Marriage is a religious thing? Except it’s not. Not when it comes to civil rights. I wouldn’t want to force any religion to perform a marriage that is against the tenets of their religion, but in return they’re more than happy to impose their beliefs on limiting the rights of others. Hypocrites.
6 Likes
If marriage is a property rights construct, which is at least part of it, then anyone who has dealt with a semi complicated estate should be able to tell you that adding more parties has mess written all over it.
It’s too difficult isn’t a reason to deny people a right to live their lives the way they want. And that’s not the reason people oppose it.
Idiot
1 Like
So for all those people not affiliated with a religion, marriage is not for them? Good to know. A$$hat.
3 Likes
Horsecrap, dear.
Marriage is a contract at civil law.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
… but if you do ask, and the answer is they would not restrict abortion, if I were you, I’d take it with a grain of salt. Those repubs in the south lie like there’s no tomorrow.
1 Like
Pretty much an auto response that mentions the subject at hand but makes no reasonable or useful addition to it or constructive criticism. Your basic word salad that has been sitting on the counter going bad for too long.
2 Likes
Ending gender discrimination in marriage law does not lead either intellectually or within construct of stare decisis that multi-partner marriage can or should follow.
1 Like
The SCOTUS already called it that back in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence”
This guy is a buffoon.
2 Likes
Why can’t we have multiple partner marriages? I mean, sure, we would need to do a lot of work setting up the laws so that everything is equitable and make sure that everyone who wants to be part of the multiple partner marriage agrees to it, but I don’t see any secular reason why such marriages should be banned.
2 Likes
If that’s your fight, then go for it. However there are a myriad of reasons of joint-property, emergency medical decision-making, etc. which are seriously impractical from a legal and practical aspect to give everyone pause for milt-partner legal marriage.
That said, polygamy has nothing to do with ending gender-discrimination in marriage law, which is what the issue of same-gender marriage is about.
1 Like
Look at it from the kid’s point of view. Two parents or one and a fraction?
With polygamy the man may well have so many children that he can’t even attend all their sporting events let alone participate fully in raising them.
Polyandry does not have this problem.
Typical of a religious conservative. Being a Republican may correlate with his being so stupid, but it is his religion that makes him vain, arrogant, malicious and wilfully ignorant. He is so dimwitted as to imagine that religious officiation makes a marriage legal, which it does not. In every state, legal marriage requires that it be done by someone licenced by the state (who need not have any religious affiliation, and many who do this are secular Commissioners) and follow the forms set out in the state Marriage Act, regardless of any church doctrine. The character of the premises (if any) in which the marriage occurs is irrelevant…
It actually isn’t my fight, but at the same time, if thought out well, I have a feeling it would not be entirely impractical. The Celtic Law System, which was written down in a set of 14 books of civil law and 7 books of criminal law, allowed for multiple-partner marriages, and was extremely detailed regarding the rights of everyone involved, what happened in the case of a divorce, and what happened with regards to all sorts of other things. The Senchus Mor, the name of the law system of the Celts of Ireland, made no mention of marriage being restricted to men and women only and the Greeks wrote of instances where they met Celtic families consisting of only women or only men.
1 Like
I would be interested in how wistful he was when referring to polygamy and how his partner feels about his views.
Last I checked, polygamy like pedophilia is a heterosexual phenomena, Freak Show.
I swear to god, they are so out of reasonable people to run, they are asking the lady next door what her reprobate nephew is doing this month, and would he be interested in a job as a candidate / politician.
Very low blow.
If/when a movement to legalize poly unions challenges state laws forbidding it, how might judges rule based on the “Scalia Doctrine”?