The Middle of the Road or Not?

There are laws against group marriage, polygamy, and incest, so your stated concerns, IMO, is simply a red herring. All the law would have to say is that marriage is a union between TWO consenting adults, not otherwise proscribed by law.

I have said in the past, and will repeat, that I think that marriage should not be in the province of government at all. Couples, whether gay or straight, should be able to sign a domestic partnership contract, that would afford them legal rights. Then, those who want to be "married" should have their union sancitified in a place of worship.

There are laws against homosexuals marrying now. That's the whole point of the discussion, Phoenix.

What is the point of saying "I don't think that would happen because it's against the law." ????????

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

An adult and child clearly has not met the consenting adults standard.

More than two adults clearly doesn't meet the two consenting adults standard.

Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

Understood, of course. But the point is that these people are being denied their civil rights. The only reason that there is such a fuss about this, is because there are people who are homophobic. Period.

No logical reply just name calling? That's not like you Lash.

OK. I guess we could employ the kindegarten and barnyard animal standard...

And Phoenix, I would certainly tend to agree with you on this solution to the whole issue. I am 100% against gay marriage, for many reasons. But, I absolutely believe that the secular benefits afforded to married couples should be available to non-married couples. But again, I think it needs to be applied evenly across the board to include ANY two people who cannot otherwise marry who wish the benefits of marriage.

I said a parent and their adult child, read carefully.

And how can you limit marriage to only two? On what logical basis?

CR-- That, to me, is a reasonable compromise. At least they get the legal benefits.

Lash including her fruitcake politics has always demonstrated 100% civil rights issues. (now and then even logically)

Are you so sure?

"Last week, a small storm erupted in Canada when the media discovered a government study recommending that Canada legalize polygamy. The study was authored by three law professors at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. The government commissioned the $150,000 study into the legal and social ramifications of polygamy just weeks before it introduced divisive same-sex marriage legislation. Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada last June. "

The article is from a source some will instantly scarf off, so I am looking for a news article that reports this that you will accept.

edit: Here is one link I found. Gmane

Real life. Here is a definition.

MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, able to contract, and have actually contracted.

They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infants; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve; and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marries a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person.

When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question.

Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated:

The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.

Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute.

Impotency, which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable.

Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. And the same provision exists in the French code civil.

The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.

In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Kentucky. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage.

A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws.

Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.

In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country, describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive.

The civil effects of marriage are the following:

It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.

It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband's death, an estate in dower in the husband's lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.

It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.

It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.

The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicile and gains that of her husband.

One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.

The children acquire the domicile of their father.

It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin.

It makes all the issue legitimate.
______________________________

You change what you want. If it's important to you to acheive the right for groups, and parent and child to marry--knock yourself out.

It is important to me for two consenting adults, who aren't related, to have the right to marry.

Do you approve of mothers marrying their sons? If so, by all means practice it, and champion it.

For me, I want gay people to have the same rights as non-gay people. Why do you want to prevent them from having equal rights? How does it help you to keep them down?

To be perfectly honest I can't think of a single reason why polygamy/polyandry should be illegal. We are talking about consenting adults only.

CR's article discusses immigrants from Africa and the ME, who are practicing polygamy, and the legal ramifications of prosecuting a religious behavior.

They are going to prosecute, though.

From what I read, it appears that rather extrememviolence tends to go hand on hand with polygamy--such as child sexual violence and your average garden variety violence. The legality of the marriage makes it very hard to prosecute.

I don't know why we can't marry llamas, though.

extreme violence seems to go hand in hand with good ole christian hetrosexual marriage as well.

We should ban it.

<hee>

I am not willing to help the animal lovers or the polygamists. I will help the consenting adults, who are satisfied married in groups of two. Everyone else is on their own.