The Battle Over Marriage And Other Matters Between Consenting Adults

kk me and you can both be on the couch ^^

straight people are civily uninioned only they call it marriage, the civil part is the legal paperwork you file with the state!

I love the pic awww!

no its legally called marriage ..

that my point.

If Straight people are legally marriaed , then so should gay people be

If Gay people are legally only civil unionized, then so should straight people be

Why should we have to accept civil unions just becuase some religeous people say we should?

They arent ALLOWED to tell the state to do things for religeous reasons.. its a minor little quirk in the first ammendment.

(ohh and thanks ^^ Becky is a sweetie .. shhh dont tell her i said that)

Fie, woman! Lies...all lies!!!

(Heads home from work now...hope to see you later tonight hon...)

I KNOW it's LEGALLY called marriage BUT if it wasn't maybe there would be less hate.

The love and the benefits would be the same wether it was called marriage or boogabooga but the religious part of it would not be mixed up and give less feul for the fundementalist haters.

I'm just trying to come to a workable solution, i'm sorry that you can't have two women in white dresses taking marriage vows in a church, i would love to see it myself, but the religion itself is bigotted and you can't change that part, you can however, change the laws and the words the law uses and that might help lessen the hate.

I honestly believe Gay Marriage is legal in all 50 states now ..

The problem is the ILLEGAL unconstitutional laws and marriage rules in 49 states that prevent it.

To say anything else is discrimination.

I dont think current Politics will allow it to be the way it should be.

For the same reasons people did not uphold the consitution when they ILLEGALLY discriminated against African Americans.

We already face custody and divorce issues with unsanctioned poly marriage. I don't see how giving legal standing to all involved makes matters any worse. It may simplify some situations by avoiding "palimony" type issues.

Similarly, the issues of teen marriage and women as property are problems that transcend polyamory. I remember the hubub generated by rocker Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 14-year-old cousin. Granted that some paternalistic polygamists need a solid feminist butt-kicking, but I don't think that invalidates unions that are loving and truly consensual.

PS - Thanks for the words of support from those who offered them, and thanks to everybody for keeping it civil. Good conversation!

I know you mean well, and in modern human terms discrimination against our darker skinned friends is wrong since we are all human inside, but laws are laws wether they are moral or immoral to you.

Discrimination was LEGAL baby, it was the LAW up until a few brave souls risked their lives to change it. Homosexuality or some of the things associated with it are in places still, by LAW, illegal, doesn't mean those things are wrong but the LAW says they are.

The good thing is that you can change laws, just like discriminatory laws against, race, sex and young people were changed.

YOU can change the laws, and they change all the time and the fact that the bigots in government and limp-dick conservative radio talkshow hosts couldn't get anti-gay marriage added to the constitution just means that the majority of the people in the USA are ok with gay marriage but it will take a grassroots effort in every community to make things fair.

BTW discrimination against races is an ancient thing, at one time there was a reason for the hate, different tribes were dangerous and fighting for resources. It was a cultural thing to fear and hate 'the others' but that was then, now we are on a smaller planet and do not have to fear the unknown and people who are different.

The bigots are just the ones realising the last dregs of our ancient ancestors dna, but they are a minority as humanity succeeds through love and cooperation not hatred based on ancient tribal instincts.

Well, from what everyone else has said thus far, it looks like taking the government wholly out of the marriage picture is the ideal solution to everyone's problems. Then everyone would be able to marry whomever and however many they want.

And on the tax thing: My taxes are going to pay for welfare benefits that I don't use. Should I get a refund, too?

David, as for your remarks on the whole voluntary slavery thing: So much for the inviolability of the rights of consenting adults. There are still countries in the world today which practice slavery. Who are you to thrust your morality upon others? If you don't believe in voluntary slavery-don't be/have one. But don't sit on your high horse and tell me that I can't.

After all, I'm not hurting anyone.


-Kiamat Dusk
Non-slave owner

This is a valid point, Kiamat, which we should explore more. The taxes we all pay into the system go to support many things, including some 'welfare' benefits. Sure, we may not use those welfare benefits, but, they are there incase we ever need to. The point is, you do have access to them, whereas gay couples don't have access to them (the benefits that come automatically with a marriage license).

It's that small difference of *having* the option vs. not having the option to use them.

Ahhhh, but I *can't* use welfare because I make too much money. Therefore, I'm being descriminated against and being kept from accessing my OWN money! Moreover, show me the welfare amendment to the Constitution. You won't find it. It's not there. Where is the ACLU when you need them, huh?

-Kiamat Dusk
Tax payer

If you were to lose your job, you would be able to make use of some of those welfare benefits. It's a safety net that we all pay for and one that, hopefully, you don't ever have to use - but it is there if you do. I'm willing to pay for that insurance.

It's like public school funding.. I don't have kids, but I still pay a portion of little Becky's schooling. I'm fine with that because I want them to have the best education possible and if my extra $$ helps achieve that - great! I want them to grow up smart becuase when I'm old and cranky, they'll be the ones running our country and I don't want a bunch of bozos in D.C.
So, while I may not use the service and some might feel I would be entitled to a refund, it serves the greater good, so I'm OK with it.

If we start allowing people to marry as many as they wish, how do you decide where the center is? In most polygamist religions, it's one man with multiple wives, but the American way would be to allow women to have multiple spouses as well. So say for instance:

Jane marries John and Jack
Jack marries Karen
John marries Kyle
Karen marries Wendy and April
Kyle marries Mike and June
etc, etc.

Does that mean they are all married to each other? And who is on whose insurance? Who has a say in death matters? What about child custody?

