EVIDENCE of IMPULSIVE recklessness.

The UNIVERSALITY of marriage standards has never been in dispute, AND the SAME standard has always APPLIED to everyone: Anyone can marry an unrelated, age-appropriate, sane and consenting person of the opposite sex. That freedom APPLIES just as MUCH to gays as TO anyone: There ARE no "special rights and privileges", and their never have BEEN.

(Can I STOP with the randomized capital LETTERS thing now? Cool. Thanks.)

The ferocious infantilism of Amy's proud take on this –that marriage is a crock of shit but by golly, we have to be kindergarten "fair" about it– has done much to cauterize the repugnance of this movement. Nobody's really, really even pretending this is about love or families or children. It's certainly got nothing to do with acknowledging the centrality of marriage to civilization... For fuck's sake, if we were trying to repair marriage, this is hardly where we'd start.

No, this isn't about compassion or justice. This is about the need of twisted little spirits to pretend to be civil rights heroes.

Good luck with that... We all know a Rosa Parks when we see one, and none are at hand.

"I was not talking about NOW. I am talking about the FUTURE once we allow the gay marriages as constitutional right under Equal Protection Clause"

I wasn't around, but I'm sure the same arguments were made about interracial marriages. "What's to stop people from marrying apes, then?!" (You know some ignorant people made these same charges).

It doesn't need to be clarified because it's ignorant to think that "case A" will invariably lead to "case B", and, at any rate, the fear of some future abomination is not reason to deny equal protection or equal access to what is obviously fair right now.

"That wasn't the main reason, although it may have been an excuse. Interracial marriage disgusted certain people. Same as gay marriage does."

How do you know this? Facts? Evidence? That is why it happened. Disgust then resulted as the cultural norm out of this. Also because they looked upon blacks as animals - not to be "bred" with. Racism, when you get down to it is for property, money and power. Make up any story line you like, that is the net outcome. Gay marriage does not disgust me, per say. I could give two shits where someone puts their own po-po. What I do care about is that this does not impact the ability for families to raise children in a stable environment. Providing stability and status to families raising children should be our top priority.

"However, the truth was that even some of our founding fathers had interracial love affairs. Just as countless same sex couples fell in love throughout history. It was simply hidden, closeted, driven underground."

Who cares!? Who cares - this is not relevant. Emotive arguments should not be the basis for discrediting and revaluing thousands if not millions of years of how the family unit has been structured for the benefit of CHILDREN.

"This is, essentially, about society finally acknowledging that love is a fundamental, undeniable part of human happiness. People who love each other may have children, or may not, yet this has NEVER been cause for denying them the option to marry."

Wait, I thought this was about "equality" now its about societal acknowledgement of love and human happiness? Here you go again. WE WILL FORCE YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE US! Our behavior or unintended consequences for the benefit of our acknowledgement, is paramount - everyone else be damned!!!" And with respects to the children - it was set up that way - male and female for a reason. Whether people chose to not have children, or couldn't have children is another thing all together. It's very intention, empirically, was to produce offspring, LS.

"The principle is the same - what interest does the state have in keeping two people who love each other from making a commitment towards each other's long-term welfare and happiness? None that I see."

I say they have no business either way. I'm no fan of government involved in hetero marriages to begin with - adding more to it just makes it worse. You seem to think the government can determine ones happiness and welfare. I choose to believe this already inherent in any individual who is self actualized and doesn't have a victim mentality going on. Those people could give two shits what the government or any religious wing-nut has to say.

"the fear of some future abomination is not reason to deny equal protection or equal access to what is obviously fair right now"

Agreed.

I was merely pointing out that if we allowed gay marriages as a Constitutional Right, you must be comfortable with legalizing polygamy marriages or bestiality marriages.

You cannot cherry pick in applying constitutional right. That "is obviously fair".

"Providing stability and status to families raising children should be our top priority."

Exactly, and there is absolutely no evidence - and an increasing amount of evidence to the contrary - that gay marriage is bad or unstable for children.

Look, maybe the state never should've gotten into the marriage business, but it did. I don't think the government can determine our happiness, but it sure as hell can undermine it.

Giving marital status to some couples raising children and not to other couples raising children (as many gay couples are, despite the biological limitations) - to not allow them the same access to benefits and decision-making that other partners in legal unions have is patently unfair and certainly not in the best interest or stability of those children.

We could say that gays are such second-class citizens that they shouldn't be allowed to have children, adopt children, or build families, but even if you find that a morally defensible position, it's still impractical. That train has already left the station.

Like it or not, gay couples are having children, building families, and loving each other. The state's denial of reality or unwillingness to offer marital status doesn't stop this. It simply segregates these families into a lesser status and disenfranchises them from the same privileges and legal securities that hetero families enjoy. And it denies the children the security and legal protections that other children have by virtue of their parent's marital status.

In effect, you are bastardizing those children, just as denying interracial marriage did. And for what purpose? Is there really a reasonable state interest for doing that?

"Exactly, and there is absolutely no evidence - and an increasing amount of evidence to the contrary - that gay marriage is bad or unstable for children."

I didn't say that gays raising children made things unstable for that family - in fact, that is a small area which I think there is room to gain same-sex marriage IN THE CONTEXT OF CHILD REARING. But since that isn't the motivator, I think polygamy etc is a bigger detriment and wouldn't outweigh the harm (I mean, why didn't this judge sort out this polygamy bit - highly suspicious to me).

"Living marital status to some couples raising children and not to other couples raising children (as many gay couples are, despite the biological limitations) - to not allow them the same access to benefits and decision-making that other partners in legal unions have is patently unfair and certainly not in the best interest or stability of those children."

Agreed. I don't know how to solve this one. What I do know, is this is a VERY small percentage of gays seeking same-sex marriage.

"In effect, you are bastardizing those children, just as denying interracial marriage did. And for what purpose? Is there really a reasonable state interest for doing that?"

Then why not take the government out of the business all together and allow people who choose to provide a family for child rearing be allowed to identify with marriage. Everyone else gets civil unions...or gasp! living in sin.

"Then why not take the government out of the business all together and allow people who choose to provide a family for child rearing be allowed to identify with marriage. Everyone else gets civil unions...or gasp! living in sin."

That, at least, would be fair, Feebie, but I don't see it as practical. Too many hetero couples marry for reasons other than rearing a family, and they wouldn't want to give up that status.

Besides, I think there is a state interest in marriage besides childrearing. Like I said, why should the state have a problem with two people committing to each other's long-term support, welfare, and happiness? Caregiving goes along with love, so the more care partners give to each other the less burden should (theoretically) fall to the state.

Granted, it doesn't always work that way, but still, it seems better than the alternative of encouraging partners not to commit.

And I really don't believe there is a legitimate threat to the two-person marital model, but if it became one, it would likely be because a sizable percentage of society shifted to that model - after a holocaust, or chemical warfare, for instance. Maybe pologamy would be viewed differently in those conditions, and, if so, society could consider that in the same way we are considering gay marriage...or reconsider it, since pologamy is not without historical precidence.

"And I really don't believe there is a legitimate threat to the two-person marital model, but if it became one,"

So, you are not going to picket in front of the
White House with Mormons to legalize the polygamy marriages along with people with donkeys.

I thought it was all about Equal Protection Right.

Sigh...

"Too many hetero couples marry for reasons other than rearing a family, and they wouldn't want to give up that status."

Too many? The overall majority of heteros who marry wind up with a family.

"And I really don't believe there is a legitimate threat to the two-person marital model, but if it became one, it would likely be because a sizable percentage of society shifted to that model - after a holocaust, or chemical warfare, for instance. Maybe pologamy would be viewed differently in those conditions, and, if so, society could consider that in the same way we are considering gay marriage...or reconsider it, since pologamy is not without historical precidence (sic)."

See? It is a threat to hetero marriage if the basis of requirement for marriage is steered from that of raising a family (being able to naturally reproduce - which *could* then be argued to completely support gay marriage because of adoption) to the argument of love and societal validation. When you take it away from procreation, you leave it entirely open to define and renegotiate marriage in just about any way someone FEELS fit.

I got no problem with gays. But there are serious impacts to the family system I see that needs to be debated and articulated prior to jumping into this head first. I mean, why didn't this judge use his authority to provide us with case that will go to the SCOTUS that will determine once and for all that his decision would never at any time open the door to polygamy because...xyz?

Why didn't he do this?

What's wrong with legalizing polygamy?

"What's wrong with legalizing polygamy?"

Plenty.

We all get to choose ONE ADULT person (at a time) to marry. That's fair across the board. Equal protection.

It does not open up the case for polygamy or marrying children - or all the other fearmongering suggestions - because that isn't allowed for ANY of us.

What's the difference between "one person of the same sex" and "two people" in terms of equal protection of a marriage, compared to "one person of the opposite sex"?

It's one change - either gender or quantity. Anti-gay-marriage people say gender and quantity are BOTH definitional. You say just quantity. Polygamists say it's really just gender.

Why does equal protection mandate your preferred result and not the polygamist's?

"Equal protection" can just as easily mean "the right to marry anyone you want in any combination" as "the right to marry any one person of any relative gender".

The only reason it "seems" more equally-protecty to say "marrying one person of the same sex is the same thing as marrying one person of the opposite, but marrying N people of whatever sex isn't" is that the former is en vogue at the moment - or is what you personally prefer, thanks to the power of confirmation bias.

