2016 Election
Quote: EvenBobIs that how you think the court works?
Good grief. The court is about the law.
If it's legal for same sexes to get married,
and the court said it is, then it's legal for
3 people to marry. Roberts was correct,
the exact same argument is true for both
scenarios. And it's an easier decision to make
because plural marriage is still practiced
in half the world. Home many wives did
Solomon have? 700?
As usual, the Left has thought nothing out,
it's all about me me me, and what I want.
Pandora's Box has been opened.
Ok, lets flip your argument around.
Lets say polygamy gets to the supreme court. Its never gonna get there but lets just imagine.
The liberal judges will of course vote against polygamy. According to conservatives, they don't follow the constitution, they just vote for what they support or don't support politically.
They certainly don't support polygamy.
That leaves the conservative judges.
Are you telling me Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will be forced to vote for polygamy simply due to precedence in this just decided case.
Oh the irony :-)
Quote: kewljHow about you live your life and try to be as happy as you can and let others do the same.
So now that you get what you want,
others who have issues can pound sand?
There are serious polygamists out there
and they will be heard. As they should be.
Quote: kewljTypical fear mongering and scare tactics straight from the playbook of those on the right. . . .Gay Marriage means Polygamy, pedophilia and marrying your dog are legal.
To the contrary, the fear of the LBGTQ world toward polyamour appears to be irrational. As the leading lawyer in the field, Jonathan Turley, who won the decriminalization of polygamy in the Brown case in no less than Utah, has written:
"In its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."
"Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims. Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
"Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes." turley
Even Politico sees further changes:
"Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
"This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago."
Quote: kewljGay Marriage means Polygamy, pedophilia and marrying your dog are legal.
Actually, "gay marriage" probably will lead to polygamy and even being allowed to marry your sibling. After all, what is the purpose of laws against these things - and how would they hold up given the fact that the court has just said that marriage is a right?
But none of those things are relevant in the same-sex marriage debate. I can see that the court was pretty much in a corner - it's not so much "legalizing same-sex marriage" per se as it is "providing a same-sex couple the same rights and privileges that a mixed-sex couple has," and, short of mandating marriage rights, I don't think that's possible.
Of course, there are some people who would respond, "Exactly - they shouldn't have the same rights." Case in point: Representative Labrador (and 57 co-sponsors) and Senator Lee (and 17 co-sponsors) have introduced the "First Amendment Defense Act", which says, in part:
Quote: HR 2802Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
While it appears to be aimed mainly at the IRS, to prevent it from revoking tax-exempt status from a church that would refuse to perform same-sex weddings, it also appears to be a response to the backlash against the Colorado bakery which refused to cater a same-sex wedding.
Still, it probably has about as much chance of being held Constitutional as a flag-burning law.
Will you be prosecuted for living with two or more ladies in every sense of the word as married (but unmarried), if you want?
That's how it differs from pedophilia and bestiality.
(yes, I know there are some variations of the laws state to state, but in general I think I'm right)
By that, I mean, no one in their right mind advertises their pedophilia or bestiality to anyone. It will get you prosecuted in private even.
Quote: EvenBob
If it's legal for same sexes to get married,
and the court said it is, then it's legal for
3 people to marry.
Do you have any evidence of three people being able to be legally married to each other with the same rights as two-person couples or are you just making up lies?
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
It won't matter, it's a done deal. It's here,
just not legal yet. Today marriage was
opened to every possible combination
of people.
It's Time To Legalize Polygamy
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#ixzz3eEHTwIts
Quote: EvenBobIt won't matter, it's a done deal. It's here,
just not legal yet. Today marriage was
opened to every possible combination
of people.
How much would you be willing to wager on the government recognizing polygamous marriages as equal to two-person marriages within the next year?
Correction: every possible combination of two people.Quote: EvenBobIt won't matter, it's a done deal. It's here,
just not legal yet. Today marriage was
opened to every possible combination
of people.
