Politics

[Emcee77]

Not that I disagree with you, but there is a problem here tho. The Supreme Court upheld legislation banning bigamy on the general premise that it went against American cultural values (a Christain nation).

Not really. Do you mean the Reynolds case? The long history of anti-bigamy laws was part of it, but the context was whether an 1860's law preventing bigamy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to a Mormon who claimed his religion required him to practice bigamy or polygamy. Neither of the cases being argued this week involves a First Amendment challenge. They are Equal Protection cases.

If you allow DOMA to be stricken down, which called marriage and act between one man and one woman, I cannot see how bigamy or polygamy can be outlawed so long as both men and women have the right to marry multiple people.

It's pretty simple. The federal government has no power to define "marriage" for the states, at least not in the discriminatory way it does in DOMA. If you have a homosexual couple in State A, and a heterosexual couple in state B, both "married" under the laws of their respective states, how can the federal government grant certain benefits to the "married" heterosexual couple but refuse to extend those benefits to the "married" homosexual couple? That sort of discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause.

So you see, striking down DOMA would not prevent the states from outlawing polygamy. It would simply mean that if one state chose to allow polygamy, the federal government would have to recognize people in a polygamous marriage as married. In fact, in the very case you cite in the first part of your post, the Supreme Court upheld a prohibition on polygamy.

But would that anti-polygamy law be able to withstand an Equal Protection challenge, you ask? I think so. There's a big difference between allowing two people of the same sex to marry (marriage remains an institution involving only two people) and allowing MORE than two people all to marry each other at once. Allowing same-sex marriage merely allows every person to participate in the institution of marriage with whichever single person he/she chooses, without discriminating on the basis of sex. It's the same institution of 2 people per marriage; it just doesn't have to be one man and one woman. Allowing polygamy, marriage of three or more people, would be establishing a different institution altogether.

 

[phgreek]

If you are against Compensatory Justice, well, you don't have a heart.

Avowed tinman I am...

 

[Ndaccountant]

Not really. Do you mean the Reynolds case? The long history of anti-bigamy laws was part of it, but the context was whether an 1860's law preventing bigamy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to a Mormon who claimed his religion required him to practice bigamy or polygamy. Neither of the cases being argued this week involves a First Amendment challenge. They are Equal Protection cases.



It's pretty simple. The federal government has no power to define "marriage" for the states, at least not in the discriminatory way it does in DOMA. If you have a homosexual couple in State A, and a heterosexual couple in state B, both "married" under the laws of their respective states, how can the federal government grant certain benefits to the "married" heterosexual couple but refuse to extend those benefits to the "married" homosexual couple? That sort of discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause.

So you see, striking down DOMA would not prevent the states from outlawing polygamy. In fact, in the very case you cite in the first part of your post, the Supreme Court upheld a prohibition on polygamy.

Would that law be able to withstand an Equal Protection challenge, you ask? I think so. There's a big difference between allowing two people of the same sex to marry (marriage remains an institution involving only two people) and allowing MORE than two people all to marry each other at once. Allowing same-sex marriage merely allows every person to participate in the institution of marriage with whichever single person he/she chooses, without discriminating on the basis of sex. Allowing polygamy would be establishing a different institution altogether.

I think if you allow gays to marry, which I am for BTW, the definition of marriage is thrown out the window. I don't think you can limit it to one person to one person. Would you prevent a single woman from marrying a man even though he is already married? If you would, wouldn't that be descriminating against her right to marriage?

I realized that the Reynolds case was more a freedom of religon case, however the reason why the law was passed in the first place was due to the belief that bigamy went against American norms.

 

[Emcee77]

I think if you allow gays to marry, which I am for BTW, the definition of marriage is thrown out the window. I don't think you can limit it to one person to one person. Would you prevent a single woman from marrying a man even though he is already married? If you would, wouldn't that be descriminating against her right to marriage?

I realized that the Reynolds case was more a freedom of religon case, however the reason why the law was passed in the first place was due to the belief that bigamy went against American norms.

I see what you are saying: historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman. If you change any part of that definition, what's to stop you from changing EVERY part of it?

