Active Users:384 Time:29/04/2025 01:10:18 AM
That limitation is still prejudicial and somewhat arbitrary. Joel Send a noteboard - 22/10/2012 04:25:25 PM
We traditionally say "rights" but marriage is, from a legal perspective, a privileged relationship in which the partners enjoy certain legal preferences that are not granted outside marriage. I think this is the key point that must be stressed, however, because the straw man argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, letting people marry animals, etc., is a flawed one. If we say that we have created a special legal status between two individuals, then same-sex couples have a claim that the way the privilege is set up is discriminatory. This is an equal protection claim. Imagine if marriage were defined as "the legal union between one white man and one white woman" and you see the crux of the argument. The "rights" only come in when we look at the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

If, however, the privilege is set up as one for only two people, then people who say they have a polygamous relationship are not in a position to claim that they do not enjoy equal protection, because the relationship has been defined as a two-person relationship. After all, if we expand to three, we could expand to 100, or 10,000. So, consequently, we can create a privilege for two and exclude three (though we could just as easily allow it if we wanted to, without being obligated to on a Constitutional basis), but I don't think we can create a privilege for two and then set conditions on who the two people can be.

Hence Cannoli contends gay marriage bans are qualitatively different than miscegenation bans because the latter "arbitrarily exclud[e] groups due to invalid criteria." Obviously the arbitrariness there is his, but what makes the "monogamy" criterion any less arbitrary/more valid than the "heterosexual" or "anti-miscegenation" ones?

I understand it poses practical problems for spouse benefits from private entities, but the Equal Protection Clause has less force on them than on government. Nothing prevents employers/insurers/any private entity restricting spouse benefits to an individual rather than any and all spouses. Joint inheritance is hardly novel; competing divergent interests frequently complicate it, but the legal system manages to endure.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
For all you supporters of Gay Marriage: What about polygamy? - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1423 Views
Legal rights. - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 826 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 801 Views
That is what I'm saying it. - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 783 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 786 Views
Sure - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 717 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 426 Views
What about it? - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 784 Views
+1 *NM* - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 451 Views
+2 *NM* - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 398 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 401 Views
poly people? - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 751 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 389 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 755 Views
That's not what I'm saying - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 776 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 727 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 792 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 717 Views
The more fool you. - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 813 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 589 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 747 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two. - 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM 813 Views
That limitation is still prejudicial and somewhat arbitrary. - 22/10/2012 04:25:25 PM 968 Views
I got no opinion on it. - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 845 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 721 Views
As long as it is equitable - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 718 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 793 Views
Indeed - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 852 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1122 Views
And so? - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 748 Views
Re: And so? - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 930 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 806 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 722 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 664 Views
Much less force, yes. - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 673 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 744 Views
+1 *NM* - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 333 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 637 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 839 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 726 Views
yeah, it is very circular. - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 764 Views

Reply to Message