Polygamy is not SSM. Polygamy is a red herring brought out by those against SSM. The two are not the same thing. I am not going to discuss polygamy, bestiality, incest, or any of the other host of red herrings and distractions. If you cannot make your case about SSM without the red herrings, it has already failed.
If texas wants to discriminate against its citizens and say only a man and a woman can marry, then so be it.
So in actuality, this fight has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality or anything like that but is really more about establishing your definition of marriage as the law of the land versus mine.
non sequitor.
The Right has gotten some flack for wanting a constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the GLBT community definitely has a dogmatic definition of marriage in mind as well. It is a social contract between two consenting adults. Even the mention of Polygamy just angers the pro-gay marriage crowd.
So its time for some perspective. If your state legalized gay marriage, and the courts then overturned the ruling and said marriage is only a covenant between one man and one woman, would you support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a social contract between two consenting adults?
I disagree. The point of this poll is that you have a definition of marriage that you hold to just as dogmatically as I hold to mine. You prove that by not even considering debate on any other form of non-traditional marriage, because in your mind the definition of marriage that you are willing to fight for is a social contract between two consenting adults. It has nothing to do with civil rights, constitutionality, or any other noble cause. It is simply an us versus them for SSM supporters. Am I wrong?
You might want to rephrase your proposition here because there already is a federal ban on polygamous marriage. Polygamy has been illegal in the U.S. since the Supreme Court decided the Reynolds v. United States case in 1879.
You are making assumptions on my support of SSM. They are false.
I'm not sure I get your point.
Maybe you should be asking if people support a repeal on the federal ban of polygamous marriage.
I agree the faster that our government gets back to it's original purpose the better off we will be.Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.
Government should have zero to do with marriage. It is strictly a religious ceremony and all laws and regulations regarding marriage should be struck down.
A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.
The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.First I want to be real specific about something.
Polygamy and polyamory are not the same thing.
Polygamy is basically nothing but a glorified harem. It's on the knife's edge of being something we don't allow in a free country, due to how slavishly it tends to treat women and that there is often a real question as to whether all parties consented.
Polyamory is a love-based relationship that happens to involve more than 2 people, who can be any combination of genders and sexualities.
Polyamory? Yeah, I'm down with that. Polygamy? Not so much.
Anyway, I wouldn't support any constitutional definition of marriage. A constitutional definition of what counts as valid love? Please. That's absurd. And I do think people in polyamorous relationships should be allowed to marry. As long as it involves consenting adults, why does anyone care?
But count me as another who thinks gov should get out of the marriage business all together.
A primary function of the state is to provide a peaceful means of settling contractual disputes. A marriage involves a comingling of property, next of kin issues, joint and several liability and other legal issues. The state has an interest in marriage.
The only trouble with your position is that people generally don’t know enough on their own to set up a contact between them for the courts to use to settle disputes. Given where we are now, I think the government has to a standard ‘marriage’ contract with maybe a dozen options. There would still be ‘religious’ marriages w/o government control. (We had one, not because of a religion, but because we are members of a community.) And there was signing the paper that made us ‘married’ according to the government; it’s a contract. To keep things reasonably simple the government should support a contract to be limited to two adult people and one individual could only be party to one such contract. The contract would provide for all the functional stuff the government recognizes now, e.g. rights of the spouse at the hospital. Religious marriages can still be whatever people want, polygamous, polyamorous, polyandry, etc. The constitution directs the state to stay out of religious marriages.
I would support a constitutional amendment for the government to get out of the marriage business all together, it's just another source of unconstitutional income for the government.
I have to say don't push it you are getting your way one State and judge at a time. It's not the time to risk a big backlash when you're winning.
No, the state has an interest in implied social contracts...marriage is God's territory.
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?