Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

Can of worms indeed. But, as Sotomeyor [sic?] herself questioned, once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right, not just for sex but for a slew of other conditions that might appertain? Aside from the ability to require "informed consent" what restrictions can be reasonably imposed? And the argument before the court is very much centered on an individual's right to marry.

[Lemur]

once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

[HoreTore]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN??? THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.

Fair points. Nor am I asserting that allowing same-sex marriages today will mean that next week people will be marrying their pets -- an allusion favored by one of the right-wing radio pundits.

I don't think the government will start sanctioning honor killings within a marriage or paederastic marriages or any of the other silliness that you do hear bandied about.

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

[Papewaio]

Would poly matter if all are consenting non-related (ie the fairly common cult phenomena of uncles and nieces) adults?

=][=

My quip has been if same sex are going to hell, then why not allow them a preview with marriage?

[Lemur]

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable [...]? On what grounds can such a union be denied?

On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change. The law is not an abstract exercise in logic, but rather a clumsy, ham-handed attempt to regulate the affairs of citizens. (Emphasis on "attempt.") Look, Seamus, you've heard the expression that, "A cult is a religion with no political power," right? I would apply that maxim here. A variation on marriage with no political or popular will behind it is marginal, and shall remain so until conditions change. (E.G., we all knew that marriage between blacks and whites was an illegal abomination, until we collectively realized it wasn't. Likewise, we all knew gays were wicked pedophiles who could never marry, until one day ....)

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.

Would poly matter if all are consenting [...] adults?

Our body of law is not set up to handle this sort of arrangement. Consider inheritance. Consider benefits. Consider custody. Consider all of the ways a family can disintegrate, and all of the props and stop-gaps we have set up to manage these events. All can be applied to a same-sex couple with low to no work. Almost none can be applied to a hippie commune in Oregon where eight people married each other. Our body of family law would need to be amended or rewritten from the ground up.

Like I said, big ol' can of worms.

[Xiahou]

On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change.

Popular & political support for something is a great reason for legislative change. It's not a very good basis for Supreme Court decisions. Please don't have the courts invent a right to marry which doesn't exist in the Constitution.

I can't think of a compelling reason to support homosexual marriage personally- but if enough people disagree with me (which looks to be the case), they can change the laws. But don't do it by having the courts abuse the Constitution- it has been tortured enough.

[Lemur]

Popular & political support for something is a great reason for legislative change. It's not a very good basis for Supreme Court decisions.

Well, if you believe the prognostications from sources such as Scotusblog, the justices are of much the same mind. My guess: DOMA gets the beat-down, Prop 8 gets left alone for reasons of standing.

-edit-

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to poly marriages might be ... corporate law. Go smoke that, you dirty hippies!

Consider: What existing body of statutes and precedents covers multiple people entering into binding arrangements?

[a completely inoffensive name]

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.

Why the **** would you spend your 9 dollars at Denny's?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the grounds that there is no popular or political support for such a change. The law is not an abstract exercise in logic, but rather a clumsy, ham-handed attempt to regulate the affairs of citizens. (Emphasis on "attempt.") Look, Seamus, you've heard the expression that, "A cult is a religion with no political power," right? I would apply that maxim here. A variation on marriage with no political or popular will behind it is marginal, and shall remain so until conditions change. (E.G., we all knew that marriage between blacks and whites was an illegal abomination, until we collectively realized it wasn't. Likewise, we all knew gays were wicked pedophiles who could never marry, until one day ....)

One can theorize all one likes about "if we treat X then we must allow Y," but at the end of the day, you're gonna need that argument and (much more importantly) about nine bucks to get a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast.


Our body of law is not set up to handle this sort of arrangement. Consider inheritance. Consider benefits. Consider custody. Consider all of the ways a family can disintegrate, and all of the props and stop-gaps we have set up to manage these events. All can be applied to a same-sex couple with low to no work. Almost none can be applied to a hippie commune in Oregon where eight people married each other. Our body of family law would need to be amended or rewritten from the ground up.

Like I said, big ol' can of worms.

Vis-à-vis popular sentiment, you are quite correct in that there is little support for polymarriage or the like, while a significant body of support exists for same sex unions.

Legally, I concur that same-sex unions based on the tried and known one and one pairing will require little alteration aside from neutering the language. So the doability factor vis-à-vis laws, probate etc. is fairly simple. As an aside, I suspect that contract law and the byzantine nature of probate as is would allow polys and other forms to be handled nearly as swiftly as same sex unions. Yes, more hassles and redefinitions, but what are tax lawyers and actuaries for anyway?

We are a constitutional nation, however, and certain steps -- once connected to that constitution -- can have a profound impact, and even an unintended impact. Dred Scott effectively legalized slavery in all of the states; Miranda established legal services paid for by the state for all citizens. Once the High Court accepts that X is a right, and that Government is limited in its ability to curtail that right (and all of them have Some limitations, as you noted before), then the potential for sweeping and unintended/unquantified changes chaining off that decision is present. That's one of the reasons the High Court is slow to take many cases.

[Lemur]

I suspect that contract law and the byzantine nature of probate as is would allow polys and other forms to be handled nearly as swiftly as same sex unions.

