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.

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated, plus all the research showing it is problematic. When only two adults are making a commitment there is less trouble in general.

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated, plus all the research showing it is problematic. When only two adults are making a commitment there is less trouble in general.

Many countries outside the US would disagree with that, as polygamy is a common accepted practice.

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated,

Not at all, in the end a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. And it is entirely possible for large groups of people to enter a contract, as evident in any class action law suit.

having 3 wives is really no more problematic for consent than having 3 marriage licenses.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated,

Not at all, in the end a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. And it is entirely possible for large groups of people to enter a contract, as evident in any class action law suit.

having 3 wives is really no more problematic for consent than having 3 marriage licenses.

Well, I guess that any divorce process could be a bit more problematic though.

No the one spouse is thrown out the rest retained. The other spouses usually have no official say in either the marriage or divorce. Aint love grand?

PhantomViper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated,

Not at all, in the end a marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. And it is entirely possible for large groups of people to enter a contract, as evident in any class action law suit.

having 3 wives is really no more problematic for consent than having 3 marriage licenses.

Well, I guess that any divorce process could be a bit more problematic though.

not at all, custody battles are always messy and problematic, even with just 2 people involved. Other than that, assuming a man with 3 wives again. if one wife leaves, she could claim alimony based on his income and 1/2 of each of the other 2 wives income. one of the mans marriages becomes void, while the other 2 remain.

 Frazzled wrote:
No the one spouse is thrown out the rest retained. The other spouses usually have no official say in either the marriage or divorce. Aint love grand?

Well, in the countries are that usually associated with polygamy, where the wives are viewed more or less as property, sure, that is a simple enough affair.

But imagine how a divorce process would occur in a polygamy, polyandry or even polyamory situation in a modern western democracy... If a normal divorce can be hell I couldn't even begin to imagine what an experience like that would be.

No different. The essential contract is between the two parties, not all parties.

I'm just visualizing have three or four mother in laws. Sweet Justin Bieber protect us from this Evilz!

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated, plus all the research showing it is problematic. When only two adults are making a commitment there is less trouble in general.

I hardly see how that's our problem. Surely the group in question can sort that gak themselves like adults.

 Frazzled wrote:
No different. The essential contract is between the two parties, not all parties.

Really? I had no idea. How would the property rights be solved then?

And does that also apply to polyamory situations? (where you have several male-female pairs intermarried between them)

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No different. The essential contract is between the two parties, not all parties.

Really? I had no idea. How would the property rights be solved then?

And does that also apply to polyamory situations? (where you have several male-female pairs intermarried between them)

same way they are now. either sell the house and split the money between everyone with a claim on the house. Or buy out the one that wants to leave.

I don't know polamory.

Property - good question. Its especially difficult in community property states. I don't know.

The way things are progressing we'll find out in about ten years.

I think the actual overwhelming level of times which Lgbt Matrimony has not been practiced might reveal that even though his / her statements are usually valid that it would be the exclusion instead of the rule.

The legal justification for multiple spouses is not the same when it comes to same-sex spouses. The latter is a matter of illegal discrimination, and a violation of equal protection. With sex identified as a protected class, you can't discriminate on the basis of sex...so denying anyone a right based on sex becomes a violation of equal protection.

That doesn't work when you look at multiple-spouse marriages. Plurality has never been considered a protected class, so the equal protection concepts have never applied to it. So there's nothing wrong with a law that uses numbers as a limiting factor, so long as it does not include any protected class as well.

Take high occupancy lanes on a freeway, for example. You can prohibit vehicles with fewer than 3 people in them just fine. Cars with only 2 people in them cannot rightfully claim discrimination, because numbers are not a protected class. But if you tried to allow only vehicles with exactly 1 man and 1 woman to travel, you'd be in the same boat that laws that restrict marriage to the same pair.

So I don't really reel that the current challenges seeking to recognize same-sex marriage will lead to opening the door to all kinds of other marriages, as the grounds are just not the same.

Yes, that argument will hold up. I'm sure its way different than the argument for gay marriage.

 Yodhrin wrote:


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?

Such a precedent has basically already been set... See the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was ruled that the "owners" of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions allowed them to deny employees medical coverage for a list of contraceptives, on the grounds that those contraceptives are "abortion pills" and go against the religious beliefs of the owners.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
No different. The essential contract is between the two parties, not all parties.

As it stands "now" sure... But, in a situation like what Peregrine has been advocating/talking about ITT, the "group" would have a single marriage license, and would thus have to agree in some way to a divorce.

