JJ Rage
Active Member
Polygamy as it stands right now is so deeply associated with fundamentalist Mormons, not to mention women being forced into marriage at a very early age, that I can't see polygamy entering into that conversation anytime soon.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Polygamy as it stands right now is so deeply associated with fundamentalist Mormons, not to mention women being forced into marriage at a very early age, that I can't see polygamy entering into that conversation anytime soon.
Well, I base my opposition to bans on gay marriage on the idea that people should be free to associate with one another in any way they choose, so I would apply the same standard to polygamous marriage. In the end I don't understand why the government has an interest in regulating this issue. And before someone mentions getting married to their dog, all parties involved have to be capable of consenting (in the legal sense), so dogs and children are out of the running.
Hopper
Banned
Game, do you see any reason why the government is regulating "marriages" at all? I mean, why should someone need a "license" to get married, and why should the government get involved in "divorce proceedings?"
Well, I don't see any reason for the government to get involved in allowing this or that type of marriage. But keeping track of the contractual relationship that goes along with marriage is another thing.
I don't like having to have a license to do things, like fishing or hunting, or even driving, but I understand why they exist. In my perfect world they would not, but the world we live in is not "my perfect world" and the differences are so great that you really can't get there (to my perfect world) from here. So I understand that the government wants to keep track of whose getting married. Keeping track of marriages I consider to be ok, keeping control of it is not.
I made an earlier comment that the only relationship the government should recognize is a civil union. Basically what I'm saying is that the government only needs to keep track of the contracts people form in these types of relationships. The gender and number of participants isn't important, just the fact that a binding relationship has been formed (kicky, feel free to correct me if I use a term that has legal implications incorrectly).
The keeping track of these things becomes important when there is a dispute over common property. If the relationships is completely informal (we're married because we say we are) then sorting out what belongs to whom could be nearly impossible. I suppose marriages, or civil unions, could be done by private contract and only require a notary public seal to serve this purpose. That would be a lot closer to what I would consider ideal. In that case there would be little or no need for special divorce courts and specialized law pertaining to marriage, it would be a straight-up contract issue based on the agreement details that all parties signed.
I think that as things are it is necessary for a court to make determinations in any contested divorce. If they were not then it would be easy for one of the parties to take control of all the household property and send the other party onto the street empty handed and with no recourse. The government fills a legitimate role in enforcing contracts. No other entity can do it correctly, unless you would consider paid thugs to be a legitimate form of contract enforcement. If that's the case we can look to street gangs and drug cartels for guidance. They run multi-billion dollar, international enterprises completely outside any legal oversight, or legal contract enforcement.
in response to a couple of points raised above:
1 - Regarding polygamy (or plural marriage or whatever it's called), if it is legal, would all parties have to agree to each new relationship? In other words, if a man who is married to one woman wishes to marry a second woman, then not only would the second woman have to consent to marry the man, but the two women would have to consent to marry each other. In that sense, those members of the LDS faith who support the concept of plural marriage also support the concept of same sex marriage.
2 - Property rights: There are plenty of other mechanisms besides marriage to set up ownership rights for things such as bank accounts, life insurance policies, real estate, automobiles etc, and for things like that, the idea of a "multiple" relationship is perfectly legal. Three people can be on a bank account, a lease, a mortgage note, etc and or trusts can be set up to include more people or more complicated relationships. There are certainly aspects of ownership that are more automatically determined if two people are married, but marriage is certainly not the only way to establish ownership rights for property.
3 - Children. I do believe that the "state" (society, whatever) has an obligation to protect children. To the extent that a "marriage" identifies to the state that there are two adults responsible for the care and protection of the children in that family, that simplifies the job of the government. If there was no "marriage" and all children had only one official parent, then if that parent died or was incapacitated, it would become the state's responsibility to ensure that the child was being taken care of. So having a mechanism such as marriage makes the state's job a little easier.
1 - Regarding polygamy (or plural marriage or whatever it's called), if it is legal, would all parties have to agree to each new relationship? In other words, if a man who is married to one woman wishes to marry a second woman, then not only would the second woman have to consent to marry the man, but the two women would have to consent to marry each other. In that sense, those members of the LDS faith who support the concept of plural marriage also support the concept of same sex marriage.
2 - Property rights: There are plenty of other mechanisms besides marriage to set up ownership rights for things such as bank accounts, life insurance policies, real estate, automobiles etc, and for things like that, the idea of a "multiple" relationship is perfectly legal. Three people can be on a bank account, a lease, a mortgage note, etc and or trusts can be set up to include more people or more complicated relationships. There are certainly aspects of ownership that are more automatically determined if two people are married, but marriage is certainly not the only way to establish ownership rights for property.
3 - Children. I do believe that the "state" (society, whatever) has an obligation to protect children. To the extent that a "marriage" identifies to the state that there are two adults responsible for the care and protection of the children in that family, that simplifies the job of the government. If there was no "marriage" and all children had only one official parent, then if that parent died or was incapacitated, it would become the state's responsibility to ensure that the child was being taken care of. So having a mechanism such as marriage makes the state's job a little easier.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Can I ask you and I'm serious? Have you ever had a BJ? I'm dead serious.
Hopper
Banned
You ask some good questions and make some good points here, Mo. Lemme ax a question about chillinz. As I understand it, in some states (CA for example) a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of any children borne by his wife. In other words, even if some other guy admitted he was the true father, even if you had not had sex with your wife for a year, even if DNA tests proved otherwise, etc. the husband would be responsible for maintaining that child, even if he divorces his current "wife" tomorrow. This seems to be a case where the legal status of "marriage" makes it easy for the State to pin responsibility on *somebody* and (they hope) relieve it from any burden in that respect. Is this a good use of marital status (keeping track, in Game's words) in your opinion? I think it sucks, personally.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Aren't people pretty much "free to associate" with others in any way they choose, with or without marriage, Game? I can be married and still cohabitate with 6 women, can't I? I can be as homosexual as I choose. I'm even free to indulge in bestiality, married or not. How does marriage make any one more or less "free" in that regard (associations)?
Hopper
Banned
Eric, (and others, if interested) it may be worth noting that in the Poe case I discussed above there was a very strong dissent from 4 justices (Harlan in particular). They basically argued that the majority was just trumping up a lame-*** excuse for refusing to get involved in what was, at that time, a sensitive social issue (birth control). Truth be told, the dissent was probably right on that score. I bring it up mainly because I think it represents just another example of a case where "pragmatic concerns" influence the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling. All the legal idealism in the world won't prevent that from happening in some cases, whether it's right or wrong.
I'm not saying they are, or should be, determinative in this case, but the "separation of powers" type of questions raised by some here are worth considering. The voters of California amended their constitution for the specific purpose of "over-ruling" their own Supreme Court. The "will of the people" is therefore an obvious factor in this case.
The "people" can likewise amend the U.S. Constitution. They could, for example, amend it in such a way as to make the production and consumption of alcohol illegal, or to make inter-racial marriages illegal. If they did the latter, no court could claim that it was "unconstitutional" to prohibit interracial marriages. It's all kinda a political "separation of powers" thing in that respect.
I'm not saying they are, or should be, determinative in this case, but the "separation of powers" type of questions raised by some here are worth considering. The voters of California amended their constitution for the specific purpose of "over-ruling" their own Supreme Court. The "will of the people" is therefore an obvious factor in this case.
The "people" can likewise amend the U.S. Constitution. They could, for example, amend it in such a way as to make the production and consumption of alcohol illegal, or to make inter-racial marriages illegal. If they did the latter, no court could claim that it was "unconstitutional" to prohibit interracial marriages. It's all kinda a political "separation of powers" thing in that respect.
i honestly don't know much at all about marriage laws, or any other laws for that matter, whether in Calif. or elsewhere. All I can think of at the moment is that it's an imperfect system, and it'd be pretty tough to construct a system that would be deemed "perfect" anyhow. And in the scenario you describe, I guess that's part of what "for better or worse" only that's more on the side of "worse" - marriage is a "faith-based" system as much as it is anything else.
Hopper
Banned
I agree, Mo, but the "worse" here is caused by State intervention and (to me) irrational legislation, not the inevitable difficulties a couple may encounter in life. It's not really relevant to the topic here, but there's sumthin suspect about the State using the mere status of "married" to impose those kinda "duties" on innocent people, if ya ax me. Your attitude seems to be along the lines of "who cares?" I care, even if you don't. I'm sure there are many others who don't care either though. And, obviously, there are some who DO care and who think such measures are highly desirable.
Part of the point, I guess, is that the State seems to be free, in other circumstances, to arbitrarily impose limitations and duties on those seeking "marriage" status. Why shouldn't it be free to "arbitrarily" say same-sex marriages are forbidden? Who cares?
If your only claim had been that the original defendants did not wish to defend the case, that would seem to be true. However, since you have since assented that the case was vigorously defended, this point now seems moot.
A pragmatic concern needs to be based on an actual, not a hypothetical. Otherwise it is not pragmatic.
Maybe you did not notice the time of year. It will be slow until pre-season starts.
No, I don't think the two statements are equivalent. However, we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies.
moevillini has mentioned a few issues with that. Whether it is just to legalize polygamy/polyandry/plural marriage, whether it is practical, whether it is politically feasible, and whether it is important are all different questions.
The Constitution is not allowed to contradict itself, if I recall correctly. So, even a Constitutional amendment like miscegenation laws might be found in conflict of the 14th amendment, unless that were simultaneously repealed.
Hopper
Banned
I agree that the two statements are not equivalent, and didn't mean to imply that I thought you did, Eric. I just figured that's what you were indirectly tryin to say, especially in light of my knowledge of your past statements on the topic. Now I'm very confused about what you're trying to say here, and on what grounds you felt it was necessary to challenge my prior statement. As I recall, Biley, or someone, defined a "homosexual" as one who had been "hardwired at birth" to have homosexual attractions. My only comment on that was that any belief, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, on that topic was largely a matter of choice. You seemed to find my comment objectionable, because you responded as follows:
The implication I got from you was that you were claiming that there was substantial evidence which, if viewed objectively, would give person no "choice" but to conclude that homosexuality is largely biological (or some other conclusion DICTATED by the evidence). Did you have some other point in mind?
What is this even referring to?: "we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies. "
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Here again, Eric, I really can't find the rationale in your response. It kinda seems like you just want to reject any consideration which you think might lead some to conclude that the District Judge's conclusion should not be immediately, whole-heartedly, and unconditionally embraced and ratified.
If I say: "If you jump off a 10 story buildin, then, most likely, you will bust your head and die," then that statement is "hypothetical," not actual. It's still a "pragmatic" consideration to be assessed before jumpin, aint it?
G-O-A-T
Member
After skimming through Poe, it seems to me that the majority dismissed the case for lack of injury (standing) and lack of ripeness (no adversaries)... in other words, they were not creating an additional requirement to the case or controversy analysis, they were just saying that this case was more like an advisory opinion than an actual controversy.
There was no injury because there was practically no threat of prosecution. And arguably, the case was not ripe either because there was no one willing to prosecute the plaintiff. Thus, if there is no threat of prosecution, it's like the law never existed... and the plaintiff had no other reason to bring the case other than to question in constitutionality.
Personally, I think the decision came out wrong (Harlan was right) and the majority had ulterior motives to dismiss... but I don't see where they made an additional requirement... lack of an adversary can easily be swallowed up in the ripeness or standing analysis.
I'm not saying that the case or controversy analysis is a rigid application that the supreme court will never adjust... I'm just saying that it didn't happen here.
Hopper
Banned
Well, maybe we're just gettin down to very fine semantic nuances, Goat, mebbe not. Personally, I wasn't lookin at only the specific circumstances of the Poe case itself. Poe cited many other cases, and I mainly just looked at the substance of the language, without trying to pigeon-hole the intended import of the statements made into some preconceived concept. Statements like this caught my attention: "The Court has found unfit for adjudication any cause that "is not in any real sense adversary," that "does not assume the `honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights' to be adjudicated - a safeguard essential to the integrity of the judicial process, and one which we have held to be indispensable to adjudication of constitutional questions by this Court." (citing United States v. Johnson, 319 U.S. 302, 305 without stating the underlying facts). I didn't read Johnson, nor did I read any of the other numerous cases cited by Poe, but this language does not really strike me as delineating a "ripeness" issue at all. Nor does it strike me as pertaining to a "lack of injury," per se.
There some references to conclusive notions of "collusion," which strikes me as a concern distinct from a mere "lack of injury," in the cases Poe cited also, such as: "This principle was given early application and has been recurringly enforced in the Court's refusal to entertain cases which disclosed a want of a truly adversary contest, of a collision of actively asserted and differing claims. See, e. g., Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 419; Wood-Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333." If someone wants their "due punishment" is it really "punishment?" On one level I guess you could argue that, no, it's actually a welcome reward to that person, and therefore he is not "injured." So, I suppose that you could call "collusion" a lack of injury, if you wanted to confine yourself to the use of an extremely limited number of words to choose from in order to "describe" it.
But in Poe, the stress is (via citing prior cases) seemingly put on such things as "a lively conflict between antagonistic demands, actively pressed" and the avoidance of "friendly suits:" "It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act' (citing Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 344 -345).
To me, this is a concern of sufficiently distinct character so as not to just lump it in with a general "lack of injury."
I do too, as I noted in a post subsequent to the one you are responding to.
Let me ask you another question, Goat: Do you agree that the "cases and controversies" language of Article 3, as interpreted to date, serve to limit the court's "jurisdiction" to decide certain (say unripe) cases? If so, what "kind" of jurisdiction is being limited? Personal jurisdiction? Territorial jurisdiction? Subject matter jurisdiction? A jurisdiction of a totally different kind?
Addendum: I went ahead a took a look at the Johnson case, which itself cites several prior cases for the language quoted in Poe. You can read it yourself, but here's a little excerpt:
"The Government does not contend that, as a result of this cooperation of the two original parties to the litigation, any false or fictitious state of facts was submitted to the court. But it does insist that the affidavits disclose the absence of a genuine adversary issue between the parties...Whenever in the course of litigation such a defect in the proceedings is brought to the court's attention, it may set aside any adjudication thus procured and dismiss the cause without entering judgment on the merits. It is the court's duty to do so where, as here, the public interest has been placed at hazard by the amenities of parties to a suit conducted under the domination of only one of them."
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=497
Last edited:
Bump.
I'm hesitant to even go there, because in all likelihood you are just baiting, rather than looking for some actual insight. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and indulge your question (even though you choose to wear your disrespect of "mormans" on your sleeve. Diversity when it's convenient for your agenda, I guess...)
Anywho... Although I don't believe gays should be denied the right to marry, I understand why my church is so opposed. Their motivations (like most everything about them) are almost universally misunderstood. It is presumed (as far as I have been able to discern) that they are opposed on the basis that they do not like gay people. It is important to understand, and make the distinction, that the LDS church condemns homosexuality, not homosexuals. One of the basic tenets is the acceptance of all people as children of God, regardless of their physical, mental, or emotional makeup. (To anyone who reads this - please do not go to the blacks and the priesthood card. I do not know the answer for that, and I do not care to argue about it. I have the same questions...) Yes, homosexuals have been treated poorly by church members. These are people. They do what they are going to do. And a lot of mormons like to live their own interpretation of the gospel. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Technically, the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" should be the standard by which conduct occurs, but, it doesn't always turn out like that.
The LDS church has a rigid set of standards for sexual behavior. Homosexual relations are obviously condemned. And although it is specifically mentioned (in the Articles of Faith) that we are to allow others to live as they choose, a homosexual marital relationship conflicts with the church's parameters on accepted sexual behavior - sex outside of a legal and lawful marriage is considered a sin. So if homosexual relations are confined to a legally sanctioned marriage, is it okay? The church would like to avoid this thorny issue.
Now, before the inevitable rain of derision begins, please keep in mind that I am not opposed to gay marriage.
Hopper
Banned
By the way, Goat, I did take a little time to skim (and I just mean basically skim) the ruling in this gay marriage case. If I read it right, virtually every "defense" witness scheduled to testify backed out, citing concerns for "personal safety." If I read it right, only two witnesses testified, each in an expert capacity. The judge subseqently found one of those experts to be unqualified as an expert, and found the "credibility" of the other to be such that his opinions were entitled to "little weight." The judge himself seemed to basically "scoff" at the lack of a meaningful defense. This doesn't strike me as the "best possible defense" that you told me it was, eh?
I have a feeling your reply might be along the lines of: "Yeah, it was the "best possible defense" because there is no conceivable defense." But if that's the case, why hear "facts?" Sounds like you have alreay concluded that prop 8 is unconstitutional "on it's face," as a simple "matter of law."
I have a feeling your reply might be along the lines of: "Yeah, it was the "best possible defense" because there is no conceivable defense." But if that's the case, why hear "facts?" Sounds like you have alreay concluded that prop 8 is unconstitutional "on it's face," as a simple "matter of law."
Last edited: