Active Users:1187 Time:23/11/2024 04:26:18 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement. Joel Send a noteboard - 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM
Nobody should be bound to define their mutually consensual relationships with other adults of sound mind unless the state has a undeniably clear reason to butt their noses in, like a legal contract for custody or cohabitation or shared assets, etc. Now religion or personal? Different story, plural marriage is immoral in my opinion and nobody has a right to make me personally recognize it as valid.

That is kind of the problem: The law confers, via marriage, privileges (and obligations) in those areas, and the Equal Protection Clause constitutionally prohibits doing so for some but not others.

We're seeing a generational shift toward the idea that the government shouldn't be dictating personal relationships, and from my perspective people need to be viewing this not as good/bad or better/ok but my business vs not my business and gov't business vs not something state should be involved in.

So I agree as long as we follow through to the logical conclusion, not just stopping at name changes. The Windsor case is a good example: A widow paid $300,000+ inheritance tax—instead of NOTHING—solely because she married a woman instead of a man. Simply recognizing name changes cannot fix that.
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? Narg - 20/10/2012 12:02:06 AM 1369 Views
Legal rights. snoopcester - 20/10/2012 12:14:10 AM 776 Views
It almost sounds like you are saying... Narg - 20/10/2012 12:31:40 AM 746 Views
That is what I'm saying it. snoopcester - 20/10/2012 01:07:50 AM 728 Views
Technically, privileges, not rights. Tom - 20/10/2012 04:16:45 AM 732 Views
Sure A Deathwatch Guard - 20/10/2012 12:35:53 AM 658 Views
All for it... For adults over the age of 18. *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 01:18:04 AM 390 Views
What about it? Ghavrel - 20/10/2012 01:21:17 AM 736 Views
+1 *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 01:51:25 AM 424 Views
+2 *NM* ironclad - 20/10/2012 11:18:39 AM 376 Views
should be legal, would be nice for poly people. should include polygyny and polyandry. *NM* temeraire - 20/10/2012 03:29:05 AM 376 Views
poly people? Yunalesca - 20/10/2012 12:44:01 PM 703 Views
Government needs to stop legislating morality. So yes *NM* Dark Knight - 20/10/2012 03:36:37 AM 368 Views
That's a huge chunk of what government does. Palatine - 20/10/2012 04:35:45 PM 706 Views
That's not what I'm saying Dark Knight - 21/10/2012 03:21:08 AM 721 Views
So you're opposed to abortion and gun control then? Welcome aboard! Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:14:14 AM 670 Views
Why do you keep talking about gay marriage and polygamy in the same sentence.. Amyrlin - 20/10/2012 03:58:26 AM 749 Views
Get a grip. Your response is just what I tried to avoid. Narg - 20/10/2012 04:33:40 AM 666 Views
The more fool you. Cannoli - 21/10/2012 05:55:30 AM 760 Views
This, and legal recognition of it, is precisely why marriage has become an Equal Protection issue. Joel - 22/10/2012 03:40:01 PM 693 Views
Ha! Point. *NM* globug0822 - 20/10/2012 05:40:34 AM 566 Views
Because they are both violations of the paradigm of genuine marriage. Like it or not. Cannoli - 21/10/2012 05:49:32 AM 649 Views
Marriage is always a choice, whatever the motive(s.) Joel - 22/10/2012 04:00:40 PM 692 Views
I have no problem with polygamy being legal, but marriage is a privilege and can be limited to two. Tom - 20/10/2012 04:16:08 AM 756 Views
The only problem with that is that it was established with a heterosexist assumption Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:33:32 AM 718 Views
From a legal perspective, all of your arguments are irrelevant Tom - 21/10/2012 03:12:39 PM 822 Views
How would you argue for putting it in the same category as race? Burr - 21/10/2012 04:28:12 PM 752 Views
I wouldn't put it in exactly the same category. Tom - 21/10/2012 08:43:51 PM 760 Views
This really is blatantly obvious, but still it might bear repeating... Legolas - 21/10/2012 04:43:13 PM 713 Views
That limitation is still prejudicial and somewhat arbitrary. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:25:25 PM 910 Views
Yes, but only if its equal. Multi-people relationships should be more acceptable by society. Aeryn - 20/10/2012 05:15:24 AM 768 Views
On the other hand, marriage also comes from that place. Ghavrel - 20/10/2012 06:11:01 AM 742 Views
