Would you have a second wife?

[Eerongal]

Skar: I think the idea - and the name - of marriage is important to a lot of people. Marriage has connotations of intimacy etcetera that "civil union" does not.  You don't grow up looking forward to a nice, happy civil union one day; you grow up thinking that one day you'll be married.

Even if it's a distinction in name only, it's still a distinction for a lot of people.

Besides, if two same-sex people want to get married, if we're all equal, why should they have to call it something different?

(Note: I mean that last comment as a part of the mentality that I think goes into the marriage vs civil union debate, and not to reignite the same-sex marriage issue as a whole.)

Yeah, semantics and context can have a lot of prejudice behind it, which is what i think this objection relates to. Also, I think the fact that we have to rewrite how it's all done just to accommodate them is something they don't want, because it implies that they're somehow different.

[Patriotic Kaz]

Yes but the problem with handing it over to the churches is that some will contradict holy laws they are supposed to be upholding, while this is not a problem of mine i still believe it is wrong. I also believe those who are not a member of a certain branch of faith (denominations excluded this doesn't apply to a lutheran entering a methodist church to wed, ect.) shouldn't be able to marry in that paticular place of worship. This also would mean that i would be wed by a judge, as I'm a Theist and they have no churches because we are a confused group of fellows.

[Renoard]

*** Content warning ***
TVLDS

Given that marriage and union in general is a religious issue, I don't think governmental involvement at any level is actually constitutional.  By providing marriage licenses or civil union licenses or any other certification, the government is taking a stand and establishing defacto religion.  Imagine if this were Baptism licenses, or Barmitzvah licenses or Ramadan Licenses.  No one would have trouble seeing that the government has invaded an area that is constitutionally protected.  Affirmative action for a sexual orientation will naturally lead to action on behalf of NAMBLA and bestiality groups.  Imagine employers having to provide special accommodation for Furries to wear their costumes to work.  It's getting ridiculous.

On the other hand, it's just as unconstitutional to force religious institutions, founded on a code of ethics or morals, to accept employees or members who are in violation of those moral standards.  It directly inhibits the capacity to freely exercise their faith. "Congress shall pass no law. . ."  The upshot is that any law that has passed must be interpreted in a way that it neither establishes, nor disestablishes a religion or inhibits the free exercise thereof.  This pertains only to the US, where our founders foresaw this sort of abuse of power and the legislative process to oppress the majority to the benefit of a special minority or an oligarchy.

Minority rights are valuable, but US constitutional law only recognizes rights of the individual, not classes of people.  Rights for a homosexual to pursue life liberty and happiness are protected.  But the right to impose that individual's ethics and ideals on the majority or even force other individuals to be tolerant of those ideal is a fiction.  The right to forcibly propagandized young people with a given minority's perspectives is an infringement on the rights of the individual young person to form his or her own opinions.

Rights for a group are never guaranteed, except where that group is a religious institution, the majority of the population or a militia.  Why are these groups protected?  So that a powerful minority cannot subjugate the majority,  so that the majority cannot use political pressure to silence or eliminate the minority and so that if things ever get very badly along either path the people can defend themselves, like they did at Bunker Hill.  Amazingly, the gestapo (Fatherland Security) just released a terrorist warning telling local law enforcement to spy on people who point this out.  Who else was in the list of "potential threats"?  Veterans returning from Iraq or Afgahanistan.  Are they serious?

Try to suggest that to a political focus group.  Right or left, politics these days are all about group identity, collectivism and group agenda.  That's downright Anti-American.  Even a certain author of speculative fiction of the alternate history type is pretty deeply embroiled in this mess.  

Rant concluded.

[Renoard]

Crickets. . .

ROFL

[mtlhddoc2]

I am with the person that said to take marriage away from the government. Marriage, in and of itself, is a religious ritual, nothing more. The fact that government controls who can get married is a conflict of religious liberties. All person who want to legally bond should be in a civil union, marriage, if a person desires, should be relegated to religious ceremony and the marriages themselves should have no legal binding.

currently, civil unions, in the states which grant them, do NOT confer the same rights and priviledges as marriage, which is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

Polygamy can be a bit convoluted. However, marital/civil union polygamy can work if there are proper guidelines. If a man wishes to marry two women, he should be able to as long as both women agree to it. However, the catch is, they also become married to each other, and if the man dies, they would still remain married to each other. this would do 2 things. It would cure issues with multiple birthings and custodial battles. Often in 3-way (or more) reltionships, one of the women chooses to stay home with teh children, regardless of who birthed them. The otehrs may work. But each, regardless of staying home or not, is a mother to all teh children and should be legally treated as such. The children should not be divvied up by genetics.

Ok, i ranted a bit, but i think yo9u get my point.

[Miyabi]

It's not an attempt to stick it to anyone.  It's the idea that they are saying it's OK for us but not for you.  That's what the problem is.

[The Jade Knight]

Given that marriage and union in general is a religious issue

This is not entirely true - marriage is first and foremost a social issue, which religions have picked up and run with (the Christian Church only really got heavily involved in officiating weddings during the Middle Ages), and which governments regulate to protect the government and property—government regulation of marriage also became a big thing during the Middle Ages, as kings and lords were very interested in keeping power consolidated.  However, even during Roman Times, however, marriage was officiated by the state, and all Roman Citizens were expected to marry, for the explicit reason of having Roman children to strengthen the state.  In ancient societies, marriage was a very, very important part of strengthening the state via children.  (Marriage was necessary to help ensure legitimacy/Citizenship and also to resolve inheritance issues.)

