| Author |
Message |
    
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3878
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | 
|
And gosh, I was so proud of myself. 
Up until very recently gay and lesbian sex was illegal in most juristictions in the US. Remember the Stonewall riot? Polygamy and incest still are illegal. If these activities are decrimalized or made legal, there is good reason to allow official recognition of the relationships. Personally, I hope this doesn't happen. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 470
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 8:59 am: |
|
I have no conclusion. I support gay marriage, but would not if it made any and all things in that arena legit. So I can just hope for the best as legislatures craft legislation, I suppose. Or worry about courts legislating from the bench.
Yes.....MOL...where it's so nice to be nice. If I might insert myself here, it was I -- the condescending, no-holds-barred, destroy your argument at all costs, racist, poor-hating conservative ideologue (to many) that started this fascinating intellectual journey. We've all learned so much about ourselves.
I was provoked once, and didn't respond. I didn't even point out stupid retorts to my questions. Let's all hug.
Thank you...no, please.....well, thank you.....you're too kind....thanks much......OK, thank you...... |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 801
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:07 am: |
|
CJC - I have no interest in defending either incest or poligamy. As I said above, I think you can legalize gay marriage without legalizing either of those practices. My question was based on the fact that I am undecided in my own mind as to whether there is a rationale for making either of those practices illegal. The genetic argument for incest is convincing to me as far as it goes, though my understanding is that's not very far. Poligamy certainly raises logistical problems with divorce. I don't know if there are other problems. That is why I asked. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 294
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:15 am: |
|
While all this makes an interesting philosophical discussion, here's the political reality:
NO state legislature is going to pass a bill legalizing polygamy or bigamy in the foreseeable future. There areno grounds for a court to rule that such practices should be sanctioned in marriage. Not a single person here can honestly say they really think either is a possiblity. If you want to play devil's advocate and argue the "slippery slope," fine, but it's just not realistic.
Would anyone put up money to bet me that a state will legalize polygamy in say, the next 20 years? C'mon, put your money where your mouths are! |
court07040
Citizen
Username: Court07040
Post Number: 17
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:04 am: |
|
It is legal for me to have sex with as many women as I want, regardless of my current "married" status. I can father a bunch of kids, too. Then I can have all my girl friends and children move in with me. So why all the outrage if I married them? |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 143
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:11 am: |
|
Actually, adultery is still illegal in some states, including NY. Of course, Lawrence v. Texas throws some doubt on whether those laws are valid.
There's nothing like Being and Nothingness.
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3885
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:52 am: |
|
Polygamy is an interesting since it is widely practiced in most of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as by a small minority of Mormons, without the support of their church, in the western part of our country.
Basically, from the postings here, polygamy was outlawed in the US in spite of claims of religous freedom. Would modern courts be so cavalier on the subject, especially since the Muslim population here is rapidly growing?
|
mem aka "toots"
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:56 am: |
|
Polygamy, incest - what?
Just make same sex marriage legal already... it's so unfair. Sheesh.
I have special dispensation to sit in judgment on the lives of everyone, particularly on those I disagree with politically.
|
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Pierce -- looks like you're almost right about the Utah statehood issue -- you got me curious so I looked this up:
http://archives.utah.gov/exhibits/Statehood/intronew.htm
I've noticed articles in various publications, including the NY Times, say that the Mormons renounced polygamy in exchange for statehood, which is not accurate. Polygamy was abandoned in 1890 -- statehood was not achieved until 1896 -- so the timing alone defeats any inference of a tradeoff, even though it was the major issue. I didn't realize Congress had disenfranchised Mormons -- I suppose we should be grateful that that kind of overt, targeted discrimination is rare nowadays. |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 198
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |
|
bobk -- because the Mormon church renounced polygamy over a hundred years ago and excommunicates anyone who purports to practice it, no polygamist can be a "Mormon" by definition. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3889
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 1:09 pm: |
|
rcky, it wasn't my intent to trash the Church of Later Day Saints. However, like many religions, there have been schisms and those who still practice polygamy consider themselves Mormons.
To say otherwise would be like saying only Roman Catholics are Christians. |
thegoodsgt
Citizen
Username: Thegoodsgt
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Great discussion folks!