There's a pun to be made from your comment *NM* Larry - 20/10/2012 06:12:53 AM 621 Views
"Polygamy" is the all-inclusive term; whether or not he meant it, he said it. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:31:09 PM 657 Views
I support autogamy in addition to various forms of exogenic relationships Larry - 20/10/2012 05:49:07 AM 690 Views
Have you seen the Glee episode where Sue Sylvester conducts a marriage of herself to herself? *NM* Tim - 20/10/2012 09:50:32 AM 366 Views
I am fine with it if all existing parties to the marriage consent to each addition. Tim - 20/10/2012 10:10:19 AM 763 Views
I got no opinion on it. LordPerrin - 20/10/2012 12:51:43 PM 788 Views
The case for polygamy has really weakened rather than strenghtened, you might say. Legolas - 20/10/2012 03:53:34 PM 865 Views
The idea of a group marriage makes me uncomfortable kHz1000 - 20/10/2012 04:19:48 PM 671 Views
I have no problem with it, but as Amy says, it's not really relevant. *NM* beetnemesis - 20/10/2012 05:40:50 PM 394 Views
As long as it is equitable imlad - 20/10/2012 05:55:57 PM 662 Views
Legalize polygamy and create a familymaking process, but don't cover polygamy under marriage. Burr - 20/10/2012 10:14:58 PM 684 Views
The state shouldn't even recognize marriage beyond name changes anyway Isaac - 21/10/2012 03:52:40 AM 733 Views
Indeed Cannoli - 21/10/2012 06:04:41 AM 791 Views
I don't give a damn what you call it. That's your business. Burr - 21/10/2012 06:17:40 AM 1066 Views
And so? Cannoli - 21/10/2012 07:05:08 AM 699 Views
Re: And so? Burr - 21/10/2012 04:10:19 PM 866 Views
So can we call it garriage, give the same legal effect and call it good? *NM* Narg - 22/10/2012 03:28:33 AM 372 Views
That would be fine with me, if that's really what came about. Burr - 22/10/2012 04:35:24 AM 707 Views
According to your argument we could afford gay couples the same legal privileges... Narg - 22/10/2012 03:20:17 AM 629 Views
Yes! We just don't trust you guys to actually do that. Burr - 22/10/2012 04:36:43 AM 733 Views
"...separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Joel - 22/10/2012 04:45:31 PM 691 Views
That may well be the ideal solution. And also the most ironically amusing in how it would fail. Burr - 22/10/2012 07:35:05 PM 659 Views
We already went there and did that in '04, and yes, it was funny as f--k. Joel - 22/10/2012 09:51:49 PM 608 Views
Agreed in principle, but custody/cohabitation/assets go well beyond name change. Joel - 22/10/2012 04:37:09 PM 667 Views
This is the sort of thing that *needs* to be about principle Isaac - 23/10/2012 04:54:10 AM 600 Views
Parental, property and other rights need government protection, and thus government involvement. Joel - 23/10/2012 05:14:37 AM 647 Views
None of which need hinge on marriage Isaac - 23/10/2012 05:54:07 AM 610 Views
In the legal sense of marriage, yeah, they kinda do. Joel - 23/10/2012 07:20:38 AM 617 Views
Legal contracts must be open to all consenting adults, or none. Joel - 22/10/2012 03:11:55 PM 746 Views
You are correct, yet your reasoning is flawed. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 03:20:25 PM 672 Views
Again, the Equal Protection Clause has far less force on private entities than on government. Joel - 23/10/2012 03:52:06 PM 604 Views
Much less force, yes. Burr - 23/10/2012 04:15:03 PM 614 Views
The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." Joel - 23/10/2012 04:43:25 PM 687 Views
Re: The crux is "If it's my business, it's my business." Burr - 23/10/2012 07:15:17 PM 629 Views
Like you said: By referring to "all invididuals" (or, better, "persons" or "citizens.") Joel - 24/10/2012 04:14:55 PM 651 Views
But we know very well that it doesn't have dire commercial consequences. Burr - 25/10/2012 07:17:55 PM 707 Views
Depends on where you look, and for how long. Joel - 26/10/2012 01:19:00 AM 667 Views
+1 *NM* HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:36:46 PM 309 Views
No the analogy is not exact, nor legally the same... HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:33:25 PM 581 Views
Analogy is not equality, only similarity. Joel - 24/10/2012 04:37:29 PM 779 Views
We aren't asking for something better or different. Burr - 23/10/2012 04:27:04 PM 673 Views
yeah, it is very circular. HyogaRott - 23/10/2012 07:44:33 PM 705 Views
I have several friends who practice polyamory, if they wanted to marry I would support it. *NM* Jojjo - 24/10/2012 06:47:58 PM 339 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes