What's new

Gay Marriage is GO...

agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.

I absolutely am. My criteria:

- Consenting adults
- No minors
- Open to any mix of numbers and genders
- All partners have to agree to adding a new husband or wife as the new partner would be marrying them all


If a woman marries three men and they are all adults who want it that way then what business is it of ours?

As for custody issues. A few extra lines on a BC are easily fixable. Any of them can make medical, financial or educational decisions. In the case of a divorce the biological parents get first crack after that the other husbands and/or wives.

It could look like this on a BC:

Biological Mother:

Jane Dow

Additonal Mothers:

Judy Dow
June Dow

It doesn't take a genius to butt out of people lives and to simply make room.
 
This is all déjà-vu from Canada of ten years ago.

Gay marriage was legalized. Polygamists started hollering for their marriages to be accepted.


Moved all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evidence showed that members of polygamist families routinely sustain a ton of physical and psychological abuse, to the extent where allowing them was considered a detriment to citizen safety. Thus, the Supreme Court maintained the ban on polygamy.

Yall will figure this out in another five years or so.
 
This is all déjà-vu from Canada of ten years ago.

Gay marriage was legalized. Polygamists started hollering for their marriages to be accepted.


Moved all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evidence showed that members of polygamist families routinely sustain a ton of physical and psychological abuse, to the extent where allowing them was considered a detriment to citizen safety. Thus, the Supreme Court maintained the ban on polygamy.

Yall will figure this out in another five years or so.

Were the cases that went to the supreme court involving only consenting adults? Doesn't sound like it to me. Are there abusive regular marriages? Damn straight. What are we supposed to figure out? That Canada makes Supreme Court decisions that affect everyone based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds legit to me.
 
agree on still having a ways to go...
It didn't seem the hesitation was anywhere near 4 seconds, and it seemed to occur more in deciding what term to use to refer to her girlfriend more so than in acknowledging that she was sharing her joy with someone special to her



and maybe my additional husband would know how to take out the garbage!

So are any of you seriously advocating that polygamy be elevated to a legal status similar to a marriage between two people? Because I'm wondering what parameters you would consider reasonable.

For instance, if two people were married, and one of them wanted to add a third person to the marriage, would the other partner have to agree? And would all three be married to each of the others?

It doesn't seem that you should allow one of the spouses to have a second spouse if it would create an unequal relationship between the three spouses. And, if it is a situation with multiple women, do all the women in the marriage have full custody rights to a child that any of them gave birth to?

Or in the case of multiple men, is it presumed that both are the father of any children born during the marriage, again with full custody rights regardless of what any paternity test might show?

Just curious how you geniuses would work out all these issues.


I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.
 
I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.

Yes but current laws deal with all kinds of scenarios that could be applied to nearly any mix of married and non-married individuals in a polygamous relationship. It would not be very hard to draft legislation to accomplish this, considering that the majority of divorces either end amiably or with full on litigation regardless of the current statutes.
 
Yes but current laws deal with all kinds of scenarios that could be applied to nearly any mix of married and non-married individuals in a polygamous relationship. It would not be very hard to draft legislation to accomplish this, considering that the majority of divorces either end amiably or with full on litigation regardless of the current statutes.

I don't want to write up a huge list of "what ifs" but I think there are unique situations that would be much harder to resolve in plural marriages. It's already messy dealing with divorce as it is and there is a tremendous amount of injustice in the resolutions, especially concerning custody and child support payments.
 
I think you bring up a lot of interesting questions and I don't think they've really been addressed in the other responses.

Where Dutch says gov out of marriage business, that fails to recognize the role of government in resolving disputes and splitting up assets and custody after a divorce. Looks like it gets extremely complicated very fast.

it works in israel!
splitting up the ceremony of marriage as a purely and only religious institute!
and then calling into live a complex set of cohabitation rights which could apply to all sort of odd couples.

basically it is the standard marriage rights, without ever calling it marriage to respect different religions.
 
Were the cases that went to the supreme court involving only consenting adults? Doesn't sound like it to me. Are there abusive regular marriages? Damn straight. What are we supposed to figure out? That Canada makes Supreme Court decisions that affect everyone based on anecdotal evidence. Sounds legit to me.

Sounds like you didn't really dig into the substantiation of the Supreme Court verdict to me. Sure the case was exacerbated by one special case-- but then the court digs deep into research in order to carry one stance or another. Do you know how legal proceedings work?


If you think the Canadian Supreme Court is so stupid that it would let one anecdotal case steer an entire case involving civil liberties, then that's quite telling.



Again, you don't have to believe me. But I'll make sure to holler "told you so" 6 years from now
 
This is all déjà-vu from Canada of ten years ago.

Gay marriage was legalized. Polygamists started hollering for their marriages to be accepted.


Moved all the way up to the Supreme Court. Evidence showed that members of polygamist families routinely sustain a ton of physical and psychological abuse, to the extent where allowing them was considered a detriment to citizen safety. Thus, the Supreme Court maintained the ban on polygamy.

Yall will figure this out in another five years or so.

Well if we're going to ban things based on proof of abuse, rape, incest, etc etc...maybe we should ban reservations too.

Or is this something that's individual to the polygymast colonies BC the government isn't helping them enough?
 
Fwiw, I don't see why the polygamists want it legalized...they benefit from the current system financially. I guess it's probly all about acceptance, they just want people to accept their lifestyle. Anyways, Cappy could probly confirm, but in a poly community in MT, I know all the women who aren't legally married but have kids from the dad do pretty decent bc they get to file as single mothers, even though they do in fact have a husband.
 
Sounds like you didn't really dig into the substantiation of the Supreme Court verdict to me. Sure the case was exacerbated by one special case-- but then the court digs deep into research in order to carry one stance or another. Do you know how legal proceedings work?


If you think the Canadian Supreme Court is so stupid that it would let one anecdotal case steer an entire case involving civil liberties, then that's quite telling.



Again, you don't have to believe me. But I'll make sure to holler "told you so" 6 years from now

Then when is the Canadian Supreme court going to ban cigarettes, alcohol and fast food?
 
Then when is the Canadian Supreme court going to ban cigarettes, alcohol and fast food?

Leave him alone. He is busy being high and mighty in America Jr.
 
Sounds like you didn't really dig into the substantiation of the Supreme Court verdict to me. Sure the case was exacerbated by one special case-- but then the court digs deep into research in order to carry one stance or another. Do you know how legal proceedings work?


If you think the Canadian Supreme Court is so stupid that it would let one anecdotal case steer an entire case involving civil liberties, then that's quite telling.



Again, you don't have to believe me. But I'll make sure to holler "told you so" 6 years from now

Did you read the ruling yourself? It is entirely an issue of religion, not secular polygamy at all. And nothing they did will help to reduce the amount of children being abused in those compounds, but legalizing and then regulating it would. All they did was uphold the current law. What about actively seeking new legislation to address the problems instead of brushing them under the rug with a 335 page ruling that says "since you are all religious nuts you can't have plural marriage....and neither can anyone else"? Nothing ground breaking here, rather just keeping the country in the same situation they have been in for 125 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/...-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html?_r=0

https://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-supreme-court-rules-polygamy-law-is-constitutional

This one says "constitutional but flawed".

VANCOUVER — Polygamy remains a crime in Canada, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman ruled Wednesday. In his ruling, Bauman said the law violates the religious freedom of fundamentalist Mormons, but the harm against women and children outweighs that concern.

Bauman reserved judgment on the landmark case in April, after hearing 42 days of legal arguments during the unusual reference case, with opposing parties arguing the right to religious freedom and the risk of harm polygamy poses to women and children.

The constitutional issue was referred to the B.C. Supreme Court by the provincial government after polygamy charges laid against Bountiful, B.C., Mormon leaders Winston Blackmore and James Oler were stayed in 2009.

While the judge said the current law is constitutional, he raised concerns about the prosecution of anyone between the ages of 12 and 18 being prosecuted for being in a polygamous relationship. He suggested that Parliament look at rewriting the law to exclude the word “everyone” and make it specific to prosecuting adults..

“I think the concern of the judge is the desire to protect children substantively — so if they are prosecuted, and go to jail, the law would harm the child rather than help,” said Monique Pongracic-Speier, a lawyer representing the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, a group that wants section 293 declared unconstitutional.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...amy-laws-upheld-by-b-c-supreme-court-1.856480

This one is a little more subjective. A quote:

"I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm," Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver.

'I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm.'
— B.C. Chief Justice Robert Bauman
"More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage."

Reasoned apprehension is different than based on research. In fact, due to the nature of the beast there is likely little to no research about polygamous lives other than in fundamentalist institutions, so there is really no way to know what impact it would have on society other than in these compounds, which is far from a normal existence plural marriage or no. All this case did was uphold the bans already in existence. It was nothing ground-breaking and far from definitive. In short, there is nothing here for us backwards 'murrcans to "figure out" other than that fundamentalist christian groups practicing child marriage and polygamy is bad. Pretty sure we got that part down.
 
Did you read the ruling yourself? It is entirely an issue of religion, not secular polygamy at all. And nothing they did will help to reduce the amount of children being abused in those compounds, but legalizing and then regulating it would. All they did was uphold the current law. What about actively seeking new legislation to address the problems instead of brushing them under the rug with a 335 page ruling that says "since you are all religious nuts you can't have plural marriage....and neither can anyone else"? Nothing ground breaking here, rather just keeping the country in the same situation they have been in for 125 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/...-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html?_r=0

https://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-supreme-court-rules-polygamy-law-is-constitutional

This one says "constitutional but flawed".



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...amy-laws-upheld-by-b-c-supreme-court-1.856480

This one is a little more subjective. A quote:



Reasoned apprehension is different than based on research. In fact, due to the nature of the beast there is likely little to no research about polygamous lives other than in fundamentalist institutions, so there is really no way to know what impact it would have on society other than in these compounds, which is far from a normal existence plural marriage or no. All this case did was uphold the bans already in existence. It was nothing ground-breaking and far from definitive. In short, there is nothing here for us backwards 'murrcans to "figure out" other than that fundamentalist christian groups practicing child marriage and polygamy is bad. Pretty sure we got that part down.

Lawyered
 
Did you read the ruling yourself? It is entirely an issue of religion, not secular polygamy at all. And nothing they did will help to reduce the amount of children being abused in those compounds, but legalizing and then regulating it would. All they did was uphold the current law. What about actively seeking new legislation to address the problems instead of brushing them under the rug with a 335 page ruling that says "since you are all religious nuts you can't have plural marriage....and neither can anyone else"? Nothing ground breaking here, rather just keeping the country in the same situation they have been in for 125 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/...-court-upholds-canadas-polygamy-ban.html?_r=0

https://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/b-c-supreme-court-rules-polygamy-law-is-constitutional

This one says "constitutional but flawed".



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...amy-laws-upheld-by-b-c-supreme-court-1.856480

This one is a little more subjective. A quote:



Reasoned apprehension is different than based on research. In fact, due to the nature of the beast there is likely little to no research about polygamous lives other than in fundamentalist institutions, so there is really no way to know what impact it would have on society other than in these compounds, which is far from a normal existence plural marriage or no. All this case did was uphold the bans already in existence. It was nothing ground-breaking and far from definitive. In short, there is nothing here for us backwards 'murrcans to "figure out" other than that fundamentalist christian groups practicing child marriage and polygamy is bad. Pretty sure we got that part down.


Dude, it hasn't been six years yet. You weren't supposed to figure this out so soon.

Plus, watch the spoilers...TIA
 
My guts are all twisted inside because.... There is no judicial precedence for my issue. As a bald, fat, hermaphrodite with 15 children, who would get custody and be responsible for my children if I were to divorce my wife? Now that gay marriage isn't an issue, it should be clearer. My issue is that I fathered 8 of them and gave birth naturally to 7 of them. The 7 were conceived naturally by myself (in a moment of passion inspired by watching episodes of Saved by the Bell and Baywatch and a dry spell with the misses if you know what I mean) and proven to be seeded by myself by DNA testing, but my wife has claimed them as her own. Does she have to pay me child support? Of course she has to pay me alimony. Can I get an extra $50 a month for each one? Should I try and reproduce again before I file for divorce? That extra head could buy me an atv. Someone get me a smelly Jimmer sock or preferably his shorts. Any pics of his calves? Dimples? I need inspiration quickly.
 
Last edited:
Judge Who Declines to Do Same-Sex Marriages Says Civil Rights Struggle Inspired His Career/

Ohio Judge Declines -- Citing 'Christian Beliefs' -- to Marry Same-Sex Couple


A Toledo Municipal Court judge who refused to marry a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs said Wednesday that he will seek an advisory opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court on whether he can “opt out of the rotation” for performing marriages.

“On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment. The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best,” Judge C. Allen McConnell, a Democrat, said in a statement, according to Toledo News Now.

“The court has implemented a process whereby same-sex marriages will be accommodated. I will continue to perform traditional marriages during my duties assignment. I am also seeking advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio at this time as to whether or not I can opt out of the rotation. Upon receipt of the advisory opinion from Supreme Court, I will abide by its decision," McConnell added.

Carolyn Wilson said on Monday a bailiff called her and her partner into the hall and told them that McConnell did not perform “these types of marriages,” and although she did not speak to the judge himself, she assumed McConnell meant same-sex marriages, The Blade reported.

After returning to the clerk’s office with the sheriff’s deputy who works in the court, Wilson and her partner were told they could try to find another judge or get a refund.

After McConnell chose not to marry Wilson and her partner, Judge William M. Connelly, Jr., a Republican, eventually married the couple instead.

Connelly said he did so because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized gay marriage.

“My reading of it says we are to perform same-sex marriages,” Connelly said.

Nick Komives, executive director for Equality Toledo, said the couple “didn’t deserve to be humiliated” or “inconvenienced.”

“That's just wrong, and we won’t tolerate it. It is his duty to perform this ceremony, and if he's not willing to perform his duties, he needs to step down,” The Blade quoted Komives as saying.

“I don't think this is a very complicated issue. This court, the Toledo Municipal Court, requires the Judge on duty to perform marriages,” Equality Toledo Board member and attorney Rob Salem said in a statement.

“Judge McConnell took an oath of office when he became judge to uphold the laws of this land. He vowed also to apply those laws as equally and fairly without any regard to his own personal biases and prejudices,” he said.

According to Salem, because McConnell is a public official, he doesn’t have the same discretion that religious clergy do.

McConnell’s job is “to serve all people, not just the people that he likes, Salem said.

McConnell’s decision “calls into question whether or not he’s going to treat LGBT litigants in his courtroom fairly going forward. That's a really an important issue for me; I think that has to be resolved as well. In the meantime, I hope he changes his mind and does the right thing,” Salem added.
 
the Kentucky county clerk who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds that it violated her religious beliefs has lost her case

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pressure-grows-on-clerk-who-refuses-to-issue-marriage-licenses-1441064210

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by a Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue any marriage licenses in the wake of the court’s landmark ruling in June that declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, had sought a stay of a lower-court ruling ordering her to issue licenses to four couples—two same-sex and two heterosexual—who sued her.

Justice Elena Kagan, who handles such applications for the circuit covering Kentucky, referred the petition to the full court, which denied it.

Ms. Davis said issuing licenses to same-sex couples would violate her Christian beliefs. Her office hasn’t issued licenses to any couples, same-sex or heterosexual, since June, defying an order by the governor to do so.

After the four couples sued, U.S. District Judge David Bunning in the Eastern District of Kentucky granted a preliminary injunction in August ordering her to issue them licenses. Ms. Davis “is certainly free to disagree with the court’s opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it,” Judge Bunning wrote. But he stayed his order while Ms. Davis pursued appeals. That stay was scheduled to expire Monday.

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied Ms. Davis a stay of the preliminary injunction, prompting her to file an emergency petition for a stay last Friday in the U.S. Supreme Court....

The case is a test of how to balance religious expression and protections against discrimination, legal analysts say. Ms. Davis is asserting her right “not to have to violate her conscience by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” said Roger Gannam, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit focused on religious freedom that is representing her. Gay couples can obtain marriage licenses in numerous other Kentucky counties, he said.

Ria Tabacco Mar, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the four couples, said public offices should be open to everyone on the same terms. “Government officials who have a sworn oath to uphold the law shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who they’re going to serve based on their religious beliefs,” she said.

As an elected official, Ms. Davis can’t simply be fired.

Similar disputes could arise in other states. In part, Ms. Davis’s legal argument relies on Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a measure supporters say protects people’s religious freedoms, but opponents say offers cover to discriminate against gays and lesbians...
 
the Kentucky county clerk who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on the grounds that it violated her religious beliefs has lost her case

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pressure-grows-on-clerk-who-refuses-to-issue-marriage-licenses-1441064210

Let's say a Dutch's job is to walk 20 feet east, and back, twice daily. Laws change, and he's now required to walk 20 feet north and back once, and east and back once. But for religious(or more likely, iq related) reasons, he is unable to walk north.

You have two options:
1. Remove the walking part of the job from his job description
2. Replace him.

I still don't see why replacing her's out of the question. Her job changed, she won't do it. Not she's neglecting to do it, she downright won't when presented the chance. So find someone who will. If she died, who would fulfill her duties?
 
...I still don't see why replacing her's out of the question. Her job changed, she won't do it. Not she's neglecting to do it, she downright won't when presented the chance. So find someone who will. If she died, who would fulfill her duties?

I believe it is an elected position, so I guess that's why she can't just be terminated. Her "superiors" are the citizens who elected her. And she sets the policy for the office - so they can't just bring someone else in to issue the license if a gay couple applies, because she's not allowing her "office" to issue the license. Or something like that. But I would think she could be jailed for contempt or something. It does seem totally absurd that the situation could just continue in its current stalemate.
 
Back
Top