Quote: Today's ruling: 576 U.S. ____ (2015) at 28No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
The Court has previously ruled on polygamy:
Quote: Mormon Church v. U.S., 136 U.S. 1 (1890) at 49-50One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief, and therefore under the protection of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophistical plea. No doubt the Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. The practice of suttee(1) by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one, on that account, would hesitate to brand these practices, now, as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/136/1.html
If you believe, as Chief Justice Roberts apparently does, that polygamy is still a "crime against society" then the 125-year-old reasoning above would still hold true today. So why is everyone freaking out? It's not like today's ruling opens the door to generation-spanning line marriages. (Have you read any Heinlein? You should.)
(1) Suttee is the ritual self-immolation of a recently-widowed woman on her husband's funeral pyre.
Quote: TomGHow much would you be willing to wager on the government recognizing polygamous marriages as equal to two-person marriages within the next year?
Year? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.
In case you haven't heard, "legislators" don't count any more. The guy with a pen and a phone and nine unelected people in robes are doing all the deciding.Quote: rxwinePolygamy might force some rewrites to the welfare system. I don't see that as a bad thing, because I'm pretty sure the majority of legislators won't favor a family with 50 babies on welfare.
At least they're consistent in reading and following the Constitution. They don't have to contort into crazy back bends to rationalize their political decisions.Quote: terapinedAre you telling me Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will be forced to vote for polygamy simply due to precedence in this just decided case.
Exactly. Polygamy is in the same status as same-sex marriage was 10 or 20 years ago. LBGTQ people were living in relationships that were tighter than many straight marriages. It is just a matter of the state's approval, and that is an extremely strong argument to remove all governmental participation in betrothals. After all, if society has changed so radically so quickly, that surely changes the need for the supposed protections in the traditional marriage process.Quote: rxwinePolygamy is quasi-legal and has been quasi-legal anyway for a long time as far as I'm concerned. Will you be prosecuted for living with two or more ladies in every sense of the word as married (but unmarried), if you want?
Quote: MathExtremistSo why is everyone freaking out? It's not like today's ruling opens the door to generation-spanning line marriages.
Because that's what THEY do. Fear-mongering, doomsday scenarios, like Obamacare = death panels, when they can't make a rational argument.
Quote: SanchoPanzaIn case you haven't heard, "legislators" don't count any more. The guy with a pen and a phone and nine unelected people in robes are doing all the deciding.
If this decision is such a bad idea a Constitutional amendment should be convincing.
I'm not sure how "apparent" Roberts is in considering a "crime against society." But if he is equating it with murder and suicide, as cited in your 1890 case, he is way off base and being intellectually dishonest.Quote: MathExtremistIf you believe, as Chief Justice Roberts apparently does, that polygamy is still a "crime against society" then the 125-year-old reasoning above would still hold true today.
Quote: EvenBobYear? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.
It will probably be 5-10 years. Most likely it will be started among not LDS members but muslims. And guess what! The liberals who are saying today's ruling does not open the door will be the ones who will lead the charge, defenders of islam that they are. Because of today's ruling, lower courts will be far, far more likely to agree that marriage means anything. Public opinion will be easier to sway because many folks like myself know the USA lost the battle today and say who cares.
The whole gay marriage thing took about 20 years start to finish. The next thing should take half or less that time for both legal and social reasons. It is coming, no doubt in my mind. Any student of history should see it clearly.
