User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 12

  1. #1
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default Polygamy and Gay Marriage

    Is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage? Is it unconstitutional to ban polygamous marriages? If the answers to these two questions differ, what is the Constitutional difference?

  2. #2
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    It's more of a bureaucratic issue than a Constitutional issue. If a church or other entity wants to bond you in matrimony with more than three people, you're free to do that. Same with gay marriages. The issue is the paperwork and partner benefits, which the Constitution does NOT provide for.

    It also doesn't provide benefits for heterosexual couples either, which is the issue. The government brought the marriage debate onto itself by politicizing straight marriage through tax breaks. If it would stay out of marriage altogether, it'd be a fairly cut and dry issue.
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  3. #3
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Banning either seems kind of arbitrary to me.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  4. #4
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Put your two hands together!

    I'm all for polygamous gay marriages. That'd be all kinds of awesome!


  5. #5
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    The 10th amendment clearly allows for gay marriage and bans on gay marriage. Let the states decide it.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  6. #6
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    ^ Yeah, I'm kind of for that. If you don't like the way your state runs things, be active in it, or gtfo to a state you do like. There's a state out there for everyone really.

    However, I won't deny that it is retarded some of the things states do (like waiting until 2003 to take "banning interracial marriage" off of the books officially) and I don't think that they're anymore capable of calling things than the national government in general.

    I don't see why these things are banned in the first place. I don't care what/who people marry.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  7. #7
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    ^family/economic considerations make "then move to a different state" an unwise position to take.

    human rights aren't "arbitrary"..they (should) transcend borders. what's right is right, and not based on where you happen to live. why should i have to move away from my family or forgo a decent salary because people can't live and let live? leave people be.

    if state laws reign supreme, then the fed is a farce. two masters...two sets of laws...is a joke.

  8. #8
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xisnotx View Post
    ^family/economic considerations make "then move to a different state" an unwise position to take.

    human rights aren't "arbitrary"..they (should) transcend borders. what's right is right, and not based on where you happen to live. why should i have to move away from my family or forgo a decent salary because people can't live and let live? leave people be.

    if state laws reign supreme, then the fed is a farce. two masters...two sets of laws...is a joke.
    Yes. Our society is increasingly mobile, due to factors like those you reference, plus improved transportation and communication infrastructure. As U.S. citizens, we should all be subject to the same basic rights and responsibilities, regardless of where in the nation we happen to live. States can vary in how they engage with citizens in these areas, but not in the end result. One of the greatest functions of the federal government is in limiting the extent to which our individual freedoms may be abridged by lower levels of government. In other words, telling states and localities: "you may not limit that; it is an individual right". This to me is the essence of "less government".

    See this thread for an earlier discussion of this issue.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  9. #9
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Interesting article about the different justifications for ruling gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, and future implications of the same: Implications of alternative rationales for striking down laws banning same-sex marriage

    While I regard gay marriage bans as wrong rather than unconstitutional, I agree with the author that the first option (gay marriage bans being ruled unconstitutional on the basis of unequal protection in terms of gender discrimination) is the least expansive ruling in terms of impact on (or judicial scrutiny over) other issues, and so I wouldn't be too worked up about it.

  10. #10
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,933

    Default

    Constitutionality is a political decision (as in whatever the Supreme Court says), but we are still allowed to have our irrelevant opinions about the fairness of the ideas.

    Gay marriage: fair

    Poligamy: unfair

Similar Threads

  1. Gay marriage and black people
    By great_bay in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-22-2016, 10:30 PM
  2. Gay Marriage and SCOTUS: Hi ho and here we go
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Texas GOP Platform: Criminalize Gay Marriage and Ban Sodomy
    By Ginkgo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 10:40 PM
  4. nazi dominatrixes and gay smilies
    By booyalab in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-29-2007, 06:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO