SC paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So I wonder what parts of the rulings have "only and just only gays may marry now"? What I mean to say is, with gays storming the county clerk's offices in the interim, during this "legal limbo", what would happen to a polygamist group applying for a marriage license TODAY. Right now, in Salt Lake City?

    What would the clerk be allowed to tell them as they applied and what law would he cite? A dead law is a dead law. Who decides which part of it is dead? Is it the man/woman part? or the a/a part? "Marriage is only between a man and a woman"...

    When you answer, bear in mind the cases are argued on "marriage equality". Equality doesn't mean "just for some consenting adults, but not others".

    This isn't a slippery slope argument. It's an actual "what is legal today?" argument.
     
    Cubed and (deleted member) like this.
  2. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    And it's a good one.

    Once the recognized structure of a Marriage was torn down, it can now be any number of willing bodies and genders. "Happiness" and "love" are not bound by the number 2, anymore than they were with Gender .There can't be any reason to tell any consenting parties no, IMO. People better get to work on rewriting how benefits get divided, and handled when the "party" is more than 2. What a mess.
     
  3. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The state will probably refuse to honor the marriage on tax benefits grounds but once challenged in court, there is no possible way the state will win based on the fact that the people suing (well their lawyers) will be using the exact same arguments the homosexual community used. Since the Supreme Court refused to answer that then the lower court will have to use the precedence of gay marriage being allowed to say that it is allowed.

    To not do so would be blatant discrimination and any court of appeals would quickly find the lower court ruling to be illegal. So yes, I believe we won't have to wait long since I think there are at least three polygamy cases working their way through the court system. There are also a couple of incestuous cases also.
     
  4. CherryPanda

    CherryPanda Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2014
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, slippery slope it is.
    And though I don't mind polygamy (it successfully exists in some parts of the world, doesn't it?) as a concept, I think it might cause some hot disputes and even troubles... The first one coming to my mind: would it be polygamy for men only (discriminating women) or for both genders? And under what terms then?
    The second one, in my opinion, is that it would make a wide road for many other types of human relations...
    But, in fact, I don't think it's really going to happen...
     
  5. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the issue is becoming more up in the air, but in the end, on a legal benefit sense, 2 people is the limit if only because the system is implicitly designed for only 2. Gay marriage doesn't really change much of anything other then names on the certificate and forms, whereas adding multiples partners would require a real over-haul of the benefit system.
     
  6. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    If written laws dont allow people their freedoms, then those laws need to be rewritten to include them. Too hard to recode the benefits is not going to hold up as an excuse to deny the same freedoms we are giving to everyone elses idea of happiness.

    They better start looking at an overhaul since they just blew marriage wide open to anyones desires.
     
  7. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. Interracial marriage laws being struck down didn't automatically pave the way for gay marriage. Why should gay marriage automatically pave the way for polygamy? It takes a societal shift for that to occur, and right now their is no mass societal desire for polygamist marriages to be recognized.
     
  8. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Because Marriage in the past was always a Man and a Woman. Interracial has no effect on this, as they always fit the Man/Woman description. Nothing but omitting any mention of color...it was still the standard union.

    Now we have changed this to suit desire. Everyone has a different set of desires, and we cannot claim some are valid and some are not.

    Once strict Male/Female pairing was tossed out in favor of Desires...a real pandoras box was opened. Now rather than strict rulesets, you are welcoming desires.

    Fundamental change in the backbone of the institution. Removes it from something quantifiable, to something of someones mindset, and as constantly reminded by the Gay activists...societies demand doesnt validate or invalidate a desire.
     
  9. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I don't see much of a change in 'rule sets'. 2 people. Rather then just a man and a women, it can be man/man or women/women. Still 2. Technically, I don't think polygamy should be outlawed if all consent to it of free will, other then when it comes to benefits. Or if a man wants many wives (or vice-versa) then by all means, but the benefits only go to the first 2 partners.
     
  10. RichT2705

    RichT2705 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    28,887
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That might be the way to approach it...kind of like a"primary pair". Of course things like visitation rights would have to go to all. But in any case, thats for people who make a lot of money to figure out, and they better. Once we moved the criterai of Marriage to suit desire, you've got to humor everyones.

    The reason i see it as different is because when it's Man and Woman, it's a logical connection..it's a mating pair, they have reasons to go together. Once you eliminate that requirement, you have entered into catering for desire....this is what opens it up to everyone.

    Sometimes, IMO, rules need to stay in place even if some feel left out or it gets messy.
     
  11. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Primary Pair is a good label for it. :)

    I understand where your coming from, but I just disagree on the idea that just because we have interlocking parts, that is what defines us and our ability to join with someone for the rest of our lives.