Quote: Gabes22That's not what I am getting at rx. I don't agree with racism, but I believe some stuff that is classified as racism truly isn't. For instance, i work at a car dealership, and I work with this African American gentleman, who I am great friends with outside of work BTW. I have fights with him because every time a customer doesn't like him, he claims it was because he is black. I tell him customers get mad at me and other people all the time, and it isn't because I am white and this person is Hispanic and what not. Different people have different personalities and different motivating factors and different things that speak to them. You have to identify them and work with/around them There are those that don't like him because he is black, and I don't like doing business with those guys, but for every 10 people that don't like him, the number that don't like him because he is black is between 0 and 1. A lot of my co-workers don't like working with Indians because of their reputation for being cheap. I personally like it, as many of them are my most loyal customers. They will make you work for their business but they will be loyal. Furthermore, when they bring other people with them it is a clear indication to me that they are buying or at least intending to buy. Different cultures come from different lands with different value systems. You can't treat everybody the same because most people won't respond to your particular value system. I have to be able to utilize my knowledge of many different cultures to move more product, and yes, I use stereotypes and prejudices to do so, and it works because knowledge is power in those instances. Some sales people, and I keep using Indians, and I apologize don't know how to handle the objection that they don't want to pay interest despite special financing on the car they want being 2.9% at the term they want. We offer them a buydown rate which offers them to pay the interest up front and make it look like on paper that they have a zero interest loan, nevermind that this practice puts them further in a negative equity position at the start.
I thought about your reply for awhile before responding. It's good that you have made an effort to respond correctly to your customers' desires and have succeeded.
I guess I will add some "food" for thought.
If I were sitting at a table with a Black guy, an Asian, and an Indian, (somewhat representative of your described customer base - I am white, btw), and you brought four dishes i.e.,1) cheese burger and fries, 2) noodle dish, 3) Fried chicken and black eyed peas, and 4) dish with curry, there is 1 in 4 chance on any given day, if you didn't ask me, you would get my order wrong.
Not sure when assumptions get into racism, but they can. Many aren't a big deal. Some are. Like I said, not much, just food for thought.
Quote: AZDuffmanPublic opinion will be easier to sway because many folks like myself know the USA lost the battle today and say who cares.
.
Yup, in spades. But it's not important who
marries who, never was. It's the divorce
that's important.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt will probably be 5-10 years..
2003 9 of 13 provinces and territories in Canada same sex marriage legal.
2005 became legal in the entire country.
10 or more years in Canada and no legal polygamy.
Aint happening there
Aint happening here.
Quote: terapined2003 9 of 13 provinces and territories in Canada same sex marriage legal.
2005 became legal in the entire country.
10 or more years in Canada and no legal polygamy.
Aint happening there
Aint happening here.
The USA is not Canada. The SCOCA did not make a ruling. Not a valid comparison.
Anyways, why are you down on polygamy? Are you against equality?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USA is not Canada. The SCOCA did not make a ruling. Not a valid comparison.
Anyways, why are you down on polygamy? Are you against equality?
Good question. Several have stated polygamy doesn't have a chance, along with several other ideas. But polygamy in particular, I think I hear a collective opinion that it is bad, repulsive perhaps? A crime against God and all normal social conventions? I would ask a question in general to those that have said, "now that's a whole different thing". What makes it different, and what makes it bad? I'm not being facetious. I don't know the historical objection to polygamy in most of 'Western Society'. What are the negatives? I will do some research on my own of the history, but for anyone that has implied they think it is bad, why do you have negative feelings about polygamy? Serious question.
As an aside, and less serious, my first thought might be it would be a shame if the rich guys could just buy up all the women!
Quote: terapined2003 9 of 13 provinces and territories in Canada same sex marriage legal.
2005 became legal in the entire country.
10 or more years in Canada and no legal polygamy.
Aint happening there
Aint happening here.
What gives bigots like you the right to tell 2 people who love each other they can't get married?
Quote: EvenBobSo now that you get what you want,
others who have issues can pound sand?
There are serious polygamists out there
and they will be heard. As they should be.
and the bigoted Left, which started the laws against polygamy will continue to keep their nose firmly in other people's bedrooms.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe USA is not Canada. The SCOCA did not make a ruling. Not a valid comparison.
Anyways, why are you down on polygamy? Are you against equality?
Uh, he's a leftist Democrat so of course he's against equality. The party of slavery and Jim Crow now survives on school and employment discrimination against whites and Asians on behalf of their "base".