Putting aside for a moment the unrealistic prospects of legalizing polygamy, it's important to realize that the primary issue driving the question of legalizing same-sex marriage or polygamy are largely economic. Unfortunately, some might say, our legal and economic systems treat married people differently from those who are unmarried. Spouses enjoy special privileges.
- The right to inherit
- The estate tax exemption (at least until 2010)
- The ability to assume ownership of a deceased spouse's retirement plans with no tax implications
- Spousal notification (when assigning beneficiaries) on qualified retirement plans
If we were building a society and government from scratch (Sims anyone?), we could write laws that accomodate multiple familial arrangements.
As our definition of "family" (or company, or property, or indecency, or anything else) changes, the laws that describe how those things are handled in the economic realm must change. |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 145
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 1:37 pm: |
|
bobk asked: "[P]olygamy was outlawed in the US in spite of claims of religous freedom. Would modern courts be so cavalier on the subject[?]"
Probably. A state law does not "prohibit the free exercise of religion," within the meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, so long as the law is neutral on its face and evenly applied. So a law against polygamy should still survive constitutional scrutiny as long as it applies to everyone, not just Mormons, even though it forbids a practice that is usually associated with a particular religous group.
Of course, there is neutral and there is neutral. If an anti-Catholic city council somewhere prohibited the drinking of wine on Sundays, that would be a neutral and equally-applied law, but I think a court would probably still look closely to see whether it was motivated by religious bigotry or health and safety concerns.
There's nothing like Being and Nothingness.
|
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 199
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 3:05 pm: |
|
bobk -- I don't think anyone thought you were trashing anything, I certainly didn't -- I'm just a proponent of linguistic accuracy, and factual accuracy for that matter, no matter how often I personally fail at both.
That said, as of today I consider myself the real Ricky Martin, latino pop superstar, so please refer to me as such. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 840
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 9:04 pm: |
|
A while ago I read an opinion piece by Katha Pollit who said that she favored gay marraige because as a heterosexual she felt it was unfair that gay couples could break up without having to go through the time, expense and headache of divorce. |
rckymtn
Citizen
Username: Rckymtn
Post Number: 203
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Who said it wouldn't happen?
Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex
By MARK THIESSEN Associated Press Writer
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A lawyer for a Utah man with five wives argued Monday that his bigamy convictions should be thrown out following a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing gay sex.
The nation's high court in June struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling that what gay men and women do in the privacy of their homes is no business of government.
It's no different for polygamists, argued Tom Green's attorney, John Bucher, to the Utah Supreme Court.
"It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting adults, you should be allowed to do so," Bucher said.
The state said the court should reject the appeal because Green failed to raise the issue during his trial more than two years ago or anywhere else along the judicial path since then.
Green, who is not affiliated with any church, was convicted of four counts of bigamy and one count of criminal nonsupport of his 30 children in August 2001.
Besides his five-year sentence, he faces up to life in prison after being convicted of child rape for having sex with one of his five wives when she was 13.
"He preys on young girls," assistant Utah Attorney General Laura Dupaix said. "This case is about a man who marries young girls and calls it religion."
Polygamy was renounced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1890 as part of a deal to grant Utah statehood, and the church now excommunicates those members who practice or advocate it. Polygamy has an estimated 30,000 practitioners in the West.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 501
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Pierce of Legal Mind-dom:
If neutrality and equal application of the law is key....can it be argued that no one is denied marrying someone of the opposite sex, and that homosexuals just choose not to but they aren't denied any right that others have? Or will the 'bigotry' behind marriage laws as they stand now foil that argument.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 512
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 1:09 pm: |
|
polygamist cites sodomy ruling -- FWIW
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031202-114522-8005r.htm |
DrFalomar
Citizen
Username: Drfalomar
Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Pierce, I think the Mormons also had to give up blood feuds. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3970
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Polygamy is the least of that guys problems. He also has a life sentence to serve for child molestation because one of his wives was only 13 when he married her!!
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 2:13 pm: |
|
If some guy wants to put up with more than one wife, as long as everyone agrees to the situation, who cares...
