US Supreme Ct to decide Gay Marriage is a Constitutional right

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**daedalus**

From what I understand, no one really agrees on the positions of the letters. LGBTQ is the one I think of though, which sounds like el-gee-bee-tee-q when you sound it out, which gets close to LGBBQ, which is something, as a straight fat guy, I'm not above attending were I to get invited.

Also, now I suddenly think a rainbow painted LRBT with a flower in the cannon would be the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

**Cheesecat**

I always say LGBT rolls off my tongue the best.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
How if making somehting illegal different than them?

I'm not making something illegal "because I disagree with it". I'm (at the very least) holding religious institutions to the same legal standards as everyone else when it comes to discrimination. When it comes to US laws, I would be adding in provisions to bring them more into line with UK law on hate speech and inciting hatred.

One can, as has already been pointed out, quite easily (apparently) make a purely "reasoned" point using various religious texts to make pretty much any argument you want - that is not in itself hateful or discriminatory. Using that argument to then be hateful or discriminatory is the part that is hateful or discriminatory...

**Frazzled**

Cheesecat wrote:
I always say LGBT rolls off my tongue the best.

See thats all nonsensical. Its just LG and Greedy.

**Jihadin**

Frazzled wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
I always say LGBT rolls off my tongue the best.

See thats all nonsensical. Its just LG and Greedy.

Dammit
thinking LRG BLT now for lunch

**Frazzled**

Mmmm BLT...

**Kilkrazy**

Bran Dawri wrote:
d-usa wrote:

So basically I think we would end up with three different options for being the officiant at a wedding:

A) Purely secular Agent of the State: Officiate over legal secular marriages for anyone.
B) Religious Clergy and Agent of the State: Able to officiate over select secular and spiritual marriages at a church, but required to officiate over secular marriages outside of church for anyone.
C) Purely religious Clergy: Able to officiate over spiritual marriages at a church only.

Like I said. I'm not saying that this is the right approach or that it makes sense. That's just where I am at in my head as my stance continues to evole.

What's this? A religious person coming up with a reasonable compromise? Only to be completely ignored for the rest of the thread?

I'm nominally anti-religious, but this is a concept I can get behind. Big thumbs up for this one!

Also, FYI, AFAIK, in the Netherlands, and Germany as well to my knowledge, option B doesn't exist; state and church marriages are completely separate here.

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

Thus many countries have a system by which you can be married by a priest and then register it with the registrar or you can be married by the registrar -- a civil marriage.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

That is not true. There are plenty of jurisdictions which recognize common law marriages.

**Frazzled**

Many states actually, especially in the West.

**Ensis Ferrae**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
How if making somehting illegal different than them?

I'm not making something illegal "because I disagree with it". I'm (at the very least) holding religious institutions to the same legal standards as everyone else when it comes to discrimination. When it comes to US laws, I would be adding in provisions to bring them more into line with UK law on hate speech and inciting hatred.

See, I see a huge difference here that you apparently dont see the same way... A church, in itself is like a club... hair club, beer club, fight club, duck hunters of america club, etc.... ALL of them are allowed, basically speaking, to have any discriminatory rule they want, the same goes for LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, or whatever other name of religion you have. Religious institutions already do have to follow "the same legal standards as everyone else" (when it comes to discrimination) when it comes to their employment/hiring practices, ie, the local Catholic hospital cannot discriminate a doctor and not hire him/her simply for being a Sikh or Muslim.

**SilverMK2**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, I see a huge difference here that you apparently dont see the same way... A church, in itself is like a club... hair club, beer club, fight club, duck hunters of america club, etc.... ALL of them are allowed, basically speaking, to have any discriminatory rule they want, the same goes for LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, or whatever other name of religion you have. Religious institutions already do have to follow "the same legal standards as everyone else" (when it comes to discrimination) when it comes to their employment/hiring practices, ie, the local Catholic hospital cannot discriminate a doctor and not hire him/her simply for being a Sikh or Muslim.

However, when that person/institution is acting as an agent of the state, they should have to follow the rules which apply to every other agent of the state. This would include conducting marriages for anyone who met the legal requirements of marriage. A "club" also does not generally get to exist tax free. Nor does it generally get to go out and say and do anything it wants.

