Gay Marriage - Legal Question

@cicerone imposter,

3 lashes with a wet noodle to me for insulting cans of tin.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I don't have to declare anything, spendi. Especially, not to you!

What in hell does adultery have to do anything with homosexual unions that doesn't apply to heterosexual unions? Adultery is adultery, but we're talking about marriage, not adultery.

You're one confused Brit.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

And adultery is just as painful for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. My lesbian neighbor cried on my shoulder when her wife cheated on her.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You need to declare your support for the rights of those in polygamous unions to the title "marriage". Otherwise you are supporting the rights of one group to claim that status and not others. Hence you justify single opposite sex unions having the same right. Which was voted for in a free referendum.

Quote:

David Friedman and Steve Sailer have argued that polygamy tends to benefit most women and disadvantage most men, under the assumption that most men and women do not practice it. The idea is firstly that many women would prefer half or one third of someone especially appealing to being the single spouse of someone that doesn't provide as much economic utility to them. Secondly, that the remaining women have a better market for finding a spouse themselves. Say that 20% of women are married to 10% of men, that leaves 90% of men to compete over the remaining 80% of women. Friedman uses this viewpoint to argue in favor of legalizing polygamy, while Sailer uses it to argue against legalizing it.

This same result of polygamy is used to justify it as a way to improve the genetic characteristics in a population. The logic being that women will generally tend to marry men of wealth and health. Wealth has a high corrolation with intelligence, thus polygamy has the effect of increasing the intelligence inside the population that practices it.

In the US, the Libertarian Party supports complete decriminalization of polygamy as part of a general belief that the government should not regulate marriages.

Individualist feminism and advocates such as Wendy McElroy also support the freedom for adults to voluntarily enter polygamous marriages.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, USA, is opposed to Utah's law against cohabitation.

Those who advocate a Federal Marriage Amendment to the American Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage generally word their proposed laws to also prohibit polygamy. Many proponents of same-sex marriage are also in favour of maintaining current statutory prohibitions against polygamy.

There is an argument on the matter. Pretending there isn't is simply wimpy limp-wristism. Justify the last sentence ci.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That was already answered Spendi.

As a legal issue it was decided that the state does have a compelling interest when it comes to polygamy. It's settled law. Trying to bring it up doesn't change the fact that it is settled law.

2 Replies

@parados,

Spendi loves to bring up issues that are non-issues to argue his points. He neither understands definition of words nor the laws that cover the topic at hand.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

typical for spendi to bring specious info into the debate--I agree with you

1 Reply

How about the government stop legislating contractual law-that way, civil unions could include everyone and marriages would be the spiritual province of whatever religion its participants are of. This would also eliminate the fees imposed by the States that issue the marriage permits and not feed their ever-growing girth. Yeah, no state endorsement of marriage of any kind. At the same time, it would eliminate the argument that anyone would be able to marry several persons at once--or even family members or animals (there are still laws about animal abuse and child abuse) or any of the other ridiculous arguments in that vein. Simple contract law--and yes, family friendly, as well. Gay men (like myself) and women already have equality under the law--parroting straight religious institutions with their own credos about marriage seems somewhat pathetic. I wish my gay brothers would do themselves a favor and realize that you can't change organized religious dogma--to do so would force a religion to adopt a belief system they don't accept and by extension, render it meaningless. This issue is really kind of silly to me--man up, put your big boy pants on, see and attorney and estate planner and get everything in writing. You think Suze Orman (who I'm not at all holding up as the ultimate personification of libertarianism by any means) isn't whining about gay marriage--no. She's got it all in writing with her partner probably--it's called a contract.

PS Since the tax cuts are going to once again punish married couples, who needs it, right? If there wasn't state-sanctioned marriage law, there would be no punitive taxes on marriage. But then, income taxes for anyone are punitive and worthy of abolishment--and also Unconstitutional. [Just an aside]

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

That was already answered Spendi.

As a legal issue it was decided that the state does have a compelling interest when it comes to polygamy. It's settled law. Trying to bring it up doesn't change the fact that it is settled law.

Maybe it is to you. It isn't seen from here. Our media drool at any stories about polygamy in the US.