I have a hard enough time keeping my one wife happy. |
CageyD
Citizen
Username: Cageyd
Post Number: 59
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 2:31 pm: |
|
I am coming to this discussion late but CJC you voiced my concerns about the same sex marriage. I am not a rw christian and I am a democrat but I think that this could be a slippery slope. And to all the people who say "there is no way that there will be legalized polygamy, or a father able to marry his son/daughter" etc. I point to two things -
First thirty years ago the comments being made here about polygamy and incest-marriages were being made about homosexuality ("gross" "lewd") by many/most Americans. Over time homosexuality has become more acceptable to the majority of Americans because notable people "came out" and fought their fight. (don't you think the same can happen with people who practice and support other unions - woody allen comes to mind as the pioneer in this area)
Thirty years ago you would have been laughed out of the room by homosexuals themselves if you had predicted same sex mariages. So don't be too sure about your predictions - history would tell you different.
Second - don't underestimate the activities of people who practice what we here are calling "gross or inappropriate behavior". The Man/Boy Love Association and other groups like them are actively engaging in lobbying and research activities designed to support their notion that sexual relationships between men and young boys is acutally healthy for the boys development. Don't you think that groups like this will view this MA decision as an opportunity? In many ways, the foundation of this nation is the family unit - I personally don't care if it is two men or women who head the family but to allow for a redefinition of marriage I think could work to undermine the basic stability of the family unit by giving radical groups amunition to approach the courts with their definition of marriage as their way to achieve life, liberty and the pursuit of happpiness. |
Pierce Butler
Citizen
Username: Pierce_butler
Post Number: 146
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 4, 2003 - 1:21 pm: |
|
cjc, that smacks of an argument made by the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws. The State argued that its law did not deny equal protection because it applied to everyone equally: whites could marry only whites, and blacks could marry only blacks, so what's the problem? The Court didn't buy it, because the obvious motive behind the law was to entrench the notion of the superiority of the white race. The law was designed to prevent "impurities" in "white blood."
Virginia's argument is an example of "formal equality" rather than "substantive equality." That is, on its face the law might seem to implement equality, but in the context of all we know to be true, it does not implement equality in any substantive sense. The most famous (and overused) example of such faulty reasoning is Anatole France's sarcastic observation that the law in its majesty prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges and begging in the streets.
There's nothing like Being and Nothingness.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2003 - 5:53 am: |
|
I see a huge gap between legalizing same sex civil marriage and legalizing adult- young teenager relationships. In the second category of relationship, there is an inequality that almost always puts the teenager at risk. No matter how much research to the contrary one could collect demonstrating that adult-teenager relationships can be healthy, I can always amass more showing where they have been emotionally or physically damaging. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 530
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2003 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hougton Mifflin sponsored site:
Legal age for marriage is as low as 12 with parental consent, and 16 without it. Cited as the state concern behind the low ages -- a desire to curb the numbers of unwed mothers. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 855
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 4:24 pm: |
|
The man in Utah is not being prosecuted for living with five women or having sex with five women, he is being prosecuted for bigamy, which is actually marrying more than one person. Marraige is a legal status. You need a license and a ceremony performed by an authorized person. If this guy did that more than once without getting divorced he is perpetrating a fraud on the State. The Texas case said the State couldn't make a private sex act a crime. It was not about "marraige".
However,if following the logic of the Texas case, as did the Massachusettes Court, you have to allow gay marraiges, the State would still have an interest in prohibiting multiple marraige. If the State has to extend benefits to a State employee's spouse, the State may not have an interest in that spouse's gender but it certainly has any interest in the number of spouses (spice?). In other words if a person entitled to benefits for his spouse marries one person what what difference does it make if that person is male or female. But if you allow poligamy, some altruistic State employee could marry every single (or married) person in the State who does not have health insurance! |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 60
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 12:34 am: |
|
anon,
I don't get it.
It seems like you're suggesting that that the potential cost to the State and/or the feds (that's us) is a good reason to prohibit poligamy, but that the costs are not a factor in the case of same sex unions/marriges.
If there is a RIGHT to marry, I can't see how the potential costs to the State or fed taxpayer enters into the issue.
If I misunderstod your post, please correct me. its late, and I'm somewhat snowblind.
BTW, just to pose a question on the subject:
/discus/messages/129/19964.html?1060052871
There was a deafening silence when the question was originally posed.
TomR. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page