My answer is that the limits are in the basis for the decision: the Equal Protection clause. The Equal Protection clause doesn't mean that every person has a right to everything everyone else has, but it does prevent sex discrimination (well, arguably; Justice Scalia would disagree). That means that Equal Protection prevents us from defining marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman, but it doesn't prevent us from defining marriage as an institution involving only two people.

In your example, there is no sex discrimination. A man who is already married is ineligible to marry ANYONE else, man or woman, because marriage is a contract between two people and two people only. We can limit marriage to two people on whatever policy grounds we want. The only possible ground I can think of for why the woman in your example should be able to marry a married man is the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has already rejected that rationale. But with same-sex marriage, the SEX of the two people involved is the basis for the denial of the right they seek to exercise. That's the key difference.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I see what you are saying: historically, marriage has been between one man and one woman. If you change any part of that definition, what's to stop you from changing EVERY part of it?

My answer is that the limits are in the basis for the decision: the Equal Protection clause. The Equal Protection clause doesn't mean that every person has a right to everything everyone else has, but it does prevent sex discrimination (well, arguably; Justice Scalia would disagree). That means that Equal Protection prevents us from defining marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman, but it doesn't prevent us from defining marriage as an institution involving only two people.

In your example, there is no sex discrimination. A man who is already married is ineligible to marry ANYONE else, man or woman, because marriage is a contract between two people and two people only. We can limit marriage to two people on whatever policy grounds we want. The only possible ground I can think of for why the woman in your example should be able to marry a married man is the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has already rejected that rationale. But with same-sex marriage, the SEX of the two people involved is the basis for the denial of the right they seek to exercise. That's the key difference.

So, the way that I understand the arguments before the court, is that gays do not choose to be gay. So, since people do not choose their natural gender and race, gays should be afforded the same opportunity to marriage as everyone else. Hence, they fall under the EPC.

Under that view tho, what happens to bi-sexuals? If someone chooses to marry someone of the same sex but is not "gay" in the true sense of the word, can they still marry? Could you even test it? I think natural order would be for people to be allowed to marry whoever they want. That disallowing anyone to marry someone on nothing more than moral grounds is discriminatory. I really don't see how disallowing a woman to marry a man that is already married is not discriminatory. Essentially, you are telling that woman, you cannot marry the person you want because it goes against our definition of marriage. Sorry, I cannot see the difference between that and gay marriage.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think if you allow gays to marry, which I am for BTW, the definition of marriage is thrown out the window. I don't think you can limit it to one person to one person. Would you prevent a single woman from marrying a man even though he is already married? If you would, wouldn't that be descriminating against her right to marriage?
...

I tend agree here. The generic marriage-equality position is that "people should be able to marry whoever they want, and if you personally find it "icky" then butt out. It's none of your business".

But there are many arbitrary restrictions on marriage, all of which are predicated on society's "icky" feelings: if you're too young, too related, or too married then you simply cannot marry the person you want. Period. Mostly because these marriages are just contrary to traditional Anglo-Western notions of proper romantic relationships.

So if gay marriage advocates were willing to abolish all arbitrary marriage distinctions, it would go a long way in terms of philosophical consistency.

 

[Black Irish]

People tend to forget about the staid legal distinctions with regard to the gay marriage debate. Other posters have already brought them up (e.g. it's currently not legal for any person, gay or not, to marry a person of the same sex) and the possible legal ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage proponents forget that they are, in fact, seeking special rights. They can yell all they want that gay people seeking to marry are being denied their rights, but that's not the case, legally speaking. A whole new classification of union is on the table, and it's not as simple as 1+1=2.

 

[Bluto]

If gay people want to screw up their lives by getting married who am I to stop them? badabing!

 

[Downinthebend]

Eh, I'm going to go the more libertarian view of "Why do you want the government telling you what to do with your private life?" .

If someone wants to call something "Marriage" and you disagree, that is a religious/moral/ethical issue and not at all (in my opinion) a government one.

 

[chicago51]

I'm not sure what is going to happen.

Been hearing court may dismiss Prob 8 without a ruling.

The SCOTUS hearing DOMA tommorrow. I hpe they strike down DOMA. My hunch is they will. At first I thought they might stick to Obama to let him know he don't make the rules but I think they will rule in favor of gay marriage at least to some extent.

