|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 21, 2011 20:48:15 GMT -5
Which are not an Equal Protection issue. Religious protection is given strict scrutiny because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Fair enough. I defer to your much greater expertise in this subject. But I thought... oh, I guess I misread Wiki there and was also getting confused with Perry v. Schwarzenegger (seems it might be called Perry v. Brown now) where they proposed it to be looked at under strict scrutiny, but even that would only impact California. Thanks for the correction. I admit to not knowing too much about these areas, not just for proposing how polygamous marriage would affect them but the laws in general. This is where I think the discussion should really be, but unfortunately most people baulk up at the mere mention of polygamy or how it could legally be applied, and as such I've not seen much about it at all. Beyond that I have to respond to your question with another question, not because I'm trying to dismiss it (far from it, as it's an excellent question) but because I lack knowledge in this area. Is the marriage license treated by those laws enough as a contract that simply expanding the license to have more participants on it would work for the majority of cases? If it isn't, then how hard would it be to make a marriage license in general (even without an increase in the number of participants) act more like a general contract? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 21, 2011 20:59:14 GMT -5
I know you're responding to erictheblue, so I don't want to jump in on him, but I must address that you are entirely wrong in seeing marriage as only being a simple legal contract.
Marriage is a contract that enters two people in an entire legal institution, with a whole set of laws and circumstances particular to it on both the state and federal level. You could get a specialized degree just for marriage/divorce law. It's not like a legal contract where the people entering into it can negotiate the terms: "change that, take that out, add XYZ there," etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 21, 2011 21:29:17 GMT -5
Beyond that I have to respond to your question with another question, not because I'm trying to dismiss it (far from it, as it's an excellent question) but because I lack knowledge in this area. Is the marriage license treated by those laws enough as a contract that simply expanding the license to have more participants on it would work for the majority of cases? If it isn't, then how hard would it be to make a marriage license in general (even without an increase in the number of participants) act more like a general contract? A marriage license is more than a simple contract. Or rather, it is a contract that, by statute, incorporates several other contracts. By definition, a spouse is someone's legal next-of-kin, unless they specifically designate another. This means a person can make medical decisions for their spouse, up to an including ending life support. (Obviously, a living will trumps that, but I'm writing about people who have not written one.) If a person has more than one spouse, which one(s) get to make medical decisions? What happens if the spouses disagree? Those are questions that are not applicable when there are only 2 spouses, but would have to be addressed (by statute) if polyamous marriage was ever legally recognized. Another issue is estates and probate. Each state has statutes which state who inherits the estate of a person who dies without a will. Sometimes just the spouse, sometimes children, sometimes including ex-spouses and step-children. Should polyamous marriage be legally recognized, those statutes would have to be updated to include multiple surviving spouses. This would probably easier, as multiple spouses could probably be treated the way multiple children currently are, but it would still require a statutory change. Another issue, which ties into both of the above, is who is married to who? Are all members of the marriage considered married to each other, or only those who specifically do the paperwork to marry. (i.e. If A and B were married, then A marries C, is B also married to C?) The easy answer is to say "of course everyone is married" or "no, only those who go through the ceremony." But this would require anyone who deals with the group as a marriage unit to know who they can legally listen to. (In the example above, say B is in an auto accident. If the hospitals cannot reach A, can C give permission for treatment?) This would require legislatures to decide what combos are married in their state, since medical (and other) decisions cannot be or based on guesswork. But since marriage laws are controlled by states, that opens the possibility that one state would say "all are married to each other" and another would say "no, only those who formally married are legally married." Which leads to another problem - travel. Going back to A, B, and C from above. Say they live in a state that says "all are married." Then they go on vacation to a state that says "only those who formally married are legally married." B is injured and A cannot be reached. C, thinking of the laws from their home state, gives permission for treatment. The hospital is now civilly liable to A if something goes wrong because no one who was legally able to speak for B did so. (Or even if nothing goes wrong, but A disapproves of the treatment.) That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Polyamous marriage is not as simple as same-sex marriage, because current marriage laws just do not fit when more than one person is involved. Again, those laws can be changed, but it is more than just changing a word here or there. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 21, 2011 22:16:34 GMT -5