Philosophically and logically there's no obvious bright line saying that "equal protection" means gay marriage but not polygamy.

(Note that I don't argue that it's equal to have marriage as traditionally defined and not any of the alternative arrangements.

But the idea that "gay marriage is just like normal marriage but polygamy is totally different!" doesn't hold water. Hell, the latter is more like marriage as it's been generally defined, and polygamous marriages weren't banned in the US until 1862.)

Logically and legally the idea that you can change what-pretty-much-everyone-thought-marriage was to include two of the same sex, but say there's some bright and obvious line saying that it can't encompass three people, well... doesn't stand.

At least not that I can see.

Me, I'd say the State should just stop recognizing marriages at all, and let anyone enter into a contract for whatever benefits they give to "married-ish" people - ideally no benefits at all.

"Plenty" isn't an answer - at least not in a discussion premised on rationality and the use of evidence.

So I'll ask again - what's wrong with legalizing polygamy? Or, to rephrase, why should the government be able to restrict contractual relationships between consenting adults?

"It does not open up the case for polygamy or marrying children - or all the other fearmongering suggestions - because that isn't allowed for ANY of us."

It does when you change the definition of marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. I am saying, if you are going to redefine it, this should be explored so as to prohibit polygamy. Why is this fear-mongering?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6np2dhbVU1qzu2g3o1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1281475869&Signature=Bu5lUydoaX4HB6GKFPArt2PcrlY%3D

slippery slope cartoon

RE: the polygamy argument. A few reasons:

1. Modern day humans developed and branched off from other primates because they went from being polygamous to monogamous (around the time of Homo erectus). This was a huge factor in our evolutionary path forward. This change can be seen because homo-erectus was no longer sexually dimorphic - or males being disproportionately larger than females (in the case of our ancestors) - which indicated these early humans were pairing off together, not one male for x number of females like other primates.

2. Polygamy creates some pretty frustrated beta males - like in the middle east. You will see a far more aggression in polygamus societies than you will in monogomus societies.

3. The status it places the female in is one of being chattel. Power and status is recognized in these societies by a patriarchal viewpoint. The more wives a male has, the greater the status he holds. The choice for mate goes from being an individuals to one of exploitation and coercion. The females loose in these marital arrangements and in my opinion, loose their freedoms as well . (See Islamic or Mormon polygamists and why these societies are the antithesis of what is granted to us here in the US - furthermore, how these cultures/religions treat their women).

4. Where is the father figure to raise the children? One father must split his time now with how many wives, and how many children? We will essentially have single motherhood en masse.

Just a few, but there is more...

"Logically and legally the idea that you can change what-pretty-much-everyone-thought-marriage was to include two of the same sex, but say there's some bright and obvious line saying that it can't encompass three people, well... doesn't stand."

Why not? We prohibit underage marriage. It's not just some free-for-all. Two people...any people...three or four people....farm animals... We are granting the right to marriage only under certain conditions, according to what makes sense and seems fair....as well as what is already occurring. We granted legal marriage to two hetero adults and now we are allowing it for two gay adults. That doesn't open the door to all other possibilities, just as allowing interracial marriage didn't lead to beastiality marriages. There are very different sets of circumstances.

"That doesn't open the door to all other possibilities, just as allowing interracial marriage didn't lead to beastiality marriages. There are very different sets of circumstances."

The starting point is different.

And then, why pray tell did that judge not take his sweet ass time in his opinion to establish a difference and an intention for it not to apply where the absence of procreation is a requirement?

> according to what makes sense
> and seems fair...

There is no one on this planet, no being on the surface of this globe with whom I'm less comfortable assigning that standard for policy than thee.

1. Modern day humans developed and branched off from other primates because they went from being polygamous to monogamous (around the time of Homo erectus).

Bullshit, total and complete bullshit. A nuclear fail in anthropology. You are just pulling shit right out of your ass. We moved towards monogamy when we went from hunter gatherers to farmers, you know with the dawn of agriculture. Read "Sex at Dawn" the research put a distinct hole it that argument.

2. Polygamy creates some pretty frustrated beta males - like in the middle east.

Bullshit yet again. In male dominated societies males become both weaker and dumber. As the women are forced to work while the males bask in the glory of their having been born with a penis. Also dumber as the can win any argument with just being male.

3. The status it places the female in is one of being chattel. Power and status is recognized in these societies by a patriarchal viewpoint. The more wives a male has, the greater the status he holds.

Or it's due to the fact that he can afford more wives (bride price) and thus women are a sign of success like having a $100k car. Or instead of having many wives one gets to bed playboy bunnies. So the viewing women as a wealth indicator while valid has little to do with polygamy and everything to do with seeing women as objects. 

4. Where is the father figure to raise the children?

Like the British society you  extolled relative to common law, nannies, tutors and boarding schools. The elite have been doing it for centuries and they run this place.

My personal view is simple. If I have to pay for some religious brood mare who feels that with a high school diploma married to someone with a 8th grade education she can have 9 kids I can't see the harm in letting gays call it marriage. As far as polygamy, in the non recognized polygamous marriage (and the procreative results) we are paying for the kids any way. If you are not producing more offspring than you can support have at it. We shouldn't be covering someones bedroom fun regardless of how legitimate it is in the eyes of your god or the state.

Also we know with absolute certainty that none of those kids in foster care, welfare, free lunches and or gang banging were produced by two guys fucking or two girls having intimate relations.

"which indicated these early humans were pairing off together, not one male for x number of females like other primates." Or our development of brains and subsequently tools favored brains over brawn. Add to that that larger frames require more food the smaller smarter males that fight/hunt together won out.

"We moved towards monogamy when we went from hunter gatherers to farmers, you know with the dawn of agriculture. "

Then how do you explain the fact that these early humans who were now pair-bonding - had small stomachs (indicating a meat based diet?), unlike other primates who had larger stomachs to consume foliage.

#2 - I don't follow.

#3 - again, i point you to two culturally current or relevant arrangements. One, Mormon polygamy and two, Islamic polygamy. There is no theory there. Those women are not treated well and certainly do not have the freedoms enjoyed here in the US.

#4 - "Like the British society you extolled relative to common law, nannies, tutors and boarding schools. The elite have been doing it for centuries and they run this place."

Not everyone can afford this...and if I did have children, I certainly wouldn't ship them off to boarding school or have them cared for by nannies. So these would be the same brain-damaged elites that our running our country now, eh? Jeez, sure seems like a superb idea.

"As far as polygamy, in the non recognized polygamous marriage (and the procreative results) we are paying for the kids any way."

So we should just condone it because its happening anyway - regardless of what is in the best interest of the children? And you are knocking MY logic? Besides, if this male does then die (is maimed, can no longer work), instead of this affecting one wife and a handful of children - the stakes are now raised exponentially.

Why is talk about polygamy fear-mongering?

I think polygamy, or polyandry, should be legal. Why should the state stick its nose into my marriages?

Polygamous marriages used to be the norm, while polyandry until recently was the norm in parts of India. A taxi driver told me that polygamy is legal in his native Nigeria.

People who are against polygamy suffer from the closemindedness of the here and now: The way we do it here and now is best.

So, no topless clothes for women (the norm in warm climes before Westernization), but Islamic tents are bad too. Gay marriage is great, but not polygamy.

In other words, precisely what hip Westerners like now is exactly the right way to do things.
What is the moral argument against polygamy?

I can't think of any, other than present-day feminist agenda, or dogmatic religion.

"Or our development of brains and subsequently tools favored brains over brawn."

And how did these brains develop - different from primates? What was the change? What was the catalyst?

"Polygamous marriages used to be the norm, while polyandry until recently was the norm in parts of India. A taxi driver told me that polygamy is legal in his native Nigeria."

Yes, and these places are just renowned for human rights, let alone women's rights. Wow, I can't think of two more backward working countries. Genocide and cast systems. Whooaahhhoooo.

Then how do you explain the fact that these early humans who were now pair-bonding

Pair bonding does not mean monogamy. Plus you are looking only at European cultures and then not all. Africa would be the most extreme wrt our current values system. Not sure how meat based diets feed into polygamy, there are monogamous vegans.

Those women are not treated well and certainly do not have the freedoms enjoyed here in the US.

Um, Mormons are in the US. These women choose to remain in a polygamous situation. They can leave but don't. Points to something beyond just polygamy. Brain washing and coercion have been practiced in god fearing monogamous societies for ages.

So these would be the same brain-damaged elites that our running our country now, eh? Jeez, sure seems like a superb idea.

No these would be the ones holding their purse stings. Gates comes to mind.

So we should just condone it because its happening anyway

No we should stop paying for it and it will go away. So long as we continue to financially support this behavior your condemnation of it means nothing.

Besides, if this male does then die (is maimed, can no longer work), instead of this affecting one wife and a handful of children - the stakes are now raised exponentially.

That's a legitimate argument, however if one follows the: Don't have more kids than you can support. One is unlikely to have these legion of kids. In addition in the US women can work. If the bind together in a tribal mentality they will very likely be far more successful then a single mother (with a dead husband) would be. The issue of societies that view women as objects and forbid them working is a separate one from polygamous relations.

And how did these brains develop - different from primates? What was the change? What was the catalyst?

Huh? Are you suggesting that monogamy made our brains develop? I'm pretty sure that the going theory is the inclusion of meats and fish in our diet. Or that the increase in intellect allowed humans to hunt and fish without being adapted for those tasks by nature. Though I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here.