**d-usa**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, I see a huge difference here that you apparently dont see the same way... A church, in itself is like a club... hair club, beer club, fight club, duck hunters of america club, etc.... ALL of them are allowed, basically speaking, to have any discriminatory rule they want, the same goes for LDS, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, or whatever other name of religion you have. Religious institutions already do have to follow "the same legal standards as everyone else" (when it comes to discrimination) when it comes to their employment/hiring practices, ie, the local Catholic hospital cannot discriminate a doctor and not hire him/her simply for being a Sikh or Muslim.

However, when that person/institution is acting as an agent of the state, they should have to follow the rules which apply to every other agent of the state. This would include conducting marriages for anyone who met the legal requirements of marriage. A "club" also does not generally get to exist tax free. Nor does it generally get to go out and say and do anything it wants.

A church itself, like any other club, is not an agent of the state though. That's an important distinction to keep in mind. A country club that serves as a location for weddings for it's members has no requirement to let non-members book the club for their wedding, and a church shouldn't be any different in that regard.

The loose end, in my mind, is the status of the individual clergy as an agent of the state. Hence my earlier post.

**PhantomViper**

I still don't understand why we are discussing this if this proposition was never really put forward but even when Priests are acting as agents of the state performing a marriage, they are also doing so in their capacity as priests, usually because of protocols that the church has entered with the state so I don't think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace (that performs civil marriages).

Now, and I'm speaking as an Atheist that thinks that humanity would be greatly improved if all religions were abolished, the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic faith is defined as the union between a man and a women, a Priest cannot perform a marriage sacrament that falls outside those parameters, so "forcing" a Priest to marry a same sex couple doesn't really work and I don't think that it falls under discrimination, Catholic Priests also can't marry divorced people, or people that aren't from the Catholic faith, etc, and none of that is considered discrimination.

**d-usa**

PhantomViper wrote:
I still don't understand why we are discussing this if this proposition was never really put forward but even when Priests are acting as agents of the state performing a marriage, they are also doing so in their capacity as priests, usually because of protocols that the church has entered with the state so I don't think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace (that performs civil marriages).

I think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace, since their state sanctioned role is the same. If they perform a role that requires a state license or state sanctioning then there should be no exemptions. I feel the same way about a member of the clergy that is also a pharmacist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other profession that requires a license by the state.

With so many states passing "you can't force people to do their job if their job goes against their religion" laws I realize that I'm probably in the minority there.

Now, and I'm speaking as an Atheist that thinks that humanity would be greatly improved if all religions were abolished, the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic faith is defined as the union between a man and a women, a Priest cannot perform a marriage sacrament that falls outside those parameters, so "forcing" a Priest to marry a same sex couple doesn't really work and I don't think that it falls under discrimination, Catholic Priests also can't marry divorced people, or people that aren't from the Catholic faith, etc, and none of that is considered discrimination.

That's where I think we need to realize that a Catholic Priest performs two marriages at the same time. The Catholic Sacrament of marriage, which only allows a man and a woman to marry and which is as much a marriage between the couple and God as much as it is a marriage between themselves and which also doesn't allow for divorce unless it falls under a very specific set of circumstances and has certain expectations of baby making and what roles the husband and wife have in their spiritual life and many other things. He also performs a civil marriage that is recognized by the state, which lets you get divorced for a lot of reasons and which doesn't care if you made a promise to God, a tree, a rock, or just each other. The state marriage has nothing to do with the Sacrament of marriage, and the Sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with the state marriage. They are two separate things, with two separate rules, and the priest just happens to have the power to perform both at the same time.

A priest shouldn't be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for someone that doesn't agree with his faith, and he shouldn't have proclaim that the people he marries are married under the authority of his God. But a priest, if he is an agent of the state, should be required to do a quick "Do you? Do you? By the power invested in my by the State, I pronounce you whatever and whatever" ceremony.

If your personal conviction doesn't allow you to be both a priest and an agent of the state, then you should have to drop one of those roles.

That's just my opinion on this, I realize that I could be completely wrong.

**Ratius**

Ireland today drew up the wording of a proposed same sex marriage referendum pencilled for May iirc.

