- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit
Tauro is a very well respected judge-I suspect his opinion will be given much respect
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.
I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.
The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.
Yes, that is their argument, and no, it is not accurate. Polygamy and homosexuality are very different things. One is what a person is, one is what a person does to start with.
I agree, I wasn't saying that their argument is my argument though. I believe that polygamy and homosexuality are two different things and that the same logical arguments do not apply to both for obcious reasons.
Actually, a proper interpretation of the full faith and credit clause makes it clear that CCW licenses are as transferrable as driver's licences.
But, since the Second Amendment doesn't allow for licensing gun ownership, is it any surprise that the Full Faith and Credit clause is also ignored as gun rights are suppressed by tyrannical states across the nation?
But, since marriages ARE covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that means same-sex marriages are also covered. Which is why the federal courts are trying to avoid hearing such cases.
It doesn't say a damn thing about one state not liking the public Act of the other state, it must be given "credit".
period.
It's what the Constitution says, unequivocably.
Except that driving is not a right whereas the right to keep and bear, like the right to marry, are rights.
I'm going to say something, and I'm going to hope that the two of you both understand the level of honesty that I operate at enough to understand that I'm serious.
I think that if SSM is legalized, failing to also legalize polygamy or group marriage would be discriminatory and hypocritical. I think at some point it will be recognized as discriminatory, whether that takes 2 years or 20.
Is there evidence to demonstrate that adult-only polygamous marriage is a societal negative? Not that I know of. Would it be somewhat more complex legally? Yes, but that could be handled... there are legal complications in SSM that aren't as typically encountered in traditional marriage, namely custody issues for children that are genetically the product of one partner and an outsider by consent of the couple. If we can handle that some smart group of lawyers can come up with a legal structure to handle polygamy/group marriage.
So many of the same arguments apply!
How do you know polygamy isn't an orientation? Based on the number of people who have sex with more than one person at a time, one might argue that polyamory is an inborn trait in some substantial number of people.
If it is wrong to deny two gay people who love each other the right to marry, why is it not wrong to deny four people who love each other the right to marry? You're depriving them of the right to file joint tax returns and be each other's legal next-of-kin.
Just as some people associate homosexuality with pedophilia based on isolated incidents, you're associating polygamy with "marrying" underage girls based on a small sample of religious-extremists polygamists.
To be frank, I consider a pro-SSM / Anti-Polygamy position to be hypocritical.
Has there been any research done into whether some human beings are inherently inclined (ie inborn orientation) to multiple partners? What did Kinsey have to say on that subject?
Maybe polyamory isn't considered an orientation because it doesn't have the political power that the SSM movement does...
You can make fun of him all you like but he's right. You cannot exclude pologamy if you allow gay marriage. Not unless you want to become what you claim to be fighting.
There is no argument you could make that could not be called "discriminatory" or "bigoted" the new favorite arguments the left uses against anyone opposed to gay marriage.
I think my favorite argument some on the far left are using is the they claim that polygamy isn't beneficial as if that is a new defining standard for allowing marriage for an alternative lifestyle.
Considering there are 3 times the number of countries that still practice polygamy I'd say its far easier to prove it is more beneficial to a society than allowing 2 homosexuals to marry. That argument made is about the funniest if not dumbest one I've ever seen to try and discriminate against polygamists while in the same breath claim to be fighting discrimination against 2 couple homosexuals.
And that goes for all other alternative lifestyles as well.
I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.
Automatic inheretance and hospital visitation aren't rights. And, those things can be dealt with on an individual basis. The state need not be involved.
As I have repeatedly said, the polygamy issue in the GM debate is a red herring. It is a distraction that anti-GMers bring in as a "the sky is falling" argument.
digsbe said:I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.
Yes, that is their argument, and no, it is not accurate. Polygamy and homosexuality are very different things. One is what a person is, one is what a person does to start with.
Hmmm...."automatic inheritance".
If the state law says the surviving spouse gets all the goodies, what difference does it make if the surving spouse had a penis like the dead guy?
If a couple is married, that statement is enough to inform anyone concerned that HIS will is that his spouse be it She/He/Both, inherits the full estate unless some formal will has been written following that state's legal format. It's really no one else's business.
We're debating Progressives... They're secularists... anti-theists... anti-Americans... who are defined by nothing at all beyond the chronic advancement of deceit and fraud and the raw abuse of whatever power they may come by.
Marriage forces men to marry only women and women to marry only men. Would a law forcing blacks to only marry whites and whites to only marry blacks be constitutional? Is Gender a protected group that we can not discriminate against?
Still waiting for someone to answer this with something other than suggesting its not a common argument so therefore must be flawed.
So what where you doing when I was serving America in war?
Sexual orientation however is a distinct issue... There is no 'homosexual gene'...
You make several mistakes. There are reasons to include marriage of gays but not polygamy. They have been stated. You can ignore them, but that does not make them go away.
No one is claiming that is some new standard. We are stating that is the reason why the government has any argument to be involved in marriage.
The number of countries that allow same sex marriage is not an argument that it is beneficial, and is not being claimed as such.
Huh.. so you feel that serving in the US Military, authorizes you to undermine and advocate for foriegn ideas which are at diametric odds with the immutable principles on which America rests?
Benedict Arnold served in the US military... didn't excuse his subversion and at the end of the day, I doubt it's gonna excuse yours.
Huh.. so you feel that serving in the US Military, authorizes you to undermine and advocate for foriegn ideas which are at diametric odds with the immutable principles on which America rests?
Benedict Arnold served in the US military... didn't excuse his subversion and at the end of the day, I doubt it's gonna excuse yours.
Oh I would really love to hear this argument against poligamy.
You can't claim to be for equality if you aren't actualy fighting for equality. You can't cherry pick your target voting block and your arguments retain any spec of credability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?