|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 15, 2011 22:34:05 GMT -5
There is significant discussion on how it would require an overhaul of how marriages function and the implication that this is a bad thing. That's not personally what I was trying to imply. I'm trying to imply that since we're only just now get to a point where there is political will to allow homosexual marriage (and even that is still somewhat tenuous), now is simply not the best time to attempt to create a legal form of marriage that will require lots and lots time and effort (ergo, political will) from legislatures. It is not a matter of repealing a law or removing a relatively arbitrary requirement from the law - it is rewriting everything. I don't see a real push for polygamous marriage (on the level of the present push for gay marriage) working right now. In fact, I see it setting back the efforts for gay marriage by proving the doomsayers on the right wing correct. Fighting the criminality of it in court (like the fighting of sodomy laws, for instance) is a good stage to be at. Gay Marriage is at the plate right now. Polygamous marriage (the only other "alternative lifestlye" that could be legally recognized) is in the practice circle. Trying to step up before the gay have hit the ball will only screw up both of them. In summation: It's hard, and it should be done. Not just right this minute, and probably not in this decade. Doing this shit right takes a long ass time. Here's a question, is this much different from saying that the LGB should exclude the T for political convenience? |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 22:54:16 GMT -5
I actually disagree that debate should wait. On the contrary, it should begin very soon. Namely BECAUSE it'll take decades to get it all hammered out.
|
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Jul 15, 2011 22:59:53 GMT -5
I think that getting trans-people equal rights is higher on the priority list than polygamous marriage, and is the next big civil rights issue that should be handled as soon as gay marriage is dealt with.
If we try to push every issue through at once, I can only see it ending up backfiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jul 15, 2011 23:05:33 GMT -5
I think that getting trans-people equal rights is higher on the priority list than polygamous marriage, and is the next big civil rights issue that should be handled as soon as gay marriage is dealt with. If we try to push every issue through at once, I can only see it ending up backfiring. This. It has to go carefully, one at a time, so as not to overwhelm the fragile fundy minds. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 16, 2011 3:03:50 GMT -5
And the average person. I mean, sure, the average guy (or gal) is somewhat educated, knows not to stick their tongue into the proverbial light socket, but attempting to engender many large changes at once would be overwhelming. These things take time. Patience is an important watchword when dealing with politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 16, 2011 6:32:42 GMT -5
At the same time, poly relationships happen and a lack of recognition does put us in a disadvantage. I also really can't accept an argument that comes down to "it's hard." "It's hard" is a lazy excuse. While I can see where you could get that from what I wrote, that was not my point. The argument was made that polyamorus marriage would not be any harder than two-person marriage; all that is required is doing paperwork. On the surface of it, that is correct - doing the paperwork would address the issues. But without the paperwork, the laws as currently written raise many unanswered questions. Can laws be rewritten to cover polyamorus marriage? Of course. But look how long it takes to pass laws, then think about how many different areas of law marriage touches. Then remember that family and probate law is covered by the states, not the Federal government, so every state would have to change their own laws. |
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Jul 16, 2011 7:28:43 GMT -5
There is significant discussion on how it would require an overhaul of how marriages function and the implication that this is a bad thing. I've heard the argument that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. No legal benefits or legal recognition, just let it be wholly up to the couples themselves. I'm not sure how well that would work, though. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 9:47:51 GMT -5
It wouldn't work at all because that's what civil marriage is: a legal recognition of a relationship.
And in response to the past few responses: I think everyone is falling into the fundie trap of seeing this as a slippery slope: that granting gay rights should naturally segue into granting polygamous rights. In reality, while civil rights movements may borrow from the past as inspiration, they are each discrete issues *in the eyes of the law*. There is a whole series of standards that come into play when deciding how much scrutiny a law that burdens a minority should receive when judging its constitutionality. The nature of polygamy, as a minority, is entirely different from that of sexual orientation.
Is polygamy an immutable characteristic? Does it form a discrete minority? While I would be open to evidence to the contrary, it seems the answer to these questions is no. One is not polygamous unless one is in a polygamous relationship, whereas one is gay whether or not one is in a relationship or not: this is reflective of the fact that polygamy is mostly a cultural phenomenon whereas gay people exist in every country on the planet.
Furthermore, the "similarly situated" standard would be a hard one to apply to polygamous "couples" vs. two-person couples.