There are two different things that will trigger strict scrutiny: 1. The law burdens a suspect class. 2. The government encroaches on a fundamental right. If either of these two things are occurring, then strict scrutiny is used. Because the right to religious freedom is in the 1st Amendment, it is a fundamental right, so even though one can choose one's religion, laws that hamper this will trigger strict scrutiny. Alright, this answers why religion is treated under strict scrutiny, but still does nothing to explain why polygamy isn't as polygamy has historically most often been religious in nature. This should be interesting to see. Yes, human nature is strongly in the latter category. Depends on precisely what you mean by "control" and "relationship" here. People who work closely together, especially for long periods of time in stressful situations, easily develop a close relationship to each other. Often this is purely platonic but it is hardly always the case. I've seen this happen, and many people I know who've been around people long have seen it happen. The number of flings, affairs, and two-timing that break apart intimate relationships is also a clear indicator, especially with the number of third parties that are told, involved, and/or independently notice a lack of intent by the offending party. I admit to not having any hard numbers on them, but the simple fact that it happens with any regularity shows your statement is fallacious. You've lost me here. Who wouldn't fall under which three labels? The way you have it laid out implies that those who desire relationships (of any number) don't fall under the label of those who are in a relationship (of any number), one of those labels being people actively in multiple relationships (or a relationship involving multiple people) and yet while you are then actively accepting it as a separate, distinct group you are also trying to say it isn't. That is not comparable at all. In order to make it comparable, the government would have to restrict all but one form of travel (or, say, not allow you on any motorised vehicles) and then claim they've not limited it cause you still have one option open (and no, requiring a driver's license is not applicable cause you can still hitch rides from friends, taxis, and buses). In order for your example to be comparable it would require the government to allow polygamous marriage and have the complainant's religion forbid them from plural marriage. As is normal two-person marriage, yet we allow that. So again, what's the difference? I am very aware of the fact that the religious ceremony and signing of the legal document are completely separate, as not only am I married (and did both the ceremony and legal signing) I am also legally authorised to officiate marriages. I also fail to see how this as an argument against plural marriage is any different from it being used as an argument against same-sex marriage, or even why it should be restricting the legal union between consenting adults to a maximum of two. Again, where is the secular reasoning for this? You have clearly not thought that through very much (or well). Let's go over a couple examples. Example A: A person is killed in an accident and has no will. They are a single adult and their parents are married. Is their next of kin both parents combined or only a single parent? Example B: A person is killed in an accident and has no will. They are a single adult and their parents divorced after they turned 18. Which parent is considered their next of kin? Example C: A childless couple is killed in an accident and neither have a will. Whose parent's are considered the next of kin? Looking over those three examples, can you tell me how a plural marriage would be treated any differently? Why would multiple spouses complicate next of kin laws more than other multiple parties that can already claim it? This is also something where it is incredibly easy to declare an order for the spouses as being next of kin, without needing more paperwork that it would require for them to join the plural marriage. This is easily accomplished by going in the order their signatures appear on their marriage license. In fact, by overlooking this very simple mechanism while claiming it'd make next of kin confusing further shows you think it is "too hard," which is really another way to say "I don't like it" (or at very best "I don't give a shit"). Come on, treat this seriously if you're going argue at all. What actual secular reason is there to limit marriage to only two people? Alright, exactly how is it different? Don't just say it's different without stipulating how, as clearly I'm not seeing those differences so some examples or other sources would go a long way for educating me about them. You are also somehow missing the obvious point of the discussion which is exactly about how it should be done. You also keep missing the point I keep making about how I know it needs to be changed through the legislature. Please pay more attention to what I am saying than what you want me to be saying so you can make an "easy" argument against it. Well, now you have admitted what you have been clearly demonstrating through your fallacious argumentation, that you do not like it. Know what? If you don't like it, then don't do it, but if you plan on restricting others from doing it then at least have the decency to explain why you feel justified in doing so. Also, too late, as that is exactly the argument you are in, and it has been such since before you voiced anything on it. I'll also say this. If you personally don't want to participate in a plural marriage, that's fine and you don't have to give your reason. The problem is you are trying to say no one should be able to, and yet do nothing to explain why. Please, back your argument up or pull yourself out of it, as doing anything else is just saying "Shut up, that's why."Oh, and for the parts of your post I skipped, see my response to Eric the Blue. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 21, 2011 22:20:11 GMT -5
I know you're responding to erictheblue, so I don't want to jump in on him, but I must address that you are entirely wrong in seeing marriage as only being a simple legal contract. Marriage is a contract that enters two people in an entire legal institution, with a whole set of laws and circumstances particular to it on both the state and federal level. You could get a specialized degree just for marriage/divorce law. It's not like a legal contract where the people entering into it can negotiate the terms: "change that, take that out, add XYZ there," etc. Alright, so its all or nothing. How is that different than any other non-negotiable contract, such as enlisting in the military? Give me something more to work with, either clear examples and/or other resources that explain it, as clearly I am not seeing the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 21, 2011 22:50:09 GMT -5
Isn't a pre-nuptial basically like negotiating terms?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 21, 2011 23:16:58 GMT -5
I really don't understand: You can't expand the number of people in a military contract: people enlist in the military individually. Regardless, there is nothing else I can give you: marriage and divorce law is an entire system unto itself. It is a legal structure in which every aspect is predicated on the fact that only two people are involved.
Yeah, and a law that prohibits polygamists from holding marriage ceremonies and recognizing plural marriages *within their religion* may probably be seen as unconstitutional. But the government is perfectly free to set up its own definition of civil marriage.
The courts are not interested in the dysfunction of the people you surround yourself with. While the exact start and end of a relationship may be a gradual one, marriage law concerns itself only with married people and those applying to be married. There is a finite point when you take someone to city hall with you to apply for a marriage license. It is not difficult to count how many people you are taking with you to fill out a marriage license.
The difference is that the states have chosen monogamy over polygamy as the preferred relationship to recognize in civil marriage. This is the public policy they have adopted. In gay equality states, this public policy is applied equally to everyone regardless of any inherent immutable characteristic of the individual.
For the gazillionth time: same-sex couples are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples because allowing same-sex couples to marry does not require a change in how marriage law is administered. Furthermore, in denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the government is using one's sexual orientation and sex as a barrier to marriage, despite these being inherent, immutable characteristics of an individual, which form a discrete minority (the group of people primarily attracted to members of the same sex as opposed to the group of people primarily attracted to members of the opposite sex), who in addition have born the brunt of a history of discrimination and are in many aspects politically powerless. These four aspects can be used to make a reasonable argument that sexual orientation is a suspect class.
There can be many secular, rational reasons in not wanting to open up marriage to polygamous groups and I provided just one off the top of my head. The rational basis test nearly always results in a win for the government. It's not a hard test to pass.
None of your examples involve married couples. Getting married automatically designates one person as next-of-kin and removes all doubt. Getting married currently SOLVES all of the problems you mentioned in your examples.
Again, this is policymaking on your part. It does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that this must be the way things are done. This can be legislated, but this is nonetheless policy making and cannot be entertained by the courts. Why go in the order of the signatures? Why not go in alphabetical order? Or by age of spouse? These are things that can only be addressed by the legislature.
This is not the case at all. Religion does not even come into play in this analogy. You choose to build a wall in front of your front door. You choose to enter into a relationship with more than one person. None of these choices are forced on you by the government, nor are they the result of any suspect classification.
Under the rational basis test, all the government has to do is provide a "legitimate government interest" and show that the law in question can reasonably be shown to advance that interest. This test is highly deferential to the government and the burden of proof is on the person challenging the law. The government has a legitimate interest in wanting to provide a means for forming stable households, which is dependent on it being entirely unambiguous and without question what the standing between any persons in the relationship is. The best method to accomplish this is by limiting marriage to two people. It is therefore unquestionable what their relationship is to each other, and what their rights and responsibilities are to each other as they are not shared amongst other spouses.
I don't know how it "should" be done in the legislature, nor do I care. I have always been approaching this purely from a civil rights/judicial perspective, that is, to argue that polygamous marriage is not a civil right under current United States case law. That's it. If you know that it needs to be changed through the legislature, then you are agreeing with me that polygamous groups are not due the right to marry as a matter of civil rights. And therefore, we have nothing to disagree about.
Perhaps in another thread. It is exhausting as it is to argue why polygamous marriage is not a civil right. It is exhausting trying to drill into people's heads that arguing if a law is constitutional or not (e.g. laws that limit marriage to couples) is completely different from arguing whether or not a law should be passed or changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 22, 2011 0:28:48 GMT -5
A marriage license is more than a simple contract. Or rather, it is a contract that, by statute, incorporates several other contracts. So in essence it's still a contract, just one that has a very broad range of application? The way that I am proposing it, as I see it as the most realistic way to handle it, is to have all members married to each other. This ensures everyone is aware of all people their partner(s) are married to and that everyone is in agreeance with the (new) contract. Any time a member or members join or leave the contract would be amended to include the change, and would require acceptance (in the form of signatures) by all parties continuing on with the relationship. The reason I am against it being simply a number of two party arrangements is in part the problems you have pointed out for next of kin, and also because that manner does not show that all parties involved know or accept it's happening. Informed consent can only come if a person knows about the other relationships, as marriage at least heavily implies exclusivity (as cheating/affairs are very clear reason for divorce), and that really is best demonstrated by all members signing the same paper/contract every time there is a change. The way I feel next of kin should work is, I hope, fairly simple and fair. First it must be known who is the acting head of household. I feel this is best accomplished by going in order of the signatures. If the head of household (the first signature on the list) is deemed incompetent (such as being the person on life support in a hospital) then the next person on the list is counted as the acting head of household, going down the list as necessary if multiple people are deemed incompetent (such as if multiple people got in a horrible car wreck). By default I think that decisions should come down to the majority of spouses, with the acting head of household breaking a tie. I am open to the idea of some decisions requiring or applying only to the acting head of household, and for some things to only need one spouse's permission (with majority and/or acting head of household being to overrule), but I think that would be in regards to certain decisions (such as ending life support for the former or authorising a child to go on a local field trip for the latter) or possibly as decided by an individual state for the decisions in whole or in part. This would hopefully mean that it is kept simple, prevents one person from holding too much power over the others, while at the same time makes it so that even splits in decisions and other vague situations are easily resolved or avoided. This is where I run into "I don't know." I don't know what differences states have between current marriage laws beyond age of consent and the handful that don't discriminate by sex. I really do not know what other rights and responsibilities change between them and how they handle people from other states where it's different. With what I currently know I would proffer that it goes to my proposed default position of requiring a majority of spousal permission with the acting head of household breaking a tie, but I admit I do not know if this would be an appropriate way to handle interstate issues or not. Yeah, there's a reason I'm not saying it should be done at the same time as same-sex marriage. It definitely does require more effort in figuring out how it should apply beyond removing gender labels from documents. I just don't see how it's really any less a right for three people to marry than it is for two people, irregardless of the sexes of those getting married. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 22, 2011 1:00:16 GMT -5
It's not like a legal contract where the people entering into it can negotiate the terms: "change that, take that out, add XYZ there," etc. Rather begs the question... why not? And isnt that precisely the sort of thing a pre-nup does? Thing I really don't understand... if its perfectly legal for a married couple and a third person to live together in a marriage-like state, or 4 people, or 5, or whatever Heinleinian model of marriage-like relationship one wishes to pursue, what possible reason is there for not making it legaly recognisable through a recognised civil marriage contract? Same argument for gay marriage, really. If people are doing it already, and it isn't hurting anyone... why not give them the recognition they desire? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 22, 2011 7:37:35 GMT -5
It is only a "contract" in the sense that the only provision in this contract is that the parties consent to enter into the legal institution of marriage, which is a system of law unto itself.
This is all policymaking on your part, which the courts do not entertain. In order to win the rational basis test, you cannot offer a different policy and argue that that policy is preferable. Instead, you must prove that the government policy is entirely irrational and arbitrary.
Then you need to re-read all of the above posts by me and erictheblue and open up a Supreme Court decision every once in awhile. Also, "irregardless" is not a word. We have talked extensively about the "similarly situated" standard as well as standards for suspect classifications.
Again, not a question for the courts. Pre-nups can only direct the manner in which assets will be divided in the event of divorce, essentially directing the judge how to determine this rather than have the judge do it him or herself. It does not affect the overlying legal system of marriage, nor would it allow multiple-people groups to get married without having to substantially alter the system.
