And now it begins...

[bdcp]

All I can say without getting attacked is that it will not stop people from trying and tying up the courts with even more stupid, self-serving lawsuits. These lawsuits are no surprise to a lot of people I know and the goal is to wear the courts and public opinion down.

 

[Dizlvr]

I could care less who you marry, but I would expect all those supporting same *** marriage would be the first group to support this guy as well or anyone who wants to marry anything.


You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Really, you think that because I support marriage equality regardless of the gender of the 2 spouses I'd support a person marrying anything? Um, okay.

As far as polygamy, I don't care if a person wants to marry 10 people, that is their business, but as it stands now marriage is a legal union of 2 people. If someone wants to fight to get that law amended, well go for it.

 

[gwynne]

Really, you think that because I support marriage equality regardless of the gender of the 2 spouses I'd support a person marrying anything? Um, okay.

As far as polygamy, I don't care if a person wants to marry 10 people, that is their business, but as it stands now marriage is a legal union of 2 people. If someone wants to fight to get that law amended, well go for it.

Exactly. And JMO, it looks like a lot of these frivolous arguments may be a backhanded way to be rather unkind/rude/snide to same sex couples. My thinking is that if folks need to spend their days hand wringing about multiple wives/dogs/grandma "worries".. have at it.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Really, you think that because I support marriage equality regardless of the gender of the 2 spouses I'd support a person marrying anything? Um, okay.

As far as polygamy, I don't care if a person wants to marry 10 people, that is their business, but as it stands now marriage is a legal union of 2 people. If someone wants to fight to get that law amended, well go for it.

Really, you think that because I support marriage equality regardless of the gender of the 2 spouses I'd support a person marrying anything? Um, okay.

Now you know how the shoe fits. How you are feeling about someone wanting to marry a car for example is how some view same sex marriage.
You want to marry your car, go ahead, what the heck do I care. The law should apply to everyone and every situation since the judges used the 14th amendment to pass this law.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I have thought for some time that the legalization of polygamy might actually be helpful. Right now, it is largely hidden and so it is easier for young girls to be forced into polygamous "marriages" against their will. Also, because they have no real legal status or claim for support or sharing of assets, those who want to leave polygamous situations often feel that they can't. I think if it was legal and more out in the open, there would be more opportunities to ensure that the participants were of legal age and were actually consenting. It would also provide more protection for those who want to leave polygamous marriages.

I would have thought that the religious people who were opposed to gay marriage would be all for polygamous marriage. It's certainly common in the Bible.

 

[Dizlvr]

Now you know how the shoe fits. How you are feeling about someone wanting to marry a car for example is how some view same *** marriage.
You want to marry your car, go ahead, what the heck do I care. The law should apply to everyone and every situation since the judges used the 14th amendment to pass this law.

Sure, I don't care if you want to marry a car, but do I support your legal right to marry one? Um, no I don't, again because a car isn't an actual person. But hey if you want to dress yourself up in a tux and drape a pretty white sheet and some flowers on your car and spend the rest of your life with it, go right ahead.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

(Bolding mine.)
No, you're not understanding the "new law" correctly.

Didn't scotus use the 14th amendment in their ruling "no state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the U.S., nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Sounds like this covers just about any scenario that can be thought of.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

You can't enter into a legal contract (which is what marriage is) with an inanimate object or an animal. Sorry for those who love their cars.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Sure, I don't care if you want to marry a car, but do I support your legal right to marry one? Um, no I don't, again because a car isn't an actual person. But hey if you want to dress yourself up in a tux and drape a pretty white sheet and some flowers on your car and spend the rest of your life with it, go right ahead.

Ok, so as long as it's a person it is ok? I just want to try and see your double standard.

 

[gottaluvPluto]

If we don't agree with polygamy will we be considered intolerant and filled with hate? If polygamy is allowed we have to change the tax law.

 

[Dizlvr]

Ok, so as long as it's a person it is ok? I just want to try and see your double standard.

No, I think you want to try to and argue something ridiculous. I guess your holiday weekend started early and you are bored.

 

[cabanafrau]

All I can say without getting attacked is that it will not stop people from trying and tying up the courts with even more stupid, self-serving lawsuits. These lawsuits are no surprise to a lot of people I know and the goal is to wear the courts and public opinion down.

What I find the most disturbing trend springing up out of many hot button issues over the past several years is that public opinion is now expected to be group think, one opinion flowing a single way or you are wrong, on the wrong side of history, whatever. That's the real slippery slope I'm afraid we're on. Extending equal rights shouldn't mean surrendering our right to hold our own opinions. No matter what the issue is, everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as they aren't looking to mandate others' behavior or deny their rights.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

No, I think you want to try to and argue something ridiculous. I guess your holiday weekend started early and you are bored.

Nope, just trying to see your intolerance for some people and their feelings. Is it ridiculous to those who seriously want to marry something other than another person? I'm just curious as to where this will stop since this new law could have just opened a big can of worms.

 

[Dizlvr]

Nope, just trying to see your intolerance for some people and their feelings. Is it ridiculous to those who seriously want to marry something other than another person? I'm just curious as to where this will stop since this new law could have just opened a big can of worms.

I have no problem with a person wanting to marry their car, a chair, or a blow up doll or whatever else they want.
If any of those things could legally enter into a contract you'd have yourself a valid argument. Since you know they can't I vote that your just here trolling. Enjoy the rest of your day with all of that.

 

[ScottOKW2K]

You can't enter into a legal contract (which is what marriage is) with an inanimate object or an animal. Sorry for those who love their cars.

Good post. The object or animal cannot consent to the contract (marriage) so therefore it would not have standing in a court of law. It is also the same for a child - it is held that a child does not have the full knowledge of the ramifications of his/her decision and therefore cannot be held to the contract, effectively voiding it. Not true with adults as they are assumed to be capable of making an informed decision and are able to enter into a binding contract.

The tax law side argument is fluff. The IRS releases thousands of pages of new information every year. This somewhat argues for a simplified tax code, doesn't it?

 

[PollyannaMom]

One of the big differences (to my understanding) is tax (and other financial) implications. The tax implications of a same-*** marriage are no different than a different-*** marriage (still two people), when you get 3+ people in a marriage, things get complicated...

Personally, I waffle on the idea of polygamy. On the one hand, I wonder if it would actually work really well for some families to have two working parents and a stay-at-home one, but I also see a very high potential for very unequal "partnerships" and abuse (probably from what I've heard about illegal polygamy now).

But legally, I agree with the above. Marriage is not just an emotional institution, it is a financial one. And financially, it is structured as a contract between two people (male/female, male/male, female/female - same thing financially). I just don't see anything changing that in the near future. Love may win, but (for good or not) money rules.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

If you think about it, what exactly is the problem with marrying multiple people? As long as they can't get to cheat on their taxes, it's no skin off my nose. I doubt it will work out, but then again, isn't that true of a lot of marriages?

 

[Jennasis]

For Me the key word is "consenting". Inanimate objects, animals and minors cannot give consent. Everything else is fair game.

 

[Lynne M]

I'm just gonna say it,and then go.

The supreme court decision says nothing about 'marry anyone or anything or as many anythings as you want to'. But I suspect most people who joke about that know better, they're just think they're making a point. Unfortunately, the point they're making is "I didn't read the decision and don't understand the issue."

The decision is a matter of stopping discrimination against one particular class of people. You can't say "gay people can't marry other gay people", any more than you can say "black people can't marry other black people". The laws that the supreme court overturned were written specifically to prevent gay people from marrying.

In other words, the decision did not change the practice of civil marriage, just said that you can't exclude one class of people from participating in it.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I have to say I find it really offensive that someone would compare a loving, intimate, mutual relationship between two adults (of whatever gender) with "wanting to marry a car."