Same-sex marriage news

common sense starting to dawn on a few people
 
Yes I'm sure the Republicans will come kicking and screaming into the 20th 21st Century.
 
I'll do the kicking and they will do the screaming :D
 
in this article it says:

New Jersey's legislature was due to vote next week on a bill that would ban licensed therapists from performing gay-to-straight counseling for minors. Governor Chris Christie, who at first would not take a stand on the issue, has since indicated his opposition to the practice, raising expectations the bill will be signed into law.
Click to expand...
I hope so. children don't need this kind of abuse
 
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) filed a proposed US constitutional amendment Friday to ban same-sex unions. To date 28 of his Republican colleges have signed onto the amendment. And Republicans, who like to think of themselves as the protector of States rights, throws that one out the window as well.

"“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman"

Of course it's destined to fail. One needs a 2/3 majority and there's no way he can get sufficient Democrats to join in his horse and buggy show.
...
...
In related news Putin signed Russia's anti-gay law into action. Preventing marriages and outlawing Pride parades across the nation.
 
Anyone signing on to this is on the wrong side of history. Public opinion has strongly changed and those standing in the way will get run over.
 
@Red,
It's sad. I do have Republican fiends which are pro-gay marriage. There appears to be no support from the Republican Elected Representative. I wonder if this will be a replay of the civil rights movements? And will we see the anti-gay Dems leaving the party and going across the road. Like what happened with the Southern Strategy.
 
So How About Polygamy?

the idea that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution is less plausible than the idea that it is inherently exclusive to couples
Click to expand...
If a man can love a man, a woman can love a woman and a man. a man can love a man and a woman, if they all love each other... why can't they all be married? Why limit marriage to only 2?

what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?
Click to expand...

Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a legal precedent where there can be no valid legal premise for denying marriage to more than two people who wish to marry each other.

After Gay Marriage, why not Polygamy?

"A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing marriage for other forms of non-traditional relationships,"
Click to expand...
 
Polygamy? I wouldn't oppose the idea. People should define their family the way they want. It has no impact on me. Of course, the devil is always in the details.

And to say why not at this very moment - I think the reason is in the details. The marriage contract is considered to be between two people. When we allowed two different races to marry or two same sexes to marry it in no way changed the party count in the contract. Polygamy would enable an unlimited # of parties. To that end we'd have to figure out how to recalculate marriage benefits and recalculate divorce separation. (For example, How do taxes work. If you have 2 spouses and they disagree that each other can see you on your death bed then what? How do we split up the farm, after a divorce?) I think it would be doable but this would likely exponentially expand the legal code around marriages. That work has yet to be started, let alone completed. Perhaps the polygamists will do so and bring this forward as other minorities have.

I see the question of gay marriage leading to the question of why not polygamy. However, I don't see the freedom to choose A partner being a legal precedent to choose ANY NUMBER of partnerS.
 
faethor said:
The marriage contract is considered to be between two people. When we allowed two different races to marry or two same sexes to marry it in no way changed the party count in the contract. Polygamy would enable an unlimited # of parties.
Click to expand...

Why limit the number of marriages to only 1?
you could marry 4 women, and 4 men, then each is a separate contract between 2 people.
 
metalman said:
Why limit the number of marriages to only 1?
you could marry 4 women, and 4 men, then each is a separate contract between 2 people.
Click to expand...
Personally, I see no reason to limit it. However, we have nothing in place to encourage it either. What you wrote about a separate contract between each pair wouldn't legally work in the current structure. Because the current structure is defines limits that 1 person can only be in 1 contract at a time. So the 1 man can have 1 legal marriage but he cannot have 7. So, as I said we'd have to define what the contractual changes would be to enable polygamy. It's doable but will be a huge task.
 
damn... multiple spouses... yeah i dunno about that... age of consent laws are avg 16... some creepy old dude like hugh hefner could have him a lot of teenagers to paw on with his money.... thatd be gross but you know it would happen... we'd have people like arabian sheiks ... so we lose all of our freedoms and we gotta adopt all the marriage habits of the jihadi terrorists now too... geez louise... :D
 
:oops: King Solomon had 700wives..And the Christians are all for living by the rules in the Bible.
 
There was an old Thai song: 2 women is twice the problem :D
But in all seriousness, the only objection to polygamy could be in the details indeed, like law constructions and inheritance etcetera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top