PDA

View Full Version : Triad marriage


Nate
05-13-2009, 05:20 PM
I heard that some on the Right were trying to make this argument the other day, but I didn't believe it. Then, I heard something today from an unnamed famous conservative blowhard.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17953

Why in <insert diety's name here> do we still have to have this conversation? Why do we even still have the government sanctioning marriage anyway? (sanctioning who we can love/live with)

TwinSwords
05-13-2009, 05:31 PM
(telling us who we can love/live with)

The government doesn't tell us who we can love/live with, but yeah, otherwise, good question.

Nate
05-13-2009, 06:08 PM
The government doesn't tell us who we can love/live with, but yeah, otherwise, good question.

I should have said "sanctioning" instead. Apologies. (editing OP)

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 06:35 PM
I heard that some on the Right were trying to make this argument the other day, but I didn't believe it. Then, I heard something today from an unnamed famous conservative blowhard.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17953

Why in <insert diety's name here> do we still have to have this conversation? Why do we even still have the government sanctioning marriage anyway? (sanctioning who we can love/live with)

To the first part of your question, Jesse Taylor's reaction (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/will_anyone_ever_go_galt/) to another wingnut story today pretty well says it all:

In half a decade, conservatism has gone from a fearsome political machine unified by cultural, social and economic issues to your malcontent uncle who keeps trying to get you into rambling, asinine arguments thatís heís already lost a dozen times over.

As to the "sanctioning" aspect, we are talking about a contract here, not to mention arrangements like potential changes in things like citizenship, Social Security benefits, powers of attorney, and tax status. There is also a long history of marriage being used, from time to time, for unsavory ends. It seems reasonable to me for the government to pay some attention to this.

And really, what are we talking about, a license? What's the big deal?

And if you don't want to jump through that hoop, don't. No one is going to stop you from living with whomever else you want to, in whatever arrangement you work out among yourselves. Except maybe your busybody neighbors.

Lyle
05-13-2009, 06:55 PM
Well, if there are no rules what's to stop 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bigamy?

This is where conservatives have a point about gay marriage I must say. Where does it end? The way the state courts are arguing the issue, there won't be an end, i.e., we will have to eventually legalize polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, and whatever else.

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Well, if there are no rules what's to stop 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bigamy?

This is where conservatives have a point about gay marriage I must say. Where does it end? The way the state courts are arguing issue, there won't be an end, i.e., we will have to eventually legalize polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, and whatever else.

That's completely specious. All of these other arrangements are completely different things from two consenting adults getting married. You're just throwing these terms around because you're like Rick Santorum and his ilk -- a clueless homophobic bigot.

Nate
05-13-2009, 09:45 PM
Well, if there are no rules what's to stop 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds?
The difference is that a child is not a consenting adult.

Nate
05-13-2009, 09:52 PM
As to the "sanctioning" aspect, we are talking about a contract here, not to mention arrangements like potential changes in things like citizenship, Social Security benefits, powers of attorney, and tax status. There is also a long history of marriage being used, from time to time, for unsavory ends. It seems reasonable to me for the government to pay some attention to this.

And really, what are we talking about, a license? What's the big deal?

And if you don't want to jump through that hoop, don't. No one is going to stop you from living with whomever else you want to, in whatever arrangement you work out among yourselves. Except maybe your busybody neighbors.

You could have legally binding contracts between people which would accomplish just about any of those things without having the state decide who can "officially" be together in the form of marriage.

bjkeefe
05-13-2009, 10:14 PM
You could have legally binding contracts between people which would accomplish just about any of those things without having the state decide who can "officially" be together in the form of marriage.

Seems to me you already hit on one of the issues yourself (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=113663#post113663).

If you're talking just consenting adults, though, in principle, I agree. And in most practical ways I agree, too. And for that matter, I don't see why you can't enter into pretty much any contractual arrangement you want, subject to obvious legal constraints.

I don't even understand what your point is, come to that. Is this still about your wanting to be in a three-way arrangement of some sort and call it a marriage?