    Also, we have had gay marriage since the 90s and polygamy is still illegal (despite various court challenges to our generally liberal justice system), so there is a precedent for my argument.
     
  12. Silhouette

    Silhouette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    8,431
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's no wonder this site doesnt' get many visits. Someone changed my damned title to COMPLETELY misrepresent the topic of the thread so other readers won't notice or reply. Worse, it makes it look like I support the expansion of gay marriage.

    I INSIST you change the title back. Nobody at all will know this thread is about if polygamy is legal today via attrition.

    How dare you?
     
  13. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    have to get a divorce first, only one at a time is what they would say, that applies to everyone equally, no adults are discriminated against based on age, race or gender

    .
     
  14. randlepatrickmcmurphy

    randlepatrickmcmurphy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,797
    Likes Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We know what your threads are about. ALL your threads are about the same thing. You are a one-trick pony that has gotten tiresome.

    We don't need a title to know what ALL your threads are about. "My latest tantrum about gays"
     
  15. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is true. The way that the laws are written now, I, a straight man who is already married to a wonderful wife and with whom we both have a wonderful nearly 2 year old boy, can marry my rival competitor at the big gun store in the city who is also straight and happily married, simply for the tax benefits that the gays were all really fighting for under the guise of all of this "love" nonsense. Love is not admissible in court as evidence, by the way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Polygamy would make those Divorce Court TV shows a hell of a lot more fun to watch! :mrgreen:
     
  16. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You are mistaken. Same-sex marriage advocates repeatedly cited the interracial marriage laws as a reason to allow same-sex marriages to become legal in several jurisdictions. They settled on the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protections clause, which was mistakenly cited as meaning equal protections for everyone on everything, when in reality the 14th Amendment is simply a due process amendment, and the Equal Protections clause was meant to establish that every American is entitled an equal protection of their 5th Amendment due process rights.

    Ironic then, that the way that this entire "marriage equality" trend was snowballed in the federal courts, rushed to immediate rulings without regard to the consequences and proper due process, was called a victory for the gay rights movement and their right to due process. Fascinating, in fact. :nod:
     
  17. Grizz

    Grizz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    4,787
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a massive body of law concerning "marriage", what it is and what it isn't. It isn't polygamy and it is most definitely not cohabiting with animals, both of which are illegal. Rail all you want about "slippery slopes", but neither of those later two are ever likely to be seriously considered in court.
     
  18. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,437
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Then how are men marrying men and women marrying women?
     
  19. cpicturetaker

    cpicturetaker New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    6,147
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "We're here, we're queer and we're hear to stay." I think that was a mantra I heard several years back (or maybe a line from WILL & GRACE). ANYWAY, in another decade, people will be going WTF was all that stupidity all about??
     
  20. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Before the Supreme Court waffled on their 2013 ruling of "leaving it up to the States to decide" by allowing these lower federal court rulings on gay bans as unconstitutional, same-sex marriages were also illegal in those states that banned them. So your logic is rather silly there, buddy.

    The fact is that without any definition of marriage at all, anywhere, then all forms of marriage are now legal because of the Supreme Court's cowardice. Unless you would care to explain to the rest of us just how exactly that "marriage equality" is exclusive only to gay marriages? Go on now. Let's hear it! :nod:
     
  21. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That does not work from a legal standpoint.

    You can not deem something illegal just because it is too hard to fix it.

    It is either legally correct (justification/moral) or it is not.
     
  22. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    One unfair and arbitrary barrier to marriage has been removed. Suggesting that doing so removed all barriers to marriage certification, well that's silly.

    We removed the ban on women voting and yet children, felons, and farm animals still cannot legally vote.




     
  23. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Unrelated events.

    Children can't vote because of a physical limitation (lack of knowledge) and felons could vote until they forfeited that right. A polygamous couple has done nothing wrong and are not under any physical strain that you could legally deny them fair access under the same law you give it to homosexuals.

    That is the very definition of discrimination.
     
  24. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63




    We have many laws that limit the size of corporations, LLCs and partnerships. Limiting the size of a legal entity is not unequal protection under the law. Restricting the composition of that entity by race, religion, or gender is.

    That said, if you really think that separate limitation on marriage is unfair -- argue against it. You might succeed, you might not. But either way it has nothing to do with removing a separate barrier to marriage based on whether the couple has an even or odd number of penises.





     
  25. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has everything to do with it.

    Removing that barrier now has put every other controversial union into play whereas before it was simple, one man one woman = marriage.

    Are you now going to say that if 3 people all love each other that they shouldn't get married? You would deny them happiness?

    Do you see how this works yet?

    Those same arguments used by the gays are going to be used by these other groups and you cannot deny them the same rights without discriminating against them.
     

Share This Page