The wording of the upcoming referendum on same-sex marriage has been published by the Government.

The wording proposes to add a new section to the Constitution, stating that: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

The referendum will be held in May this year but no specific date has yet been set.
Cabinet agrees wording of same-sex marriage referendum
RELATED AUDIO & VIDEO

Watch: Cabinet agrees wording of same-sex marriage referendum

Minister for Justice and Equality Frances Fitzgerald said the wording is clear and precise, and gives a right to every citizen who wishes to get married.

Making the announcement, she also confirmed that the Government is separately preparing an Implementation Bill that will address the changes to legislation that will be needed if the referendum is carried.

She said this will include changes to the Civil Registration Acts to remove the impediments preventing same-sex couples from being able to marry.

The minister will bring the General Scheme of the Implementation Bill to Government in February.

She said: "I hope we can have a constructive and respectful debate which will help to inform and engage citizens on this important issue."

Fianna Fáil Justice Spokesperson Niall Collins said his party was happy to support the referendum and welcomed the wording, saying it was clear and concise.

The Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Marriage Equality have said the publication was "historic".

GLEN Chair Kieran Rose said: "Today we move a step closer to full inclusion in our Constitution for lesbian and gay couples."

ICCL Director Mr Mark Kelly added: "The proposed amendment would update the Constitution to say that any two people can marry, regardless of their sex."

Marriage Equality Chair Grainne Healy said: "We look forward to a positive campaign for the referendum, which focuses on the value of marriage to everyone in Irish society and explains why marriage matters to lesbian and gay couples."

The Catholic Communications Office said that bishops will discuss the referendum at their next plenary meeting in March.

The Cabinet met this morning to discuss the referendum, which will be held in May, along with one on reducing the age limit for presidential election candidates from 35 to 21 years of age.

The Carlow-Kilkenny by-election to fill the seat left vacant after Phil Hogan's move to Europe is also expected on the same day.

The date for the referendums will be set by ministerial order following the passage of the required bills through the Oireachtas.

**PhantomViper**

d-usa wrote:

With so many states passing "you can't force people to do their job if their job goes against their religion" laws I realize that I'm probably in the minority there.

But I completely agree with you in this, I only think that in the case of Priests an exception should be made because their job literally IS their Religion...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

That's where I think we need to realize that a Catholic Priest performs two marriages at the same time. The Catholic Sacrament of marriage, which only allows a man and a woman to marry and which is as much a marriage between the couple and God as much as it is a marriage between themselves and which also doesn't allow for divorce unless it falls under a very specific set of circumstances and has certain expectations of baby making and what roles the husband and wife have in their spiritual life and many other things. He also performs a civil marriage that is recognized by the state, which lets you get divorced for a lot of reasons and which doesn't care if you made a promise to God, a tree, a rock, or just each other. The state marriage has nothing to do with the Sacrament of marriage, and the Sacrament of marriage has nothing to do with the state marriage. They are two separate things, with two separate rules, and the priest just happens to have the power to perform both at the same time.

A priest shouldn't be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for someone that doesn't agree with his faith, and he shouldn't have proclaim that the people he marries are married under the authority of his God. But a priest, if he is an agent of the state, should be required to do a quick "Do you? Do you? By the power invested in my by the State, I pronounce you whatever and whatever" ceremony.

If your personal conviction doesn't allow you to be both a priest and an agent of the state, then you should have to drop one of those roles.

That's just my opinion on this, I realize that I could be completely wrong.

At least over here, the individual Priests do not have the power to perform Civil Marriages outside their capacity as members of the Catholic Church.

**Baxx**

Medium of Death wrote:
reds8n wrote:
A lot of reasonable stuff

My main reason for posting was really to try and put across the idea that being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make you a bigot and that they're reasonable opinions that conservative Christians have when put into the context of their faith.

Most bigotry, violence and discrimination is reasonable when put into context of faith.

Burning people alive is reasonable when put into context of faith.

**Yodhrin**

PhantomViper wrote:
d-usa wrote:

With so many states passing "you can't force people to do their job if their job goes against their religion" laws I realize that I'm probably in the minority there.

But I completely agree with you in this, I only think that in the case of Priests an exception should be made because their job literally IS their Religion...