The "It's hard isn't a good argument" statements miss the point: they assume that polygamous marriages should be recognized as a matter of an unstoppable progression of marriage recognition stemming from gay marriage. In reality, they are discrete, separate controversies with entirely different factors at play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 16, 2011 10:20:26 GMT -5
And here I thought Utah would'be been a-ok with polygamy. They have laws against it, but they're hardly policing it from my understanding. Kinda like how Fox News doesn't encourage violence in the technical sense.... |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 10:57:56 GMT -5
No... I just believe in civil rights. Flat out, civil rights. I think it is cruel to tell people they cannot marry those they love, regardless of other characteristics. You do not get it, I don't give a fuck about what the law says. The law does not determine what is right. Laws can be changed for a reason. I do not care if doing what is right means the entire system needs to be dismantled, I care about doing what is right and that is it. Mutable, nondiscrete characteristics (religion is the biggest example) are already protected under law. Also, According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwideThe history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=2No, this has nothing to do with homosexuality, this has to do with a civil rights issue. Especially in a place like Utah where this is not so much about state recognition of their relationship, but because the state expressively forbids a married couple to cohabit with intent to pursue a relationship another person (link). This isn't even at the level of asking for legal recognition, but at the level of asking the state to leave them be. It's the state saying that you don't even have the same rights as others to get a marriage license to recognize even one relationship. You know what, since I know people are lazy and don't click links a lot of the time, I'll post the whole of the law. 76-7-101. Bigamy -- Defense.
(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.
(3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry. That is the law that is being challenged here. That is an unfair law and it deserves to die. |
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Jul 16, 2011 11:02:37 GMT -5
[ Here's a question, is this much different from saying that the LGB should exclude the T for political convenience? The only difference, which as significant or insignificant as one chooses to see it, is that the Trans community generally considers itself part of the same fights as the LGB while most Polygamists likely would not. That said, in a discussion about marriage rights, the typical trans will likely fall into to the monogamous standards of current civil marriage anyways. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for that 10% of population that potentially wants polygamous marriage. It totally does. It would be awesome if the government could just take the stick out and create marriage laws that can handle all the different relationships consenting adult human beings wish to see legitimized. However, that's not reality. Reality is a world where just getting marriage redefined to allow homosexual marriage is about as easy as pulling teeth with a pair of tweezers. The reality is a country where polygamy has been held up as the boogeyman of what will happen after we let the gays get married. The reality is a country where most people associate polygamy with the FLDS and fundamentalist Muslim theocracies. One culture war at a time. I would argue that the polyamorous and polygamists are no where near ready for any kind of big push towards legalization of polygamous marriage. So far as I know, there really isn't any kind of coherent organization there. They at least need some kind of GLAAD equivalent to help control the narrative. I actually disagree that debate should wait. On the contrary, it should begin very soon. Namely BECAUSE it'll take decades to get it all hammered out. Individuals fighting for decriminalization in the courts? Good first step. Campaigning actively for full legalization while another fight for marriage rights is still not over? Bad first step. The "It's hard isn't a good argument" statements miss the point: they assume that polygamous marriages should be recognized as a matter of an unstoppable progression of marriage recognition stemming from gay marriage. In reality, they are discrete, separate controversies with entirely different factors at play. I don't think anyone assumes that exactly, just that any breaking the public conception of marriage as a 1 man, 1 woman binary will make it easier to argue for acceptance of polygamous marriage. The argument would likely not be "we're a minority just like the gays and therefore deserve rights" but instead "we're all consenting adults here, what gives the government the right to outlaw what we wish to do with our own lives?". It could very well be that decriminalization is the best that will ever come of that. We can't really know at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 11:13:50 GMT -5
