| Author | Message | ||
     court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 12 Registered: 8-2003 |
I think we have illustrated that so long as gov't tries to define "marriage," there will always be problems. Why don't we just take gov't out of the marriage biz completely? Leave it to the churches to sanctify what and how they want marriage defined. For legal reasons, people can then enter into contracts with one aonther. Maybe we're better off treating everybody as "free agents." That way, nobody is discriminated against. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1520 Registered: 5-2001 |
Can someone explain to me why the marriage penalty still exists? I've been hearing about its elimination my entire working life. Does it have some kind of constituency that forces one Congress after another to keep it in place? | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 386 Registered: 7-2001 |
so cjc you're confusing- since you're now challenging that which would disallow a mother-daugther marriage, that sounds to me like you're jumping on board after all. Straighten me out here. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 288 Registered: 8-2003  |
We "legislate morality" all the time. Morality is the underpinning of our entire penal code. It's perfectly ok to enforce a morality that says humans can't marry relatives, or inanimate objects, or animals or insects. We come to consensus on what these moral distinctions are. Today, the consensus of the majority of Americans is that it's ok for same-sex people to live together. If that's ok, why not make it legal for these people to join as a couple? Try as anyone does to equate homosexual union with bigamy, polygamy, bestiality, or incest, it just doesn't wash. There is NO consensus in America that any of those practices should be condoned or encouraged. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 458 Registered: 8-2003 |
If you're looking for consensus of the public -- ala legislation -- same-sex marriage won't work. It's not popular enough at 40% for civil unions, not necessarily marriage. Legally, you don't need a majority of public support -- which is why same-sex advocates are going through the courts. So your 'consensus' premise doesn't apply here. Hey -- guys -- this is a LEGAL case. Not a polling/voting/popularity contest. You can say "Well...the public doesn't liken that to bigamy.' So what! As an example, the public becomes pro-life, and that means nothing legally in Roe v. Wade. That law still stands. How do you allow one, and not the other. And if you disallow the other (say, mother marrying daughter), on what basis? Cuz you don't like it? | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 190 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dr. Winston-- constitutional law cannot be based upon "consensus in America" -- that's what representative democracy is for -- to place the will of the people into law by legislation, circumscribed only by the Constitution. The Constitution is what it is in order to provide a reasonable degree of stability and predictability to the social order (not to say it isn't a "living" document, nobody wants to live as if con law were frozen in 1787 or 1825 or 1899 or 1964). But I don't understand why it's okay for two people to live together -- opposite sex or same-sex -- or get married or civil-unionized -- and yet it is somehow horrendous and/or impossible that three, four, five, or twenty-eight people might agree that they want to be "married," or that first-cousins or brothers and sisters may want to be "married." As to multiple marital partners, some of the most bigoted, prejudicial and denigrating language ever to find its way into U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence is found in the late 19th-century opinions dealing with, as it was termed, the "Mormon problem" in the Utah territory. I think it's foreseeable, even if not in the near future, that practices of the sort you mention may ultimately seek broader recognition and legal status. To poo-poo it is to underestimate it. Sorry this is such a "free-writing"-type post, don't have much time to edit and spellcheck. | ||
| virgilian Citizen Username: Virgilian Post Number: 140 Registered: 7-2001 |
cjc, I am a man married to my mother and my daughter, engaged to my granddaughter on the way(little does she know.) Thank heavens I'm heterosexual. | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dr. Winston says, "There is NO consensus in America that any of those practices should be condoned or encouraged." However, marriage is legislated on the state level. Therefore, the "morals" of NY/NJ/CT/CA would be of no consequence to a state such as UT. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 289 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm not saying we legislate based on a popularity contest, and I'm not making a constitutional argument. I'm just saying it's an absurd conclusion to say that allowing same sex unions logically leads to the legalization of incest or bigamy. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 387 Registered: 7-2001 |