If so, I don't know what to tell you. I got nothing against it in principle, although I wouldn't want to participate in one myself, and I'm awfully leery of those weird religious cults that seem to be all about acquiring multiple young wives. I have to think you aren't going to get to use the M-word for a good long time. But who knows? Had you asked me twenty years ago, I would have said same-sex marriage (between two people) was an utter fantasy that I would never have expected to see in my lifetime, too.

Or is it that you think no one should be able to get "married" in some state-recognized way; i.e., do away with the concept altogether? If that's the case, then I gotta say, this seems even more unrealistic, and I'm not even in favor of entertaining the idea in the abstract.

Nate
05-13-2009, 10:45 PM
Seems to me you already hit on one of the issues yourself (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=113663#post113663).

If you're talking just consenting adults, though, in principle, I agree. And in most practical ways I agree, too. And for that matter, I don't see why you can't enter into pretty much any contractual arrangement you want, subject to obvious legal constraints.

I don't even understand what your point is, come to that. Is this still about your wanting to be in a three-way arrangement of some sort and call it a marriage?

If so, I don't know what to tell you. I got nothing against it in principle, although I wouldn't want to participate in one myself, and I'm awfully leery of those weird religious cults that seem to be all about acquiring multiple young wives. I have to think you aren't going to get to use the M-word for a good long time. But who knows? Had you asked me twenty years ago, I would have said same-sex marriage (between two people) was an utter fantasy that I would never have expected to see in my lifetime, too.

Or is it that you think no one should be able to get "married" in some state-recognized way; i.e., do away with the concept altogether? If that's the case, then I gotta say, this seems even more unrealistic, and I'm not even in favor of entertaining the idea in the abstract.

Lol, I don't personally want to be in a 3-way relationship. Not being homosexual, I don't want to be in a homosexual relationship, either. I just don't like that the government is basically issuing a certain class of contracts to a restricted group of people.

I don't have a problem with people having any kind of contract they want to to provide death benefits, various property agreements, etc. (package them together and call it a "union" or something like many states do) Some religious people just find the word "marriage" so mystical, that I say let them have it. Make "marriage" completely separate from any government entity and devoid it of all governmental fingerprints.

(In principle, I wish anyone could get married in whatever kind of adult relationship that they want to have, but it seems like a much easier fight to do it another way.)

Lyle
05-13-2009, 11:33 PM
No, it's not. I'll look around and see if I can find the Volokh blog post on it, but the slippery slope of logic being used to constitutionalize gay marriage can be used to legalize anything pretty much. Lawrence v. Texas has also already been used to argue in support of polygamy in Utah. The same legal arguments that are being used by gay marriage advocates are also being used by others to promote whatever kind of marriage arrangement they want. Conservatives aren't in fact making this stuff up.

I support gay marriage by the way. Eugene Volokh does as well.

http://volokh.com/posts/1238948132.shtml

Lyle
05-13-2009, 11:34 PM
Yes, but who makes that a law? A State government.

Nate
05-13-2009, 11:40 PM
Yes, but who makes that a law? A State government.
I don't mind laws that protect children as much as laws that "protect" adults. I think most people probably feel the same way.

Lyle
05-13-2009, 11:44 PM
Yeah, I don't disagree, but my point is that the same legal arguments that apply to same-sex marriage also work for other kinds of matrimonial arrangements. Polygamists are already using rulings on same-sex marriage to say that polygamy should be lawful as well.

Nate
05-14-2009, 12:03 AM
Yeah, I don't disagree, but my point is that the same legal arguments that apply to same-sex marriage also work for other kinds of matrimonial arrangements. Polygamists are already using rulings on same-sex marriage to say that polygamy should be lawful as well.