[ Here's a question, is this much different from saying that the LGB should exclude the T for political convenience? The only difference, which as significant or insignificant as one chooses to see it, is that the Trans community generally considers itself part of the same fights as the LGB while most Polygamists likely would not. That said, in a discussion about marriage rights, the typical trans will likely fall into to the monogamous standards of current civil marriage anyways. I'm not saying it doesn't suck for that 10% of population that potentially wants polygamous marriage. It totally does. It would be awesome if the government could just take the stick out and create marriage laws that can handle all the different relationships consenting adult human beings wish to see legitimized. However, that's not reality. Reality is a world where just getting marriage redefined to allow homosexual marriage is about as easy as pulling teeth with a pair of tweezers. The reality is a country where polygamy has been held up as the boogeyman of what will happen after we let the gays get married. The reality is a country where most people associate polygamy with the FLDS and fundamentalist Muslim theocracies. One culture war at a time. I would argue that the polyamorous and polygamists are no where near ready for any kind of big push towards legalization of polygamous marriage. So far as I know, there really isn't any kind of coherent organization there. They at least need some kind of GLAAD equivalent to help control the narrative. Personally, since I am aware there isn't the actual political will, I'd appreciate the pro-gay groups not marginalize poly people while they fight for equality. I despise it when one minority attacks another in a fight for rights. I also brought up the trans issue because the T has been thrown out from gay rights battles consistently in order to try and get LGB rights. A couple easy examples are that the DADT repeal doesn't do anything for the T and the 2007 employment non-discrimination act started with T protections that were removed from the bill. It's also not a given that the T see themselves as a part of the gay rights movement and it's far from given that the LGB think they belong. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 14:32:55 GMT -5
Well then you cannot participate in a discussion on legal recognition of polygamous relationships. The law does not concern itself with what your personal definition of "right and wrong" is. As I've explained, in the United States there are rigid levels of judicial scrutiny that take into account a myriad of factors. You're right that certain changeable characteristics (e.g. religion) are protected under law, but these factors do not fall under strict or even heightened scrutiny.
And one of these 186 is the United States of America. Your point about humans being naturally polygamous is exactly what I said before: we all have the capacity to be sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. There is not a discrete group of people whose sexual attraction to their preferred sex ceases to exist once they get married, and another group of people whose attraction does not.
Just because it's natural to be attracted to more than one person simultaneously does not necessitate that the government recognize it in marriage. Marriage itself is unnatural: it seeks to create stability and order in our chaotic natural system.
Just because somebody is a minority group does not mean they are necessarily supportive of all other minorities, nor do they have to be. There will be many gay people who are not in favor of legalizing polygamous marriages. Polygamists are not, in any sense of the law, "similarly situated" to two-person couples (gay or straight). This is not a matter of civil rights, at least pertaining to United States case law because you are not being treated differently from anybody else. Everyone, despite being able to have a sexual attraction to a myriad of people, can marry the partner of his or her choice.
In regards to the criminalization of consensual sexual behavior, this is a civil rights issue as it invades on the fundamental right to private intimate contact and privacy (Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558), not because it singles out polygamists as a group. This will be decided on 4th Amendment privacy grounds, not 14th Amendment equal protection grounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 16, 2011 14:33:52 GMT -5
Here's a question, is this much different from saying that the LGB should exclude the T for political convenience? Not directly related, but I've always loved the "gay marriage will lead to polgamy!" shit. Why? Because I don't care!Polygamy does not scare me. Polygamy does not bother me, and honestly, I think it should be legal. The downside here is, I then justify their beliefs that those of us who support gay marriage also support everytihing they fear. You know, because I'm okay with polygamy I think marrying your dog or a tree is fine. Which is stupid. I mean, sure, marrying a tree is okay, but marrying a dog? That's just SICK! >.> |
|
|
|
Post by Magnizeal on Jul 16, 2011 14:48:15 GMT -5
And one of these 186 is the United States of America. Your point about humans being naturally polygamous is exactly what I said before: we all have the capacity to be sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. There is not a discrete group of people whose sexual attraction to their preferred sex ceases to exist once they get married, and another group of people whose attraction does not. Just because it's natural to be attracted to more than one person simultaneously does not necessitate that the government recognize it in marriage. Marriage itself is unnatural: it seeks to create stability and order in our chaotic natural system. Two cents time. Marriage is not unnatural. Marriage is simply the government recognizing what already happens. In a very general and primitive sense; Man bangs woman, woman has a kid, man generally stays with the woman to make sure his kid survives. Boom, marriage. Or, man bangs woman, man bangs other woman, both women get kids. They live together and help each other raise the kids, and the man can stay with them both to make sure his kids survive. Boom, marriage. And the government sees this, the tribal elders, whatever, and goes, hey, if they're one social unit, let's treat them like one for laws. And boom. Marriage. Not unnatural. |
|
