Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Papewaio]

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to ploy 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?

Alonically a Partnership would perhaps be the closest along with Unit Trusts.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm, thinking about it, the most appropriate body of law to apply to ploy 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?

Don't think so. Corporate law is mostly concerned with defining the legal persona of a fictitious "person" otherwise known as the corp, its liabilities viz legal responsibility for the actions of- and ownership of that persona/corp by the parties known as shareholders. You can choose various flavours/characters of your new persona, LLC, Inc. etc.

OTOH, marriage is about what happens if you pool assets without drawing up the legal paperwork to define a third party (corp) to manage it. Fundamentally you consent to sharing or to co-operation, you do not actually address the question of dividends.

That is before you look at the employer <-> employee entanglement which is part of marriage but not of corporate law: all individuals in the marriage are assumed to have "worked" for it in a way, unless it can be proved otherwise -- hence the fun that can be had with alimonies (golden parachutes if you like).

[Ronin]

The issue is primarily social and moral in nature, for both sides of the argument. Some people see homosexuality as immoral, some people see the denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples as immoral.

actually no....I´m for allowing gay marriage because I don´t care what they do.....it's not an issue that affects me in anyway, and if 2 consenting adults want to do something why should I be against it?
It's called compassion through not giving a

[Fragony]

actually no....I´m for allowing gay marriage because I don´t care what they do.....it's not an issue that affects me in anyway, and if 2 consenting adults want to do something why should I be against it?
It's called compassion through not giving a

Damn right. I have been absolutily wrong about that in the past but I am not afraid to admit that I was an idiot. Learning as I go. There really is no argument to be against it that I can accept anymore really.

[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.

[Kralizec]

That is before you look at the employer <-> employee entanglement which is part of marriage but not of corporate law: all individuals in the marriage are assumed to have "worked" for it in a way, unless it can be proved otherwise -- hence the fun that can be had with alimonies (golden parachutes if you like).

Not quite; unless you make a prenuptial agreement in the Neth's the assets brought into marriage and acquired during will be considered to be property of both spouses together and will be divided equally when they separate. Irrespective of the lenght of marriage or what the spouses actually contributed themselves.
Alimony is entirely seperate from that and can/will be awarded by the judge regardless of wether there's a prenuptial agreement; it can only be waived at the actual moment of divorce and not sooner. It's based on only on the bare fact that there was a marriage, and the height is only determined by ability to pay and the need for it (the latter is fairly subjective)

That's from a Dutch perspective; the legal specifics vary greatly between countries.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not quite; unless you make a prenuptial agreement in the Neth's the assets brought into marriage and acquired during will be considered to be property of both spouses together and will be divided equally when they separate. Irrespective of the lenght of marriage or what the spouses actually contributed themselves.
Alimony is entirely seperate from that and can/will be awarded by the judge regardless of wether there's a prenuptial agreement; it can only be waived at the actual moment of divorce and not sooner. It's based on only on the bare fact that there was a marriage, and the height is only determined by ability to pay and the need for it (the latter is fairly subjective)

That's from a Dutch perspective; the legal specifics vary greatly between countries.

The reason you are getting alimony (pay) after the divorce (termination of contract) is because there is the assumption that whatever assets and jobs managed by the various parties are the result and benefit of the shared work and investment by all parties. Each contributed to make it happen, even if the job/assets happen to be "managed" by only one of them. So because one party holds a much better paying job it doesn't mean all the cash is his/hers for the keeping: the other invested time, effort etc. to make that work previously, so part of the revenue from that job is rightfully his/hers as well. Alimony is simply a means to settle accounts.

True, that is before you factor in the Anglo-Saxon angle into the legal theories. (Basically: all bets are off.)

[HoreTore]

Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.




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.

Lemur:

I am not sure where it leads either. Like you, I don't think that society will collectively say "no rules, marry your schnauzer if you want." You put up some nice scenarios, by the way. Got my head spinning (and a chuckle over the picture). I suspect that we are entering a phase wherein the religious aspect of marriage is going to be decoupled from the civil contract aspect of marriage more or less entirely -- which may be to the good.

I believe that we are not going to stop this redefinition with a simple inclusion of same sex -- and it is relatively simple on the contractual side as you have consistently noted. I suspect we will have a longish pause here, but that change will continue. Perhaps I am too slippery slope in my assessment with this -- I have been wrong before and will no doubt be so again.

I just think that there are more unintended consequences here than, at first, meet the eye.

I enjoy discussing stuff with you. You make me think.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

Hmmmmm. "The" silliest? Not sure that I can agree. There has been quite a lot of woman-hating silliness over the centuries. Alimony was at least an attempt at forcing men to care for the property they were discarding and leaving without resources.

[Lemur]

a chuckle over the picture

That's a pic from the first day SSM was legalized in WA state. Kinda made me teary when I saw it in the news.

I enjoy discussing stuff with you. You make me think.

Likewise, friend, likewise.

[HoreTore]

Hmmmmm. "The" silliest? Not sure that I can agree. There has been quite a lot of woman-hating silliness over the centuries. Alimony was at least an attempt at forcing men to care for the property they were discarding and leaving without resources.

I was referring to the present day

It made sense back in the day when women weren't allowed to work. But at that time, the silliest woman-hating practice was not allowing women to work...

[Kralizec]

The reason you are getting alimony (pay) after the divorce (termination of contract) is because there is the assumption that whatever assets and jobs managed by the various parties are the result and benefit of the shared work and investment by all parties. Each contributed to make it happen, even if the job/assets happen to be "managed" by only one of them. So because one party holds a much better paying job it doesn't mean all the cash is his/hers for the keeping: the other invested time, effort etc. to make that work previously, so part of the revenue from that job is rightfully his/hers as well. Alimony is simply a means to settle accounts.

True, that is before you factor in the Anglo-Saxon angle into the legal theories. (Basically: all bets are off.)

The only reasoning behind alimony is that in a marriage spouses are expected to support eachother, finances included, and that if a marriage breaks down it's not reasonable for the one with no or little income to suddenly suffer an immense drop in living standards while the other one just walks away.
Sometimes (almost always in earlier days) one spouse didn't have a paying job but stayed at home to manage the household, raise kids and whatnot, while the other one works and builds a carreer. It's one of the ways the concept of alimony has been, and still is rationalized, but it's not a requirement in any way.

Not really - marriage stuff and family law in general varies considerably among "civil law" states at well.

Alimony is the silliest woman-hating practice in the western world.

It's gender neutral nowadays, at least over here. So here's your chance - marry a female CEO and let the marriage break down!

Or a male CEO, but not all countries allow that.

[HoreTore]

It's gender neutral nowadays

Completely irrelevant, it's still woman-hating.

[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.

[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