Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 23, 2011 9:07:24 GMT -5
First, the dysfunction comment was NOT in regards to people in polygamous relationships, but in response to this quotation by Oriet (notice it comes DIRECTLY after me quoting it):
I was not referring to people in polygamous relationships but in the "flings, affairs, and two-timing" in the anecdotal evidence ("I've seen this happen...I admit to not having any hard numbers on them.") Oriet was providing, which the courts are simply not interested in.
To address your points:
I pretty much agree with you here! More specifically, I'd say that 100% of marriage law would have to be changed through the legislature. And as I've said before, I'm not interested in talking about this. So if you have no more arguments before the District Court of the District of Cestlefun17, then this conversation is over.
I provided you a rational basis for such a policy, which by necessity is a secular reason. Now perhaps you can provide a better policy to replace it, but this is not how you win the rational basis test. You cannot win the rational basis test by suggesting a better policy and arguing that it is preferable (because courts do not engage in policymaking). In order to win the rational basis test, you must prove that the basis is entirely irrational and arbitrary. This test is highly deferential to the government and assumes that the statute is constitutional. The burden of proof is on the complainant (you in this case) to prove otherwise.
If you look at a marriage license, you do not see all of the terms and conditions of what constitutes a marriage listed. One very clear difference is that the government can change the conditions of a marriage unilaterally: this cannot be done in actual contracts (all parties to a contract must consent to any changes in the contract). If the government wants to pass a law saying "Starting August 1, married couples will no longer receive the $100 tax benefit..." they can do that without requiring any married couple's consent. This is reflective of the fact that contract law and marriage law are two completely different realms of law.
That is a question to address to your state legislators. I am absolutely not interested in discussing the merits of legislatively expanding marriage. To quote the forum rules: "Do not persist on a point or question that another has said they won't address."
Because as I've said a million times before, marriage is an extensive legal construct in which every facet is predicated on the fact that only two people are involved. Whether or not these two people are of the same race, color, sex, etc. does not in any way affect how marriage law is administered as it is currently written. Expanding marriages to include more than two people would require extensive policy change, which the courts do not engage in. Courts can only strike down existing laws; they cannot write new laws. A court could not possibly strike down a law limiting marriage to two people without having to substantially re-write other laws, which they cannot do.
As nothing in those examples implicated a marriage, I felt it unnecessary to address them at length. Nevertheless, I will address example C at your insistence.
If this couple is married and they both die, then marriage law cannot be implicated and so marriage law is not affected. If next-of-kin status is a parent, then the parents of person A are next of kin for person A and the parents of person B are next of kin for person B. As to which parent has more authority, I don't know, but I imagine it is included in statutory law, and as it does not involve a marriage (Person A is not married to any of his/her parents) it has no bearing on marriage law.
"Irregardless" is a word in the sense that it is a phonetic arrangement of letters that has understandable meaning, but is still nonstandard English usage as the prefix "ir" and the suffix "less" cancel each other out. Any dictionary will tell you that "regardless" or "irrespective" are preferable. Regardless, it's not important and it wasn't my place to point it out to begin with.
------
"Consenting adults" is not a reason that would compel the courts to recognize anything (not even same-sex marriage). Consenting adults cannot do whatever they want. You cannot just say "It is a civil right. Full Stop." That is not an argument. Imagine going before a judge and saying "Your Honor, my clients Mr. Smith, Mr. Johnson, and Miss Peterson have the civil right to all get married. Full stop." then sitting back down. Your clients would probably kill you.
Classy. Again, not an argument a judge would find compelling.
---
Erictheblue: You are perfectly understanding me and are immensely helpful in re-inforcing what I'm saying. Except you, like the others, misinterpreted the context of "dysfunction." This certainly has a negative connotation, but it can easily be seen that the quotation by Oriet I was replying to made no reference to polygamous relationships but other things as I explained above.
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.
To address your points:
• 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.
• 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.
Example C: A childless couple is killed in an accident and neither have a will. Whose parent's are considered the next of kin?
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.
------
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.
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.
---
Erictheblue: You are perfectly understanding me and are immensely helpful in re-inforcing what I'm saying. Except you, like the others, misinterpreted the context of "dysfunction." This certainly has a negative connotation, but it can easily be seen that the quotation by Oriet I was replying to made no reference to polygamous relationships but other things as I explained above.
