Consenting adults

Many people believed that marriage should be limited to persons of the same race. They also argued that was for preserving the things that are good about society.

The point is- 'people' believe many things.

Just because you- and others feel one way or another about the issue- is not the question. The question is whether the Constitution's promise of Equal Protection before the Law and Due Process apply in regards to same gender couples wanting to get married. So far every federal court that has reviewed the issue has come to the conclusion that they do.

 

Can you name any?

 

I would say they need to quit worring about everybody else and get a life. If two women our two men getting married is perceived as an assault on somebody else's marriage, they have serious problems. Your marriage didn't mean more because others are forbidden from it if it did you have problems.

 

I doubt if he knows either. These Assertions are usually not very well thought out and are just a means of avoiding the real issue of marriage equality. They will sink the ship in order to drown the rats. Destroy marriage to prevent gays from having marriage which is ironic since those opposed to SSM often bemoan the destruction of marriage as a result of gay marriage.

 

The citizens of the State of Virginia.

And Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 22, 1965)

The parties were guilty of a most serious crime. As said by the Court in Kinney's Case 30 Gratt 865: "It was a marriage prohibited and declared absolutely void. It was contrary to the declared public law, founded upon motives of public policy—a public policy affirmed for more than a Century, and one upon which social order, public morality and the best interests of both races depend. This unmistakable policy of the legislature founded, I think, on wisdom and the moral development of both races, has been shown by not only declaring marriages between whites and negroes absolutely void, but by prohibiting and punishing such unnatural alliances with severe penalties. The laws enacted to further uphold this declared policy would be futile and a dead letter if in fraud of these salutary enactments, both races might, by stepping across any imaginary line bid defiance to the law by immediately returning and insisting that the marriage celebrated in another state or county should be recognized as lawful, though denounced by the public law of the domicile as unlawful and absolutely void."

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his [arrangement] there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The awfulness of the offense is shown by Section 20–57 which declares: "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process.["]

 

You can believe whatever you want. Many of us believe otherwise. No one wants to do away with anything that is good. Discrimination, however is not good. No one want's to tell you what to think or how to live. You have no business telling other how to live or what is right for them when what they do has zero effect on you.

 

Good thread. It is the same argument. IF we're going to redefine marriage as a contract between consenting adults, you have to apply it evenly. Polygamy, & inter-family marriage (which has just as long a history as same sex marriage) should be just as 'accepted' as gay marriage.

IMO, the govt should stay out of the bedroom. They can recognize civil contracts, which is marriage. They should not view marriage as a religious event, but a civil contract. All govt should do is regulate law enforcement of contracts.

Most societies have had a dim view of child molestation, or bestiality. The 'consent' issue is the problem in that scenario. But if sober minded adult humans wish to engage in sex acts, or bind themselves with civil contracts, why should the govt care?

 

I’m not going to make any judgment as to what your motive is here, but in my experience, the vast majority of them are being intellectually dishonest, do not want “equality for all” and are simply attempting to derail the debate and obfuscate the issue of same sex marriage. , The intent is to stoke the fears of those who are already dubious about any redefinition of marriage with a slippery slope type of logical fallacy if you will. Many will accuse someone of being a hypocrite for support same sex marriage but not “other variations” on marriage are, intentionally or not, perpetrating another type of logical fallacy, a slight of hand known as the appeal to hypocrisy.

However, there are those who are sincere in their beliefs. To those I say; as well intended as you might be, tread lightly least you do a serious disservice to the gay and lesbian rights movement. Progress is always incremental. Attempting to expand the issue will only feed into the fears, and bolster the arguments of those opposed to marriage equality for gay couples. The issue of other sexual preferences or lifestyles is not on the table and, arguably has nothing to do with the current debate. Equality being sought by gays means equal to what heterosexual couples can do that is generally accepted by society and is legal.

