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.

Memory real hazy on this but isn't there "Torts" involve concerning that particular subject?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

May want to go back to wiki and read the whole entry.

Nevertheless, all states—including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries—recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it.

and

Some states have abolished common law marriage, in that such marriages cannot be contracted anymore in those states, but they continue to recognize common law marriages which have been contracted in the past, before a specific date.

and from a Federal perspective:

A common-law marriage is recognized for federal tax purposes if it is recognized by the state where the taxpayers currently live, or in the state where the common-law marriage began. If the marriage is recognized under the law and customs of the state in which the marriage takes place (even if the state is a foreign country), the marriage is valid (Rev. Rul. 58-66).

9 states will still contract them, and that is about 20% of the states, and that is plenty, especially when you stated what you did highlighted in orange above.

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

Edit: lol spelling

think about the fun with holidays with more than 1 mother in law


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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.

Your slippery slope argument just fails as everything you question is already allowed.
I know the reason why polygamy got outlawed was more fear mongering by the christians to specifically discriminate against the mormons. But I'm pretty sure it is legal in some states already.
some of your states don't even have a minimum age requirement to get married, you can marry the girl 1 day old with parental consent. And most states will allow underage girls to marry with parental consent.
blood relatives can, and cousins are commonly the ones that do.
no blood tests required anymore

it's funny everything you fear will happen with same sex marriages are already legal and allowable. As you yourself point out the states are being discriminatory, any laws preventing someone from marrying can be challenged and decriminalized. Just because those laws haven't been challenged yet, doesn't mean anything. Same sex couples want to get married, does allowing that create any victims? nope, so there is no reason to disallow it. Does that affect anyone else? Nope.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

This argument only works if you assume that the thing people are allowed to do is "marry exactly one other person", instead of something like "have my relationship recognized by the state". If you interpret it the second way then yes, it is discrimination because two-person marriages are granted all of those privileges while multi-person marriages are not. And it's discrimination that doesn't have any legitimate reasons behind it. It isn't about the state acting in the public interest, it's the same "eww, gross" reaction that was behind bans on gay marriage.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

This argument only works if you assume that the thing people are allowed to do is "marry exactly one other person", instead of something like "have my relationship recognized by the state". If you interpret it the second way then yes, it is discrimination because two-person marriages are granted all of those privileges while multi-person marriages are not. And it's discrimination that doesn't have any legitimate reasons behind it. It isn't about the state acting in the public interest, it's the same "eww, gross" reaction that was behind bans on gay marriage.

1) does anyone else get to have more than one relationship recognized by the state? No.

So the test still stands since you are not kept from doing something that someone else is allowed to do.

There may be a legal fight for polygamy out there somewhere, but it doesn't fall under "equal protection" or "discrimination".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile:

Here is what states will do to continue to fight back even if the SCOTUS rules in favor.

http://m.newsok.com/bill-would-put-an-end-to-marriage-licenses-in-oklahoma/article/5386633

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

This argument only works if you assume that the thing people are allowed to do is "marry exactly one other person", instead of something like "have my relationship recognized by the state". If you interpret it the second way then yes, it is discrimination because two-person marriages are granted all of those privileges while multi-person marriages are not. And it's discrimination that doesn't have any legitimate reasons behind it. It isn't about the state acting in the public interest, it's the same "eww, gross" reaction that was behind bans on gay marriage.

1) does anyone else get to have more than one relationship recognized by the state? No.

So the test still stands since you are not kept from doing something that someone else is allowed to do.

There may be a legal fight for polygamy out there somewhere, but it doesn't fall under "equal protection" or "discrimination".

That's just as bad an argument as saying, "Does anyone else get to marry someone of the same sex? No. Marriage is for opposite sex couple only, and anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex."

If you don't see the legal difference between "you don't get to marry this man because you have a penis" and "you don't get to marry this second man because nobody can" then I can't help you.

Im not saying laws restricting marriages to two people are right. I'm just saying that it's not an equal protection issue and it will have to find some other route through court.

 d-usa wrote:
1) does anyone else get to have more than one relationship recognized by the state? No.

It isn't multiple relationships, it's a single relationship with multiple people.

So the test still stands since you are not kept from doing something that someone else is allowed to do.

Only because you're defining the act as "marry multiple people", not "have my relationship recognized by the state".

