Gay Marriage

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why?

If interracial marriage is prohibited, a black man cannot marry a white woman, whereas a white man can. The black man and the white man do not have the same rights.

The other person on your side of the argument seems to be arguing that it is discrimination but that the government is not blocked from such discrimination because number of individuals involved is not a specifically protected category. So even in the side that it is allowable, there is disagreement over if it is discrimination.

The other person on my side of the argument is as free to believe as he chooses as are you and Upchurch and Z [waves to Z].

 

[Upchurch]

Your stance implies it, though.

My apologies. That was not my intent.

Under the current polygamy laws, every individual has the same rights. If there is to be discrimination, there must be some entity that does not possess the same rights as other entities. I cannot imagine what you take those entities to be if not the relationships themselves.

A monogamous individual has the right to enter into any marriage s/he so chooses (always assuming mutual consent). A polyamerous individual is not afforded this same right but is only allowed to enter into a monogamous marriage.

You can argue that a monogamous individual also does not have the right to enter into a monogamous marriage, but I will respond with the fact that a straight man does not have the right to enter into a gay marriage. Yet, you still consider that discrimination, correct?

 

[Z]

So all three of them are in a marriage together? And if one person leaves, the whole marriage is dissolved and the other two have to get remarried?

What if John wants to be married to Jane and Sue, but Jane and Sue only want to be married to John and not to each other? Can't discriminate against them, after all, so I guess we'd have to allow that. If John and Sue buy a car, what percentage of it belongs to Jane? Is it solely John and Sue's private property, even though John is also married to Jane? Does Jane own 25% of it, since John owns 50% and they're married?

What if Jimmy, Ralph, and Christina (a three-person mutual marriage) want to add Bill to the group, but he's already married to Christina separately? Do they all have to get divorced and then remarried? Or can he just be slurped into the marriage as a whole? What happens to Christina and Bill's joint assets when that happens? Do they remain Christina and Bill's, or do they become marital assets of the entire group? What about custody of Bill's child with Lisa, his other wife. Do Jimmy, Ralph, and Christina automatically become responsible for his care? Or does that matter stay between Bill and Lisa?

I don't know how you can ask why it would have to be obscenely complex with a straight face.

Only if they want to make it complex.

Couples today get married without setting any of that out at all, and end up in court over it. And triples and quadruples NOT legally married still end up in court over it, while couples, triples, and quadruples who DO consider it ahead of time have contracts all worked out already, regardless of if the law recognizes their marriages.


Nothing would change.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Look at it from the other side. You have a man. He is available for marriage to whom? As it stands now, to a woman. He is not available for marriage to another man. This is discriminatory against other men.

Now, you have a group of a man and a woman. To whom is this group available for marriage? Nobody. This is not discimination.

This is a different issue, is are all the members in a group marriage married to eachother or is it just a man with two wives one of whom has an additional husband?

But I have seen the same arguement presented to show how a man and a woman as a requirement for marriage is just part of the definition of marriage not discriminatory. I fail to see how your case is any different from such a position.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

As to the complexity issue, I have only this to say. I am not much on legal issues. As such I tend to defer to the opinions of those I respect. Upchurch and Z, who are both just such people, argue that the legal issues would not be that complex. However, AmateurScientist, another whose opinion I respect, and who happens to be a lawyer, deemed it massively complicated considering only divorce, and only certain aspects of that, even. His is the only opinion on the matter I have heard from someone inside the legal profession, and until I am shown something that makes me think him wrong, I'm going with what he said.

 

[toddjh]

Only if they want to make it complex.

And if they do?

Couples today get married without setting any of that out at all, and end up in court over it. And triples and quadruples NOT legally married still end up in court over it, while couples, triples, and quadruples who DO consider it ahead of time have contracts all worked out already, regardless of if the law recognizes their marriages.

The difference is that marriage streamlines the whole process. Yes, it's not perfect, and yes, there are plenty of disputes that require a lot of money and court time to resolve. But marriage provides many legal shortcuts that eliminate a lot of the bureaucratic overhead that would otherwise be required.

For example, I'm guessing you had to jump through a lot of hoops and fill out a lot of paperwork to reach the arrangement you have today. Whereas with a two-person marriage, a lot of that (custody of children, joint ownership of property, etc.) would be taken care of quickly.

I'd also still like more information on this insurance company you mentioned which allegedly let one of its clients put a non-dependent, non-spouse on her plan. I'm skeptical of that claim, and I'd like more information to confirm it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If interracial marriage is prohibited, a black man cannot marry a white woman, whereas a white man can. The black man and the white man do not have the same rights.