Quote: TwoFeathersATL. I don't know the historical objection to polygamy in most of 'Western Society'. What are the negatives? I will do some research on my own of the history, but for anyone that has implied they think it is bad, why do you have negative feelings about polygamy? Serious question.
Lost boys
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
Quote: bobsimsUh, he's a leftist Democrat so of course he's against equality. The party of slavery and Jim Crow now survives on school and employment discrimination against whites and Asians on behalf of their "base".
Huh?
registered republican
born in Asia
Quote: terapined2003 9 of 13 provinces and territories in Canada same sex marriage legal.
2005 became legal in the entire country.
10 or more years in Canada and no legal polygamy.
Aint happening there
Aint happening here.
Because this country is filled with people who don't care about others making themselves happy when it doesn't affect them. Oh wait, never mind.
Quite a few religions disown, shun or do even worse to those it does not want or do not meet their requirements. The Amish, Muslims and even Jews come to mind quickly.Quote: terapinedLost boys http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
Quote: BozI did hear today that some companies are now looking at removing benefits for same sex couples who are not married. Great decision, after all fair is fair. Girlfriends or boyfriends could not be covered but gay couples were since they could not get married. Problem now solved on both fronts. Either get married or you don't get benefits. Everyone wins.
This decision should end all benefits (within a reasonable time, of course...implementing a decision like that without giving time for planning the "how to" is insane...oh, wait...) for non-married partners. Boys and girls, boys and boys, and girls and girls--whether or not anyone agrees with the ruling, time to get married, get your affairs in order, and qualify for the benefits or lose them. All states should move to terminate any form of "domestic partnership" or recognition of such. Marriage is legal; those agreements are unnecessary.
If anyone fights for those types of things to remain after this ruling, they are trying to have two different sets of rules.
Now...some may qualify for a "common law marriage" in a state depending on what those actual laws state is required to have that designation.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLGood question. Several have stated polygamy doesn't have a chance, along with several other ideas. But polygamy in particular, I think I hear a collective opinion that it is bad, repulsive perhaps? A crime against God and all normal social conventions? I would ask a question in general to those that have said, "now that's a whole different thing". What makes it different, and what makes it bad? I'm not being facetious. I don't know the historical objection to polygamy in most of 'Western Society'. What are the negatives? I will do some research on my own of the history, but for anyone that has implied they think it is bad, why do you have negative feelings about polygamy? Serious question.
As an aside, and less serious, my first thought might be it would be a shame if the rich guys could just buy up all the women!
Below is an Internet site I found. Took awhile to sort thru all the dribble that has been posted in the last few days/months that compares polygamy ( in various forms with more specific nomenclature ) to the recent Supreme Court decision, which is after all a 'Constitutional Decision'. But this article/publication/blog was from Oxford in early 2012, and even though was still couched in terms relating to homosexual marriage, did solicit a large amount of feedback in which a number of individuals ( many fairly eloquently ) spoke about polygamy in several forms. I have still only read about half of the material but found it worthy of mentioning here, if only in answer of my own question.
I do not know how to make it a link, fairly not tech savvy am I.
What is so bad about polygamy? | Practical Ethics
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/why-is-polygamy-wrong/
Jan 16, 2012 - Why do we automatically assume that polygamy is unacceptable and immoral and bad? Why should the argumentative “buck” stop there?
Quote: terapinedLost boys
http://www.childbrides.org/boys.html
So? Discrediting polygamy with the FLDS is like discrediting gay marriage with NAMBLA. It's not going to come from the Mormons, and no, not the Muslims either, although they might get on the bandwagon. Just like gay marriage, it'll come from the hippies and the nerds.
(hums) "...but they'll fill our hearts with so much, so much love..."
To reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.Quote: TwoFeathersATLWhat is so bad about polygamy? | Practical Ethics
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/why-is-polygamy-wrong/
Jan 16, 2012 - Why do we automatically assume that polygamy is unacceptable and immoral and bad? Why should the argumentative “buck” stop there?