When, and if the issues of further changing the definition of marriage comes up, it will be an issue that will affect everyone, not just something that will effect gay people In fact I can tell you from experience, that the vast majority of people involved in various “non-traditional” lifestyles are not gay Plural marriage will not simply be a matter of one group-gays-wanting what another group has. It will be a group-plural marriage advocates- wanting what no one else has and therefor much more difficult to claim discrimination.

Also, consider the fact that there would be legal and social issues that we would have to deal with much in the same way that we are grappling with same sex marriage now, but would also effect opposite sex relationships. While I don’t see those issues as insurmountable, such arrangements would upend the concept of marriage a bit more than the current debate has. Lets get one thing out of the way before we plunge headlong into another debate

The question of whether these other matters can be seen as strictly parallel and unrelated issues to same sex marriage, or in fact, the next logical step following gay marriage is an open one. One could indeed argue that gay marriage will open legal doors and loosen societal inhibitions against further redefining marriage. However, whether or not there is a cause and effect relationship, my position remains that for purposes of the current debate, and in the interest of supporting same sex marriage for couples, it should remain separate.

I will add, that I for one have no moral objection to plural marriage as long as it involves consenting adults participating on an equal basis You may have heard of the Polyamory Society that promotes the practice, although I don’t think that there is a lot of political support and it is certainly not a “movement” as same sex marriage is. In any case, I’m here to tell you that if you think that one on one marriage is challenging, try dealing with the dynamics of a group marriage. However, polygamy, a decidedly unequal arrangement where men have multiple wives that are often under aged and coerced into the arrangement is an entirely different matter for which there is a compelling government and societal interest in opposing it.

 

While people continue to wring their hands and agonize over same sex marriage, I thought that I would offer some thoughts about what might lie ahead and what we might do to smooth the way. We must realize that down the road anything can happen. Any number of issues, foreseen or not can arise. I frequently rail against slippery slope predictions-such as plural marriage- that are injected into the same sex marriage debate. However, I do so not because I dismiss the possibility that a redefinition of marriage now, can lead to other changes later. Nor am I voicing a moral objection. Rather, I believe that we must deal with further change at the right time, learn from history, and be smarter going forward in order to avoid, or at least minimize the anguish that has plagued the gay marriage debate. I believe that we first have to deal with marriage equality in the here and now and new issues as they arise, spontaneously, in the future. Here is a time line of how it might all play out:

2018: While the debate over same sex marriage continues and more states allow it, intersexual people, those who are not clearly male or female are revealing themselves and begin to assert their rights. In a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, a couple applies for a marriage license. One of them, who wants to marry a male, has the biological and chromosomal characteristic of both a male and a female. This person has an androgynous name and appearance and refuses to identify as male or female. In fact many government form that ask for “gender” have an option for “other” which this person chooses. The license request is rejected on the basis of marriage still being between a man and a woman.

2020: SCOTUS has ruled that same sex people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as they are now a protected class as well as deserving of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. States that refuse to legislate it are forced by federal courts to allow it. However, there is still the matter of intersexual people. Is he/she / whatever the same or opposite sex as his/her partner. Where do they fit in? Even now that same sex marriage is legal, if the new laws specifies “opposite or same sex couples” there could be a problem. It’s a gray area, and many jurisdictions are unsure of how to deal with it. Furthermore, while gays and same sex marriage is generally accepted, inter-sexuals are regarded as freaks and are being denied other rights as well.

2022: The concept of polyamory, which has been around a while, is gaining in popularity. A heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license to marry another heterosexual couple. At the same time, another couple consisting of a man and a bi sexual woman seek to marry another bi sexual woman. Both applications are rejected and a long and arduous national debate and many court cases ensues. Meanwhile the issue concerning that intersexual situation rages on with some states refusing to change the wording of the law that allows “same sex couples” to marry, to language supporting marriage between any two consenting adults.

2025: Inter-sexual people have become rather vocal and militant in demanding rights. More and more of them are choosing to live openly rather than in the closet- pretending to be male or female. Some, including gays, are accusing them of being bullies in demanding the same rights as “normal’ people, i.e. male or female. As a result of the relentless pushing of the intersexual agenda, some states are changing their laws to include them. There are also a number of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts.