Why is it only discrimintation if you are blocked from marrying a certain class of individuals, and not if you are blocked from attaining the marriage you want?

 

[drkitten]

Inconsistent, yes. Discriminatory? Not that I can tell.

Actually, US drug laws are notoriously discriminatory and were designed that way, mainly as a rather futile attempt to "clean up the ghettos."

US drug law incorporates a table-lookup for getting from the amount of the drug under discussion to the recommended penalty. For example, if you were busted with 25kg of weed, you'd be facing a "level 18" offense, while if you
were busted with 250kg, you'd be looking at "level 26" and probably a much stiffer sentence.

The table incorporates both amount and type. And -- by design -- "ghetto" drugs are punished much more harshly than white-color ones. If you compare the sentence per effective dosage level, you're much better off getting busted with 1000 doses of powdered cocaine or LSD than with 1000 doses of meth or crack ("cocaine base").

As I said, this was deliberate. When the guidelines were originally proposed, one of the major things that the Black Caucus in Congress was concerned about was the surge of drugs in their districts, and so they wrote into the law that such drugs would be punished harshly. For some reason, the investment bankers from Manhattan and the farmers from Kansas weren't as concerned about powdered cocaine and/or sniffing glue....

 

[Z]

For example, I'm guessing you had to jump through a lot of hoops and fill out a lot of paperwork to reach the arrangement you have today. Whereas with a two-person marriage, a lot of that (custody of children, joint ownership of property, etc.) would be taken care of quickly.

Actually surprisingly few hoops. Once most parties realized we shared a single household, where all income was combined and all children shared a single primary caregiver (me), the rest fell into place.

I'd also still like more information on this insurance company you mentioned which allegedly let one of its clients put a non-dependent, non-spouse on her plan. I'm skeptical of that claim, and I'd like more information to confirm it.

And as soon as she comes home I'll try to remember to get the specifics for you. Though you could say I'm a dependent, since I'm the homemaker and primary caregiver of her children.

That may even be how I got on her insurance. I'll get the details for you, though. It's proven to be a pretty good system, by the way.

I tell you what was amazing to me, though - dealing with public assistance. Social services was really incredibly accomodating to us - including dividing the household into two families when it would benefit us more, or massing us together if THAT would benefit us more.

And, of course, there's the minor fact that I'm the father of a child with our housemate (I told you the hubby lacked certain functions... well, I played surrogate, and when hubby left, I took legal co-custody of my child... so that probably plays a part as well).

 

[toddjh]

Why is it only discrimintation if you are blocked from marrying a certain class of individuals, and not if you are blocked from attaining the marriage you want?

It's discrimination if the situation is legal for one person but not another.

In other words, picture a man and woman standing at the altar, about to get married. That's legal.

Replace the man with a man of a different race. They can still get married. There's no discrimination on the basis of race (any more).

Replace the man with a polygamist. They can still get married (as long as he's not married already, same as anyone else). Thus, there's no discrimination against polygamists.

But now, replace the man with a woman. They can no longer get married. There is discrimination on the basis of sex, which is illegal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Only if they want to make it complex.

Couples today get married without setting any of that out at all, and end up in court over it. And triples and quadruples NOT legally married still end up in court over it, while couples, triples, and quadruples who DO consider it ahead of time have contracts all worked out already, regardless of if the law recognizes their marriages.


Nothing would change.

Sure it does, the lawyers get you more on both ends. Sure you can sue someone you shacked up with for something, but that is not the same as a divorce proceeding. It would be interesting to hear from some of the more legally astute individuals on this board how they differ.

Just because you can get some of the effects of marriage now does not mean that the full effects of allowing plural marriage is in effect. Anymore than suing a ex house mate is the same as divorce. Sure the court deal with it, but there are many rights and effect that are limited to marriage.

That is why this is an issue with homosexual marriage, because there are plenty of rights that you simply can not get through any other means than marriage.

 

[Z]

Replace the man with a married man... and suddenly he can't get married.

Discrimination.

 

[Upchurch]

So all three of them are in a marriage together? And if one person leaves, the whole marriage is dissolved and the other two have to get remarried?

Well, it depends on how the law is written. Alternatively, I could have said

The leaving member is removed from the contract and is penalize as per the law.​

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but what of it?

What if John wants to be married to Jane and Sue, but Jane and Sue only want to be married to John and not to each other?

No mutual consent, so they don't enter into a contract. Or, alternatively, they enter into a contract that defines the relationship.

