Here's the deal. Conservatives and the religious right argue against gay marriage, saying that it will erode the institution of marriage and that it violates the Bible. I realize that the erosion argument is rather illogical, but the part that I have the most issues with is "violates the Bible."
The Consitution protects the right of the people to religion, and prevents the government from establishing a religion. By not allowing homosexuals to marry, based on principles taken from traditional Christianity, isn't that promoting a religion? The government should be secular, not religious. This doesn't mean the government should be immoral, morals and religion do not necessarily go together.
Marriage is for the most part a religious institution. A couple can be married in a church without being legally married. That couple will have none of the legal rights that couples married secularly will. Similarly, a couple can be married legally without being married in a church or other such house of religion. My question is: why does the government feel the need to regulate who can marry and who can not? In most areas that marriage is regulated, the legal stance makes sense: It's biologically proven that incest is a high risk factor for birth defects. I don't know of any research on the effects of polygamy but I'm not here to talk about that.
If a gay couple in my hometown makes a legal commitment to each other, that does not in any way detrimentally affect my parents' marriage. The issue surrounding gay marriage shouldn't exist. Why shouldn't two committed homosexuals have the same legal rights as two committed heterosexuals?
Religious institutions are separate from the government. Therefore, if marriage is a religious institution, I have no problem with churches regulating who can and cannot get married, they have every right to do that. What I have a problem with is the government denying rights to law-abiding citizens.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree, especially about the government promoting religion.
The only reason whatsoever Republicans have thrown Gay Marriage back on the agenda is to detract from the crappy job they've done handling immigration and the ports deal. The Religious Reich and Big Business are the 2 major contributors to the Rebublican Party and Bush's ratings are in the toilet. As a result, conservatives are kow-towing to them to secure election contributions. That's also why abortion is on the agenda again as well. The governent DOES NOT CARE about gay marriage, abortion or anything else. They only care about re-election and deals that will bring them personal wealth. Both conservatives and liberals only play to those with the deepest pockets - which ain't you, me and everyone else. Marriage hetero or otherwise is not the business of the gov't - nor is religion.
Vote Libertarian!
Very good entry, I totally agree.
In regards to the polygamy thing, I saw a brief blurb on... CNN, it may have been... about a young woman who escaped from a radical Mormon community. Her father had the usual four wives; her elder sister was married to a man several times her elder; she and her other sisters were emotionally/physically/sexually abused by her father, brothers, uncles, etc. I'll see if I can find the article...
I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I'm not certain how some aspects would work if this was a state issue. People that are married secularly have different benefits than people who have acquired civil unions. If you make marriage a state issue, than you will have problems with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If Kansas does not allow gay marriage, and Missouri does, what happens if a married gay couple moves from Missouri to Kansas? Would Kansas be required to recognize the marriage under that clause, or would they no longer have the benefits of secular marriage?
I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But what about polygamy? Would the only argument be related to tax issues? One can't say that all polygamous families are sexually abusive or that they itemize women, I don't think. Wouldn't preventing polygamy be pushing the beliefs of the majority on the minority? You could say that majority always rules, but then there wouldn't be the issue about gay marriage, you could take a simple vote and then the issue would be finished.
``I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. But what about polygamy? Would the only argument be related to tax issues?``
No, the number of spouses could not possibly work the same under the law for any of the thousands of issues.
For example, if you`re in a coma and the doctor needs the next of kin to make decisions, it doesn`t need to make any difference what sex or race or height or weight the spouse is. But if the guy in the coma has twenty spouses, suddenly what would the doctor do... hold a vote (what if there`s a tie}? Take the decision of the first spouse who arrives? Are all the spouses married to all the others or only to one? If one wife dies will all the wives have a say in her funeral arrangements? Will they all be equally responsible for financial obligations and benefits?
Nothing works the same as with two.
There is a reason that employment laws, voting laws, marriage laws and any other kind of law can forbid discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion and national origin but NEVER on ``number.`` ``Number`` is not a trait analogous to the others.
If you are hiring for an accountant in a state with equal employment laws, you have to give an equal chance to a person without regard to whether they`re male or female, black or white, Christian, Jew or agnostic. But you don`t have to give the job to a team of five who applies as a group as you would to one person. We allow individuals to vote regardless of sex or race, but we don`t let different numbers vote as a team on one ballot.
polygamists should be able to choose who will be their legal spouse, just like anyone else. But ending discrimination on sex doesn`t mean ``number`` is next, because it can`t work for practical reasons.
From what I understand, that's currently how polygamy in the US works. The man is technically only legally married to one woman, the rest are ritualistically married to him.
There's also what's called "power of attorney," which basically means a particular person is assigned to make legal and financial decisions on behalf of a person if they can't make the decision themselves. Ideally, the person usually picks their PoA in advance, before something happens. This is good for situations where there's no clear next of kin, or a person doesn't trust someone who would be their next of kin.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well, as it stand now, straight couples can in some cases get married in one state but not in another, but the Full Faith and Credit clause means their marriage is recognized when they cross state boundaries.
For example, in a man`s home state, he cannot get married to his first cousin, but in another state he can marry her if one of them is sterile. He has a choice of either getting a vasectomy and getting married in the neighboring state and then driving back home, or he can even go to a state that doesn`t have the vasectomy rule and he can marry her there and then drive back home. His home state will recognize the marriage even though they can`t marry there.
But the (offensively titled} Defense of Marriage Act (that Clinton allowed himself to get pushed into signing} gives states the (arguably unconstitutional} right to ignore the same rights for same sex couples. So as it stands now, I can get married in Massachusetts and be treated as married by the state, but if we travel to Virginia, we are treated as legal strangers.
I don't see any problems with polygamy either, as long as all parties are consenting adults that aren't being abused.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop
I've been waiting to hear some sort of coherent argument against polygamy. We have been 'discussing' it in my American government class, but the only opinion I have heard about it thus far is that 'it's icky'.
Our current tax and insurance incentives system does not support polygamy right now. Were the government to alter this law, there would be some serious economic and financial consequences; it would be interesting to see the effects.
However, I do think that most humans are emotionally incapable of polygamy. Especially women. We are very jealous.