 Peregrine wrote:

It isn't multiple relationships, it's a single relationship with multiple people.
.

I think the problem with Polygamy, from a "state law" point of view is in it's definitions... sure, you can view it as a single relationship... but it's always going to be multiple women with one man, or one woman with multiple men. And if, as you say, it is a single relationship, if there's a divorce from one person, then certainly it must be a divorce from all the people in that relationship, right?


That's not even touching the issues of abuse and neglect that seem to just come from everywhere when you look at polygamous societies. I mean, look at the Mormons pre-Utah, or the "Fundamentalist LDS" people lead by Warren Jeffs. Both are prime examples as to why multiple relationships should remain illegal.... There are quite a few people who do the pre-nups and all so that both parties realize that they are in an "open marriage" which I suppose could support the ideals of some polygamous relationships, but, IMO polygamy and polygamous practices are far too nebulous to be brought back into legality.

 Peregrine wrote:

Only because you're defining the act as "marry multiple people", not "have my relationship recognized by the state".

So who gets to have a relationship with multiple people recognized by the state and in what form of discrimination is someone else prevented from having their relationship with multiple people recognized?

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Only because you're defining the act as "marry multiple people", not "have my relationship recognized by the state".

So who gets to have a relationship with multiple people recognized by the state and in what form of discrimination is someone else prevented from having their relationship with multiple people recognized?

I believe the discrimination comes in because a person is not allowed to enter into the union they wish because of prevailing beliefs. Just as a side note, I'm no fan of polygamy, either, but there you go. Not so long ago, as we well know, gay marriage being legalized was as unthinkable as the potential for polygamy to be legal.
I fully expect polygamy will become legal at some point.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Only because you're defining the act as "marry multiple people", not "have my relationship recognized by the state".

So who gets to have a relationship with multiple people recognized by the state and in what form of discrimination is someone else prevented from having their relationship with multiple people recognized?

I believe the discrimination comes in because a person is not allowed to enter into the union they wish because of prevailing beliefs. Just as a side note, I'm no fan of polygamy, either, but there you go. Not so long ago, as we well know, gay marriage being legalized was as unthinkable as the potential for polygamy to be legal.

But for it to be discrimination someone else has to be allowed to do it.

Ban on interracial marriage was discrimination because if the guy would have been white he would have been able to marry the white woman.

Ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination because if the woman would have been a man she would have been able to marry the woman.

You have a number of pretty clear cases of "if I wouldn't have been X, then I would have been allowed to do it" which make it a question of equal protection.

You simply don't have that with polygamy.

I fully expect polygamy will become legal at some point.

I wouldn't be surprised if it does. I just don't think it will be because of a ruling under the 14th. It will be through another avenue IMO.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
but it's always going to be multiple women with one man, or one woman with multiple men.

Or two men and two women, or eight men, or any other combinations you can think of. Multi-person marriage isn't necessarily limited to cults where the most powerful men get all the women.

And if, as you say, it is a single relationship, if there's a divorce from one person, then certainly it must be a divorce from all the people in that relationship, right?

That's something for the lawyers to figure out.

That's not even touching the issues of abuse and neglect that seem to just come from everywhere when you look at polygamous societies.

1) Refusing to recognize multi-person marriages does not do anything to stop this. The abusive cults still coerce young girls into marrying the top men in the community, they just give legal recognition to one marriage and leave the others as roommates from the point of view of the state. Refusing to grant tax benefits/hospital visitation rights/etc to the "unofficial" spouses does not magically make them move out and have their own lives away from the cult.

2) The abuses of one group does not justify punishing the people who aren't doing anything wrong. This is the equivalent of arguing for a 100% ban on guns for everyone because a few people commit murder with their guns.

 d-usa wrote:
So who gets to have a relationship with multiple people recognized by the state and in what form of discrimination is someone else prevented from having their relationship with multiple people recognized?

Again, you're basing this argument on the assumption that the thing being recognized is "marriage with multiple people" vs. "marriage with two people", instead of "official recognition of an existing relationship". The discrimination is that certain arrangements of people (in some cases one man and one woman, in others any two people regardless of legal gender) get state recognition while others (anything else) don't, and for no good reason. Refusing to recognize those multi-person marriages because of a personal belief that it's somehow wrong to marry more than one person is discrimination.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So who gets to have a relationship with multiple people recognized by the state and in what form of discrimination is someone else prevented from having their relationship with multiple people recognized?