-Kiamat Dusk

no you miss my point.

Laws that should never have stood up to judicial reveiw enforced discrimination

It was not .. strictly legal.

It was the law , but it was illegal. Unconstitutional. No law may upsurp the constitutional guaranteed protections of citizens.

Do you see what i mean?

IF you accept someone of a minority as one of the citizens of the united staes as good as any other citizen .. THAN its unconsitional at least under the 14th ammendment if not earlier ones, to discriminate.

Illegal laws are passed ALL the time. And have been since the country began.

Becuase people Did not and continue to not GET THIS concept .. they had to pass laws such as Women's sufferage. And laws guaranteeing blacks and other minorities -- protections they all ready should have had.

Ironically - the arguements used to defeat the Equal Rights Ammendment .. were the same .. people claimed we did not need the ammendment becuase, under the constitution, they were all ready protected.

WELL .. if everyones all ready protected. Its time for this to be enforced. Isnt it?

Not striking down laws that violate these protections is Judical Activism .. to turn the original thread and original poster's own complaint back at him.

Enforcing the constitution is Judicial responsibility. Its called Judical review. It belongs.

Its still lacking in todays political climate.

We're not waiting for permission. We're already marrying whoever we wish. It'd be nice if it were decriminalized and legally recognized, but the lack of legal recognition doesn't change the fact that stable polyamorous unions exist.

In general, if a relationship is formalized by a marriage ceremony, all parties to the ceremony are considered married to one another. If another partner is to be added to the group, all existing participants must agree.

Child custody legally defaults to the biological parents, if it becomes an issue. Insurance is at the discretion of the participants - my partners and I have all declared each other equal beneficiaries. Life and death decisions are made as they are in any other family.

That's the model we follow, at any rate. If the individual is free to marry without the participation of existing partners, as in your example, I think the potential for instability is greater, and I'd certainly recommend that they carefully work out and formalize the details amongst themselves to avoid the problems you outline.

That is just a selfish and ignorant statement. If we started limiting people to only receiving what they pay into the government, the Red States would be in big trouble as they consistently receive more money from the government than they pay in.

Do you even know what a public works project is? Do you even care about your fellow man.

This statement by you explains a lot. If you are that self-absorbed your positions on gay marriage (which is basically I only like what is mine) becomes very clear.

I do understand your point, the constitution says all are equal but to have some less equal by 'laws' seems to be a massive contradiction and unconstitutional, I totally agree, but a law is legal even if it is a contradiction and evil. you CANNOT have an illegal law that is impossible, you can have unconstituional laws that we can only hope are changed.

The problem with the constitution being enforced is that it is allowed to be interpreted by lawyers, like slaves weren't legally considered people so therefore it wasn't unconstituional to treat them as unequal. Only when the law was changed were they legally equal. But laws are not illegal that is the most perfect example of an oxymoron, laws can be wrong and immoral and creul and all that but never illegal within the jurisdiction they cover.

Yeah, ERA wasn't given a fair shake, and women are still earning less for equal work, that is totally wrong.

good conversation, thank you my friend! *hugs*

you are not being discriminated against because you don't need welfare you silly twit, it's NOT your money it's taxes that your government requires you to pay so you have roads and cops and soldiers, only a tiny fraction of your taxes go to helping people who are unable to survive on their own. MOST of your taxes are going to kill brown people and feed corporations, ever hear of corporate welfare? nah, limbaugh doesn't mention that, just the tinest fraction of a percent of people who cheat the sytem, but Betctel and halliburton suck up more of YOUR money (the way you define it) than all the welfare queens ever did.

and if you are well off enough to not need welfare why are you hating on those who need it? do you realise that most welfare recipients are children, and you claim to be a Christian? I sure as hell don't know what bible you read but being a greedy bigot is not the bible i read as a kid, luckily there are Christians that do follow Jesus's word out there, love and compassion, realising that material possesions are not as important as the treasure you accumulate in heaven by the good deeds you do on earth, to the people around you. Jesus didn't hate, he told you to love your neighbor, starting a war to help get re-elected or for oil or just to funnel money into corporations that give some of it back to help re-elect the polotitions who gave the fat taxpayer money contracts in return is far more money out of your pocket than feeding a child who's parent's job went to China or mexico or India. But it's not your fault, you have been brainwashed by the rightwing, they keep your head full of imaginary welfare queens while sucking up your taxmoney for Halliburton, you know the numbers proove me right but don't want to admit it. have a nice day my friend.

It seems you are getting cuaght up with my definition of illegal. But I take it to mean doing something outside the law. Passing a law that violates a higher law, I feel, falls under this description.

Enforcing this law that was illegal to pass is therefore illegal in the strictest, Idealist sense.

My contention is that an Unconstitutional law and Illegal law are therefore the same thing.

Also in the idealist sense the 14th ammendment should have been enough to secure all rights (voting and the rest) and protection from discrimation for all minorities and women.

Of course it didnt and hasnt. This is lack of justice.

I realize my take and comments are idealist interpretations .. and that Laws were passed to enforce discrimation, and are continued to be passed.

Unconstitutional sounds like goverment class , many people (and thus voters) dont grasp what it really means.

When i told people where I work before the election that the anti gay marriage ammendment up for vote in this state was Unconstitutional the looked at me with a blank stare.

But they knew what Illegal means. Of course they were going to vote for it anyway becuase homesexuality is agaisnt their faith.

Arguements that church and state are seperate of course drew further blank stares.

No one has to agree with my semantics. but I think im clear on what i mean.