It may possible that while ruling in favor of gay marriage that gay marriage still won't be the law of the land. Instead it will be left up to the states the states with civil unions though will be ruled to have marriage equality.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think there is anything historical about marraige being between one man and one woman. In my entire childhood, teen years, and early adulthood I never once heard anyone describe marriage as between one man and one woman. That definition is a recent invention that was devised to block gay marriage.

But, it wasn't long ago that I heard plenty of folks talking about how marriage was between two white people or two black people, but never between a white person and a black person. Time was that interracial marriage was illegal. That is a thing of the past, and gay marraige will seem every bit as foreign to all of us in 25 years as interracial marriage is to us now.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Talking about how the GOP represents itself, a friend of mine at the CPAC:

 

[GoIrish41]

Talking about how the GOP represents itself, a friend of mine at the CPAC:

Lol. Did they take this picture on the way to a prom? What's with the bow ties?

 

[Downinthebend]

I don't think there is anything historical about marraige being between one man and one woman. In my entire childhood, teen years, and early adulthood I never once heard anyone describe marriage as between one man and one woman. That definition is a recent invention that was devised to block gay marriage.

But, it wasn't long ago that I heard plenty of folks talking about how marriage was between two white people or two black people, but never between a white person and a black person. Time was that interracial marriage was illegal. That is a thing of the past, and gay marraige will seem every bit as foreign to all of us in 25 years as interracial marriage is to us now.

Additionally, states (and federal) licensing of marriage began as a tool to prevent interracial marriages, previous to that generally churches ran it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Lol. Did they take this picture on the way to a prom? What's with the bow ties?

What fools consider classy.

 

[Emcee77]

So, the way that I understand the arguments before the court, is that gays do not choose to be gay. So, since people do not choose their natural gender and race, gays should be afforded the same opportunity to marriage as everyone else. Hence, they fall under the EPC.

Under that view tho, what happens to bi-sexuals? If someone chooses to marry someone of the same sex but is not "gay" in the true sense of the word, can they still marry?

Clearly yes. Why would it matter whether a person is attracted to only people of the same sex or people of both the opposite sex and the same sex? Regardless of the breadth of the range of people that that person is attracted to, if that person falls in love with one particular person of the same sex, and the two of them want to marry, but they can't for no reason other than that they are both male or both female, then they are victims of sex discrimination. I don't think it matters whether either person is hardcore gay or bisexual.

Could you even test it? I think natural order would be for people to be allowed to marry whoever they want. That disallowing anyone to marry someone on nothing more than moral grounds is discriminatory. I really don't see how disallowing a woman to marry a man that is already married is not discriminatory. Essentially, you are telling that woman, you cannot marry the person you want because it goes against our definition of marriage. Sorry, I cannot see the difference between that and gay marriage.

The difference is on what basis you make the distinction. Defining marriage so that it makes sex-based distinctions on who can get married to whom is what brings the Equal Protection clause into play. Similarly, if you defined marriage as a relation between only white people or only black people, the Equal Protection clause would be implicated, because you are making race-based distinctions on who can get married to whom (that's a real case from the 60's, Loving v. Virginia). Making distinctions based on whether a person belongs to a particular class of people is what makes the Equal Protection clause relevant in this case.

However, defining marriage as a relationship between 2, not 3, people simply does not implicate the Equal Protection clause. In that situation there is no class of people which is differently impacted by the law than others. That would be something like saying that a law which prevents you from giving more than one person your power of attorney is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause. There is just no basis for it ... it's a neutral law that wouldn't impact any class of people differently.

By the way, this is sort of hypothetical. Sex discrimination occupies a lower tier in Equal Protection jurisprudence than race. The Supreme Court may see no Equal Protection problem here at all. We'll see what the Supreme Court does ... when the opinion comes out the analysis may look nothing like mine at all, haha.

I tend agree here. The generic marriage-equality position is that "people should be able to marry whoever they want, and if you personally find it "icky" then butt out. It's none of your business".

But there are many arbitrary restrictions on marriage, all of which are predicated on society's "icky" feelings: if you're too young, too related, or too married then you simply cannot marry the person you want. Period. Mostly because these marriages are just contrary to traditional Anglo-Western notions of proper romantic relationships.