"Pair bonding does not mean monogamy"

Please explain. It certainly would seem to me to be the start...

"Not sure how meat based diets feed into polygamy, there are monogamous vegans."

I said early humans were pairing off together, becoming closer in size, thus indicating pair-bonding/monogomy. You said it happened when they started farming. These earlier humans (that were pair bonding, closer in height) also had smaller stomachs in relationship to other primates - because they ate meat based diets. So how could they be farmers? I don't know what the hell you are talking about otherwise.

"Um, Mormons are in the US. These women choose to remain in a polygamous situation. They can leave but don't. Points to something beyond just polygamy. Brain washing and coercion have been practiced in god fearing monogamous societies for ages."

Polygamy = Brainwashing (probably because it really isn't in the females best interest) Gosh, that's all the more reason to invite that into the mix of options we have available. So instead of providing an equal playing field, allowing people to either succeed or fail, we will promote an institution known for brainwashing and breeding lots of docile and obedient humans. This is brilliant!!!

"Gates comes to mind."

And not everyone can be a Gates. Not all humans are equal. Gates would also not make a good navy seal, but it just so happens, we kinda need both in our society. Without men with brawn, we would have no protectors for those Gates types holding their purse strings.

BTW Saskatchewan Canada allows for a man to have more than one wife S.51 Saskatchewan Family Property Act. So clearly one can have polygamy without misogyny.

"BTW Saskatchewan Canada allows for a man to have more than one wife S.51 Saskatchewan Family Property Act. So clearly one can have polygamy without misogyny."

Fucking, Canadians! (I say this with much endearment, btw)

So did this happen before or after they legalized the first gay marriage (ultimately ending in the first gay divorce) in Canada?

I said early humans were pairing off together, becoming closer in size, thus indicating pair-bonding/monogomy.

How do you figure that pair bonding would lead to similar sizes in humans males? The large brawny males would make better hunters and better farmers. Thus they would get more food for the family and support more offspring.

Gates is not a SEAL but the difference between Gates and the average Seal is marginal if you compared it to higher primates. And before we go off a on a brains vs brawn tangent Seals need both. In order to even be considered for any Spec Ops units you need near perfect ASVBs.

2001 for polygamy 2005 for same sex marriage.

"And then, why pray tell did that judge not take his sweet ass time in his opinion to establish a difference and an intention for it not to apply where the absence of procreation is a requirement?"

I think he doubted it was necessary, especially since the standard for marriage has long been two consenting adults and procreation is not a requirement of marriage. This extremism and over-analysis is silly.

Fact is, we have a growing number of gay families in this country, and we have a standard of marriage which requires two adults - no more. If we're going to allow two straight people the right to marry, and acquire that legal status for the protection and security of their family, then it is discriminatory to deny gay couples/families the same option and same protections.

For sure, if our standard was pologamy, then we'd have to allow multiple people the right to marry, even those of the same sex, but that is not our standard, and this change hasn't even been broadly requested yet. If it is, the concept is unlikely to gain mainstream support or any political momentum, as the gay rights movement has. Like interracial marriage, and civil rights in general, these changes have been years in the making.

I personally have nothing against pologamy. In some cases, it seems to work well. But, in a free, liberated society, most women will not choose to share a spouse, and most men would not wish to support multiple wives and children, so I can't see it catching on here in a big way.

Yet, the ideal of loving one other person - "the one" - is a recurring theme in our society. Songs, literature, and art make constant reference to this ideal. Gay couples have a right to pursue that ideal, and to have their love acknowledged with a legal commitment.

If this was all about the state, and what is best for families, all couples who procreated would be forced to marry. Yet, the state wisely acknowledges the limitations of messing with people's heart strings. The state should not (and cannot) dictate who loves whom. All the state can do is acknowledge that love is a fundamental part of the human condition and the pursuit of happiness, and, towards that end, this ruling says that a gay person should have as much choice in who to marry as a straight person does.

It isn't good enough to say, "Oh, well, you can still marry a person you do not find at all physically attractive and can never romantically love." Those who argue that know it denies gays the same option for happiness that straights enjoy.

And that is all they want...the same legal right to choose ONE significant partner that we enjoy. This doesn't prevent us from choosing our partners, so why is it so threatening?

Chang - find me a donkey capable of understanding human comunication and posessing the capacity to understand and consent to entering into a contract - until then shut the fuck up

The UNIVERSALITY of marriage standards has never been in dispute, AND the SAME standard has always APPLIED to everyone: Anyone can marry an unrelated, age-appropriate, sane and consenting person of the opposite sex. -Crid

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshitbullshit BULL FUCKING SHIT

Jesus christ crid, why is it when this subject comes up your brain just shuts down completly?

Today in the US alone, not counting other countries, age of consent for marrige varries form state to state for "underage" applicants.

Thought history, and even in this day and age, everyone of those qualifiers you mention has changed or dont apply somewhere on this planet. Some were forbidden to marry, some couldnt marry members of different castes, some are allowed to marry nine yr olds, there are dozens of cases of royal weddings between close knit familly groups. In matriarical societies is was not uncommon for the female rulers to be wed to their brothers. Happend a number of times in egyptian dynasites

The "univeriality" of marrige standards are constantly in dispute.

Hell these days a mistress who has been knocking boots long enough with her boyfried can get herself declared a common law wife by the courts and get alimony

Human rights and polygamy? Hmmm. Cuba and China outlaw polygamy. Ergo, polygamy is a human right violated by oppressive communist states.

India and Nigeria allow polygamy/polyandry--ergo polygamy/andry is evil and backward.

This is inferior thinking.

Polygamy, or wearing climate-appropriate clothing, should be the choice of the individuals, no one else.

The sniveling against polygamy is just narrow-minded people trying to impose their ideas of good and normal on the rest of us. Like Islamics forcing women to wear tents. Convention.

Have you forgotten how people felt about homosexuals only 40 years ago? They were regarded as filthy perverts. Some white people regarded blacks as sub-human and outlawed interracial marriage. If you subscribed to convention, then you subscribed to those views.

Conventions change--just be sure you are thinking, rather than subscribing to bias or convention.

The bias against polygamy is just convention--the bias of this time and place. It has nothing to do with human or civil rights, and, in fact, restricts human and civil rights.

And how did these brains develop - different from primates? What was the change? What was the catalyst?

Posted by: Feebie

One thoery is that as familly groups became larger a lager brain was required to recognise additional members of the familly group. The larger brain in addition to storing visual data began storing enviormental data in such a manner that rather than simply react to nature in an instictul manner as other animals man began to anticipate based on previously experianced and remembered events.

This small adaptation allowed for greater survival which lead to and ever incresing cognitive ability down thru the generations

I wouldnt mind being in a polyamouros realtionship, but I dont plane on getting married - and even if I somehow fall hard enough to reconsider that I an NEVER having kids

"How do you figure that pair bonding would lead to similar sizes in humans males? "

I didn't. It's my understanding that (you took potshots at my post that explained this, didn't you?) the males went from being twice the size of females to within a spread of 6 inches over a couple hundred thousand years. I believe this indicates pair-bonding. So it's not between males, but the closer in height between males and females became.

Gates could never be a SEAL. A what it would take to make a SEAL isn't charm schooling and nannies. I guaran-fucking-tee you that.

More on polygamy in India, as some commenter was using as an asinine line of persuasion - Isn't that were people can marry snakes and cows? Oh, but of course, this is all a slippery slope...and in Canada and all - polygamy came than same-sex marriages.

So see, it's not a slippery slope. It's something worth addressing NOW so we don't have to deal with it later.

"I think he doubted it was necessary, especially since the standard for marriage has long been two consenting adults and procreation is not a requirement of marriage. This extremism and over-analysis is silly."

Oh, ya, sure, LS. The fact that it is the single biggest argument against same sex marriage by both religious and non-religious opponents alike, I would say that it was necessary - especially when overriding the votes of 7 million people. But, like always, with you - it is just, like, so not important cuz, things went in your favor and all.

Again, common law has always required marriage was between a man and a woman for reasons that are completely obvious. If you want to change this - you can't get lazy about it - and make up your own definitions.

"I personally have nothing against pologamy."

And this is it. Most people on this thread that are for same-sex marriages really don't have a problem with polygamy - yet they want us to rest assured that it won't head down that same path.

It is for this precise reason why I once supported gay marriage and now I do not. I do not trust any of you that have no problem with polygamy to do anything to keep the nuclear family together. I don't see you guys supporting what is in the best interest of children - thus I've removed my support from this cause.

There is just no reasoning with you, LS.

Feebie, just because I don't have a repulsive reaction to polygamy doesn't mean I believe it is best for children (or women). I simply don't view it as a major threat, as you obviously do. Like I said, most liberated women would never choose to share a man with multiple wives. Unless we're really going into the dark ages (which is possible with Islam, I concede), the likelihood of polygamy gaining widespread support in this country is minimal in my view.

My concern is for the children already in gay families. My concern is for my gay friends, who are raising foster children, and have for years, yet can't adopt them or give them a solid, secure home with the same legal protections that other children their age have just because their parents are straight. These are loving families, doing a wonderful job, yet they are the object of extreme bigotry and discrimination. It's wrong.