2030: Group marriage among heterosexuals gains more popular and acceptance, and some states, through legislation or court rulings, are beginning to allow it. Courts find that there is no rational basis for states to deny these marriages. However, all of the cases to date were brought heterosexual couples who argued that large families of men and women are in keeping with tradition and create the most efficient and efficacious environment for children . The subsequent ruling were narrowly defined to only include married heterosexual couples or singles marrying other married heterosexual couples or singles.

Almost immediately, gay couples are taking notice. They want “equality” –the ability to marry other gay couples and gay singles. More years of debate and legal maneuvering ensue. Rulings go constantly against gay couples. The basis for these rulings is concern for children. While it has been established by this time that gay parenting does not harm children, studies have emerged-sponsored by the Family Research Council which now supports heterosexual group marriage- that show that a child’s exposure to more than two gay parent figures at a time is in fact harmful, and that is the basis for opposing group marriage for gays. Meanwhile the issue of intersexual people is still unresolved.

2035: The SCOTUS finally decides that marriage is between any two consenting adults solving the problem of what to do about intersexual people. However, group marriage involving gay married couples still is a divisive issue. Furthermore, groups of people-married and single- of different gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are seeking the right to marry further complicating the issue.

2040: SCOTUS determines that marriage is a universal natural right and that everyone has the right to marry as many people as they wish. There is no rational basis or compelling government reason for restricting marriage at all.

Could the road to 2040 have been less arduous? It would have helped if the issue of same sex marriage as it is before us today was resolved sooner, before other alternative lifestyles came to the fore. Even now, the waters are being muddied by those who bring up plural marriage as an invented issue. It can only get worse if it becomes a real issue before the current debate is laid to rest. I will add, that to push the envelope on issues before their time serves no one’s interest, but we must be prepared to address them at the appropriate time in history and cultural evolution. And in dealing with those future issues, it is important that we build on the lessons that were hopefully learned from the earlier matters. However, that will only happen if we can get over the moronic, puritanical and ridged positions that we hold and think more about what actually makes sense and what’s important and relevant in the current cultural and legal environment.

2045: All is well. The angst of the culture wars is a fading memory. Marital bliss for all. But wait! Farmer Brown in Montana wants to marry his flock of sheep. That same year, space aliens who have been living among us for centuries reveal themselves to us. Young people are fascinated by them and “hooking up” and marrying them becomes a fast moving fad. However, marriage is only for and among humans. The fight begins anew. Pat Robertson literally turns in his grave and Michelle Bachman, now 92, comes out of retirement and teams up with Rick Perry 95 and Rick Santorum 93, to start a clinic to cure people of wanting to have sex with aliens, legal or other wise. At the same time, congressional Republicans introduce a constitutional amendment against (space) alien marriage and adopt a party platform to encourage them to self deport. Pope Francis II says “Maybe civil unions”

 

In reality, I don't worry about others. I just understand what others are feeling in this issue.

There is no good answer, but people need to realize what they are fighting against if they want a final win on the issue that doesn't create resentment.

 

In reality, I don't think that you do understand what others are feeling. Certainly not what gay people are feeling. There most certainly is a good answer.....equality! What exactly are people fighting against? Too bad if there is resentment. There was and still is resentment over segregation. They just need to get over it.

 

Yeah, like they are losing their superiority.

There will be resentment, I am not concerned.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I'm definitely sincere in my belief, and I'm not engaging in tu quo que. But I think many advocates are doing the gay and lesbian rights movement a disservice by inviting the hypocrisy charge from the opposition, and even though hypocrisy doesn't invalidate the argument for same sex marriage it's still hypocrisy.

I get that things have to be instituted and implemented incrementally for practical reasons, but why does that mean they have to argued separately if it's based on the same argument? It's not just that people are saying polygamists, etc, have to bring their court cases in order for that issue to be ruled on, but I've seen many people claim these "other" types of marriage can't make the same argument because they aren't "equality issues" like SSM is. At least one person tried to tell me polygamy is a "liberty issue", in the same category allowing or prohibiting the use drugs, alcohol and prostitution. And then they act all shocked and offended when I tell them their views are just like the bigots who describe(d) all same sex relationships the same way.