But isn't the referendum settled law? Can homosexuals legally "marry" in Cal. now. At this time. If not, and I can't tell, then its illegality is settled law surely?

If the argument is on settled law I'm not qualified to discuss. It's settled law in most of America and the world that it is illegal. Prohibited might be a better word.

But on principle there is a mystic, poetic, romantic aura about the word "marriage" and all the constellations of words and thoughts surrounding it and I think those who are "married" in the traditional sense don't wish these words to become associated with homosexual unions and particularly those of the masculine variety. We have already seen one very important word change into its opposite.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendi, You're chomping away with nothing in your brain or mouth; the Constitution is the over-riding law of this land. Equal protection under law is what governs our country. You Brits can squeal as much as you please, but you'll only be heard from other small-minded people who fails to understand the Constitution.

1 Reply

re spendi, my understanding is that the Governator has said that same-sex marriages should resume in California, and San Francisco at least wants to start them again, and they've asked the judge to remove the stay that he imposed until the case got bucked up the line. Arnie has apparently changed his mind since he vetoed same-sex marriage.

1 Reply

@YOUNEED2GETAHOBBY,

Quote:

typical for spendi to bring specious info into the debate--I agree with you

Well Ungie you would say that wouldn't you? Your admitted orientation demands it. It will have no effect on me. I hope that the courts don't decide the way you want because you asserted that your opponents arguments are specious.

2 Replies

@spendius,

It's not specious; it's what our Constitution dictates.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I don't think you understand the argument ci. How long was it after the Constitution was agreed before the first state legalised homosexual unions and granted them the status of "marriage"? Where was the Constitution then? We are on the road here not stuck back in the muddy lanes with no electricity of way back when.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

re spendi, my understanding is that the Governator has said that same-sex marriages should resume in California, and San Francisco at least wants to start them again, and they've asked the judge to remove the stay that he imposed until the case got bucked up the line. Arnie has apparently changed his mind since he vetoed same-sex marriage.

My question was specific to NOW. This minute. Not somebody wanting what should be and asking judges and having apparent mind changes.

Yes or no. Tick the box. Pleeeeeease!

0 Replies

@spendius,

my admitted orientation demands nothing of me other than being attracted to the same sex. Get a life. "the personal is the political" is the oldest red herring in the dialectic--the court should decide on the---HELLOOOO---BRAINWAVE COMING THROUGH-- Constitutional validity of the "marriage" between members of the same sex. I guess that living in the former "empire" that you let slip between your fingers is better? I lived in Earl's Court for three years--London's a shithole. I'm glad I didn't make the fool's mistake to stay there--London Pride? I can see Noel Coward turning in his grave...piss off

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Maybe it is to you. It isn't seen from here. Our media drool at any stories about polygamy in the US.

But isn't the referendum settled law?

It is settled law when the courts rule on it. Courts have ruled on polygamy -
http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html

0 Replies

@YOUNEED2GETAHOBBY,

Hoh oh ho and a bottle of rum and hey mi hearties. It's the "get a life" trick. Again. Sheesh!!! As if I could unget one. Do you mean I should get down to your bar in my black leather, studded jerkin and find out what real sex is all about after piss-balling about with those soft, pushover girlies in their frilly laced underwear all these years?

Is that what you mean. I never joined the Boy Scouts because there was a rumour it made rectums burn.

I'm a sissy really. I know.

1 Reply

@YOUNEED2GETAHOBBY,

I'm sorry to read that you couldn't make a go in London.

But there are people who don't think we let America slip through our fingers. They think we gave it the boot. I don't know which side is right or whether, if they were right, they were right to do it.

I've only been in Earl's Court once and I wasn't impressed with it apart from Dylan's performance in 1981.

0 Replies

spendi, it's not settled law yet. It's still in process. The judge's ruling is one of the first steps. He ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional, but his ruling can be appealed, and certainly will be, to the next higher round of courts, so he stayed the effect of his ruling until that future appeal is decided, so, no, gay marriages aren't being done yet. But I wouldn't be surprised is San Fran starts by themselves anyway. They're not being performed in CA, that is, but that ruling doesn't affect MA, so we're still doing them.

1 Reply

Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know