Our fear of future polygamy...or beastiality...or any of these abominations doesn't justify the discrimination that these families are suffering. If we really care about having kids in stable homes, we will support gay marriage. The kids who are really in terrible circumstances of abuse and neglect are almost NEVER from gay homes, but straight ones. Gay homes are usually above average in income, and the sheer difficulty and creativity involved in building a family almost assures that each child is seriously considered and passionately wanted. If only we saw that much thought and good intent in straight families, we'd have much healthier children and a less burdensome welfare state.

"Chang - find me a donkey capable of understanding human comunication and posessing the capacity to understand and consent to entering into a contract - until then shut the fuck up"

Let's make that to horse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bM9bXTlRrY

"Chang - find me a donkey capable of understanding human comunication and posessing the capacity to understand and consent to entering into a contract - until then shut the fuck up"

Seriously. What I need to do is to find a donkey whisperer, who can communicate my donkey's undying love for me to the court, preferably in California.

Once I can pay for the donkey whisperer's service to vouch the donkey's understanding of the contract, I have the constitutional right to marry just like gays.

All men are CREATED equal. I was CREATED to love my donkey and demand my right to be acknowledged right now.

> Today in the US alone, not counting other countries,
> age of consent for marrige varries form state to
> state for "underage" applicants.

We know you have trouble spelling, yet in order to participate, you must learn to read. I clearly said "age-appropriate": That this jurisdiction or that one might have a different digit on the statute is irrelevant, as the principle is applies everywhere but the most primitive Arabia.

> The "univeriality" of marrige standards are
> constantly in dispute.

Even if you'd spelled it correctly, it wouldn't be true. Your fascination with perfection is childlike: You don't want to have to think about stuff. Forty years ago, there was a Doonesbury cartoon that satirically described this principle in the context of international relations: "International neutrality is not like virginity… It doesn't disappear at the first violation."

Yeah, different communities have different standards. So what? If you think every person on Earth has to subscribe to the same precise standard before the world is a decent place –as if all of us around the globe were employees of the same Wal-Mart corporation, deserving the same 15 (not 17!) minutes for our morning break– you are going to be disappointed.

But no one will weep for you.

"My concern is for the children already in gay families. My concern is for my gay friends, who are raising foster children, and have for years, yet can't adopt them or give them a solid, secure home with the same legal protections that other children their age have just because their parents are straight. These are loving families, doing a wonderful job, yet they are the object of extreme bigotry and discrimination. It's wrong."

And I agree with you on this point - but the majority of gays don't want to be married. Of those even less want families. And if the concern is for those gay families, why isn't that at the forefront of the debate? No, you folks would just rather get your gay marriage crammed down everyone else's throats come hell or high water. So I am done. Absolutely done. This is not how you do things in a democratic society. You either negotiate something that works for the majority or you don't. No where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed or mentioned. And I will tell you this much - when gay marriage went down in California the first time - all the same-sex folks had to do was to regroup, organize and figure out why non-bigoted people were having a problem with it - work to iron out the issues and I guarantee they would have been able to put it back on the ballot and won. But since they chose to be heavy handed about things and malign everyone and use our judicial system to bully their one sided ideology to foist the minority opinion upon the majority, I say they get what is coming to them.

Public opinion is turning against them (as it should because of there unwillingness to negotiate legitimate concerns) and they will wind up with a court decision from the US SCOTUS that will now put this into the federal arena. This will get messy and I will guarantee will set same-sex marriage back far further than had they just waited a few years, gained support of moderates, addressed the issues, acted like adults and put it back on the fucking ballot.

"Our fear of future polygamy...or beastiality...or any of these abominations doesn't justify the discrimination that these families are suffering. If we really care about having kids in stable homes, we will support gay marriage. "

Even if the support of it right now, as it stands will do more to corrupt the family system? Sorry, in no argument they are putting forward are they leading the charge with what is in the interest of the children...its on the periphery. When they are willing to discuss their marriages in terms of contributing to society by way of raising children - then will talk. Right now it's just a token - and polygamy doesn't seem to bother any of you.... so be it. I won't support it until it becomes the most important argument. But it's not. It's for social acceptance of their lifestyles, not tolerance.

Bullies. THe whole lot.

That's Amy's problem too, by the way— Everthing has to be exactly the same! There can be no context or nuance! I don't want to have to think about stuff, I just want to obey the rules and thereby live a perfect life!

"The bias against polygamy is just convention--the bias of this time and place. It has nothing to do with human or civil rights, and, in fact, restricts human and civil rights."

O.K. I got it.

Now, I am counting on you to show up and give some support next week at the Washington D.C.

We, the "animal lovers", are going to demand our constitutional "human and civil rights" to marry.

If you want to see the irrational, just try to reconcile the idea that "states should not be in the marriage business" with the constant clamor to have states recognize these marriages.

One more time: Look at probate courts. The state DOES have an interest in marriage, because it is charged with enforcing inheritance and other laws - these laws being the ENTIRE POINT of allowing gay marriages.

LS: "We all get to choose ONE ADULT person (at a time) to marry."

Sorry - this being a "right" is not supported by the evidence. You get a marriage license from the State. Name for me a right which carries a license!

> If you want to see the irrational, just try to reconcile
> the idea that "states should not be in the marriage
> business" with the constant clamor to have states
> recognize these marriages.

Exactly. Yes. Exactly.

Just wanted to see it on here again.

Thanks to the popular commenter here who tweeted this.

Hi lovelysoul, I'm glad you're back. Despite what some others think, I think your moniker is pretty accurate as I've stated before.

I completely agree with you about the unlikelihood of the government getting out of the marriage business. Could anyone point out to me any libertarian group that is lobbying congress or its state legislatures to eliminate civil marriage? I've done a search and can't find any. I also couldn't find any instances of a libertarian getting a divorce for the specific reason of protesting the government's involvement in marriage. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature not to want to give up rights or privileges that have been granted to you. As I've previously stated, "marriage" in the US provides well over 1,000 federal benefits plus a myriad of state benefits. That really would be quite a bit to give up.

Feebie, you've made several statements that I also can't find evidence for:

(i) You stated: "but the majority of gays don't want to be married. Of those even less want families." Could you provide a valid scientific study to back up these assertions? I'm assuming many gay people haven't bothered to go get a marriage license in the first place because they know it would be futile in most jurisdictions.

(ii) You also stated that the reason for the anti-miscegenation laws was a desire for racial purity. Perhaps. That's a rational for those kind of laws. As I've stated in another thread, I want valid rational reasons (i.e., one that excludes certain religious beliefs or the "ick" factor) why the right (or privilege, whatever your opinion) to marry should be limited exclusively to heterosexual couples and not same sex couples.

Please note: (a) I do not accept the slippery slope arguments that SSM will lead to incestuous marriages and polygamy (hereinafter referred to as "IMP Marriages") because, (I) to date, no jurisdiction that has legalized SSM has legalized any IMP Marriage and (II) in many cultures and countries, IMP Marriages have been legal even though SSM has not (this ranges from the incestuous marriages among the royalty of ancient Egypt to the polygamous marriages of certain Muslim sects and certain fundamentalist Muslim sects). [PS: I read Judge Walker's decision regarding Prop 8 and yes, you're right, he did not address polygamous marriage. The reasons why is (a) polygamy was not the issue at hand and (b) the anti-gay marriage side didn't bring it up - because, as I've stated before there is no evidence that SSM will lead to polygamy].

I also will not accept that civil marriage is about procreation and children - because if it was, the law would be (or should be) specific about this; it is not; no state or federal law in the US HAS EVER REQUIRED a married heterosexual couple to have children, the elderly and infertile are allowed to marry, and many gay couples are indeed raising children (current estimates sets this range from between 1 to 6 million children).

"Could you provide a valid scientific study to back up these assertions?"

Sure. I work in the bay area, and I am friends with a handful, none of them have expressed any interest in being married - but they are emotionally vested in this law because they believe it will bring them social acceptance. If you can find scientific evidence proving otherwise, please do let ME know.

"As I've stated in another thread, I want valid rational reasons (i.e., one that excludes certain religious beliefs or the "ick" factor) why the right (or privilege, whatever your opinion) to marry should be limited exclusively to heterosexual couples and not same sex couples."

How 'bout this one, they can make babies? By doing so they also have an extra burden and will contribute to society in ways by and large that gays will not be able to within the same context - in any meaningful numbers. So unless gays want to do the heavy lifting and adopt children as part of a concession to the legalization of SSM - than it is a privilege that should remain for a man and a woman.

"Please note: (a) I do not accept the slippery slope arguments that SSM will lead to incestuous marriages and polygamy"

Well, what would you accept, cupcake? What is this, a college thesis - professor snotty-britches? Please be my guest and check out the statements above of the folks who are indifferent or supportive of polygamy and cross reference that with those who support gay marriage.

"(I) to date, no jurisdiction that has legalized SSM has legalized any IMP Marriage"

None? Like Canada, for instance? And please, the legalization of SSM is relatively new here in the states. So do you have some crystal ball or special powers of precognition the rest of us don't - how do you know that? Come back and talk to me in a few years when these folks are in the courts wanting Equal protection under the law for the RIGHT to be married.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/14/three.html

Watch the video - oh, and I would like a detailed explanation using scientific and legal evidentiary proof (typed in bold caps, please) to point to the specificities as to why this CAN'T EVER, NEVER, EVER Happen, likes, no matter what! Answering in non sequitur will not be acceptable or permitted.