Let's say for example that theres a man who has 4 wives. After a couple, 3-4 years or whatever, he and wives A and B realize that wife C is a terrible person, and is no good for the family so they want to get a divorce. But, it turns out that wife D really likes wife C and doesn't want a divorce, but wives A and B really, really like wife D so they cant just cut her out as well....Does wife D get a say in the proceedings? Does the divorce decision need to be unanimous? or a super majority, or even just a simple majority?

Lol... aside from all that... yeah, I don't know of any sane person out there who'd want to deal with more than one set of in-laws

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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?

Such a precedent has basically already been set... See the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was ruled that the "owners" of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions allowed them to deny employees medical coverage for a list of contraceptives, on the grounds that those contraceptives are "abortion pills" and go against the religious beliefs of the owners.

In addition to the precedent of the Hobby Lobby case, it is also widely accepted that people of one denomination can't force a priest of a different denomination to act in a way contrary to their beliefs. If the scenario of a gay couple in a state with legal gay marriage being able to require a Catholic priest to sign a marriage license for them were to be true then it would also have to be true that a Jewish couple or a Hindu couple or Baptist, etc. could also force a Catholic priest to sign a marriage license for them. Since the latter example can currently happen but I don't think it's even been supported by law, I don't see how or why SCOTUS or anyone else would rule in favor of the former.

It's also important to remember that priests refusing to marry a couple based on religious doctrine doesn't stop anyone from getting married. Any couple legally capable of being married can get a marriage license signed by a magistrate/justice of the peace/clerk/whatever. A priest refusing to do it doesn't mean they can't get married so no harm is done and no rights are infringed by the priest's refusal so there is no legal grounds to compel the priest to act in a way contrary to his/her religious beliefs (notwithstanding that there is already federal law that guarantees the right of the priest to refuse on religious grounds).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No different. The essential contract is between the two parties, not all parties.

As it stands "now" sure... But, in a situation like what Peregrine has been advocating/talking about ITT, the "group" would have a single marriage license, and would thus have to agree in some way to a divorce.

Let's say for example that theres a man who has 4 wives. After a couple, 3-4 years or whatever, he and wives A and B realize that wife C is a terrible person, and is no good for the family so they want to get a divorce. But, it turns out that wife D really likes wife C and doesn't want a divorce, but wives A and B really, really like wife D so they cant just cut her out as well....Does wife D get a say in the proceedings? Does the divorce decision need to be unanimous? or a super majority, or even just a simple majority?

Lol... aside from all that... yeah, I don't know of any sane person out there who'd want to deal with more than one set of in-laws

I would think that even in polyamorous situations the actual marriage contract is still between two people. If, for example, I marry 4 wives what I am doing is getting a marriage license between myself and one woman four different times. My theoretical 4 wives don't have to be married to each other, they just have to be married to me. Now if a state allowed poly marriages and gay marriages then my wives could be married to each other and to me simultaneously and that would get complicated. In the instance of me just having 4 different marriage licenses with 4 different women then it would still be a case of two party divorce that would not require the other wives to have any say because the other 3 wives aren't part of the marriage that is being dissolved.

For people who think that multi-person marriage would be too complicated: how do you think we handle multi-person entities in other contexts? The lawyers have figured out how to deal with a multi-person business partnership that breaks up or adds/loses people, so why would marriage be any different? Sure, the current laws would have to be modified to handle all of those new situations, but that's something that can be done.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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?

Such a precedent has basically already been set... See the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was ruled that the "owners" of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions allowed them to deny employees medical coverage for a list of contraceptives, on the grounds that those contraceptives are "abortion pills" and go against the religious beliefs of the owners.

My understanding of that ruling was that the court ruled Hobby Lobby itself, ie the "corporate person", was the entity which held the beliefs, and it was only on that basis they were exempted from the law. I suppose you're right though, that does set a troubling precedent, although regardless setting further bad precedents because one has already been set is not a good plan.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


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?

Such a precedent has basically already been set... See the Hobby Lobby case, in which it was ruled that the "owners" of Hobby Lobby's religious convictions allowed them to deny employees medical coverage for a list of contraceptives, on the grounds that those contraceptives are "abortion pills" and go against the religious beliefs of the owners.

My understanding of that ruling was that the court ruled Hobby Lobby itself, ie the "corporate person", was the entity which held the beliefs, and it was only on that basis they were exempted from the law. I suppose you're right though, that does set a troubling precedent, although regardless setting further bad precedents because one has already been set is not a good plan.

No... the Hobby Lobby case was about "closely held corporations". I.E. the owner's belief in that company.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No the one spouse is thrown out the rest retained. The other spouses usually have no official say in either the marriage or divorce. Aint love grand?

Well, in the countries are that usually associated with polygamy, where the wives are viewed more or less as property, sure, that is a simple enough affair.