If John and Sue buy a car, what percentage of it belongs to Jane? Is it solely John and Sue's private property, even though John is also married to Jane? Does Jane own 25% of it, since John owns 50% and they're married?

What did they agree on when they entered into the contract? Even monogamous marriages can have prenuptial agreements.

What if Jimmy, Ralph, and Christina (a three-person mutual marriage) want to add Bill to the group, but he's already married to Christina separately?

You're talking about two separate but concurrent marriage contracts on Christina's part, which is bigamy as discussed above. The marriage contract that was entered into first is the only valid one.

But I don't see why you couldn't write an addendum or something to the contract to add Bill, or vice versa.

What happens to Christina and Bill's joint assets when that happens?

It depends on which of Christina's marriages is valid, I suppose.

I don't know how you can ask why it would have to be obscenely complex with a straight face.

Because I like to think things through.

Granted, there are laws that would have to be re-written, but that's always the case when implementing change. How those laws land will dictate how things can work.

 

[Dr Adequate]

What if John wants to be married to Jane and Sue, but Jane and Sue only want to be married to John and not to each other?

What if Jane and Sue want to be married, and John just wants to watch them through high-powered binoculars?

Hypothetically.

 

[Z]

Sure it does, the lawyers get you more on both ends. Sure you can sue someone you shacked up with for something, but that is not the same as a divorce proceeding. It would be interesting to hear from some of the more legally astute individuals on this board how they differ.

Just because you can get some of the effects of marriage now does not mean that the full effects of allowing plural marriage is in effect. Anymore than suing a ex house mate is the same as divorce. Sure the court deal with it, but there are many rights and effect that are limited to marriage.

That is why this is an issue with homosexual marriage, because there are plenty of rights that you simply can not get through any other means than marriage.

Care to name them?

 

[toddjh]

Replace the man with a married man... and suddenly he can't get married.

Discrimination.

Yep. But discrimination on the basis of being married is not illegal. Discrimination on the basis of sex is, unless there's an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

A monogamous individual has the right to enter into any marriage s/he so chooses (always assuming mutual consent). A polyamerous individual is not afforded this same right but is only allowed to enter into a monogamous marriage.

You can argue that a monogamous individual also does not have the right to enter into a monogamous marriage, but I will respond with the fact that a straight man does not have the right to enter into a gay marriage. Yet, you still consider that discrimination, correct?

I do consider it discrimination. The reason is simple. The entity which a gay man wishes to marry is another man, an entity that is available for marriage to others (women).

I do not consider the other discimination. The entity which a polyamorous man wishes to marry is some number of men and/or women, an entity which is available for marriage to no-one.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's discrimination if the situation is legal for one person but not another.

Then forcing people not not marry someone of the same sex is legal because everyone has that same restriction. The same with race.

In other words, picture a man and woman standing at the altar, about to get married. That's legal.

Replace the man with a man of a different race. They can still get married. There's no discrimination on the basis of race (any more).

Replace the man with a polygamist. They can still get married (as long as he's not married already, same as anyone else). Thus, there's no discrimination against polygamists.

But now, replace the man with a woman. They can no longer get married. There is discrimination on the basis of sex, which is illegal.

You are contriving your groups to get the discrimination to be what you are claiming it is.

 

[toddjh]

What did they agree on when they entered into the contract? Even monogamous marriages can have prenuptial agreements.

What if they didn't make any particular arrangements? What's the default position?

You're talking about two separate but concurrent marriage contracts on Christina's part, which is bigamy as discussed above. The marriage contract that was entered into first is the only valid one.

Hold on, we can't be discriminating against bigamists now, can we? Sure, it would add more complication and work, but it would just be lazy to use that as a reason to outlaw it!

 

[Z]

For whatever it's worth, I'm against marriage as a whole, for ANY parties. I'm for legal adult co-dependency contracts for the purpose of assigning specific rights, responsibilities, etc. for any adults who wish to enter into them. I'm as much in support of two adult males to have legal rights with each other (whether gay, straight, brothers, or roommates) as for a male and female (whether a couple, f---buddies, siblings, or roomates) as for any combination of adults of any number.

Whether or not they're mutually stimulating naughty bits isn't an issue at all, IMHO. As for the issue of children, I'd say treat it much as I've seen it treated already - weight rights appropriately between biological parentage and primary caregiving duties. If the court decides that the stepmom is better suited to raising the kids, but that both bio parents should have visitation rights or child support responsibilities, so be it.