The sooner they let gays and lesbians marry, the sooner the divorce shit storm will hit, and the sooner the whole legal institution of divorce, alimony, and child support as we know it will crumble. Bring it on.
Maybe someone can offer a legit reason that polygamy is any more conduct based then any other kind of marriage?
The attorney offered the reasons in the very argument you've listened. Maybe you missed them.
Maybe someone can offer a legit reason that polygamy is any more conduct based then any other kind of marriage?
I'm glad the "melting-pot" has been revealed as the racist, everything-ist idiom that it is.
Our country should be proud of its diversity, but there are different kinds of diverse.
Homosexuality is specifically written against in several religious texts.
Religious freedom means that people can form communities with like-minded people, who often have different views then those presented in the media.
I think the US is uniquely positioned to support diverse communities with different values, while all still being Americans.
its not discrimination.
Its government giving a legal definition to the word. Gays want to marry, change the laws.
Using gay logic, why can't we have polygamous marriage? Why are they discriminating against those people?
Olson's answer to Justice Sotomayor. If a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.
If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status, Olson said.
His answer was the source of my question.
its not discrimination.
Its government giving a legal definition to the word. Gays want to marry, change the laws.
Using gay logic, why can't we have polygamous marriage? Why are they discriminating against those people?
That would be accurate only if you are assuming there was a "gay test" that determined what kind of marriage you were allowed.
There would be nothing prohibiting straight people from marrying someone of the same sex.
In short having a homosexual relationship is conduct, just like having a polygamous relationship.
Perhaps we should have polygamous marriage, but that's a different issue that should rightfully be argued on its own merits. Just because slopes are slippery doesn't mean we're doomed to slide to the bottom every time we take a step, or even that the situation a bit farther down isn't nicer.its not discrimination.
Its government giving a legal definition to the word. Gays want to marry, change the laws.
Using gay logic, why can't we have polygamous marriage? Why are they discriminating against those people?
Do you really want to get into what religious texts say to do to other people? You have some pretty twisted views on what a community is. Community doesn't give you cart blanche to discriminate against minorities. People shouldn't have to worry about losing their civil rights if they move from one area of the country to another. Save your "community rights" for issues that are localized to your community.
Sure, I'm happy to discuss theology and its effects. Communities share common values. Some of them, past and present, are explicitly based on religious values.
A couple examples: The Pilgrims, the Amish, the Catholic community of Londonderry (a city), Jewish boroughs.
Sometimes those values conflict quite radically with the mainstream. In the US where religious freedom was an important part of our founding - and enshrined in the Constitution - communities are free to set their own standards and expected lifestyles.
Marriage has very strong religious connotations. Many religious communities define marriage as being a union recognized by the church; they don't give a damn about what the gov'ment chooses to recognize.
I've heard a number of people (including liberals) suggest letting the religious keep their Marriage label and have the government use something else less specific to refer to all legal unions.
A couple possibilities put forth: garriage, sarriage, civil unions w/ all the rights previously reserved for marriage.
Marriage in the U.S. is recognized to be a power of the States to regulate.
I agree that DOMA is an overreach of federal power and should be overturned.
Separation of church and state is a nice idea but it has inherent limits.
People have to get their values from somewhere- religion, TV, now the Internet (I won't judge here).
...I'm trying to keep my focus somewhat narrow here and not bring the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance into this...
I personally don't see any solid reasoning preventing certain states from legalizing same-sex, polygamous unions, or unions with robots once they get advanced enough (there ya go nehalem256, I'm not an.. objectist?).
Now, banning the above mentioned unions raises different legal questions then acknowledging them in the first place.
lopri has been good about explaining the (laymen's I'm sure, IANAL) legal differences between legalizing polygamy and legalizing same-sex unions.
I'm still mulling over this.
We're talking about laws that affects states and towns. Not groups that have isolated themselves to one degree or another. There's a retardedly immense difference between steering the government to discriminate and what groups that have insulated themselves from outside influences do. The Omish don't demand that the rest of Pennsylvania bar electricity.
Religious freedom means that people can form communities with like-minded people, who often have different views then those presented in the media.
I think the US is uniquely positioned to support diverse communities with different values, while all still being Americans.
The sooner they let gays and lesbians marry, the sooner the divorce shit storm will hit, and the sooner the whole legal institution of divorce, alimony, and child support as we know it will crumble. Bring it on.
Since we're talking about marriage now we are talking about States. Townships can't regulate lawful marriage (though smaller communities may define relationships differently amongst themselves).
I doubt that the Amish would have isolated themselves had they been the majority in a State. They are absolutely against divorce and homosexuality and regulate it to the extent of their influence.
An aside: Divorce isn't a civil right as far as I can tell.
Countries can regulate marriage, U.S. States can regulate marriage.
I was saying, in part, that unlike the legal framework in many other countries, the U.S. can support more differentiated communities within it, in this case potentially protecting religious freedom. Implementation of this depends on right of exit. That is a lot more practical between States then it is between countries.
This does create potential conflicts - one guy being prosecuted for statutory rape after he and his (legally married in another State) wife moved across State lines to where the age of consent was different. But I still think it's the right way to go, rather then the feds (including the U.S. Supreme Court) dictating a single standard for marriage.
Forcing States to recognize out-of-state marriages that their laws don't agree with is a thorny issue and I believe multiple Justices mentioned that during the arguments.
Are you upset at child support because your dad is a worthless deadbeat, or you are? Seems to be the only kind of people upset at caring for a child they fathered is deadbeat human garbage.