So if gay marriage advocates were willing to abolish all arbitrary marriage distinctions, it would go a long way in terms of philosophical consistency.

I get what you're saying, but I look at it differently. The fact that gay marriage advocates want to keep the institution of marriage intact, that they DON'T want to change ANYTHING about marriage, except that they want to be able to marry the person they love even if it's a person of the same sex, is exactly what gives them credibility in making an Equal Protection claim. They don't want to make any radical change to society; they just want the same rights straight people have. No one is saying that we should change restrictions on how old people have to be to get married, whether people of the same family should marry, etc. The only restriction that they want lifted is the sexual one. That the claim is so limited in scope makes it more palatable. Just my $.02.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...The fact that gay marriage advocates want to keep the institution of marriage intact, that they DON'T want to change ANYTHING about marriage, except that they want to be able to marry the person they love...

But that's exactly what makes the position philosophically inconsistent. Their argument is that the current definition of marriage is arbitrary and violates their individual rights. Fair enough. But they don't want to make the law less arbitrary -- they just want to be on the winning side.

 

[chicago51]

Talking about how the GOP represents itself, a friend of mine at the CPAC:

What is ironic is that the EPA was founded under Nixon (a Republican).

 

[Ndaccountant]

Clearly yes. Why would it matter whether a person is attracted to only people of the same sex or people of both the opposite sex and the same sex? Regardless of the breadth of the range of people that that person is attracted to, if that person falls in love with one particular person of the same sex, and the two of them want to marry, but they can't for no reason other than that they are both male or both female, then they are victims of sex discrimination. I don't think it matters whether either person is hardcore gay or bisexual.



The difference is on what basis you make the distinction. Defining marriage so that it makes sex-based distinctions on who can get married to whom is what brings the Equal Protection clause into play. Similarly, if you defined marriage as a relation between only white people or only black people, the Equal Protection clause would be implicated, because you are making race-based distinctions on who can get married to whom (that's a real case from the 60's, Loving v. Virginia). Making distinctions based on whether a person belongs to a particular class of people is what makes the Equal Protection clause relevant in this case.

However, defining marriage as a relationship between 2, not 3, people simply does not implicate the Equal Protection clause. In that situation there is no class of people which is differently impacted by the law than others. That would be something like saying that a law which prevents you from giving more than one person your power of attorney is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause. There is just no basis for it ... it's a neutral law that wouldn't impact any class of people differently.

By the way, this is sort of hypothetical. Sex discrimination occupies a lower tier in Equal Protection jurisprudence than race. The Supreme Court may see no Equal Protection problem here at all. We'll see what the Supreme Court does ... when the opinion comes out the analysis may look nothing like mine at all, haha.



I get what you're saying, but I look at it differently. The fact that gay marriage advocates want to keep the institution of marriage intact, that they DON'T want to change ANYTHING about marriage, except that they want to be able to marry the person they love even if it's a person of the same sex, is exactly what gives them credibility in making an Equal Protection claim. They don't want to make any radical change to society; they just want the same rights straight people have. No one is saying that we should change restrictions on how old people have to be to get married, whether people of the same family should marry, etc. The only restriction that they want lifted is the sexual one. That the claim is so limited in scope makes it more palatable. Just my $.02.

Thanks for the note and viewpoint. As you pointed out, using EPC as a basis to allow bigamy will not happen and I can clearly see that now.

However, this is more than using legal precedent, at least from my perspective. From a philosophical view point, the reason for disallowing bigamy is no different than disallowing gays. It is based on a set of cultural norms at a given moment in time. It just so happens that over the years the view on gays has become more mainstream. That doesn't change the fact that the idea that marriage in the legal sense can only be available to those who conform to a certain view is discriminatroy in of itself. Allowing gays to marry doesn't change that view, it actually enhances it.

I know you are talking strictly in legal terms, but I am thinking more broadly and hopefully this can clear up my stance.

 

[phgreek]

What is ironic is that the EPA was founded under Nixon (a Republican).

KKK was founded by democrats....point is, everbody's party does something monumentally stupid...I jest. Obviously the differences are stark, but its fun to poke the bee hive.

The EPA, in original form had a purpose for sure. It still does. But the fact of the matter is this...it is a bloated agency looking for reasons to exist at levels it never should have.
It absolutely defies logic for a government agency to make progress as the EPA has...and then GROW!