Many marriage equality opponents ask "where will it end?" bringing up the issue of potential marriages to children, animals, etc. If we can't and won't draw a clear line, which should never move, between acceptable and unacceptable marriages, then we're giving credence to their worries that the line will never stop moving.if they don't hold it where it is. Drawing a the line at all relationships involving consenting adults is a consistent position that's very difficult to refute.

If people want to only advocate SSM and ignore the others, that's fine, but they can't legitimately claim it's marriage equality they're advocating when it's not.

 

While I have no desire to prevent anyone from getting married, it's not like the left has let consenting adults stop them before.

Ie: most voluntary contracts.

 

As I said, it is equality in terms of it being equal to what heterosexuals have. No it is not equality for all but that will have to do for now. I hope you read my post #34 above. I think it’s a pisser. Thank you again for being a sane person in a sea of idiocy that I'm drowning in while monkeys dressed as life guards are laughing while throwing me anvils.

 

Yes I can.

First of all- this has played out many times both in regards to marriage and other issues.

Do you think that when inter-racial marriage bans were fought- they were not fighting for marriage equality- simply because the Lovings didn't also argue at the time that same gender couples should also be allowed to marry?

People fight the fight that they believe is important. Eliminating inter-racial marriage bans made marriage more equal- and that is a good thing.

Let me give some other examples- the vote is a good example. At one point the vote essentially was limited to white, land owning men. Over time, voting became more equal.

When the question of extending the vote to African American men was being argued, women were disappointed that they were being left behind- but that didn't mean that those arguing for voting equality for African Americans were not arguing voting equality.

Then there is the question of whether the issues are the same. They aren't. There are different reasons why incestuous marriages are banned- than the reasons why same gender marriages are banned. Those reasons have to be addressed specifically.

I take no stand on marriage between closely related adults. I have my opinion- but the issue is a distraction from marriage equality for same gender couples.

Polygamy is a very different issue- and far more complicated institutionally than treating same gender couples equally with opposite gender couples. The structural differences between a constant marriage of 2 persons- versus a marriage of an unknown number of persons. Structurally this would be far more difficult to implement. For instance- what would the relationship be between children born to the same father, but different mothers within a marriage- would there be any legal relationship of the child to the other mothers? Very complicated- and that discussion would need to be done completely seperately to resolve.

 

My argument and the one that keeps winning in case after case is that gay couples are either substantially similarly situated to most heterosexual couples (except they can't have children together) or identically situated to the remainder (the elderly and infertile heterosexual couples who also can't have children together) in respect to the governmental administration of the incidents of the contract.

By this what is usually meant is how will the state (usually the family court) handle the situation when things go wrong. Divorce, incapacitation, old age, death etc?

Well the answer to that, as far as couples both gay and straight, is that these issues can be handled in the exact same way.

Polygamy is different. It is not the same argument from a legal perspective. Firstly there is no mechanism in place to equally administer these incidences across a group as there is a couple. With couples that template has already been formulated and can work regardless of the participants' gender.

Also bear in mind that we cannot talk about polygamy as in "old school" one man, multiple women polygamy only as that would fail equal protection right of the bat. If a man can have ten wives then those ten wives must equally be allowed ten husbands or, in a marriage equality state, whatever combination of gender partners they see fit.

Whole rafts of laws would have to be implemented to accommodate the vast array of different arrangements from simple "threesome" marriages up to massive "corporate" marriages wherein one party may never have even met many of the others or even live in the same country or on the same continent.

How could the family court system possibly administrate the incidences of that contract (divorce, alimony, custody, power-of-attorney, allocation of benefits, immigration rights) in the same way as it can a couple straight or gay?