That is why the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There is always some constituency that wants it updated or amended to be something else. This is why we have a separation of church and state, to avoid problems like this. (yes, marriage is seen as a religious institution by many)

The irony on polygamy is that it is usually Christians who oppose it (at least in the US), while many of the great religious figures in the Bible practiced it. (King Solomon, 700 wives and 300 concubines)

TwinSwords
05-14-2009, 01:01 AM
Well, if there are no rules what's to stop 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bigamy?

Good question! And if we let blacks have a seat at the lunch counter, what's to stop crazed serial killers and Islamofascists from dining in our cafes!??!

Obviously X leads to everything.

TwinSwords
05-14-2009, 01:06 AM
I support gay marriage by the way. Eugene Volokh does as well.

LOL.

According to your own logic, then, you also objectively support 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds, polygamy. polyandry, and bigamy.

Because, as you said, "This is where conservatives have a point about gay marriage I must say. Where does it end? The way the state courts are arguing the issue, there won't be an end, i.e., we will have to eventually legalize polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, and whatever else."

I love, especially, the "whatever else."

Lyle
05-14-2009, 01:17 AM
Government has to be involved at some level. You can change it to civil unions if you want, but benefits flow from the legal status of being in a union and only a government can provide the authority for such legal relationships.

Lyle
05-14-2009, 01:25 AM
I think you've misunderstand what I'm saying.. but, yes, that's where the logic of the legal arguments leads, to polygamy, polyandry, etc. That's why it's called the "slippery slope" argument.

I'm not arguing that the slippery slope argument is a reason courts should deny same-sex couples the right to marry. I'm only saying that conservatives are right to point out that legalizing same-sex marriage might lead to the legalization of polygamy and other marriage arrangements down the road. Polygamists have already begun to use same-sex marriage legal successes to argue their own case. They're doing this because the legal reasoning is the same. Family law classes in law schools discuss this problem in fact.

You should read the Volokh blog post.

"Whatever else" could mean legalizing the marriage of a person to animal, for example.

Lyle
05-14-2009, 01:46 AM
No, actually it doesn't since we're specifically talking about relationships that are legally recognized. Some countries do in fact recognize child marriage.

bjkeefe
05-14-2009, 05:39 AM
Lol, I don't personally want to be in a 3-way relationship. Not being homosexual, I don't want to be in a homosexual relationship, either. I just don't like that the government is basically issuing a certain class of contracts to a restricted group of people.

Okay. I guess once same-sex marriage becomes legal nationwide, I just won't see the restrictions as at all onerous, since the "restricted group of people" will include pretty much all adults. If it turns out that I'm wrong about the number of people who really do want group (>2) marriage to be legalized, then I'll be happy to be informed, but at the moment it seems like a non-issue to me. And as for marriage between two people, I just don't see the licensing process as that big a deal, especially (1) in light of what being married brings in benefits and (2) that it is not required that two people get (legally) married if they don't want to.

I don't have a problem with people having any kind of contract they want to to provide death benefits, various property agreements, etc. (package them together and call it a "union" or something like many states do) Some religious people just find the word "marriage" so mystical, that I say let them have it. Make "marriage" completely separate from any government entity and devoid it of all governmental fingerprints.

I used to sort of believe this, too, but I don't any longer. Too many of the mechanisms of our (US) society are intertwined with the idea of marriage. This seems to be less true in some other countries, so maybe the importance will fade of its own accord, perhaps as the US develops a better social safety net, among other things.

In the meantime, the effect of having marriage restricted to opposite-sex couples only with "civil unions" permitted in some cases for same-sex couples appears to have resulted in a "separate but equal" problem; i.e., it doesn't amount to full equality in practice.

Also in the meantime, as I've said, once same-sex marriage becomes the norm, I just don't see the government involvement in the marriage process as particularly onerous.

As for religious groups, I have no problem with particular sects having their own, additional restrictions on who can get married, so if they feel the need to keep it between one man and one woman, and/or to between people who have not previously been married to other people, I say, whatever. As a practical matter, I expect this will change over time, due to desires not to lose market share and to avoid schisms.

(In principle, I wish anyone could get married in whatever kind of adult relationship that they want to have, but it seems like a much easier fight to do it another way.)