"The reasons why is (a) polygamy was not the issue at hand and (b) the anti-gay marriage side didn't bring it up - because, as I've stated before there is no evidence that SSM will lead to polygamy]."

Well, that would have been a really great point for the judge to hash out in his opinion and put all these so called fears to rest, don't you think - since, I mean, you are saying it could never happen. (Judges will use the opinion part of just for these purposes - clarification, context and that whole bit).

"I also will not accept that civil marriage is about procreation and children"

Then don't.

Sorry - this being a "right" is not supported by the evidence. You get a marriage license from the State. Name for me a right which carries a license! - Radwaste

That is a very interesting point.

I also heard someone compare the situation to blind individuals and driving. Is the US treating blind individuals unfairly by not issuing them drivers licenses?

"As I've stated in another thread, I want valid rational reasons (i.e., one that excludes certain religious beliefs or the "ick" factor) why the right (or privilege, whatever your opinion) to marry should be limited exclusively to heterosexual couples and not same sex couples."

Any country has (or should have) an interest in the long-term stability of its society. A family structure based on the long-term, monagamous commitment of a heterosexual couple is a social structure that has proven - over hundreds of years - to be reasonably stable. Tamper with this model at your peril:

- Take away "monogamy", and you get the polygamous societies found extensively in the middle-east and Africa. Polygamous societies are violent, chaotic, war-torn disasters - because single men must fight for status to get mates. The one exception, Mormons in the USA, remained peaceful only because their excess single males could find women outside the Mormon community.

- Take away "long-term" and look right here at home: Children of single parents are disadvantaged in every possible way. Carry this to extremes, as found in inner-city black society, and society becomes totally disfunctional. Divorce, children outside of a committed relationship - these should be hugely stigmatized.

- The "heterosexual" part recognizes the fact that the long-term goal of marriage is to create and raise the next generation of the society. Gay couples are not going to have any natural children. From a societal point of view, marriage is simply irrelevant to them.

It is probably harmless to allow non-heterosexual marriage, simply because it is irrelevant. The danger is that this can - and will - be taken as a precedent for relaxing the other aspects of marriage.

"the majority of gays don't want to be married. Of those even less want families."

Like factsarefacts said, how do you know this? A handful of bay area friends does not make a reliable survey. Plus, if all of us were raised with the idea that we could never marry, we'd probably lose the desire. Why want what you can't have? This will likely change with future generations who have the option.

But, most importantly, it's irrelevant. Few people wanted to marry outside their race either. More non-journalists exist than journalists. There are more non-property owners than property owners.

Like Olsen said, we don't leave certain fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights up for a vote. The whole idea of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority.

My property rights, for instance, have been shredded by the majority vote because property owners are a minority.

As Olsen also said, you may find you wouldn't want to put your freedom of speech up for a vote, especially if we get overrun by Islam. But that is what the constitution is for - to protect the fundamental rights of individuals from the waivering force of popular opinion.

So, it doesn't matter if there are only a handful of gays who want to marry (obviously untrue if the number is closer to 1-6 million raising families), just as it shouldn't matter if there were only a handful of heteros wanting marriage. The demand isn't what defines the right.

"Like factsarefacts said, how do you know this? A handful of bay area friends does not make a reliable survey. "

Great then, Patrick too - a former commenter here held the same position. He didn't want to get married either. Look, I challenge you to the same - provide me some statistics where the majority of gays want to be married, and I will concede to this point.

"But, most importantly, it's irrelevant. Few people wanted to marry outside their race either."

Not the same.

"The whole idea of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority."

What?!

"To protect the fundamental rights of individuals from the waivering force of popular opinion."

Where in our Constitution does it address marriage? And where in the Constitution can you prove gays are being denied *legitimate* access to their lives, property or liberty by not being able to marry? And how then, as a single women and not married then, am I being denied mine because I am not married? Go ahead, I will wait.

"1-6 million raising families"

So you ask me to produce evidence, yet you plagiarize factsarefacts post above for this beauty. Where is the evidence supporting this?

"The demand isn't what defines the right."

Well, this we can agree on. But marriage is not a right protected by the US Constitution, peaches.

Crid blathers: The rule has been, for the whole of human society without meaningful exception for the whole of recorded history, ONE PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. Deployment of the Caps Lock key doesn't change the meaning of the words.

Oh really? One person? So I guess all that polygamy stuff in the bible and history is just made up. Well, that's a relief.

Oh wait, I missed the caps lock on that. So it must be true.

According to Olsen, it is a right. Marriage is clearly a right that we have protected multiple times for the benefit of heterosexuals. I suppose if you're going to stick with the dogma that it isn't a right you can justify discrimination, but obviously all straight people in this country believe they have the right to marry a partner of their choice. You may choose not to marry - just as you may choose not to exercise your right to free speech - but you have the option available to you, which is protected by the constitution. No one is talking about doing away with marriage, and the country would be up in arms if anyone was talking about it, so to suggest that it is not a right is absurd.

Even prisoners are allowed marry, while stripped of many other privileges such as voting, so marriage is clearly viewed as more than just a privilege. If it were only a privilege, there'd be a whole lot of people who should have it revoked.

Make no mistake. Marriage, in our culture, is about love and the pursuit of happiness. That is one thing that separates us from more barbaric cultures, where marriage is only about property, domination, or procreation. And because our form of marriage is love-based, it is unfair to deny a whole subset of the population the opportunity to choose the single, adult, human partner of their choice.

There is absolutely no state interest in denying gay people the opportunity to make the choice of a legal commitment to a partner, and a great deal of benefit to millions of children. For sure, many won't choose to marry, just as you haven't chosen to do so, but basic fairness demands that they have the same option.

You get a marriage license from the State. Name for me a right which carries a license!

Oh gee wiz lets see. What do I need a license for that is openly protected in the US constitution. Well lets starts with a press pass. Though that's a minor one. Now lets look at something that is protected by the US Constitution that if done without a license get you 10 years in federal prison per count or 10 years in state prison per count. Can we guess what that is? Hint it involves fun things that go bang. In fact the federal prison charge involves the simplest mechanical change to a device. Sort of like filling your nails but with metal. In the state violation it carrying something through a specific state that you are actually allowed to have in your own state. Still can't guess well I'll tell you.

Possession of a post ban machine gun without a license to manufacture, or possession of a machine gun without proper tax stamp. Minimum of 10 years per count.

Possession of a hi cap magazine (no gun required) in the City of NY. Minimum of 10 years per count. Regardless of having a license to carry in the state of NY.

Carry of firearm in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without a license 2.5 - 5 years.

So requiring a license for something has no impact on it being a right listed in the Constitution.

"Marriage, in our culture, is about love and the pursuit of happiness. "

Yes, oh Constitutional scholar...once again - Pursuit of happiness (entirely subjective, which is why it....) is only in the Deceleration of Independence, which is the non-enforceable document preceding the US Constitution, and lays out the Constitution's intentions.

It is the language contained in the US Constitution is enforceable by courts, not the Declaration - apparently one of our forefathers had their wits about them. The language in the Constitution says "Life, liberty or PROPERTY". Kay?

Here, watch it again:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/14/three.html

When the time comes, are you going to deny them the right too? Oh, and be sure to read their arguments why they should be allowed to be married "Cuz we wants shit too".

"According to Olsen, it is a right."

Pffffppptttt. And according to my Aunt Fannie, it ain't? We could do this all day. The FACT is it is not addressed in the US Constitution as a RIGHT.

Here's where I got the number for the estimate of 1 to 6 million children being raised by gays. LOOK - INFO BASED ON STUDIES: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids.

While I do appreciate anecdotal evidence, it certainly doesn't carry the weight of scientific evidence. This is where the anti-gay marriage side failed, if you read Judge Walker's opinion on Prop. 8. The 2 expert witnesses that it called couldn't back up their opinions with scientific evidence. PS: Using anecdotes, I too know gay people who don't want to get married, I know gay people who do want to get married (clearly there are some or else those people wouldn't have bothered to be plaintiffs in this case and have the record show that they've been coupled for years), I know gay people who did not want to get "married" - until they met that met that "special someone". According to an article from CNN, "In the six months after May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples, an estimated 6,100 same-sex couples married. They now average less than 1,000 a year, according to MassEquality.org, a grassroots organization working to help gay and lesbian couples achieve equality." So clearly there are some gay people interested in getting married. [As an aside, I know heterosexual people who don't want to get married, some who do, some who change their minds, ....]

Feebie, you stated: "How 'bout this one, they can make babies? By doing so they also have an extra burden and will contribute to society in ways by and large that gays will not be able to within the same context - in any meaningful numbers. So unless gays want to do the heavy lifting and adopt children as part of a concession to the legalization of SSM - than it is a privilege that should remain for a man and a woman." That's fine - I have no problem with a certain rights or privileges being reserved to those "families" that have children as I agree with you - raising children in necessary for the continuation of society and requires great effort on the part of the "families" raising them.

But what you failed to address is what I stated previously: "(N)o state or federal law in the US HAS EVER REQUIRED a married heterosexual couple to have children, the elderly and infertile are allowed to marry, and many gay couples are indeed raising children (current estimates sets this range from between 1 to 6 million children)." If marriage was definitively about children, then the laws would be clear about it.