The answer is: it can't so there is clearly a rational basis to deny the claim as things stand and no moral basis is needed to deny that claim, just sheer logistics. Of course those seeking these arrangements can gradually put into place legislation which negates those states' objections. Ultimately they may arrive at a place where the question of whether a rational basis remains becomes less clear. Once the relevant bases are covered, the courts may find that the states have no rational basis to deny them access to a multi-person contract but a lot of groundwork needs to be implemented at first.

I've started threads to try to discuss how we can put in place laws to make multiple-spouse marriages a reality but those threads never seem to last beyond a page or two. Most people who bring up polygamy just use it as a means to bash gays. They're not interested as a stand-alone issue.

Finally, just imagine that not a single gay person exists. People could still lay legal claim to marry their adult siblings, or their own adult children as long as those pairings were heterosexual in nature on the basis of equal protection. They could just say that marriage is a state recognized contract between one adult man and one adult woman so to deny them is to deny equal protection of the law.

That's not to say they wouldn't face objections and I invite anyone to speculate what those objections might be and how they could in anyway be related to the gender restriction which is the only hurdle to the recognition of same-sex marriage.

As for animals, children and chairs: same applies (although I personally think they're all ridiculous). Imagine no gays exist, people could still make those claims, so what's stopping them even if same-sex marriage were banned completely tomorrow?

 

well put.

 

Did anyone ever raise the issue or pose the question directly to them at the time?

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Still there's no denying the fact that many of the same people who fought for eliminating interracial bans went on argue against marriage equality for people in same sex relationships. Those people are extremely hypocritical in my view. I don't see how they can claim other consensual marriages don't deserve equal protection, but an interracial one (like my own) does.

I'm sure if you asked many woman at that time they'd feel very differently.

You'll have to excuse me for being wary of anybody who makes statements like this. I don't think I have to tell you that opposition to SSM wasn't just made up of people actively arguing against it, but it was (and in many places still is) largely people taking a passive aggressive stance against change and for the status quo. Despite "not taking a stand", they argued that same sex and opposite sex couples are structurally different, because men and women are structurally different (literally); they claimed the fact they were banned for different reasons makes it a totally separate issue; they raised all kinds of whataboutery points and claimed each every one of those points had to be addressed before the issue of marriage equality could even be considered for people in same sex relationships.

You're talking about implementation here. The implementation of a legal right is a different issue from acknowledging that fundamental legal right exists. The implementation issues will work themselves out, and in some cases there are already some precedents (e.g. California already recognizes three legal parents for some children of same sex couples.)

 

they are actually not based on the same argument. Children aren't adults. Animals aren't people. The argument is whether sex (male/female) is relevant in marriage. Not your consanguinity, species, class, or presence. The only issue I see as a valid comparison is polygamy. But that argument has likely another 60 years ahead of it. Ssm does not.

 

I must say that for the most part, this thread has been a cut above all others that deal with gay rights issues. Of course there is always an exception ( you know who you are and so do we) but for the most part, the trolls and flame baiters have stayed away.

 

Who?

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court
case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the
freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

What makes you think that? Have you read about the struggle for voting rights?

Women at the time were deeply disappointed that sufferage for women was not also achieved- but they also cheered on African American men getting voting rights. They recognized that African American men getting the right to vote made voting more equal.

 

I frankly don't quite get what your point is.

I think the argument for marriage for other groups of people distracts from the movement for marriage equality for same gender couples.

Same gender marriage is a separate issue from marriage of brothers and sisters and polygamous marriage- and same gender marriage is still teetering on the edge of survival- and will ultimately likely depend on the vote of a single Supreme Court Justice.

As pointed out before- most of those who raise the issue of incestuous marriage and polygamy do so only to derail same gender marriage. I believe that you are arguing from a different position, but your position is one that is being abused by those who would deny equality for same gender couples.

There are different issues and considerations for both incestuous marriages and polygamy compared to same gender marriage- and the question of those relationships should each be dealt with separately.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree and I am surprised.

 

Polygamy has nothing to do with homosexuality.