"How do you allow one, and not the other." can you define the 'one' and the 'other'- it's a little unclear (to me) | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 459 Registered: 8-2003 |
drewdix: How do you allow same-sex marriage between non-related adults and not allow a father to marry his adult son -- in a blunt example. Or for that matter, not allow multiple marriages (which exist in the Middle East and parts of Asia) if you give legal standing to anything outside the conventional man/woman standard we have now. And I ask this in a legal context. | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dr. W - Absurd? Only time will tell. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 71 Registered: 1-2003 |
Acually court, there is the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says "Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. " That basically says if you're married in one state, all of the other states must recognize it. So if the morals of UT oppose same sex marriage, the state must nonetheless respect a same sex couple married in MA. | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 311 Registered: 2-2002 |
If we can temporarily set aside our culture's aversion to polygamy, I don't think there's a huge gap between the state's recognizing same-sex marriages and its recognizing polygamous marriages. In this Massachusetts case, the court said, "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses." On its face, that seems to be a somewhat arbitrary definition. Well, it's not completely arbitrary. The court said that its decision advances the two legitimate State interests: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. On their first point, is there any reason to believe that a polygamous marriage is less stable than one between only two people? Those opposed to same-sex marriage made a similar claim, arguing that it wasn't "natural" for two men or two women to raise children. We all agree that we can’t impose our own morality on others, but if that’s what the critics did with same-sex marriages, isn't that what we're doing here with polygamy? It's only in the second interest (to conserve state resources) that the court seems to squash the opportunity for polygamous marriages. I suspect they're trying to prevent a situation whereby the state might assume the economic burden of supporting two or three mothers in a polygamous marriage, each one claiming welfare or Social Security benefits. It's an interesting issue, although there's certainly some point where the state must approve one's legitimate choice of spouse(s). As Dr. O'Boogie said above, we probably don't want people marrying their pets and garden gnomes. | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 614 Registered: 6-2002 |
this incest argumnet reminds me of when ERA legislation was being proposed - I was just a kid but it was around 1980 or so - ? my Baptist Sunday School teacher told us if ERA got passed, then women and men would have to use the SAME BATHROOMS! | ||
| thoughtful Citizen Username: Thoughtful Post Number: 119 Registered: 6-2001 |
cjc-- How does New Jersey allow opposite-sex marriage between two non-related adults but not allow a father to marry his adult daughter? | ||
| Guesswho Citizen Username: Guesswho Post Number: 69 Registered: 9-2003 |
Why is anyone even bother to respond to cjc? Maybe if we all close our eyes and ignore these inane posts, they'll stop. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2003 |
good idea, guesswho--give it a shot and let us know how you made out tomorrow. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 460 Registered: 8-2003 |
thoughtful....I'd imagine that NJ disallows it through the laws of NJ? Uh.....Just a guess. Guesswho....given that this forum and MOL in general frowns on personal attacks, political diatribes of any sort and anything remotely contentious, I shall not respond to your classifying the question I posited as "inane." But I will make this observation -- no one has given me a compelling answer that definitively allows same-sex marriage and uses the same rationale that allows that to NOT allow other less appetizing arrangements (see: Mother and daughter). (There -- aren't you warm-and-fuzzy-post types proud of me?!?!? I stifled my urge to respond when attacked.) | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 388 Registered: 7-2001 |
"How do you allow same-sex marriage between non-related adults and not allow a father to marry his adult son" Absurd as it is,isn't the road now paved to allow both? Seems to me, based on what has been presented here, a father and son union wanting to challenge one of the 24 states with laws against it now has a case. So if you support the notion intellectually, the legal aspects will take care of themselves by default. If it's never challenged, and never appears on any legal radar, then this argument is simply an exercise, because any issues with it don't exist. And if that leads to tolerance of polygamy, etc.--well, it's nothing I would do, or condone, but why outlaw it if it's 3-4-5-7-10 consenting adults??? |