Of course, we seem to have TOTALLY lost track of the point of marriage here in the modern era.  Legalized marriages of convenience?  Hello?  What does that have to do with the point of marriage?

[Renoard]

A social issue is not the same thing as a legal issue.  If it were then ethnicity would be a matter of law.  Yes governments have co-opted marriage for various reasons of pragmatism.  But at it's heart, it is a matter for the local community, whether that is village tribe or religious association.  Even under English Common Law it is enough to announce your agreement to be married and then live together.  It would be a very sticky prospect to reform marriage laws to the point that they would respect the constitution, but this issue would be a non-starter if marriage were not a matter of law.

You mentioned immigration, but immigration is a relatively modern issue, as is personal identification.  But even immigration is no longer an issue with marriage laws.  The US Dept. of Immigration no longer gives citizenship to those who marry citizens.  Instead, spouses have to apply and pass the same testing.  In the mean time they only receive a visa.  This puts spouses in nearly the same category as any other acquaintance.

[The Jade Knight]

Who mentioned immigration?

[Skar]

Seems to me that 'marriage' as an institution today has two components.  Religious and Legal.

I haven't heard any serious proponents of same-sex marriage insisting that religious institutions recognize their marriages. (I have heard it from wackos but I ignored them)  Serious proponents of same-sex marriage are after the legal consideration that our government extends to married couples: taxes, visitation rights, inheritance and so forth.  And folks who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds don't have a secular leg to stand on when objecting to legal rights for same-sex married couples matching their own under the law.

So it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to separate the two. Religious institutions have no more business handing out legal status as married couples to their constituents than the government has dictating what spiritual status a religion may confer upon its constituents.  Yes it would be sticky and a major change to how we function in our country but hey, when has that ever been a good reason not to do something right?

[Skar]

Sorry to double post but this is a separate topic and closer to the thread topic so...

Would I take a second wife?  No idea.  So much would have to change for that to become an option that the variables multiply far beyond my ability to guess at my own reaction.

Should taking a second wife be a legal option?  Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society.  Would it strengthen our society?  Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation?  If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No."  By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.

But there are many more differences between our nation and those that have legal polygamy than just the polygamy thing.  Perhaps those other differences are the cause of all the negatives.  No way to tell.  We can do thought experiments all day long and not come any closer to a real answer to the question, how would legalizing polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth change our society? 

[Eerongal]

Sorry to double post but this is a separate topic and closer to the thread topic so...

Would I take a second wife?  No idea.  So much would have to change for that to become an option that the variables multiply far beyond my ability to guess at my own reaction.

Should taking a second wife be a legal option?  Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society.  Would it strengthen our society?  Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation?  If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No."  By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.

But there are many more differences between our nation and those that have legal polygamy than just the polygamy thing.  Perhaps those other differences are the cause of all the negatives.  No way to tell.  We can do thought experiments all day long and not come any closer to a real answer to the question, how would legalizing polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth change our society? 

honestly, I think that all the negative associated with polygamy that you mentioned is because of the other differences in those countries. As far as our society, we have progressed far in the area of equal rights among genders, so I don't think it would cause that sort of backlash. Also, it's worth noting that if we legalize polygamy, we would have to legalize polyandry, and other chain marriages. It couldn't just be one, it would have to be all to maintain an air of freedom, otherwise people in the other sitautions would be oppressed.

[Miyabi]

You say that Eerongal,  but then someone is going to argue back saying that if what you said was true we wouldn't have things such as the polygamist colonies that marry off young girls to old men and are made to have multiple children and serve as a handmaid to the man they're married to.

[readerMom]

Should taking a second wife be a legal option?  Again not sure but there's more to be said about that one. My main concern about making polygamy, polyandry, chain marriages and so forth legal would be the effect on society.  Would it strengthen our society?  Would it promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for individuals in our nation?  If we look at the nations on Earth that currently have legal institutions in place allowing for polygamy as examples, the simple answer would be a resounding "No."  By their example it would result in massive state-supported oppression of women along with a host of other effects anathema to a free society.

As I read this I thought of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.  Because the society developed without any government, but with modern sensibilities (modern being late sixties) there are a number of family groups mentioned.  Prejudices against these different family arrangements back on Earth is also brought up.
My main arguement for or against any form of marriage is the safety and well-being of the individuals within the family group.  For example, I think a woman with children living with a boyfriend is a really bad idea, because of the abuse statistics that go with that setup. 
Our society is having a difficult time keeping at risk women and children safe as it is.  Anything, including changing family structures, that further erodes the protection and support the weakest members of our society has is bad. 
That does not necessarily include same-sex marriage, but the examples of polygamy I've seen, including friends who were children in polygamous families, tells me that this is not a policy we should endorse as a country.

[Patriotic Kaz]

HURRAY!!! Someone else mentioned Heinlein, i actually don't mind the idea of nesting in Stranger in a Strange Land however polygammy is rarely harmonious so the legality of it is understandable. Right or wrong it was done with good intentions those being to preserve domestic tranquility.