Two men and three women have been raising a little boy. One woman who has functioned as a mother-figure, but is not the biological mother, leaves the group. She demands visitation. Does she have any rights in this situation? She claims to have raised this child since birth.

Eight lesbians have been married, and have (collectively) five children. They all divorce. Please explain custody and visitation.

One man is married to four women. Only the man is employed, and he doesn't make much. How do we calculate poverty programs such as food stamps or welfare? I read somewhere that welfare benefits are capped at two kids. Is that two kids per woman? Per partner? For the entire union? Can the man claim all four women as dependents at tax time?

I'm not saying any of these scenarios are insoluble, just that they present a significantly larger headache than a couple of old hill men tying the knot.

Once the High Court accepts that X is a right, [...] then the potential for sweeping and unintended/unquantified changes chaining off that decision is present.

I understand your point, but you'd have to admit that history is littered with examples on both sides of this, as you make clear in citing both Dred Scott and Miranda. One radically curtailed rights, one radically expanded them, both in unanticipated ways.

It's certainly possible that crazy new rights will be derived from any decision legitimizing SSM, but I don't really know where you go with that. It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

[Noncommunist]

However, if marriage is NOT confined to a one man-one woman definition, why would a polyandrous or polygamous marriage be still be preventable (assuming such things as informed consent; non-fraudulent participants and other generally accepted legal basics are within norms)? On what grounds can such a union be denied? As with same-sex unions, there are a number of such "poly" marriages functioning informally but successfully and rewardingly for the participants even as we converse. Yet those unions, comprised of adults who wish to be united, are denied some of those very same benefits sought by same sexers. As a matter of personal rights, wherein lies the difference that would validate differing treatment by the government?

What truly makes a marriage fraudulent? If it's a contract between two people, why shouldn't they decide what meaning marriage has for them?

It's pretty rare that grand new rights are granted unless there is popular will to do so. Interracial marriage, for example, did not inevitably lead to gay marriage, poly marriage, dog marriage, or any other oddity. It just led to legal interracial marriage (which is still pretty rare). So ... I'm not trying to be dense, and I am most certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not sure where your argument leads.

It didn't? While it hasn't legally been a precedent as far as I can tell, people supporting gay marriage tend to use it as an example when arguing for gay marriage.

[HoreTore]

I have long had the idea of marrying a mate for cha-ching benefits.

I just need to find a benefit I can exploit like a whore, and then I'm a married man.

Edit: and on that note: if any of you, or your friends, wants to live in Norway, but are having trouble gaining access, just PM me and we'll have a proper fake marriage. I don't care one inch about either immigration restrictions nor marriage, so I have no moral qualms whatsoever. I won't need payment either, as I know that can get me into legal trouble. I'm all free, baby!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What truly makes a marriage fraudulent? If it's a contract between two people, why shouldn't they decide what meaning marriage has for them?.

I was referring to such things as: being part of another marriage contract without notifying the would-be partner of the intended contract; not being of legal age to execute a contract; entering into such a contract only so as to pilfer the resources of the new partner -- in other words, fraudulent for the kinds of legal reasons that ANY contract can be considered fraudulent/not executed in good faith.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@MRD: No problem, I apologise if I have been overly-confrontational.

I don't think homosexual marriages would be by any means disastrous, and I think they could be OK for raising kids. Often, alternative arrangements can be better than regular but poor parents. But I still think that a one male/female arrangement is best for the kids, all other things being equal.

[Fragony]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

[Fragony]

Nice results, it only covers a small part of the Netherlands but only 2% is opposed to equal rights for gays. In the area covered a significant part of the population is of non-western descent (read muslim), we are doing just fine here I think. 86% of the overall population has no problem with it at all, two% are deeply opposed, the remaining are neutral on it. Faith in humanity restored

edit, made a tiny mistake, 7% is against gay marriage, of which 2% are against homosexuality alltogether.

[Papewaio]

What percentage are against marriage?
What percentage are in a defacto relationship?

For instance if 7% of the population are against marriage then the stance against gay marriage is the same.

[Fragony]

What percentage are against marriage?
What percentage are in a defacto relationship?

For instance if 7% of the population are against marriage then the stance against gay marriage is the same.

7% are against gay mariage, of which 2% are against homosexual behaviour alltogether. That is not bad at all I think. It's not representative for the whole country though, it's was conducted in a really small area. I would like a national survey on this one as regions in the Netherlands are culturally completely different, someone from the south can't even understand what someone from the north is saying, that different

[Ronin]

Really unfair to deny gay couples the tax-breaks heterosexual couples get. Not so sure where I stand with adoption my views evolutionised, I used to be dead against it, now just uncomfortable, but that's nasty. Homosexual couples should get all the benefits

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

[Fragony]

I should I care how gay people are gonna raise children? I don´t like children anyway, I don´t want any...let them have them.
as long as they teach them to be quiet in cinemas, and airplanes I´m cool with it.

Don't know where I stand, it screams in my face but I can find no reason to be against it without making a fool out of myself. Counterintuitive as it may be, I decided to agree with gay marriage and adoption as the reality allready proved me wrong as there is no problem at all. I have been somewhat stupid on this, mea culpa