But then you run into all the other problems that have been mentioned; what about Priests who are also Doctors? Lawyers? Business owners? Either the personal convictions of Priests are worthy of greater protection than other citizens, in which case you open up several dozen huge legal worm-cans, or they're simply citizens, in which case their commitment to the public via their accreditation by the state must be held to the same standards as everyone else, including regards discrimination.

I mean crikey, imagine for a moment you could use the fact you are a Priest with a personal conviction that something is morally wrong to protect you while engaging in discriminatory behaviour while conducting other affairs which would ordinarily fall under discrimination laws; could a business owner become a Priest in a religion which holds that the minimum wage is an affront unto God? You can try arguing that it's ridiculous and an obvious attempt to circumvent the law, but the onus would be on the state to prove that their entirely subjective beliefs were not sincerely held. And again, we're talking about a country who's highest legal minds decided corporations are people and, as such, can hold religious beliefs independent of those of the people who make it up and, as such, corporations can refuse to provide insurance with contraceptive cover for women, so whether any rational person might find such scenarios mind-bogglingly mad, there are no guarantees.

**Prestor Jon**

Hindsight being what it is, it would have been better to limit marriage licenses to only being awarded through govt officials like magistrates and justices of the peace. Weddings are great and people can have them and priests can administer weddings in strict adherence to their respective religions without ever signing a marriage license. A marriage license is for qualifying for certain tax reporting status/exemptions, name changes, etc. and never needed to be tied to a wedding ceremony. Priests can sign marriage licenses to make it easier on the married couple so they can have everything done on the same day by the same person, it's for convenience nothing more.

That said, I think that SCOTUS will rule that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will require states that don't allow gay marriage to honor gay marriages that are performed in other states but that Section 1 doesn't force all states to allow gay marriage.

A marriage license is still just a state license. Same as a drivers license, business license, fishing license, etc. States have different requirements in keeping with state laws. If one state let 15 year olds earn a drivers license it wouldn't be grounds for SCOTUS to rule that all 50 states have to let 15 year olds get a drivers license.

**Frazzled**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Hindsight being what it is, it would have been better to limit marriage licenses to only being awarded through govt officials like magistrates and justices of the peace. Weddings are great and people can have them and priests can administer weddings in strict adherence to their respective religions without ever signing a marriage license. A marriage license is for qualifying for certain tax reporting status/exemptions, name changes, etc. and never needed to be tied to a wedding ceremony. Priests can sign marriage licenses to make it easier on the married couple so they can have everything done on the same day by the same person, it's for convenience nothing more.

Thats called a civil union.

**sirlynchmob**

Prestor Jon wrote:

That said, I think that SCOTUS will rule that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will require states that don't allow gay marriage to honor gay marriages that are performed in other states but that Section 1 doesn't force all states to allow gay marriage.

A marriage license is still just a state license. Same as a drivers license, business license, fishing license, etc. States have different requirements in keeping with state laws. If one state let 15 year olds earn a drivers license it wouldn't be grounds for SCOTUS to rule that all 50 states have to let 15 year olds get a drivers license.

I'd bet on equal protection, and states will have to allow same sex marriages, just like the courts have had to step in to allow inter racial marriages, and end segregation, and give women & blacks equal protection and the right to vote. No one in thread has yet put forth any reason, let alone a valid reason to not allow same sex marriages. "It's icky and conservatives don't like" is not a argument to deny anyone equal rights under the law.

No but it would be grounds for all states to accept he has a drivers license and that he can drive legally through their state. Drinking ages used to vary state to state, until the federal stepped in and said "raise it to 21, or we cut off your federal money" they can do the same for marriage equality, "do it, or you won't get any funding"

**Frazzled**

Generally agreed. How does the wrinkle that states can mandate their own licensing proceduresimpact this though? ie your furren devil er California license may be valid in the deathworld that is Texas only for a particular period of time, then you have to get a new license (and oil well, pickup, and shotgun).

**Ensis Ferrae**

d-usa wrote:

I think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace, since their state sanctioned role is the same. If they perform a role that requires a state license or state sanctioning then there should be no exemptions. I feel the same way about a member of the clergy that is also a pharmacist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other profession that requires a license by the state.

