ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 6, 2004 01:59:59 AM new
How come gays can get married but polygamists can't??? I want to marry seven wives, one for each day of the week. Why can't I have seven wives?? I am being discriminated against!! Why can't 8 people who are deeply in love marry each other?? I feel like a 2nd class citizen!! My rights are being denied!!
If gays can marry, there is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my seven wives. And even more wives as my income increases. By the time I retire, I want 30 wives. It's my right! People should be more accepting of alternative lifestyles! Polygamous marriage is a Human Right!
Don't click the following link! It is a bunch of nonsense written by polygaphobic bigots!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Mar 6, 2004 02:02 AM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on March 6, 2004 03:24:47 AM new
Don't gripe to me - I don't care if you marry a dozen.
A class action divorice would be kind of novel.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 6, 2004 04:57:41 AM new
Well if you let one group... you must let them all... I can see all the different variations now...
I am still waiting for people to be allowed to marry their pets...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
bunnicula
|
posted on March 6, 2004 08:37:08 AM new
As long as all participants are willing and not coerced, I don't have a problem with polygamy. The Mormon polygamists today do have a problem with coercion--girls being forced into marriage whether they like it or not. Tgough that may be an offshoot of the law that was passed in the 19th century.
Funny thing about polygamy. In the Bible, which Christians tell us is the actual word of God, to be believed & followed without question, there is a lot of polygamy....so why is it OK in the Bible but a bozo no-no here and now?
BTW, I wouldn't have a problem with polyandry, either.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 6, 2004 08:50:35 AM new
EAG - Very interesting article. And I believe it's the reality of what the institution of marriage is facing. It's the 'slide down that slippery slope'....one change at a time.
The ultimate end, as your article points out, will be the devaluation or elimination of marriage, and what it has always represented. 
Many on the 'left' used to object to the POLYGAMISTS
mainly because recognizing the people in those marriages were 'religious'.
One MORE good reason to:
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 6, 2004 08:56 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 6, 2004 10:05:06 AM new
"Many on the 'left' used to object to the POLYGAMISTS"
"mainly because recognizing the people in those marriages were 'religious"
LOLOL!
A typical Linda ASSumption.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 6, 2004 10:12:29 AM new
Nope....no assumptions at all.
That's all that was discussed here on these boards, all I read about in the news articles that were out when Green was going through his trial...etc.
No assumption. That's what was being discussed.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 6, 2004 10:37:56 AM new
"Many on the 'left' used to object to the POLYGAMISTS"
"mainly because recognizing the people in those marriages were 'religious"
When you make the comment above, without links or evidence it's your assumption.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 6, 2004 10:38 AM ]
|
davebraun
|
posted on March 6, 2004 11:40:49 AM new
I see nothing wrong with group marriage so long as all participants are above the age of majority.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on March 6, 2004 12:10:28 PM new
What a laugh EAG & Twelve! You two have the loudest barks about all this stuff yet you both have made no bones about being the 2 lonliest men in the country. Try cleaning up your own kitchens before making such assinine statements about how others should live their lives.
Hi Davebraun!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 6, 2004 12:21:05 PM new
helen - UNTIL and UNLESS every statement anyone makes on these threads is held to exactly the same requirement, I'll post my opinions/views/thoughts and facts. If that bothers you TOO BAD.
I'm tired of your harping that every statement out of my mouth, because it disagrees with a position you hold is required [BY WHOM? - YOU? ] to post a link....but everyone who agrees with YOUR position is held to a different standard.
You're such a hypocrite.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 6, 2004 12:45:31 PM new
Gee, maybe I should join the Democrat party. None of the lefties seem to object about me marrying 7 wives. How do I join?!
|
trai
|
posted on March 6, 2004 12:48:54 PM new
I like it! Bring them on...Put them to work and it be every man's dream come true. LOL
Dozen wife's be great. Cooking, cleaning, company ,oh lordy I'll be happy.
[ edited by trai on Mar 6, 2004 12:52 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 6, 2004 01:05:24 PM new
LOL trai & EAG -
Let's look at that 'dream' from a different angle... you want how many women telling you what to do, disagreeing with you on oh-so-many-issues - like spending money? lol
I think it could be more of a nightmare myself. lol
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
trai
|
posted on March 6, 2004 02:30:06 PM new
Let's look at that 'dream' from a different angle... you want how many women telling you what to do, disagreeing with you on oh-so-many-issues - like spending money?
I think it could be more of a nightmare myself. lol
Not in my dream world. They all agree with me as i am their most beloved lord and master. No headaches either, my pick anytime.
Now find your own fantasy and get out of mine. LMAO 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 6, 2004 02:45:42 PM new
Trai - LOL That's true...it is a fantasy after all....so you're right.  It can be whatever you want it to be.
I apologize...I was working to put a little reality in where it didn't belong [into your fantasy]
dream on
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
logansdad
|
posted on March 7, 2004 11:52:49 AM new
Why not have multiple spouses?? After all didn't Hillary Clinton say it takes a village to raise a family.
Maybe she was on to something. If a child is better off being raised by a mom and dad wouldn't they better off times 10 if they had 5 dads and 5 moms.
Just a thought to ponder...
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Mar 7, 2004 01:00 PM ]
|
logansdad
|
posted on March 7, 2004 01:10:36 PM new
If the federal government left it up to the states to decide what consitutes marriage, why stop at that level. Why cant an individual city or county decide what they want to do?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
Impeach Bush
|
reamond
|
posted on March 8, 2004 02:48:41 PM new
But the Feds, at least Bush and the fundies, don't want to leave it up to the states. Bush and crew are only for states rights when it suits their agenda.
However, if any state grants same sex marriage, they all have to accept it under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
I don't think the Supreme Court wants to open a can of worms by determining some civil contracts get full faith and credit and others don't. The language of a decision that doesn't allow full faith and credit for marriage would be impossible to draft to prevent other problems and not offend due process and equal protection.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 8, 2004 02:54:53 PM new
The age when one can marry varies from state to state.
So if a 16 year old is legally married in Utah, and then they move to Texas where a 16 year old can only get married with parental permission, are they legally married in Texas ? So far yes- Texas must recognize the marriage.
What if the 16 year old female married a 22 year old male, and went to a state where the minimum age for marriage is 17 with parental consent, and a 22 year old with a 16 year old is statutory rape ?
Unless the is a constitutional amendment, which I doubt there will be, if one state recognizes same sex marriage, the other 49 ultimtely must also.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 8, 2004 05:27:04 PM new
38 states including California had already made a decision on this issue... some vigilantes in government decided that obeying the law was above them... Activist Judges seem to be afraid to do what is right...
That is the reason there is probably going to be a Federal constitutional amendment... the states thought they had it handled but it seems elected officials won't obey the law...
Courts won't stop the law breakers, so once again it requires a constitutional amendment...
38 states either have DOMA's or as 4 have done made state amendents to their constitutions...
They will not be recognizing queer marriages anytime soon... they are not obligated to support the other states... you can't have it both ways, "let the states decide" and now that they have try to say that the Federal Constitution requires them to recognize other states mistakes... that is another reason a federal change must be made...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
reamond
|
posted on March 8, 2004 05:53:51 PM new
38 states either have DOMA's or as 4 have done made state amendents to their constitutions...
Those state and federal DOMAs aren't worth the paper they're written on. I laughed when I read about them. The DOMAs were just meaningless crumbs thrown to the fundies. No law, state federal or local may offend the US constitution. The locals if Cal and NY based their actions on their state constitutions, which generally is supreme over their state laws.
They will not be recognizing queer marriages anytime soon... they are not obligated to support the other states...
They are obligated and have been for over 200 years. Imagine the chaos if states didn't have to recognize contracts executed in other states. Marriage is a prime example of a civil contract that all other states must recognize. Otherwise, everyone that was married or visiting in a state other than where they reside may in fact no be married in that state.
you can't have it both ways, "let the states decide" and now that they have try to say that the Federal Constitution requires them to recognize other states mistakes... that is another reason a federal change must be made...
This is exactly the reason a Constitutional amendment must be enacted to somehow change the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution.
But changing this clause would be an interesting piece of work.
[ edited by reamond on Mar 8, 2004 05:57 PM ]
|
Bear1949
|
posted on March 8, 2004 07:23:43 PM new
Can you imagine having 7 wives and only later find out they all are clones of Helen?
The Democrats ran on 'Honesty' and I told 'em at the time they would never get anywhere. It was too radical for politics. The Republicans ran on 'Common Sense' and the returns showed that there were 8 million more people in the United States who had 'Common Sense' enough not to believe that there was 'Honesty' in politics." --Will Rogers
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 8, 2004 07:58:06 PM new
You may stop dreaming, bear. Angels can't be cloned.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 9, 2004 03:22:00 AM new
Reamond, glad to see you think that all those court cases are worth the money that will be wasted trying to prove that...
Because after all that is what it will take... the States have already decided that they will NOT recognize queer marriages from other states... what part of that don't you understand?
States already have laws that others do not recognize.... Motorcycle Helmet laws come to mind...
Age of consent....
At one time drinking ages were different from state to state until the Federal Governement stepped in...
So already many laws already exist... and DOMA does allow states not to recognize those types of marriages... so until the SC declares it unconstitutional... and I haven't seen it come up yet... it is a valid law.
But I say again, those calling for "states to handle it" are being quite two faced about this... states have handled it and still we have law breakers.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
Reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 09:47:05 AM new
the States have already decided that they will NOT recognize queer marriages from other states... what part of that don't you understand?
What you need to understand is that the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Any law that offends the Constitution is void ab initio.
States already have laws that others do not recognize.... Motorcycle Helmet laws come to mind...
Helmut laws are not civil contracts.
Age of consent....
At one time drinking ages were different from state to state until the Federal Governement stepped in...
Again, these are not civil contracts.
So already many laws already exist... and DOMA does allow states not to recognize those types of marriages... so until the SC declares it unconstitutional... and I haven't seen it come up yet... it is a valid law.
Not recognizing the marriages will be found unconstitutional, but first there have to be bona fide same sex marriages before a case can be brought. There is already case law for full faith and credit as well as states recognizing marriages contracted in other states. The marriages must occur first, then a state must refuse to recognize the marriage.
But I say again, those calling for "states to handle it" are being quite two faced about this... states have handled it and still we have law breakers
What they are saying is that they want to leave marriage laws to the individual states as they have been for over 200 years. However, this does fail to recognize that the marriages performed in one state must be recognized by the other states as dictated by the Constitution.
Why do you think Bush has called for a Constitutional amendment ? He can't explain the full faith and credit clause because he doesn't understand it. Look at the problems you're having understanding full faith and credit and the Constitutional framework of our country's legal system.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 9, 2004 10:12:43 AM new
Show me the clause...
Show me where is says in the constitution that must happen?
And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
This part seems to be covered by DOMA... or is it that you are the one not understanding?
Marriage is a contract... how is it different?
This section: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
However it only works if citizens of each state have the same privledges not rights Marriage is a privlidge, and is different for each state.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 9, 2004 10:17 AM ]
[ edited by Twelvepole on Mar 9, 2004 10:21 AM ]
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 11:46:17 AM new
I'll try to make this simple for you 12. Have you ever wondered why a marriage contracted in Nevada is good in California or New York ? Why you need only present the valid Nevada license and it is recognized as a bona fide contract of marriage in all states ? If it were left up to the states, they wouldn't recognize other licenses and would require a local marriage license if for no other reason to generate income from licenses and I'm sure the bridal/marriage industry would support such legislation.
As with many others, you read the Constitutional provisions but lack the specialized education and training to properly interpret what the article/clause means.
The same sex marriage issue ultimately will bleed over into a Contracts Clause argument, and then a 5th Amendment Due Process Clause argument. The contracts clause will come in where benefits of the marriage are disputed, such as life insurance policies, health benefits etc.. What would happen if same sex marriage spouses were in a car accident out of state and the insurer of one spouse wouldn't cover the other because the marriage wasn't recognized in that state ?
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit
SOURCES AND EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION
Most frequently applied examples of these rules include the following: the rule that a marriage which is good in the country where performed ( lex loci ) is good elsewhere; the rule that contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the country where entered into ( lex loci contractus ) unless the parties clearly intended otherwise...
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:08:31 PM new
You're right I do not have specialized training, however I will not be taking your word for it either...
You've shown me nothing but opinion, which is fine, but has no more weight than mine.
The very short version will be many many lawsuits over this and it will come down to the Supreme Court making a decison
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
reamond
|
posted on March 9, 2004 12:29:25 PM new
Why do you think your hero George Bush announced he wanted a Constitutional amendment if these DOMA laws would survive and were valid ?
Do you think Bush's political puppet master Karl Rove would allow Bush to announce this unpopular position if it wasn't necessary to stop these same sex marriages from being recognized in all 50 states via the Constitution ?
By the way, it is not my opinion, it is the Supreme law of the land's "opinion" as announced by the Supreme Court.
Whether you "believe" me or not is irrelevant. The facts are in agreement my position.
|