But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.
How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?
Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?
Quote: MathExtremistTo reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.
But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.
How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?
Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?
Glad you're asking these questions. I've always thought the line marriage envisioned by Heinlein could be ideal for any number of reasons, though some of the difficulties are also discussed in his book "Friday" (for a broader view of group marriages). It also has happened many times during locale inequity or other circumstances that a social convention allowing for partner-sharing could have improved many situations, especially those leading to the death of one or more competing suitors (duels, jealous homicide, etc.). Polygamy and Polyandry both make more sense than unhappy adultery and forced divorces among people who otherwise love each other and share children and assets.
Quote: MathExtremistTo reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.
But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.
How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?
Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?
touché.
The harsh mistress was the first Heinlein book I read, was a gift to me from my older brother. I read, I think, all the rest, own copies of all the later ones and many of the earlier ones. There is a great deal of great stuff in those books ( you might have recognized a saying recently in one of my posts, 'never scare a little guy, he might just up and shoot your ass'). That's Heinlein, roughly translated. I will share the books with my son's as they get old enough, that time is soon for the older son, and the older books. Heinlein's advanced thinking on many topics is still very relevant. Family relations is one, a big one.
Thanks for bringing him up in the conversation!
Quote: TwoFeathersATLtouché.
The harsh mistress was the first Heinlein book I read, was a gift to me from my older brother. I read, I think, all the rest, own copies of all the later ones and many of the earlier ones. There is a great deal of great stuff in those books ( you might have recognized a saying recently in one of my posts, 'never scare a little guy, he might just up and shoot your ass'). That's Heinlein, roughly translated. I will share the books with my son's as they get old enough, that time is soon for the older son, and the older books. Heinlein's advanced thinking on many topics is still very relevant. Family relations is one, a big one.
Thanks for bringing him up in the conversation!
Here I go quoting my self again ;-(
I thought a little about "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" again. I remember one armed Manny, and Jill(?) and Mike the computer, and the professor etc but I don't remember that 'family relations' was a significant part of that book, though it was a great read as I remember (from 45-50 years ago). No, I didn't go look any of it up, didn't pull the book out of a box in the basement labeled 'Heinlein'. I just thought about it for a couple minutes. The truly astounding subject matter on 'family relations' came in later books, still years, decades perhaps, ahead of their time. Correct me if I'm wrong. 2F
adult. Can't read him now, he's way too
obsessed with sexual subjects for my taste.
He grew up in a very sexually repressed
generation and it shows in his writing. That
is, most of the stuff he wrote after Stranger
in a Strange Land.
Quote: MathExtremistTo reiterate, read Heinlein, especially "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Most people equate polygamy with polyamory (multiple sexual partners) but that's not necessarily a fair equivalence. The idea of a harem, or of a state-sanctioned N-person orgy, is probably what gives rise to the disgust you're seeing in the popular press right now.
But consider Heinlein's idea of a line marriage, or what I'll call "sparsely-sexual polygamy." In that structure, multiple people are all "married" together in the eyes of the law but are typically only sexual with one partner. The N-person marriage has shared assets, favorable treatment from the authorities, and rights of survivorship -- precisely what all 2-person marriages just achieved with the SCOTUS opinion -- but is otherwise just a formally-recognized collection of couples and families. In other words, not an orgy.
How is that different from a corporation? Or an extended family with well-done estate planning? Or a village?
Why couldn't you form a corporation among multiple families and achieve preferential tax treatment and other marriage-like benefits for a group larger than 2 people? Or can you?
I am not against it. I support polygamy and always have.
But, if you are only going to be romantically and sexual involved with one person our of the group, why marry at all? Why not just form a joint buisness partnership o
if all you care about is maximizing assets and resources?
To be honest the only way polygamy would interest me is if it is "an orgy" if I have to get married in a polygamous marriage, but can only sleep with one of them, seems kind of pointless..... might as well just sign a financial contract with another married couple.... why bother being in a "relationship" if it only involves money and buisness, seems like a misleading term that will cause unnecessary stigmatization.