I agree with this... with one caveat. Use of the "clubhouse" can be denied, following the rules of whatever religion it is, much the same way a country club or other venues do.

-If "you" (the couple getting married) do not conform to the rules set forth by the religious group, or secular group (such as golfing clubs/country clubs), and the group is not OK with you using their grounds should be A-OK, and you should basically expect to be turned down if you're asking to use the venue.

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

That said, I think that SCOTUS will rule that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will require states that don't allow gay marriage to honor gay marriages that are performed in other states but that Section 1 doesn't force all states to allow gay marriage.

A marriage license is still just a state license. Same as a drivers license, business license, fishing license, etc. States have different requirements in keeping with state laws. If one state let 15 year olds earn a drivers license it wouldn't be grounds for SCOTUS to rule that all 50 states have to let 15 year olds get a drivers license.

I'd bet on equal protection, and states will have to allow same sex marriages, just like the courts have had to step in to allow inter racial marriages, and end segregation, and give women & blacks equal protection and the right to vote. No one in thread has yet put forth any reason, let alone a valid reason to not allow same sex marriages. "It's icky and conservatives don't like" is not a argument to deny anyone equal rights under the law.

No but it would be grounds for all states to accept he has a drivers license and that he can drive legally through their state. Drinking ages used to vary state to state, until the federal stepped in and said "raise it to 21, or we cut off your federal money" they can do the same for marriage equality, "do it, or you won't get any funding"

The drinking age varied from state to state and wasn't grounds for SCOTUS to even hear a case let alone rule that separate drinking ages per state was somehow unconstitutional. The highway funding threat was from Congress, the branch of govt that control highway funding, not SCOTUS so I fail to see what your point with that example.

Marriage licenses have always been inherently discriminatory and that's never been ruled unconstitutional. Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time? Why can't somebody marry an underage person? Why can't two blood relatives get married? Why does somebody have to pass a blood test to get married? If a state is allowed to discriminate against certain people from getting married then why can't a state rule that homosexuals are included in those groups? Either SCOTUS upholds states' rights to determine who is lawfully qualified to be awarded a marriage license or SCOTUS rules that everybody who wants a marriage license can get one but they can't have it both ways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Hindsight being what it is, it would have been better to limit marriage licenses to only being awarded through govt officials like magistrates and justices of the peace. Weddings are great and people can have them and priests can administer weddings in strict adherence to their respective religions without ever signing a marriage license. A marriage license is for qualifying for certain tax reporting status/exemptions, name changes, etc. and never needed to be tied to a wedding ceremony. Priests can sign marriage licenses to make it easier on the married couple so they can have everything done on the same day by the same person, it's for convenience nothing more.

Thats called a civil union.

I know and I think in hindsight we should have kept it to only civil unions. Religious institutions can conduct weddings how they see fit and magistrates can sign marriage licenses for whomever qualifies to get them. There was never, IMHO, a compelling reason to combine the two.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
d-usa wrote:

I think that they should have to follow the same rules as a justice of the peace, since their state sanctioned role is the same. If they perform a role that requires a state license or state sanctioning then there should be no exemptions. I feel the same way about a member of the clergy that is also a pharmacist, a nurse, a doctor, or any other profession that requires a license by the state.

I agree with this... with one caveat. Use of the "clubhouse" can be denied, following the rules of whatever religion it is, much the same way a country club or other venues do.

-If "you" (the couple getting married) do not conform to the rules set forth by the religious group, or secular group (such as golfing clubs/country clubs), and the group is not OK with you using their grounds should be A-OK, and you should basically expect to be turned down if you're asking to use the venue.

If the state is going to allow Catholic priests to deny the use of cathedrals/churhes and wedding officiates to nonCatholics and likewise for other denominations, Rabbis don't have to marry nonJews or let them use the synagogue, etc. then why can't they deny people because they're homosexual? If the Catholic church believes that homosexuals are just as nonCatholic as Jews or Baptists or atheists, etc. then why can't they deny them marriages?