Again, you're basing this argument on the assumption that the thing being recognized is "marriage with multiple people" vs. "marriage with two people", instead of "official recognition of an existing relationship". The discrimination is that certain arrangements of people (in some cases one man and one woman, in others any two people regardless of legal gender) get state recognition while others (anything else) don't, and for no good reason. Refusing to recognize those multi-person marriages because of a personal belief that it's somehow wrong to marry more than one person is discrimination.

Then who get's to have an "official recognition of an existing relationship" with multiple people and who doesn't?

Let's try to make it simple for you:

I want to do A, everybody else get's to do A, but I don't get to do A because I'm wrong race/wrong religion/ wrong whatever = discrimination.
I want to do B, everybody else get's to do A, But I don't get to do B even though nobody else get's to do B =/= discrimination.

Not getting to do the same thing as everyone else beause of what you are = discrimination.
Not getting to do a different version as everyone else because that's what you want =/= discrimination.

I'm not saying it's right to have laws against polygamy. I'm just saying that despite your best attempts to argue otherwise. Same sex marriage falls under discrimination and equal protection because Person A seeking the marriage license would be issued said license if something about him/her was different. Person A doesn't have the same rights as Person B. Polygamy doesn't fall under that same issue because Person A isn't denied the license because of anything to do with Person A. He is just as affected by the law as person B.

 d-usa wrote:
Then who get's to have an "official recognition of an existing relationship" with multiple people and who doesn't?

Nobody right now, which is why it's discrimination.

Let's try to make it simple for you:

Why do you think the problem here is that I don't understand your argument when it's actually that I think your argument sucks? You're defining "A" and "B" in a way that suits your argument when they could easily be defined in a way that it would be discrimination.

Also, you're only considering certain forms of discrimination. Let's look at another example:

I want to marry person A, but can't because I'm already married. Someone else who is not married can marry person A. Therefore it is discrimination based on my marital status (state laws disagree on whether discrimination based on that is legal or not, but it's still discrimination).

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Then who get's to have an "official recognition of an existing relationship" with multiple people and who doesn't?

Nobody right now, which is why it's discrimination.

So you don't know what discrimination means. That clears up your entire line of thinking.

Also, you're only considering certain forms of discrimination. Let's look at another example:

I want to marry person A, but can't because I'm already married. Someone else who is not married can marry person A. Therefore it is discrimination based on my marital status (state laws disagree on whether discrimination based on that is legal or not, but it's still discrimination).

So an unmarried person can be married to two people but a married person can't?

 d-usa wrote:
So you don't know what discrimination means. That clears up your entire line of thinking.

No, I just don't agree with your definitions. The fact that you define everything to "prove" that there's no discrimination doesn't mean that I have trouble understanding the concepts involved.

So an unmarried person can be married to two people but a married person can't?

There you go again, defining the privilege in a way that conveniently suits your argument. An unmarried person can marry person A. A married person can not marry person A. The married person is being discriminated against based on their marital status.

There you go again, defining the privilege in a way that conveniently suits your argument.

That's hillarous coming from the guy that has come up with multiple ways to try to define marriage to try and make his point.

If an ummarried person can marry multiple partners and a married person can't then that's discrimination. If nobody can marry multiple partners then it's not.

Of course we all know that polygamy will be legal long before you ever admit that you made a bad argument, so there is really no point going on.

 d-usa wrote:
That's hillarous coming from the guy that has come up with multiple ways to try to define marriage to try and make his point.

I never redefined marriage.

If an ummarried person can marry multiple partners and a married person can't then that's discrimination. If nobody can marry multiple partners then it's not.

And right on schedule you're back with the same biased definition. You're doing the equivalent of saying "gay people are free to marry a person of the opposite gender just like straight people, so there's no discrimination" and defining the desired privilege in a way that conveniently suits your argument. Why is the desired privilege "marrying multiple partners" instead of "marrying this specific person" or "having my relationship recognized by the state"?

As a thought experiment; D. When asked about marriage between blood relations, you seemed okay with banning them based on 'public health'.
What is the threshold where 'public health' becomes a reason to ban something?