Agreed, and mostly because once you move past the notion of couples, it really seems like such an edge case.

bjkeefe
05-14-2009, 12:18 PM
Well, if there are no rules what's to stop 5 year olds marrying 70 year olds? Polygamy? Polyandry? Bigamy?

Where Lyle gets his information. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWClPzovaq4)

(h/t: Bob Cesca (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/05/fire_eaters.html))

Lyle
05-14-2009, 12:25 PM
I never seen that video before, but I did link to Volokh. Have you not read the post I linked to?

I also support same-sex marriage as much as you do bjkeefe. Men who like to put men's penises in their anus or mouth doesn't really bother me. If a women likes to lick clitoris, good for her. Enjoy! Marry the girl you're going down on while you're at it!

Nate
05-14-2009, 12:28 PM
That clip makes me very sad.

(The part with Glen Beck talking about a man marrying 3 women was kind of funny, though, considering he is Mormon.)

Nate
05-14-2009, 12:29 PM
I don't see much disagreement between our positions.

bjkeefe
05-14-2009, 12:47 PM
I don't see much disagreement between our positions.

Okay.

Nate
05-14-2009, 12:50 PM
Okay.

Okie-dokie.

Lyle
05-14-2009, 01:11 PM
Glenn Beck wasn't raised Mormon, he converted to it... and the LDS abhors polygamy now.

Nate
05-14-2009, 04:05 PM
Glenn Beck wasn't raised Mormon, he converted to it... and the LDS abhors polygamy now.

1) Converting to it would be seem to be a stronger indication of acceptance of Mormon principles than simply being raised in it.
2) The official stance of the LDS is against polygamy, but there are several splinter groups that still practice it.
3) The official stance of the LDS to be against polygamy came after outside political pressure forced it upon them. (same with not allowing black members of the priesthood until 1978)

Lyle
05-14-2009, 05:28 PM
All correct, except that Glenn Beck doesn't subscribe to polygamy and the splinter groups of Mormons aren't LDS.

Nate
05-14-2009, 09:37 PM
All correct, except that Glenn Beck doesn't subscribe to polygamy and the splinter groups of Mormons aren't LDS.

I never claimed either to be the case.

Nate
05-14-2009, 09:39 PM
Obviously.

Nate
05-14-2009, 09:43 PM
I'm only saying that conservatives are right to point out that legalizing same-sex marriage might lead to the legalization of polygamy and other marriage arrangements down the road.

No, it won't. At least, not in the linear direct-relationship way you are attempting to visualize it, but more in the "everything is connected" kind of a way.

Starwatcher162536
05-20-2009, 02:55 PM
Isnt a marriage license basically just an all in one contract giving your spouse prefrential treatment in a variety of matters?

If so, how would that work for polygamists? Give it to all wives/husbands and let them vote?


Note:
I am okay with the idea of polygamy, I just don't like groups secluding themselves from society at large.

kezboard
05-20-2009, 09:40 PM
But you would think, wouldn't you, that Mormons would be the last people to fall for the canard that "marriage between one man and one woman" is a constant throughout human history, the bedrock of civilization, etc. At least, you would hope.

Lyle
05-20-2009, 09:47 PM
Not really since they don't want to be seen as freaks. Beck wasn't raised in the Mormon tradition though. My guess is he has always subscribed to the traditional notion of marriage.

Lyle
05-20-2009, 09:51 PM
I can actually see polygamy or even bigamy becoming legalized at some point. A number of people live their lives this way. Jack Nicholson and George Clooney are basically polygamists. Not widely known is that Warren Buffet more or less has two life long partners (two women).

Really successful men can have as many women in their lives as they want it seems. Some women I think are okay with that as well, interestingly. Bigamy is still practiced in China and other parts of Asia. Wealthy businessman sometimes have 2 or 3 wives spread out in different cities or countries. The NY Times had a decent article on this a few years ago.

I'm not sure where I come down on the issue.