Read my prior comments. In the legal sense, plural groups are not similarly situated to same-sex couples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 23, 2011 3:42:02 GMT -5
cestlefun17, you apparently lack reading comprehension and the ability to perform even basic argumentation. Please acknowledge the following points and questions as pursuant to The Rules main point 6 sub points 7 and 8: • I have frequently stated that the vast majority of changes to marriage law to allow for plural marriage need to be done through the legislative system. • What secular reason is there to prevent federal law to allow for plural marriage? • Exactly how is a marriage license not a contract? Simply insisting that it is different without stating actual differences simple does not answer this. Additionally I would like to add: • The desire to participate in plural marriage is not a "dysfunction" (your word). I view this as a personal attack as not only am I in a plural relationship, I have such stated under my avatar so there is no excuse for you to not know this. I ask that you either retract and apologise or give a very clear justification for your use of this word. • If the government uses marriage to bring stability to families, then why does it not extend marriage to those families who have more than two adults in a stable, long-term relationship? • What makes a three (or more) party relationship so fundamentally different from a two party relationship that prevents it from having the same or similar rights and protections granted to it? Simply stating "cause it has more people" does nothing to illuminate this. I would also like to direct your attention to the third of my examples, which included a total of three married couples, as well as the first example which had one married couple. It is because of this grievous oversight (among others) that I can tell you are not reading what I have been saying. Please either have the decency to admit you don't give a shit about the topic and drop out, or admit that this is a personal topic of definite importance to some of us and pay attention to what we're actually saying. Oh, and irregardless is a word. It might be non-standard or informal, but that does not change that it is still a word. I suggest that next time you come across a term you are unfamiliar with you Google it instead of making the wild claim it isn't a word. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 23, 2011 4:08:21 GMT -5
It's not like a legal contract where the people entering into it can negotiate the terms: "change that, take that out, add XYZ there," etc. Rather begs the question... why not? And isnt that precisely the sort of thing a pre-nup does? Thing I really don't understand... if its perfectly legal for a married couple and a third person to live together in a marriage-like state, or 4 people, or 5, or whatever Heinleinian model of marriage-like relationship one wishes to pursue, what possible reason is there for not making it legaly recognisable through a recognised civil marriage contract? Same argument for gay marriage, really. If people are doing it already, and it isn't hurting anyone... why not give them the recognition they desire? The world is ending. I agree with LHM and his points in the quoted post. How's hell's temperature? @castlefun: I seriously suggest you answer Oriet's points a lot less offensively and a lot more clearly than you have been. Especially that 'dysfunctional' quip. That's just... I have no words man. It is not for the government to decide how many people one can marry so long as all involved are of consenting ability and age. It is a civil right. Full Stop. The same arguments for and against it are also used in gay marriage. Consenting adults is the biggest factor. I refuse to be told that because I love multiple people that I am touched in the head and I also refuse to have the government [or even a fucking church where polygamy is RAMPANT in their holy texts] tell me I cannot enter into a marriage with all of the people I love and who love me back just as much. The moment you say that marriage, gay, poly or anything else between or among two or more consenting adults is not a civil right is the moment I regard you as an amoeba on a flea on a rat. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 23, 2011 4:18:45 GMT -5
Additionally I would like to add: • The desire to participate in plural marriage is not a "dysfunction" (your word). I view this as a personal attack as not only am I in a plural relationship, I have such stated under my avatar so there is no excuse for you to not know this. I ask that you either retract and apologise or give a very clear justification for your use of this word. And I would like to expand on this and bring to your attention that there are a number of perfectly sane members of these forums that are also in polygamous relationships. You have insulted a lot of people as well as Oriet with this, cestlefun17. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 23, 2011 6:29:53 GMT -5
Additionally I would like to add: • The desire to participate in plural marriage is not a "dysfunction" (your word). I view this as a personal attack as not only am I in a plural relationship, I have such stated under my avatar so there is no excuse for you to not know this. I ask that you either retract and apologise or give a very clear justification for your use of this word. And I would like to expand on this and bring to your attention that there are a number of perfectly sane members of these forums that are also in polygamous relationships. You have insulted a lot of people as well as Oriet with this, cestlefun17. What Damen said. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 23, 2011 8:43:30 GMT -5