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for between 2x-10x the number of new HIV infections every year as compared to heterosexuals, yet surely we wouldn't think about outlawing homosexual relationships amongst men? Would it be moral for a state to ban homosexual relationships between men based on the public health risk there?

Taking a theoretical example ; if two first cousins who were both female or male wanted to get married - would that be okay?

If they were not, but either party were sterile?

If they promised not to have children?

Would the state be allowed to ban two people from marrying if they were known to carry a greater potential for genetic issues in their offspring?




Whiskey makes me argumentative.

 Bromsy wrote:
As a thought experiment; D. When asked about marriage between blood relations, you seemed okay with banning them based on 'public health'.
What is the threshold where 'public health' becomes a reason to ban something?

That's up to the SCOTUS.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for between 2x-10x the number of new HIV infections every year as compared to heterosexuals, yet surely we wouldn't think about outlawing homosexual relationships amongst men?

Many states have outlawed homosexual relationships between men, only to have it struck down by SCOTUS.

Would it be moral for a state to ban homosexual relationships between men based on the public health risk there?

For relationships without marriage, see the above.

The states would probably take the same viewpoint as they do with heterosexual relationships in regards to marriage. Take the test for STDs, then get married and never have sex with anybody put your partner again (not saying that's the reality). So if your initial test is negative then there is no health risk to you or your spouse.

Do states actually do anything with the results and ban marriages if tests are positive, or is it just a "for your information" kind of law?

Taking a theoretical example ; if two first cousins who were both female or male wanted to get married - would that be okay?

Some states have decided that it's okay, some other states have decided that it depends on the exact degree of relation, and some states ban it.

If they were not, but either party were sterile?

That would be an interesting case to argue.

If they promised not to have children?

How would you enforce that? Mandatory birth control? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions? It's another interesting case to argue.

Would the state be allowed to ban two people from marrying if they were known to carry a greater potential for genetic issues in their offspring?

Another interesting case to argue, and once you enter that realm where do you stop? Carriers of a rare disease that almost always results in birth defects? Known elevated risks of cancer?

Whiskey makes me argumentative.

And they are very good arguments. I'm not saying that certain things are okay to be banned because they are a risk to public health, I'm just relating that the courts have found that public health concerns give the states leeway in restricting certain rights.

 Bromsy wrote:
Taking a theoretical example ; if two first cousins who were both female or male wanted to get married - would that be okay?

It is okay in quite a few states (20 to be exact).

Quite interestingly, first cousin marriage is perfectly legal here in my home state of Virginia, but there is a statute banning in West Virginia. Go figure.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

Being a Priest is a profession, if you are doing things that concern your profession as a Priest, then you get to follow the rules of that profession so you get to "discriminate" based on those rules because of Religious protection laws.

If you aren't doing things that relate to your profession as a Priest, then you don't get to discriminate anyone because Religious protection doesn't apply.

Trying to get a Priest to do things that go directly against the rules of his church, while he is acting as a Priest, goes a bit into the religious persecution thing that the right is always complaining about.

 d-usa wrote:


How would you enforce that? Mandatory birth control? Forced sterilization? Forced abortions?

I would like to see pinkie swears.

I feel like it's weird that they decide it's a right now, not say 10 years ago.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

I know right, little jurisdictions like California and Texas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
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.

This argument only works if you assume that the thing people are allowed to do is "marry exactly one other person", instead of something like "have my relationship recognized by the state". If you interpret it the second way then yes, it is discrimination because two-person marriages are granted all of those privileges while multi-person marriages are not. And it's discrimination that doesn't have any legitimate reasons behind it. It isn't about the state acting in the public interest, it's the same "eww, gross" reaction that was behind bans on gay marriage.

Its indeed the same argument used against gay marriage right. That decline there appears somewhat slick.

 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.

As others have said; providing such churches actually operated as a "clubhouse", ie only providing such ceremonies to their members, fine. However, if they are prepared to marry members of the public, if they're prepared to conduct a Christian ceremony for a straight couple in which one partner is an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew without requiring that person to convert and join their club; no, because that's not a club, it's a service provider discriminating against gay people, and should be treated accordingly.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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.

Being a Priest is a profession, if you are doing things that concern your profession as a Priest, then you get to follow the rules of that profession so you get to "discriminate" based on those rules because of Religious protection laws.

If you aren't doing things that relate to your profession as a Priest, then you don't get to discriminate anyone because Religious protection doesn't apply.