Such protection wouldn't apply to laypeople working secular jobs. People who aren't ordained and aren't being asked to officiate religious ceremonies don't have religious protection. Having a priest officiate a wedding is asking a priest to practice his/her religion and therefore that practice is protected. No matter how devout a member of a religion a pharmacist is, filling a person's perscription isn't a religious practice and therefore doesn't violate a religious belief.

**d-usa**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Marriage licenses have always been inherently discriminatory and that's never been ruled unconstitutional.

We will see if that changes now.

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

That's not discrimination since everyone can only marry one person.

Why can't somebody marry an underage person?

Protection of minors, who are not allowed to sign many forms of contracts and are covered by many other laws about other stuff they are not allowed to do with "adults".

Why can't two blood relatives get married?

Public health laws.

Why does somebody have to pass a blood test to get married?

Public Health Laws

If a state is allowed to discriminate against certain people from getting married then why can't a state rule that homosexuals are included in those groups?

Because unlike minors Homosexuals are able to make grown-up decisions and are legal adults and being Homosexual is not a public health concern.

Either SCOTUS upholds states' rights to determine who is lawfully qualified to be awarded a marriage license or SCOTUS rules that everybody who wants a marriage license can get one but they can't have it both ways.

SCOTUS has upheld many times that states have the right to regulate many things if it serves a valid interest of the state and in order to protect certain populations of said state. That included public health laws relating to communicable diseases, requiring vaccinations, advanced directives, and many other things. That's why SCOTUS has ruled in the past that you can be forced into quarantine until you agree to take your medication for your tuberculosis but the state cannot force you into quarantine until you take some tylenol for your headache. Statutory rape laws and incest laws have also been found legal and constitutional, but that doesn't mean that the state can make it illegal for any random group to have sex with another random group. See the many laws on sodomy that have been struck down.

Trying to make the argument that states' rights is an all or nothing thing is silly and shows a pretty significant lack of understanding about why many regulations are in place. Almost all restrictions on marriages that you have listed have one thing in common: they are in place to protect others. Same-sex marriage bans don't serve that role for anyone. States don't get to do whatever they want and go "lol, state rights bro", laws they pass still have to be constitutional. Passing laws that restrict others from enjoying the same state benefits as others for no real reason doesn't fulfill that role.

Despite all the big hoopla we make about same-sex marriages, it boils down to a pretty simple case of sexual discrimination: Person A is not allowed to marry Person B because Person A isn't the opposite gender that they are. A case of "If I wasn't a woman, I would get this paper today" and "if I wasn't a man, I would get this paper today".

And saying "you have a penis instead of a vagina, so you can't marry him" doesn't fall under any of the scenarios that allow a state to discriminate.

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

That's not discrimination since everyone can only marry one person.

I guess the same logic would mean, everyone can currently marry one person of the opposite sex, so that is not discrimination either.

But some folks want to choose someone of the same sex. And others may choose to marry multiple partners...

**Desubot**

Man why would you want to have more than 1 wives? sounds like a glutton for punishment

Edit: lol spelling

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
d-usa wrote:

Why can't somebody marry multiple people at the same time?

That's not discrimination since everyone can only marry one person.

I guess the same logic would mean, everyone can currently marry one person of the opposite sex, so that is not discrimination either.

Actually it is. For it to be discrimination you need to answer two basic questions:

1) What is someone else allowed to do?
2) Why am I not allowed to do it?

For same-sex marriage that boils down to:

1) Are other people allowed to marry one person? Yes.
2) Why am I not allowed to do it? Because I'm the wrong sex.

But some folks want to choose someone of the same sex. And others may choose to marry multiple partners...

For polygamy that boils down to:

1) Is someone else allowed to marry more than one person? No.

And it basically stops there. There is no discrimination because there is not a case of you not being allowed to do something that somebody else is allowed to do.

(edit to fix brain fart)

**Ensis Ferrae**

Desubot wrote:
Man why would you want to have more than 1 wives? sounds like a gluten for punishment

I guess we should all strive to be gluten free then, right??

**Kilkrazy**

CptJake wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

If marriages are to have any legal force they need to be registered with the legal authorities and until that has been done they do not count as legal marriages no matter what ceremonies you may have emjoyed.

That is not true. There are plenty of jurisdictions which recognize common law marriages.

Nine, actually, according to Wikipedia, which is hardly plenty.