| Author | Message | ||
     drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 389 Registered: 7-2001 |
proud of you, cjc. Makes me listen (read) more. now, next step is just to ignore the attack altogether. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2428 Registered: 10-1999  |
Cjc: I think Guesswho was reacting to the variation in this thread, of your "what-about-Kosovo" line, which you have repeated when the subject is Iraq. Safe to say, I doubt people could give you a compelling response, because you have already decided that the two situations (Iraq/Kosovo or Homosexuality/Incest) are the same. If retreating behind the "What-about-Incest" line helps you cope with whatever you fear about this decision, that's your thing. But, that does not detract from the well-considered views of people who have a different reaction to the same-sex marriage debate. Some people feel threatened by the mere existence of gay couples. I still can't figure that one out, but there it is. That fear carries over to opposition to same-sex marriage, which in some people's minds will detract from "traditional" marriage. In the end, the question is whether fear should be the deciding factor, as to whether same-sex couples should have the same right to the benefits of marriage. I don't think fear should carry the day on this one. | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 191 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nohero's paragraph, altered a bit: "But, that does not detract from the well-considered views of people who have a different reaction to the polygamous marriage debate. Some people feel threatened by the mere existence of polygamous families. I still can't figure that one out, but there it is. In the end, the question is whether that fear should be the deciding factor as to whether to extend the benefits of marriage to polygamous adults. I don't think fear should carry the day on this one." I have fear - I fear this is the next frontier, and then it's no-holds barred. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2003 |
So they allow same-sex marriage in Iraq and polygamy in Kosovo... or is it the other way around? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 306 Registered: 12-2001 |
If a few tax advantages is the only thing preventing polygamy, do we have the right to stand in its way? I know most people would hastily bring in three or four extra adults to their home if the law favored it. Similarly, EVERYONE is going to be gay now in MA. I bet it hits 50% by 2005. | ||
| virgilian Citizen Username: Virgilian Post Number: 142 Registered: 7-2001 |
You know, allowing male/female marriages opens the door for allowing incest, polygamy, bestiality. Has Congressman Santorum or cjc considered this? I'm concerned! | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 518 Registered: 3-2002 |
Everyone should be allowed to get married and suffer!!! | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 290 Registered: 8-2003  |
court07040 (and all the others making the "slippery slope" argument) - yes, it is indeed an absurd conclusion to draw, that same sex unions will lead inexorably to legalized incest, bestiality, polygamy, or bigamy. Do you really think if NJ passed a same-sex union law, that thus emboldened, the polygamists, bigamist, practitioners of incest or bestiality would all descend upon Trenton demanding legal recognition of their relationships? puh-leeze! I think "absurd" would be an understatement | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 439 Registered: 7-2003 |
There’s a book out called “Under the Banner of Heaven” (worst book ever) It explains the tax advantages of polygamy. They call it Plural Marriage and it isn’t an official marriage as far as the state (or Mormon Church) is concerned. To summarize the family declares lots of children with the Husband and a wife that isn’t working. The rest of the wives are on welfare. They feed the children Cafeteria style to save money. I’d have to go through the book again to find out the correct numbers but that average tax payer receives 12 cents for each dollar paid in taxes, these particular arrangements receive 80 cents for ever dollar. This isn’t a common occurrence any more but it is there. If a same sex couple wants to get married I could care less, but the Plural Marriages are going to be the next one on the court docket. | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2003 |
Doctor Win, I never said anything about incest or bestiality. And to answer your question, "yes" I do think this will embolden polygamists - but not in NJ, since I think none exist here. You are welcome to believe that I am absurd. By the way, have you ever met a polygamist? | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 192 Registered: 5-2001 |
court07040 -- you didn't ask me, but I knew a kid once from a polygamist family, only I didn't know he was one of "them" until long after I'd met and known him. It's funny, he didn't look or act any different than anyone else. Strange. I thought I'd be able to tell just by looking at him. Dr. W -- I agree that incest and bestiality are not likely to be the next stone on the path, but the argument for polygamy/bigamy is very, very close to that being presented in favor of gay marriage -- and if the courts succeed in re-defining marriage to include same-sex couples, they can redefine marriage to include any loving, caring relationship, whether it's between two men and a woman or one man and six women. Honestly, who would have thought 20 or 30 -- or even 5 -- years ago that any jurisdiction would rule in favor of gay marriage? Groups can get very vocal and very politically active very quickly, and God help us if the Constitution starts to bend to the will of whomever shouts the loudest. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 440 Registered: 7-2003 |
I think I was talking about bigamy. I guess I need to read that book again | ||
| court07040 Citizen Username: Court07040 Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2003 |
RCKYMTN - To continue on your thought, who would have thought 50 years ago that interracial marriage would become legal? | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2430 Registered: 10-1999 |
I'm sure there will be time enough to discuss polygamy, if folks really want to delve into it. Adding more people, of whatever gender, to the mix may be an interesting topic for some, but it is not directly related to the grounds for the decision, or the reason the issue was joined. The decision in question concerns whether two (2) consenting adults of the same gender should be allowed to marry, in light of the fact that two (2) consenting adults have that right if they are each of the opposite gender. It was decided on the grounds that equal protection of the laws would not be denied on the basis of gender. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 253 Registered: 6-2003 |
It's just common sense, really, and mostly to do with dull and practical matters (inheritance, taxes, division of assets on the breakup of a marriage, etc.). People have been having sex and living in all kinds of relationships since the dawn of time. However, people in relationships that are not legally recognized often have difficulty in using the legal system to resolve disputes or enforce rights that most people take for granted, e.g. determining the course of treatment when a spouse is hospitalized and unable to speak for themselves. If one wants to have equal rights for individuals regardless of their sexual orientation, one either has to recognize same-sex marriage, or write marriage out of the law entirely. Both approaches are possible, and given the structure of the U.S. legal system, recognizing same-sex marriage looks like the way it's going to go. | ||
| mck Citizen Username: Mck Post Number: 617 Registered: 5-2001 |
Andrew Sullivan has been making the best arguments in favor of same sex marriage for a long time now. Today he has a take on the polygamy issue. andrewsullivan.com | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 797 Registered: 5-2001 |
While poligamy has a proud biblical tradation I don't think that the logic of this decision necessarily mandates legalizing it. (I'm not sure whether legalizing it would be good or bad, but that's beside the point). I have not had time to read the whole decision but it seems to be based in part on an equal protection sort of rationale. I.e. you can't treat people differntly based on a classification. If you allow two people to get married you can't say you two can't get married because you are the same sex (or because you are different races for that matter). Poligamy laws don't have this defect since they apply equally to everyone. No one, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. can marry more then one person. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 461 Registered: 8-2003 |
Nohero....thanks for detailing my motives and views on other people for me. As for the Kosovo/Iraq line, it aptly shows the less than logical (and highly partisan) rationales used by detractors of the President and the Iraq policy to justify their positions against Iraq and for Kosovo. They are not entirely the same, but more the same in terms of policy than they differ. Likewise, the incest/gay marriage line of thought begs the same question. So far, I only get "people's well-considered views" and their 'reaction' that, to summarize is "Well....this is different!" Or "well....no one asked that yet." I did get a "so what, let it happen and let other forms of marriage take place if it's consenting." Now I have from you a psycho-analysis of my 'fears' and ability to 'cope' with things, theorizing that no one could give me a 'compelling' answer to my question. I think you're wrong about me, but I suppose I need to discuss myself with you first. Just because you failed to give a compelling reason for me doesn't mean it's not possible. I am open to it, as I asked the question and do lean towards gay marriage in a vacuum. But we don't live in a vacuum. The "well.....it's just a bunch of fear" you offered is pedestrian and empty -- though it comes from a reasonable person with well-considered views such as yourself. I'll go into your fears and coping skills in another post. I guess some people don't really enjoy thinking a couple moves ahead, otherwise chess would be more popular. Thinking is tough stuff, | ||
| Pierce Butler Citizen Username: Pierce_butler Post Number: 136 Registered: 6-2003 |
Michael Janay, I have done a lot of research on the Full Faith and Credit (FFC) argument and it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Actually, I think it is a pretty weak argument, because a marital relationship is probably not a "public act[], record[], [or] judicial proceeding[]" within the meaning of the FFC. But I grant you that it is an open question. cjc, for once I agree with you. The question is not whether "allowing" gay marriage inevitably leads to laws permitting bigamy and incest, but whether a court decision requiring the state to allow gay marriage must logically lead to these things. If it is up to the legislature, it can draw the line at gay marriage and say that incest and bigamy are still outlawed. If the courts say that there is a "substantive due process" right to gay marriage, that opens the door to claims to similar rights to bigamy and incest. There is no limiting principle. That is the big problem, as I see it, with Lawrence v. Texas. If the Court says there is some substantive due process right to have sex with whomever one wants, how, for example, can this logically be limited to adults? If one state says the age of consent is 17 and all the others say it is 16, cannot a 16-year old in the first state claim a substantive due process right to have sexual relations? And if 16, why not 15 or 12 or 9? Since some states (like NJ, I believe) allow first cousins to marry, why cannot someone in another state with different laws argue that her "substantive due process" right to marriage and to sexual intimacy with the person of her choice is being violated because she wants to enter into such a relationship with her first cousin? All these issues are avoided if we ground gay righs in principles of equality, and not the slippery concept of "substantive due process." Gay rights are really about gender equality. The states cannot stereotype and stigmatize based on gender distinctions. Allowing people to have sex with and marry only persons of the opposite sex, because "real" men want only women, and "real" women want only men, is, to me, garden-variety gender sterotyping that should not be allowed under any constitution. There's nothing like Being and Nothingness. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 390 Registered: 7-2001 |
You beat me to the punch (or the Soapbox) on the Texas sodomy decision (july '03?). There's a good parallel study there. I wouldn't have thought of Pierce's last paragraph puts the lid on it. It makes all the hand-wringing about bigamy and sex with garden gnomes take a back seat. |