CAA, CWA...all great stuff, and the enforcement thereof is also great...but you need to understand that the EPA is just another Department of Education...should have one, but 100X smaller.

 

[Buster Bluth]

What is ironic is that the EPA was founded under Nixon (a Republican).

You're mixing up "GOP" with "POS." haha

 

[Buster Bluth]

I totally agree with this article:

Katrina vanden Heuvel: The corporate ‘predator state’ - The Washington Post

 

[BobD]

I have never understood how or why anyone thinks it's any of their business what two consenting adults do, as long as they aren't hurting others.

 

[chicago51]

I totally agree with this article:

Katrina vanden Heuvel: The corporate ‘predator state’ - The Washington Post

I agree people at the grass roots levels should want to get rid of corporate welfare. This something both the left and right should agree on. We can argue on weather we should close loopholes to raise more revenue or in revenue neutral way but we should all agree that corporate welfare needs to go.

Go Bulls! Way to end the Heat streak at 27. 1972 Lakers you are welcome. Had to get my shameless plug in.

 

[Downinthebend]

I have never understood how or why anyone thinks it's any of their business what two consenting adults do, as long as they aren't hurting others.

this.

 

[BeauBenken]

I have never understood how or why anyone thinks it's any of their business what two consenting adults do, as long as they aren't hurting others.

Exactly.

 

[magogian]

As other have mentioned, the critical issue with the main argument(s) in favor of SSM is that the justification for redefining marriage from a man and a woman to any two consenting adults does not have a logical limiting principle that would exclude polyamory or other less-accepted arrangements.

So, why do lesbian or gay individuals want SSM? (Let's put aside such all-too-prominent proponents as David Savage and Andrew Sullivan who self-admittedly seek to use SSM to undermine traditional notions of sexuality morality and the institution itself.) The main argument for redefining marriage is that marriage is supposed to recognize and legitimize bonds of affection or romance. Same sex couples, quite naturally, don't want to be told by society that their love is second class. Thus, the argument goes, marriage should be extended to same sex couples.

However, the limit of "couple" is then entirely artificial. Polyamorous individuals (no small number) claim that they only find love and happiness in such arrangements. If the point of marriage is to recognize bonds of affection, how can you justify extending it just to couples and not arrangements involving more than 2 individuals? Any principled limitation is destroyed by the very arguments that are presented to cause the redefinition from one man and one women to two consenting adults.

And this redefinition only further weakens the institution, which straight individuals have managed to devastate all too well on their own with such things as no-fault divorce. If marriage is about recognizing and legitimizing bonds of affection or romance, the norms of marriage--monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence--are rendered (even more) irrelevant. Affection and romance change as many/most married couples will admit. And monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence may in many cases directly contradict with such affection or romance. This redefinition of marriage ultimately leaves it meaning little to nothing other than "I like this person or persons, at least for now. So, give me the societal stamp of approval and tax breaks!"

 

[BeauBenken]

Arguments against gay marriage I've heard are:

• Leviticus 20:13
• Where do you draw the line? Can people marry goats? Pedophilia? Kill people? Just do whatever they want?
• Some sort of effect on the economy (?)
• Changes the definition of marriage

My reply:

• Country of religious freedom means no religion should make up our laws. Besides have you read any of the other laws placed forth in Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Half of us would have been stoned to death by now.
• Marrying goats? Please, you could never know if the goat consented. Underage people are deemed incapable of consenting. Killing people and the likes harms others and infringes upon others' rights as a citizen.
• I don't even know how to respond to this one as nobody has even made sense to themselves when they tried to explain this to me. And even if there was a change, too bad?
• You don't have to acknowledge it as a marriage, but it will be a civil union recognized by the government. Because there is gay marriage, doesn't mean you must change your opinion and agree with it.

Laws are meant to protect citizens and their rights. They should not discriminate or infringe on others' rights.

 

[BobD]

Just out of curiosity........if all parties are consenting adults, why is polygamy bad?

 

[BeauBenken]

Just out of curiosity........if all parties are consenting adults, why is polygamy bad?

I was thinking the same, but it must be ALL parties. If your first wife doesn't know about your fourth, you have some problems.