So in essence it's still a contract, just one that has a very broad range of application? Yes, mostly. Contracts (as people normally think of them) are goverened by the Universal Commercial Code (UCC), which guides how contracts have to be written, rules that discuss what kinds of contracts are valid, that sort of stuff. Marriage licenses are not governed by the UCC, but by state laws. The problem here is that the courts do not care what you think. Courts make decisions based on stare decisis, or the premise that "we'll do what we have done before" or "we do what higher courts tell us to do." In order to get the courts to recognize polyamous marriage, you would have to find a court that has recognized such marriage (which you won't) or take a court precident and find a way to logically show a link between "this is what you did" and "therefore, you should do this." As has been said before, your other option is to get the legislatures to change state laws. However, again, you run into the issue of legislatures not always doing what the people want. (Or, perhaps in this case, doing what the people want and not changing marriage laws. I honestly do not know what a majority of people believe on this topic.) Or, the legislature can do what is easiest, which might be changing the laws to make polyamous marriage a series of 2-person marriages. (A is married to B, then marries C. A and C are married. A and B are married. But B and C are not married.) Suddenly I am considering switching to Family Law. If this happened, the need for family lawyers would go through the roof.  Having polyamous marriage will not stop such things. What if Person B does not want to be married to Person C? What if Person B hates Person C and does not want Person A to have anything to do with C? What if B just isn't comfortable with polyamous marriage and wants to be monogamous with A? What if C wants to bring in D, but A and B don't approve? This is a matter of personal preference, not one of policy, so most likely would not actually be part of the new laws. Legislatures (in theory) don't want to tell people how they have to live their lives, so would (most likely) not make formal laws that state how each family-unit should organize itself. The other question is "who gets to be the head of household?" First man married? First woman? What if the first couple to marry is same-sex? Again, as this is a matter of personal preference, it is unlikely legislatures would get involved. Meaning there would be no way for outsiders (i.e. medical personnel) to know who the "head of household" is. Just to let you know, things like "how close can people be related and still marry?" From a purely civil rights perspective, I agree with you. On a practical matter, I am not sure those laws could ever be hammered out. But I could be wrong. Thing I really don't understand... if its perfectly legal for a married couple and a third person to live together in a marriage-like state, or 4 people, or 5, or whatever Heinleinian model of marriage-like relationship one wishes to pursue, what possible reason is there for not making it legaly recognisable through a recognised civil marriage contract? Could it be done, theoretically? Yes. Practically? Probably not. There is just so much tied up in marriage laws that would have to be changed, and a lot of that would require the government to tell people how to live their lives. • What secular reason is there to prevent federal law to allow for plural marriage? According to the US Supreme Court... "Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is qually striking and profound... An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion." Reyonlds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-6 (1879). You can argue that none of the Court's objections are valid today, but evidence would be needed. On the other hand, I am not sure you could completely show that the Court's objections are not valid. Sure, they do not cover the relationship that you, specifically, are in. But can you show that polyamy never leads to patriarchy? That one person (or group) never gains power over another? It is a contract, but it is a contract that incorporates many other contracts. I've already pointed out a few ways where polyamous marriage differs from 2-person marriage. So cestle is correct in saying people wishing polyamous marriage are not "similarly situated" to people in 2-person marriage. If that is not what you were asking, could you rephrase your question. Did you look up the definition of the word? According to m-w.com, dysfunction can mean "abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction within a group." Since polyamy is not the norm, it is by definition "abnormal." So it is an "abnormal interpersonal behavior." Please note that "abnormal" does not mean "wrong." It means "deviating from the norm or average." Honestly, because "we've never done it that way!" To go back to Reynolds, " olygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." 98 U.S. 145 at 165.
I am not saying the Court is correct. But that is the answer to your question.
I've already answered that question, as has cestle. "Because there are more people" is the answer since the laws currently do not support more than 2 people in a marriage. As has been stated, the laws could, in theory, be changed. But as I said earlier in this post, I honestly do not believe they will be. Not because I believe polyamy is wrong (I couldn't care less how other people set up their relationships). Simply because I do not believe all the legislatures will want to delve that deeply into people's private relationships. Your relationship is one of equals, which is great. But maybe another grouping perfers each person to have a separate area of control, where others are secondary. Or a group could decide one person makes all the decisions, after consulting with the others (or not consulting). Which group is "correct?" If polyamous marriage is recognized, legislatures would have to decide that question, because outsiders have to know who can and cannot speak for the group on any given subject. ("Little Timmy fell on the playground and broke his arm. Do we call the parent who handles the children, or the parent who handles medical decisions? Or do we call Timmy's biological parents, who may not be either of the above? Uh, who are Timmy's biological parents?") I missed this hypo. Could you point me towards it? cestlefun: I seriously suggest you answer Oriet's points a lot less offensively and a lot more clearly than you have been. Especially that 'dysfunctional' quip. That's just... I have no words man. Is the word offensive? Obviously, since Oriet took offense to it. Is it inaccurate? See above. But the government can and does control who can and cannot marry. That's how we have laws against siblings (or in some states, first cousins) marrying. It is a fundamental right, but restrictions can be valid. Unless I am misreading cestle, he's not saying marriage isn't a right. He's pointing out that there is a huge difference between same-sex marriage and polyamous marriage, and equating the two (other than to say "gays got marriage, so there is hope for polys") is not a valid argument. Of course, I could be misreading cestle. |
|