[PS: You're putting the onus on Judge Walker to have addressed the likelihood that his opinion would lead to polygamy. WRONG! As a judge, he is supposed to make judgments based on the state of the laws at hand and based on the evidence provided by the parties to the case. Perhaps your anger should be directed at the lawyers defending the anti-gay marriage side for failing to provide evidence to support assertions that SSM will lead to polygamy or the complete breakdown of marriage - the 2 "expert" witnesses they managed to call were pretty useless. Using the word you used - it's a FEAR that it will happen - fear is not always a rational emotion.]

And, no, I don't have a crystal ball to foresee the status of marriage or polygamy in the future. But what I want to know is why is SSM being considered as the cause of any possible future legalization of polygamy? Why not other judicial decisions (like Loving v. Virginia) or legislative actions in the arena of marriage? Why not blame the fundamentalist Mormon and Muslim sects? Why not blames heterosexual one-on-one marriage?

> Oh really? One person? So I guess all that
> polygamy stuff...

The beauty of this one is that it's a two-sided view of the infantilism of those urging this change.

You imply that polygamy as described in bible is still, in modern life, regarded as a contender for your marital arrangements.

Well, this is not so. Sure, there used to be a lot of it, but those were primitive cultures. It still happens some places... Africa mostly. Just read a book about it last week. But it's nonetheless ridiculous to pretend it's a model for decent modern life. You might as well say that slavery is just another employment arrangement we might want to consider, too— After all, there used be a lot of slaves! Didn't there?!!! didn't there!?!??!! Isn't that literally true!!!??! AHA!

And your tone is important. The sarcasm is plain and clumsy, like this is the first time you've ever tried to sell and idea in public. It's what I was trying to get Lou to understand earlier. The world is not going to be perfectly simple-minded for you. If all you need before you feel cheated is one exception to a pattern in order to invalidate every standard in Western Civilization, then you were never going to be happy here.

You were never going to be happy anywhere else, either.

The bias against polygamy is just convention--the bias of this time and place. It has nothing to do with human or civil rights, and, in fact, restricts human and civil rights.

Ask the Lost Boys. They just might have a different take.

Hundreds of them have been expelled from polygamous settlements; it is, after all, their civil right to be dumped by the side of the road like an unwanted Christmas puppy.

Yeah, different communities have different standards. So what? -crid

So what? If different communities have different stanndards then how in the hell can there b a 'UNIVERSAL' standards?

Also I can read just fine. You said "Anyone can marry an unrelated, age-appropriate"

My point on underage marriges which require parental permission havng different ages form jusrisdiction to jusrisdiction was to point out that people can also legally marry age innapropriate people under some circumstances

No, you folks would just rather get your gay marriage crammed down everyone else's throats come hell or high water. So I am done. Absolutely done. This is not how you do things in a democratic society. You either negotiate something that works for the majority or you don't -Feebie

So had you been aroud durring, say the use of armed men forcing colleges to allow black students in, you'd have said the same thing?

"When the time comes, are you going to deny them the right too? Oh, and be sure to read their arguments why they should be allowed to be married "Cuz we wants shit too".

Think it through rationally, Feebie. Who is going to WANT polygamy? Only those who already practice it.

I don't know any woman who wants to be in a polygamous marriage, and most men I know are reluctant to marry and support even one wife, much less 5 wives and 30 kids! The financial sacrifices alone make polygamy prohibitive for all but the devoutely religious and non-materialistic people who already practice it using "sister wives". That is not most of the American population, who wouldn't be willing to give up their Iphones, Ipods, SUVs, and other luxuries in exchange for a couple of other mouths to feed.

Therefore, it's ridiculous to fear polygamy catching on in this culture, much less being mass supported. And I don't see any "activist judges" being sympathetic with the cause. Most rational people have legitimate concerns with polygamy in regards to children and young women being forced into it. The sentiment towards polygamy in this country is best shown in the way that the polygamist compound in TX was recently treated - children being seized and turned over to child-protective services purely because of the polygamous atmosphere and a false threat.

So, this country is not likely to embrace polygamy. Our females are too liberated and our males are too spoiled by the freedom not to support multiple (or any) wives.

If it ever became legal - and that's a very big "if" - the only people who would practice polygamy are the same religious fundamentalists already practicing it now. It's not like a bunch of people would go, "Hey, polygamy is legal! I think I'll find myself two or three wives...or share a husband with 5 other women". C'mon! Think it through logically. Your fear of polygamy is irrational.

OK I confess. I want a second husband. As much as I love the one I have been married to for the last 29 years, we bore each other and don't do much stuff together anymore. It is also tough to get him to mow the lawn or put the toilet seat down. OTOH I have met a couple of guys who do share my interests and I spend a lot of time with them. One of them, could really use good health insurance. I can hardly wait for day when the door will open wide enough on the definition of marriage so I can marry him too without the nasty downside of having to divorce my current spouse. I will also appreciate the validation of my lifestyle choice so that all my friends will stop raising their eyebrows whenever I go on a trip with one of these other gentlemen. :-) Isabel

"So had you been aroud durring, say the use of armed men forcing colleges to allow black students in, you'd have said the same thing?"

Luj, I love ya, I do (How is your cute niece?).But seriously, this is not the same thing. Clearly, denying access to a college - whereby such degrees impact ones ability to earn a living and their livelihood is not the same. This is a constitutional right.

Just as I would absolutely be on the front lines if anyone did this to gays (denied them access to colleges). Marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor does not being married impact ones ability to 1) own property, 2) deny them liberty, or 3) deny them life or their livelihood.

It is a ridiculous comparison, and I will absolutely not back down - I don't care what type of person you care to paint me as. I am no bigot, nor a racist - I just think that in the interest of raising children, a household with a man and a women should be paramount. I also would concede that if gays wanted to adopt and raise children, I think they do deserve special acknowledgement for that. But it is not a right. It is a privilege.

"Think it through rationally, Feebie. Who is going to WANT polygamy? Only those who already practice it."

LS, you ask me to think rationally? It seems to be a fairly tall order for you, sister. Check out Izzy's post. Did you check out my link - the one I posted twice?

And of all absurdities, woman!!! How can people already practice polygamy if it is illegal? That is just absurd. Who can practice polygamy here in the US - no one. Who WANTS to? Well, I'd say plenty - starting with Yusif Bey (Black MUSLIM Brotherhood), and the couple in Hawaii (link again), and Islam, and maybe even Gays - I mean, why not? If you can define marriage any way you want, and take out any structure or family component you basically have open marriages with benefits.

"If it ever became legal - and that's a very big "if" - the only people who would practice polygamy are the same religious fundamentalists already practicing it now"

Did you see the links above?

"Our females are too liberated and our males are too spoiled by the freedom not to support multiple (or any) wives."

Link above, again.

"The sentiment towards polygamy in this country is best shown in the way that the polygamist compound in TX was recently treated - children being seized and turned over to child-protective services purely because of the polygamous atmosphere and a false threat."

Linky-pooh!

Here, LS, I'll save you the trouble - I am posting it a third time, for the hat trick...no wait, the "Triad":

"First came traditional marriage. Then, gay marriage. Now, there's a movement combining both—simultaneously. Abby Ellin visits the next frontier of nuptials: the "triad."" - Daily Beast

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/08/14/three.html

Go ahead, I'll wait.

What about this lil' beauty from the Daily Beast Article above (oh, please don't miss the video of these two Amy also posted):

"Like most people in the poly community, the Lessins, who also helm the school of tantra (they take pleasure of the flesh quite seriously), take great pains to discuss pretty much everything. Some people even write up their agreements like a traditional prenup, detailing everything from communal economics to cohabitation rules. ****And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections****. "We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to."

LS? Care to engage in a discussion about a slippery slope?

Just as a historical note for those who are unfamiliar with the practices of the polygamists who are historically linked with the Mormon faith. (If you don't think there is a connection between the two I looked into the possibility of being a foster parent for one or more of the lost boys and found that since I was not LDS, they would not even consider it) These polygamous families in places like Kingman Arizona have thrived and prospered in the late 20th century due to both the tax laws and the welfare laws which have had the unintended effect of encouraging it. As far as the government is concerned, all the surplus wives (after the first legal one) are legally single mothers with dependent children who are eligible for both tax credits and welfare which these women collect in spades. I don't know what is worse; De facto polygamy which exists in the United States or de juri polygamy which would almost certainly have more protections for the parties involved and also the tax payers. Isabel

I read the link, Feebie, I just think it's ridiculous to believe that there would be any major support for that. America won't support multiple partner marriage. TWO partner marriage is in keeping with our tradition, and denying gays the ability to participate in that tradition violates equal protection, but expanding this to include multiple partners...or donkeys...or children...or any of the rest won't ever be accepted, and arguing this is the same as those who projected all kinds of hideous outcomes for civil rights or women's rights. It's pure scare tactic. "If you do this, that will happen..." As if we should weigh fairness against fear.

Any positive change comes with risk. Cowards will never make positive change because they fear the unknown and would rather stick with the status quo, even when it's clearly wrong.

You are too wrapped up in your fears of what's behind the door to open it, even though you claim not to be bigoted against homosexuals.

Straights have long engaged in kinky, weird sexual relationships - swinging, S&M, etc - yet those have not gone mainstream. They won't go mainstream because there is no mainstream support for those practices.