Trying to get a Priest to do things that go directly against the rules of his church, while he is acting as a Priest, goes a bit into the religious persecution thing that the right is always complaining about.

Conducting a religious ceremony is part of a Priest's profession.

Binding people in a legal marriage as an agent of the state is a distinct responsibility.

They presently do both at the same time, but they are not the same thing, and if the state makes gay marriage legal then while a Priest can refuse to conduct a religious ceremony for a gay couple, he cannot be allowed to refuse to perform a legal marriage for a gay couple because to do so you would have to say that his status as a Priest, and the personal convictions that go along with that, supercede his responsibilities to act in accordance with the law as an agent of the state. If such a precedent were set, it could be used as a basis to argue that the personal convictions of an ordained Priest could take precedence over other legal and contractual obligations in other cases, since if the state is not willing to enforce such obligations over its own agents, what right does anyone else have to do so?

That's the distinction; a Priest performing a legal marriage, whether with a religious ceremony or not, is not acting solely as a Priest, but also as an agent of the state. Either they're held to the same standards as other agents of the state who perform the same functions, or they should no longer be permitted to act as agents of the state; their religious ceremonies would be non-binding pageantry with no legal standing until validated by contract.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Binding people in a legal marriage as an agent of the state is a distinct responsibility.

And outside of the US, that is not something that I'm aware that Priests can do.

Catholic Priests can only perform the Catholic Marriage Sacrament, the State has a special agreement with the Catholic Church (and all other recognized religions AFAIK), that states that as long as all the legal paperwork is filled, then the Religious ceremony has the same legal weight as the Civil ceremony. But they are not the same thing. A Priest cannot perform a civil marriage any more than a justice of the peace can perform a religious marriage.

Last year a relative of mine was wed to a divorced Protestant (damn 'muricans stealing our women! ). Being a Catholic, she couldn't have a Catholic Marriage even though her Priest was a very good friend of hers. But the Priest also couldn't perform her civil marriage because he doesn't have that power. She had to go to a Justice of the Peace to get married and after that ceremony her Catholic Priest friend gave a blessing to the whole thing.

As far as I'm aware, outside the US this is how things work. Please correct me and enlighten me if I'm wrong.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Binding people in a legal marriage as an agent of the state is a distinct responsibility.

And outside of the US, that is not something that I'm aware that Priests can do.

Catholic Priests can only perform the Catholic Marriage Sacrament, the State has a special agreement with the Catholic Church (and all other recognized religions AFAIK), that states that as long as all the legal paperwork is filled, then the Religious ceremony has the same legal weight as the Civil ceremony. But they are not the same thing. A Priest cannot perform a civil marriage any more than a justice of the peace can perform a religious marriage.

Last year a relative of mine was wed to a divorced Protestant (damn 'muricans stealing our women! ). Being a Catholic, she couldn't have a Catholic Marriage even though her Priest was a very good friend of hers. But the Priest also couldn't perform her civil marriage because he doesn't have that power. She had to go to a Justice of the Peace to get married and after that ceremony her Catholic Priest friend gave a blessing to the whole thing.

As far as I'm aware, outside the US this is how things work. Please correct me and enlighten me if I'm wrong.

I believe in the UK, the two are completely distinct, the ceremony is essentially incidental, as long as the signatures go on the appropriate pieces of paper and are properly witnessed you could dispense with it entirely. It's an approach I find eminently sensible, and if the US want to go that way it solves that part of the issue neatly,

However, at present Priests in America act as agents of the state and perform legal marriages. Whether exemptions exist at the moment for specific religious peculiarities is irrelevant; they shouldn't, not in the case you describe, and not in the case of gay couples who want to be married. If you're performing a legal marriage recognised by the state, you are acting in the name of the state, and so should be forced to comply with all the laws of that state which apply to any other agent of the state acting in the same capacity. If a Justice of the Peace must marry a Catholic to a divorced Protestant, or an Atheist to a Jew, or a gay man to another gay man, then so must anyone else empowered by the state to legally marry two people. If they don't wish to work under such a basic standard of equality, then they should be stripped of the right to conduct legally binding marriages of any sort and must simply accept that their preferred religious ritual will be that and nothing more; a religious ritual.

I don't see the problem with polygamy or polygyny myself, as long as everyone's a consenting adult, who cares?