Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue has already been raised right here in Yellowstone County, Montana, a month or so ago.
A married man applied for a license to legally marry his common-law second wife, based on the equal rights wording of the Supreme Court decision about homosexual marriage. The county clerk, when last heard from, was waiting on a decision from the Attorney General about whether to issue the license or not.
We are still waiting.
I find it interesting that when the marriage issue was being discussed long ago, the Civil Contract was brought up as a possible solution to the marriage controversy. IIRC, the LGBT community rejected the idea, stating such a Civil Contract was "against the law".
It was OK to change the MARRIAGE laws, but changing the Civil Contract laws was not possible.
Now some are saying that changing the multiple marriage laws would be too much trouble?
Not if equal rights are involved!
I agree. But the gay marriage activists got what they wanted, so now figure it is time to draw the line, and declare no other changes are possible.
Well that is self evident, but I guess it needs explaining for *some* people. Ummm Marriage by nature, obviously, a long-term relationship that requires the extreme of *loyalty* and *intimacy*, something that many people detest and is precluded by the presence of a THIRD PARTY.
Why would you think that loyalty and intimacy cannot be shared by a third party, three adults committed to each other and to making their relationship work? Just because you cannot understand such a relationship?
You were insisting that Constitution delegates no rights about marriage to states, but 14th Amendment, especially "Due Process Clause" and "Equal Protection Clause" and Section 5 ("The Congress shall have power to enforce...") give federal government enough teetth to go into any state affairs deemed "undue",or "not equally protected". And it's all legal, all within the Constitution.
So,my point is, when you talk about Constitution, don't stop on 10th amendment, take all of them into consideration.
You proved most of my point with this ""The Congress shall have power to enforce". Congress, not the entirety of government.
You evidently haven't digested the 10th amendment. The last 5 words, "or left to the people", should be quite clear government wasn't to intrude into the lives of people. I have never disputed that, I in direct opposition to government intrusion into people lives, Their beliefs and business concerns.
The 4th amendment is being trampled yet we never hear of SCOTUS ruling on those facts. TMZ concerns such as same sex marriage are apparently more pressing than illegal search and murder.
This is how progressive operate. They soothe the immediate raw nerve to placate the masses, while ignoring real matters.
Yay, same sex marriage, now we can go on with our lives as everyone is happy.
Nope, some want gun control and it's a TMZ concern as well. Time to get the guns.
It goes on and on.
Meanwhile...BENGHAZI.
Vote that sow into office and libs can squeal in delight until they realize what they wrought.
I can't even begin to address the level of absurdity, irrationality and evil in your comments. You propose destroying some of the most beautiful notions the human soul has ever given rise to and in the same breath you advocate abolishing gender while imagining that women will carry the species... this makes no sense at all.
Why do you people hate romance and loyalty so much?
First, why would you say "you people?" What do you mean by that? I'm a person, not people. As far as I know my views are my own, or at least they're what I've cobbled together using the disparate parts of my conscious brain. I don't really identify with traditional political parties or even the idea of left and right.
You say my post was "evil," I think my post was completely rational. Culture and society are changing. In fact, the rate of change is increasing as well and so is the rate of the rate of change. I don't think the future of pair-bonding will much resemble pair-bonding of the 1950s. When I say "future" I'm looking at 50 years, 100 years, 500 years out. Not the year 2019. And I'm taking a mostly 'for better or worse' view of how I see things evolving.
I basically said A)I have no problem with consenting adults entering into poly contracts (why would I?), B) the government probably ought to, at some point in the future, move away from the notion of "marriage" and toward the notion of enforceable domestic contracts between consenting adults, C) I think 100 years (or 200 years if you like) from now legal pair-bonding could look very different from how it looks today or looked in the 1950s (for better or worse), and D) I think 1000 to 5000 years from now (which is the *far-flung* future technology-wise, although it's all relative.), if biological humans are still extant, they will by necessity eliminate the monstrous waste of resources and time that is courtship, bifurcated genders, etc. and that I believe women would be far more industrious, far less violent, and overall more capable of carrying the species into that far future. Maybe you'd prefer 1,000,000 years for D).
I guess you're saying marriage is a beautiful notion. If you say so. There's plenty of destroying of that that's been going on on its own. Like several other posters here and on other threads, I find the idea of the government being the arbiter of who gets to have a legal pairing somewhat incongruous and authoritarian. I think we should, at some point, stop calling the government's role in these contracts "marriage." And I don't think gaming the system with poly contracts is fair play, so I would limit some of the financial benefits of contracts including multiple partners.
Oh, I don't believe in the concept of the "soul" and I understand "love" as the human version of a ubiquitous biological trick intrinsic to what we call animals for hundreds of millions of years used to push perpetuation of the species. It's a pleasant neurochemical embrace and motivator but not the end-all / be-all of glory and wonder and benevolence a lot of people wish to make it out to be.
That said, there's much evidence that humans are inherently an extraordinarily social species of animal, and monogamous pair-bonding certainly isn't without precedence among other primates. Scientific American had a really interesting article about this in their September 2014 issue: Our Secret Evolutionary Weapon: Monogamy. But where we came from, where we are now, and where we're going are three completely different things. Civilization is a completely new chapter in the evolution of life on Earth. And we have hardly seen anything yet. It's called progress.
Finally, I like romance just fine. I'll be alive between 1975ish and 2045ish. The sampling rate is much too small. I came of age in the 90s. I've been exposed to all the traditional and modern notions of "love" and I'd be a fool to say they haven't influenced the configuration of my brain and its structures and thinking patterns.
I'm never going to get married but I've been enjoying the company of my girlfriend for just at six months now (we met Jan 27th). It's an open relationship (actually we say we're each in relationships with ourselves, but they're open relationships) but I have no intention of pursuing anyone else in any way while we're together. I'm fiercely loyal and we're child-free. Does that mean we're ready to declare we think we'll be together forever? We think that's kind of silly. We have no idea what the future holds, how we'll change, what other dynamics will appear. If someone comes along who ignites those neurochemicals again for her, she'll move on and I'll endure a neurotransmitter backlash for a bit and get over it and move on.
Although, if we did get a legal pair-bond contract we'd pay $6000 less in taxes each year. The extra $500 / month would help add to our retirement funds (we're retiring when I turn 50, or at least I am). Marriage contracts should cover a limited time with extension provisions available.
No, it's a silly debate. And you are just trolling and baiting. Gays only wanted what others have. To argue that their rights somehow open the door to silly and weird combinations is a hollow argument. In Massachusetts, gays have been marrying for 10 or so years, and I have not heard of any silly situations that you mentioned.
This country is based on monogamy, and if the Muslims want to follow their Sharia laws and keep multiple wives, then they can move to a Muslim country that allows lt. We have a two spouse system, for both gay and straight people. That's it.
Actually from a historic perspective, the part of the Qur'an that allowed men to have more than one wife was after a big war, during which many women and children lost parents and husbands. The Mecca of the time was tribal. A woman's affiliation was based on her tribe. And that came through parents or a spouse. If a woman was orphaned or widowed, she was left with no affiliation. And a woman with no tribal affiliation was left highly vulnerable with regard to her living an financial status. So after that war, men were allowed to take up to four wives from among the woman who were left unaffiliated after their parents or spouses died to protect them and their inheritances. Outside of that specific instance, Islam doesn't allow more than one wife either.
Islam does not allow men to have more than one wife for sexual reasons, or even for religions reasons for that matter, even though a lot of Muslim men claim it does. It really doesn't. It actually discourages men from trying to have more than one wife because they couldn't truly be fair or would not have the financial means to support many women and children.
Many Islamic countries don't allow men to have more than one wife.
I agree. But the gay marriage activists got what they wanted, so now figure it is time to draw the line, and declare no other changes are possible.
Or the two issues have nothing to do with each other, which is a simpler explanation, but will not allow you to express outrage about a hypocrisy which doesn't exist in order to further demonize those horrid gay marriage activists.
A back country man in Montana has one legal wife and another woman living with him (not for religious reasons). He just applied for a marriage license to marry the second woman. It was taken to the state attorney, and it was rejected.
This is now going into the courts going to the supreme court eventually.
Remember that Justice John Roberts said when they made same sex legal, that if they have to accept the fact that same sex couples have the right to marry, then he does not see how they can say no to multiple marriage. This is what the man in the above example told the licensing authority in Montana.
A back country man in Montana has one legal wife and another woman living with him (not for religious reasons). He just applied for a marriage license to marry the second woman. It was taken to the state attorney, and it was rejected.
This is now going into the courts going to the supreme court eventually.
Remember that Justice John Roberts said when they made same sex legal, that if they have to accept the fact that same sex couples have the right to marry, then he does not see how they can say no to multiple marriage. This is what the man in the above example told the licensing authority in Montana.
And I suspect the man was right. The problems will come about as we deal with some of the entrenched aspects of it-for example social security for spouses.
Now that the gay marriage is the law of the land, can anyone truly deny the right for 2 girls to marry the same guy?
I think it's just a question of time before we see a lawsuit from a muslim, and a mormon and all their wives and some lesbian couple to challenge the status-quo. And if they do, I cannot see how the Supreme Court can deny them their right in light of last decision on gay marriage.
It has never been an issue to "discriminate" based on number: Does giving equal rights to women in employment mean that therefore two people or three people have the right to go in and fill one position? Of course not - that's absurd. A case can be made by analogy that giving a "triple" equal rights to a couple is just as far removed from giving lesbians/gays the same rights as straights.
Equal treatment means gays and lesbians have the same privileges as straights. It does not mean that a group of three persons has the same rights as a group of two persons.
If you want that, you need a "LGBTS" movement: "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Supernumerary"!
I'm okay with plural marriages. I wouldn't do it but I'm okay with other adults making that decisions for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