The only reason gay marriage has made it this far is because a growing percentage of Americans realize that a gay couple can be just as healthy as a straight couple, and that their love and commitment is no different from our love and commitment. Statistically, their children are turning out just as well as our children.

We know gay parents from school, and the neighborhood. Their families are just the same as other families: Two parents and some kids.

This has become normal for most of us. Kinky threesomes are still regarded strange and abnormal, and will continue to be regarded as such, whether composed of straights or gays. One does not lead to the other, any more than straight marriage leads to swinging.

"TWO partner marriage is in keeping with our tradition, and denying gays the ability to participate in that tradition violates equal protection, but expanding this to include multiple partners...or donkeys...or children...or any of the rest won't ever be accepted, and arguing this is the same as those who projected all kinds of hideous outcomes for civil rights or women's rights"

BIGOTED backwards thinker you are!? Who are you to say if three people love each other - polyphobe!

If people can marry the person they love - then what if there are people that love TWO people. Or two people who love four people... Are you suggesting that they now must choose between the the people they love? How heartless?! Why, that is unconstitutional!

Who are you to say that they cannot marry?! huh? What's the definition of marriage, anyway? So, a man and a woman can marry - and a man/man or woman/woman can marry but a woman that wants to marry two men or a man that wants to marry two men can't? - hey, you said it was about who you love and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Then it should be a constitutional right for them to marry, receive benefits, and all the trimmin's too.

"You are too wrapped up in your fears of what's behind the door to open it, even though you claim not to be bigoted against homosexuals."

You are the bigot because you won't accept bigamy or polygamy. I think I will tell my friends to put this on the ballot and when the voters vote it down - they will take it to court. We will find a sympathetic judge, to then determine by way of intended outcome only, that discriminating against polygamists is unconstitutional and we have the right to marry. If gender now no longer matters, then how many in a union shouldn't either.

"We know gay parents from school, and the neighborhood. Their families are just the same as other families: Two parents and some kids."

I've already agreed with you on this point, but apparently - I am still a bigot.

"This has become normal for most of us. Kinky threesomes are still regarded strange and abnormal, and will continue to be regarded as such, whether composed of straights or gays. One does not lead to the other, any more than straight marriage leads to swinging."

What a backwards bigot you are! So people who are gay and add another person to the mix are abnormal now? Who defines normal in your world? I don't consider them abnormal, not even polygamists do I consider abnormal. I don't care - I just care about how they impact society as a whole.

"One does not lead to the other, any more than straight marriage leads to swinging."

Again, from the article above:

"****And buoyed by an increasing acceptance of same-sex unions, others want more legal protections****. "We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other—I don’t care what you call it, we’re not second-class citizens!” says Janet Lessin. “Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to."

I really, really wish that judge would have addressed the polygamy issue. Ho-hum.

> Their families are just the same as other families:
> Two parents and some kids.

That's not (even merely) the same. A loving mother and a loving father is what's best.

> I really, really wish that judge would have
> addressed the polygamy issue. Ho-hum.

Or the I-wanna-marry-my-little-sister issue. Wutarwee, second class citizens?

Equating a two parent gay household with incest and polygamy, much less beastiality, is just nauseatingly bigoted and ignorant. And it's because you don't really have an argument. It's "OMG, the sky is falling! If we allow this, then look at all the perversions that can happen!"

Nevermind that straights have been legally marrying one adult non-related partner forever, and the law has kept it that way forever - not to include incest or multipartners or farm animals. Even though there are straight people who engage in all that stuff, and I'm sure some would say they wished they could marry their horse or 5 close friends, it's still not happening and it won't happen.

This is only about giving gay people the same option for marriage as straight people already have. Nothing more nothing less.

What is happening now is flat out wrong. It is flat out wrong that gay couples who have lovingly raised children for years cannot even legally adopt them or marry each other. These are families, and every study done supports that there is no harm to those children being raised by a loving gay couple.

So, if you truly agree with that, Feebie, you have to support gay marriage, despite your paranoia about polygamy. Discriminating against people because of fears over what *might* happen if you stopped discriminating against them is indefensible.

Vlad.

Buzz! You failed Constitutional law. The relevent case is Quilici v. Morton Grove, in which courts ruled that it was, indeed, Constitutional for a locality to have more restrictive laws than Federal ones.

The basic fact of a Constitution is simple: it restricts what government may do, not what people may do. It is one step further to see that a government does not overstep its bounds to impose restrictions on the subject citizenry.

Violations of Federal Constitutional law do not include points in your defense.

If you do not get a marriage license from the State, you are not married, no matter what you do otherwise. This is because the State has probate duty, but as the legal and literal descendent of the tribe, it holds its citizens responsible for its maintenance and defense.

I'll move those goalposts. Show me your license to speak freely!

Then, we are opening the doors wide open for the Mormons to argue that they were CREATED by the God to love many women. Also, I cannot wait to hear the argument from a man, who were CREATED by the God to love his donkey.

I'm willing to entertain the notion of monogamous gay marriage, but there is no freaking way I will entertain polygamy. Why should people like Warren Jeffs be getting a whole bunch of women, while all these other men, who are not a charismatic, powerful, or good-looking, end up resorting to the hand...or rape? And why should one woman be able to marry a bunch of men, leaving other nearby women to be permanent spinsters.

Gay marriage would certainly alter the fabric of society, but hopefully not dangerously so. Polygyny and polyandry, I fear, would rend it apart.

As for bestiality, perhaps jail, forced confinement in an appropriate facility, or deportation back to the Middle East, would be the solution. Goat-fuckers beware!

As you say, Radwaste, the state requires a marriage license because it has probate duty. We also have to get permits to own guns and carry concealed weapons. We must register to vote. Journalists and reporters must get press passes. Our rights are heavily monitored by the state, but that doesn't make them non-rights.

Like I said earlier, if marriage is just a privilege, why not strip prisoners of it? Why wouldn't it be like driving or voting? If you committed a crime, or failed at marriage a set number of times, you'd have your privilege revoked.

We don't treat marriage like a mere privilege. We treat it like a right because it is one. Certainly, if it didn't start out as a right, the way it has been treated, and the resulting expectation of the citizenry make it one by default.

> This is only about giving gay people the
> same option for marriage as straight
> people already have.

They have that option. They always have. You don't do logic, do you?

"Like I said earlier, if marriage is just a privilege, why not strip prisoners of it? Why wouldn't it be like driving or voting?"

It is just like driving and voting in that some states consider it a right other states consider it a privilege and if you are a prisoner, you may have to get the state's permission to marry. They will also define the conditions under which you can do it if you are a prisoner. Regardless, since the state is in control of marriages and not the feds, they are the ones who get to determine the rules for prisoners just as the state can elect to restore your voting rights if you are a felon, or not if they chose not to. Isabel

> Next question?

Bzzzt.. You weren't asked. Rather, YOU are the petitioner.

"So, if you truly agree with that, Feebie, you have to support gay marriage, despite your paranoia about polygamy. Discriminating against people because of fears over what *might* happen if you stopped discriminating against them is indefensible."

LS, I don't HAVE to do anything, get it? You are a bit of a control freak, no?

Paranoia would be to assume that it was unwarranted or unrealistic (like worried that space aliens will be coming down to suck my brains out with a shop-vac). I have provided you specifics on why this COULD be problematic IF NOT ADDRESSED BEFORE WE PUSH THIS THROUGH THE COURT AS A MANDATE. The judge didn't address this, so ya, I got a problem with that. You just don't want to listen to what I am saying because it is in complete opposition to your position.

You are thinking that if you just explain it better, I'll get it and come over to your side. I have thought about it - and what I am saying is that I would have zero problem with gays getting married if it will not impact traditional marriage and overtax society in general without providing any substantial benefit.

Why not just address it now so us "paranoid" folk won't have any room to complain? My contention is that you can't. In theory, I got no problem with same-sex marriage - hell, I voted for it when it was first put on the ballot (I'm such a bigot!) and then I realized that this may have some unintended consequences that are worthy of more scrutiny. Other aspects than just about the love and feelings two grown-ups feel for each other and the lives they are able to build for themselves. Radwaste brings up one I never considered either.

I am saying that I don't care to have our Constitution used in this way. If same sex marriage will fit within the context of the current system, if there is mutual benefit between having same sex marriage and the society as a whole - I would not be any type of person to stand in the way of that. My concern, my ONLY concern in this is that it will jeopardize the mother/father familial relationship and that it will create an added burden on society as a whole for the benefit of a minority of people that could have MANY of the same privileges, and all of those same rights without the context of marriage.

I am not even taking a hard line on this issue like religious folks. I am willing to meet somewhere in the middle - but not if the sacrifice will be only one sided. I would like to see some Consessions!!!

(And I think the way the judge went about this ruling from a legal perspective is an absolute atrocity - Right up there with Brown v. Board of Education).

"Because you get one person in your life who gets marital tax breaks, not 20."

I realize that I am beating a dead horse here because no one is listening but for the third time THERE IS NO MARITAL TAX BREAK. The tax breaks are all for having minor children and are available whether you are married or not. They are especially lucrative if you are a single head of household. Isabel

"One man or one woman, one person you love, or arrange to be in a marriage with."

That would be GREAT, but that is not how the judge went about this ruling. He said, gender no longer matters - says HE. By phrasing it this way (and NOT addressing polygamy or other unions) he is essentially saying that this is a standard that can be determined by a judge. It;s up for debate. ANd if gender doesn't matter than, certainly number of participants in the marriage won't if society decides that it is "unconstitutional". He has set up precedence by his loosely worded, intended outcome only, type ruling. He had a chance to say "ONE OTHER PERSON" and he didn't.

I am freaking floored by it. He could have done this - and it would have gone to the SCOTUS and if upheld, we would have a safeguard. Now we really don't. We no longer have a precedence.

"They are especially lucrative if you are a single head of household."

Yes, that is an ugly problem. More encouragement of single-parent systems.

"They have that option. They always have."

You know that's bull from a practical sense. Yes, they can marry someone they can't love romantically, which defeats the purpose of marriage. It's a cruel position to take, Crid.

And, Feebie, I honestly think you're worrying unecessarily. I suppose it would be better if the judge had been more specific, but it also would've seemed insulting to gays to reference polygamy, incest, pedophila, beastiality, or any of the other "concerns" people have. None of those things are allowed in our marriage laws, so saying gender shouldn't matter is sufficient. Polygamy would be a whole different case. The issue here was equal protection under the current laws.

You don't "have" to believe anything, but you sound like a fairminded person, so I think you should give this a chance. Gay marriage and polygamy are not that closely related. Allowing gay marriage is highly unlikely to lead to an acceptance of polygamy or changing our laws to accomodate it. As Amy points out, the state has no interest in legally recognizing multiple spouses. It would be detrimental and chaotic. Plus, unlike gay marriage, there is no evidence that polygamous marriages are stable for children, and quite a lot of suspicion that they are harmful.

> It's a cruel position to take

You are not a person to whom I would look for instruction on warmth.

> they can marry someone they can't love
> romantically, which defeats the purpose
> of marriage.

I don't think you know what the "purpose" of marriage is. Like Amy, you seem to think it's about schoolgirl daydream fulfillment, and taking things from the larger community without an expectation that any value will be returned... A weird position to take given the state of public affairs.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right, nor does not being married impact ones ability to 1) own property, 2) deny them liberty, or 3) deny them life or their livelihood.

Posted by: Feebie

Feebie, if I thought you were a bigot I'd say so - I've said so to others.

As far as arguments goes yours is really the only rational non religious one Ive heard.

But, as to your arguments
Marriage is not a Constitutional right - ordinarily I'd agree with you execept for two things
1- there is no basis for denying marriage to two unmarried straight people of legal age and consent
2-according to Loving v Virginia marriage is consiered a legal right

1) own property,
Yes it does, it required them to spend thousands on legal documents which can be challanged by on partners familly members in probate court far more readily then a marriage licence(which doesnt require paying a lawyer for hours of work)
According to this site the most expensive marriage licence in the US is $98, almost half of the US states charge $25 or less
http://www.weddingcram.com/planning/marriage_license_requirements.htm

2) deny them liberty,
Amy had a story on this sight a few months ago about a lesbian partner and children of a woman in the hospital denied access to medical information and the bedside even though the parner was carring all of the civil commitment paperwork that everyone claims is the same as a marriage licence - keeping children and a wife seperated from their dying familly members bedside seems like a denial of liberty to me

3) deny them life or their livelihood.
That one I'll agre with you on, but with the caveat that not being allowed on their parnets insurance or comapny benifits is a interfering with their livelyhood(or at the very least their cash flow)

Quick thought on ploygamy. Its viewed as horribly oppresive to women and a form of virtual slavery right?

So why do so many feminist claim to want to live in a world where women outnumber men?

I remeber in college reading an article that claime a perfect world would have ten times as many women as men.

Quite frankly I fail to see how a society wherein males are so rare as to precluded them from ever doing any of the dangerous jobs many of us do these days would be perfect for women, but you got to admit for all their horro at the thought of polygamy it seems inevitable should feminism ever become the de facto ruler of the world.

@ Luj:

"1- there is no basis for denying marriage to two unmarried straight people of legal age and consent
2-according to Loving v Virginia marriage is consiered a legal right"

1. Yes there is, as it has always been, they can't be related and (common law) they must be a man and a woman. There is two.

2. I've discussed Loving v. Virginia in my first post. The right to marriage was denied specifically because of racial purification - because these interracial couples could by very definition, produce offspring. So that is why this argument doesn't line up. (I am not saying there isn't another argument, I am just saying that when you say they confirmed "right to marriage" it was specifically because they did not want whites "breeding" with blacks). Can you see how this would not apply to gay marriage?

"1) own property,
Yes it does, it required them to spend thousands on legal documents which can be challanged by on partners familly members in probate court far more readily then a marriage licence(which doesnt require paying a lawyer for hours of work)
According to this site the most expensive marriage licence in the US is $98, almost half of the US states charge $25 or less"

Okay, I will concede that it is more expensive if you will concede that this does not necessarily DENY them LEGITIMATE access to owning property. If it did, it would go something like this, as with blacks: "Gays can't own property" and/or homeowners or banks refuse to sell or lend to gays who want to buy property. But this isn't a marriage issue - this is bullshit bureaucracy. A proper way to handle this would be to have these challenged in court as being discriminatory practices - but then, what happens with unmarried couples who aren't gay? They get screwed too. You see how this kinda snowballs?

"2) deny them liberty,
Amy had a story on this sight a few months ago about a lesbian partner and children of a woman in the hospital denied access to medical information and the bedside even though the parner was carring all of the civil commitment paperwork that everyone claims is the same as a marriage licence - keeping children and a wife seperated from their dying familly members bedside seems like a denial of liberty to me"

This isn't a marriage issue - this is a hospital issue. Not all hospitals do this. This is where a lawsuit would be seriously in order.

"3) deny them life or their livelihood.
That one I'll agre with you on, but with the caveat that not being allowed on their parnets insurance or comapny benifits is a interfering with their livelyhood(or at the very least their cash flow)"

I'd have to check and I could be wrong but this is not the case in all states. I believe in California, this is prohibited. At my company, and every company I've worked for in California has listed the requirement as "significant other". The other I believe is Alaska. And that was because it was Sarah Palin, on her first day as governor vetoed a bill that was denying health benefits to same sex partners. She said that although she did not support same-sex marriage, that denying same sex partners access to health benefits was unconstitutional.

There is a difference between bullshit bureaucracy and denying someone legitimate access to rights specifically outlined in our Constitution.

"So why do so many feminist claim to want to live in a world where women outnumber men?"

Feminists-shmeminists. I wouldn't want it. And I don't pretend to know what goes on during their twisted little minds or what type of masturbatory fantasies they carry around about ruling the world. They are a bunch of harridans as far as I'm concerned.

I mentioned Brown vs. Board of Edu in a post above - that was a mistake. I meant to say Plessy v. Ferguson (Brown vs. Board over-turned Plessy).

It wasn't Brown I meant to cite, but Plessy. Mea culpa.

It is important for me to clarify, because otherwise, it would relay the opposite meaning of what was intended.

Thing about feminists is, they aren't a very threatening boogieman.

Consider the thing with the HPOA girl. The reason that Lisanti joke hit the spot (see comment #2) was that you could tell from the photo that this was not the kind of girl who was going to take offense so easily. She didn't look socially stunted. Beauties at the peak of fertility don't even HEAR mild expressions of lust like that... They're too busy living lives of fulfilling hotness, especially when they're living sensibly enough to be photographed in a moderately elegant home. The stink of deception was all over this thing, whether or not it qualifies as a hoax.

The "harridan feminists" aren't so plentiful in our society as to be a threat.

(I am not saying there isn't another argument, I am just saying that when you say they confirmed "right to marriage" it was specifically because they did not want whites "breeding" with blacks). Can you see how this would not apply to gay marriage? - Feebie

Given the governemnt and the courts seem to have no problem foisting child support and legal gardianship on men who have never bred with women who claim them as their baby daddies - I suggest this line of reasoning is beside the point

Well, jeez, Lou... Given that so many atheists are irredeemable dorkwads, your lines of reasoning about poison of religion are beside the point.

Again — Just because you can name an exception doesn't mean principles don't apply.

"Beauties at the peak of fertility don't even HEAR mild expressions of lust like that... They're too busy living lives of fulfilling hotness..."

Honestly, Crid, where do you come up with this? Your "peak of fertility" thing when referencing young women is about as creepy as Irlandes always talking about young girls being hot for him. Just say "young women". That will suffice.

And I assure you, as someone who was once a beauty at the peak of fertility, women do hear mild expressions of lust. Young women are not rendered deaf and dumb by beauty or fertility. They may just choose to ignore those expressions, but the vast majority are hardly living lives of "fulfilling hotness".

Get lost

"Marriage in general" isn't a fundamental right. If it were, the following “marriages” would have been recognized throughout the history of our country as a fundamental right: - underage heterosexual kids, - underage boys, - underage girls, - underage boy & gown man - underage girl & grown woman - sisters - brothers - your Mom - same sex adults - a dog - your pet rock. And don't throw Loving v. Virginia at me. The marriage in that case was nothing more than a variant of the fundamental right to a heterosexual marriage with another non-familial adult. As such, the Judge in the Prop 8case was off his rocker 1) to argue marriage in general was a fundamental right and 2) to define marriage in such a manner to permit nearly all of the above relationships not permitted by our nation’s societal mores as codified in every state. Here is his "finding of fact" #34 where he defines marriage for our nation: "Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents." The pet rock almost qualifies.