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.
http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740
Quote: EvenBobYear? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.
So according to you, we will go at least five years before we see a single negative consequences from this ruling. That must make this one of the better Supreme Court rulings in all of history
Further, because it is only conservatives who make the connection between same sex marriage and three- or four-way marriages, it could only pass if the we have a conservative Supreme Court. Would that be good or bad?
Quote: EvenBobMississippi is considering doing away with
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.
Are you joking? Do you actually think the holding in Obergefell requires any particular religious institution to perform a gay wedding ceremony? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Holy cow. If this is how the ruling is being viewed, I can understand why so many people are hysterical. You should actually read the opinion instead of regurgitating the talking heads on Fox News. It means that a State (not a particular church) may not disallow a same-gender marriage, and further they must respect such a marriage if established in another State. But the way you're talking about it, it's as if SCOTUS just ordered all churches to start performing satanic rituals. The word "church" does not appear in the opinion at all, and only once in J. Thomas's dissent where he suggests "It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."
That's future tense. It is clearly not the holding of SCOTUS that "churches must perform gay ceremonies," nor would it ever be.
Also, even if Mississippi stops issuing marriage licenses altogether, which would be hilariously spiteful, they would still be required to respect any two-person marriage from any other state.
Quote: EvenBobMississippi is considering doing away with
marriage licenses altogether. No more
marriage in MS, go somewhere else and
do it and come back here to live. It would
prevent churches from ever having to perform
Gay ceremonies.
http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740
Could a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals?
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLCould a State just simply say, "we don't recognize marriage as a significant legal union between 2 ( or more) individuals from a governance standpoint.
Just say, "you're on your on, we'll deal with you one at a time"? And only "one at a time"?
I might like that idea. Marriage originates in the religious community if I'm not mistaken. We have separation of church and state ( thank God ).
The USA has no interest or opinion on marriage, no IRS benefits or penalties, no social acceptance or denial, and no social programs dependent on any marital status. Period.
I will sleep on that idea, and the multiple repercussions.
Tomorrow...
Quote: MathExtremistIt is clearly not the holding of SCOTUS that "churches must perform gay ceremonies," nor would it ever be.
That's where it's going. This ruling was just
the first step. Now Catholic Gays are saying
they want to be married in their church by a
priest and have it sanctioned by the Vatican.
That's where all of this was always headed.
It's always been about religion. The ironic
thing is, estimates are 60% of priests are
Gay. Even Pope Francis says Gay's make
up the 'majority' of the Priesthood. Yet the
Church is totally anti-Gay. None of it makes
any sense.
Quote: EvenBobThat's where it's going. This ruling was just
the first step. Now Catholic Gays are saying
they want to be married in their church by a
priest and have it sanctioned by the Vatican.
Why do you believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any authority over what happens in the Vatican? We're not in the 1500s when Church and State were, um, not separated. Do you think the Establishment clause of the Constitution is in jeopardy somehow?
Quote: MathExtremistDo you think the Establishment clause of the Constitution is in jeopardy somehow?
What do you think the point of all this
was? Gays are still not equal to non Gays.
They still can't get married in most major
churches. There's an amendment to the
constitution coming, that's where all this
will end. Yesterday was huge, but it was
just another step.
Quote: EvenBobWhat do you think the point of all this
was? Gays are still not equal to non Gays.
They still can't get married in most major
churches. There's an amendment to the
constitution coming, that's where all this
will end. Yesterday was huge, but it was
just another step.
HA-you think we are still following the Constitution? The SCOTUS is now mostly just following public opinion, has for decades but it keeps getting worse. Half of Americans don't even care about freedom, can't handle it. They would prefer a benevolent dictatorship that plans more of their lives and provides for more of their basic needs.
All the proof you need here is how many times do you hear "there ought to be a law" or "the government needs to do something!" Some of it is getting downright scary.