But imagine how a divorce process would occur in a polygamy, polyandry or even polyamory situation in a modern western democracy... If a normal divorce can be hell I couldn't even begin to imagine what an experience like that would be.

I had a neighbor that was a wife in a polygamous marriage, and she got a divorce with no problem. It's a simple as one partner not being married anymore and filing the papers. I've seen uglier divorces from traditional marriages.

Relapse wrote:
I had a neighbor that was a wife in a polygamous marriage, and she got a divorce with no problem. It's a simple as one partner not being married anymore and filing the papers. I've seen uglier divorces from traditional marriages.

Considering that polygamy is illegal if there was no problems with the divorce then it would seem there is something probably missing from this anecdote. My guess is that that in the eyes of the state the woman that got the divorce was the only one legally married to begin with. If you go to court, or your lawyer, and say you want to divorce one of your spouses things tend to get complicated.

 Ahtman wrote:

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

When you have multiple people involved consent becomes more complicated, plus all the research showing it is problematic. When only two adults are making a commitment there is less trouble in general.

how inconvenient/distasteful it is for you or the state should not be a determining factor when allowing consenting adults to marry.

Consenting adults are consenting adults, its just as wrong to disallow consensual polygamy as it is any other consensual adult sexuality like homosexuality.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
For people who think that multi-person marriage would be too complicated: how do you think we handle multi-person entities in other contexts? The lawyers have figured out how to deal with a multi-person business partnership that breaks up or adds/loses people, so why would marriage be any different? Sure, the current laws would have to be modified to handle all of those new situations, but that's something that can be done.

I know right?

its like everyone things the world ends if more then two people get married.... I mean, I know the government is inept at the best of times, but even they can count past 2.

Its giving me deja vu to back when gay marrage wasnt as accepted, same old opposition "its too complicated/confusing/different to what im used to/ect"

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't know polamory.

Property - good question. Its especially difficult in community property states. I don't know.

The way things are progressing we'll find out in about ten years.

I had a south sudanese guy explain it to me. In a multi-marriage situation (in sudan the dowry is paid by the man to the wifes' family) the dowry is there to safeguard (as I see it) the woman if the guy divorces her. If she divorces him he gets the dowry. KInda makes sense. I always thought it was like a purchase price, now i see it as more of an insurance policy. That may be onbly certain tribes in south sudan/uganda

Just in case anybody thinks that a SCOTUS ruling would stop any of the crap going on. My state already filed a bill to get rid of all marriages, and our most face-palm worthy State rep is at it again and introduced three bills:

(As a reminder, she is our fun lady who gave a fun speech in 2008 declaring Homosexuality a bigger threat to our nation than terorrism.)

House Bill 1597, which would allow businesses to refuse service “to any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association,” and be immune from civil liability.

House Bill 1598 would allow parents to seek counseling and therapy to change a gay child’s sexual orientation without interference from the state.

“The people of this state have the right to seek and obtain counseling or conversion therapy from a mental health provider in order to control or end any unwanted sexual attraction, and no state agency shall infringe upon that right,” the bill says. “Parents may obtain such counseling or therapy for their children under eighteen (18) years of age without interference by the state.”

And of course the "marriage thing":

House Bill 1599 says that no taxpayer funds or governmental salaries can be used for the licensing or support of same-sex marriage.

“No employee of this state and no employee of any local governmental entity shall officially recognize, grant or enforce a same-sex marriage license and continue to receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state,” the measure says. “No taxes or public funds of this state shall be spent enforcing any court order requiring the issuance or recognition of a same-sex marriage license.”

The measure directs state courts to dismiss any challenge to the measure and award costs and attorney fees to the defendant. A judge who violates the act shall be removed from office, according to the bill.

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

The land of the free, one step at a time.

God damn I love your state d-usa. It is depressingly hilarious.

I'd call that hilariously depressing - but that is some pants-on-head slowed bullgak there.
Wonder if those bills will get passed, and if so, how long it takes for them to be challenged above the state level and thrown out as being unconstitutional? Especially if SCOTUS rules in favour of SS marriages.

I mean, I can't see any "law" that says in its text somewhere that any challenges are automatically dismissed as remotely palatable to *anyone* with the slightest bit of interest in civil rights.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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

The land of the free, one step at a time.

There still isn't a right to get a marriage license and there never will be. The SCOTUS case isn't about a right to do anything. The case is specifically about who can be lawfully denied a marriage license by the state and if states are required by federal law to honor marriage licenses awarded in other states if they conflict with the laws in the first party state. That's it. Nobody has ever had a right to a license be it a marriage license, drivers license, fishing license, business license, medical license etc. If you need a license for it then it's not a right, rights don't require a license.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you need a license for it then it's not a right, rights don't require a license.

Most firearms require a license...