April 1, 2013
-
Should Alternative Family Structures Be Legally Recognized?
The hot topic these days is Gay Marriage. We are told that same-sex weddings should be valid. Everyone should have an equal right to marry, after all. To say otherwise is prejudicial and discriminatory, and cannot be tolerated. Okay. Let’s recognize gay marriage.
What about Common-law Marriage? Some couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, live together without benefit of any State-sanctioned Marriage. Marriage, they hold, consists of nothing more than a piece of paper, anyway. Who needs that? They are committed to each other by love. Okay, this is another great form of Family!!!
Let’s talk about Polygamy. Polygamists truly believe that having more than one spouse at a time is acceptable, even desirable. Subcategories are Polygyny, in which a man has multiple wives, and Polyandry, which is the opposite, an arrangement in which a woman has more than one husband. Polygamy, by the way, is not necessarily limited to three adult partners. A natural variant of these would be a Group Marriage with more than three adult partners, regardless of their sex. Such an arrangement means that there are more adults to provide loving care for the children, lessening the demand on any one of the adults. Also, more than one adult, perhaps even all of the adults, can work outside the home, providing income to support the family. This would surely provide a higher standard of living. Sounds great; let’s allow these types of family, too.
Now, let’s ask a few questions.
How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?
Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?
In two-person arrangements with no State-Sanctioned Marriage Ceremony, are they entitled to employer-provided benefits equal to Legally Married couples?
How long does a couple have to live together to qualify as a Common-Law Marriage?
How does inheritance of property work?
If the Family includes more than two adults:
How does it affect the legal status of the arrangement if one or more people decide they want out of the arrangement, maybe taking children with them?
How are employer-provided benefits affected?
Foster Care & Adoption of children must also be looked at. Should multiple-adult-partner families be allowed to take in foster children, or to adopt children? When multiple-partner families split up, who gets custody of which children?
Now, since one aspect of Family Law is making sure all children born are cared for, let’s tackle Age of Consent:
At what age should a person be allowed to enter into a relationship that will be legally recognized as equal to Marriage?
Is a person who is physically capable of reproduction entitled to have consensual sex, and therefore entitled to marry, or enter into a legally equivalent relationship?
At what age are people allowed to consent to have sex?
Should there be a limit on the age of the partner that one consents to have sex with? If so, what is a legally acceptable age difference?
If “underage” people do have sex, and produce children, who is obligated to care for those children?
What do you think about alternative family structures? Which ones should be legally recognized as equal? Where should we draw the boundaries?Finally: Should these laws be established by States or by the Federal Government? Think about moving from one State to another, and finding your Family is no longer legally recognized.
NOTE: Traditionally, in the United States, a marriage has been between one man and one woman. By changing the definition of family that is accepted by Society and recognized by law, we are opening what one commenter referred to as a “Pandora’s Box” of legal questions. All points raised in this post WILL have to be addressed in the legislature and in the court system once we change that definition. If you do a response post, please mention and include a link to my post, and user-tag me so I can read it.
Comments (173)
The state of Pennsylvania saw this coming several years ago and disestablished “common law” as a recognized form of marriage, although the state did grandfather in those who could provide proof of having been a heterosexual couple who had been together 7 years or longer. There are many reasons why a heterosexual couple would create a family such as this, most of them financial.
Finances will be the driving force in determining what constitutes a legal “marriage” arrangement. We’d like to think morality will, but in the end, it will be financial.
I have no idea what the laws are in CT… I’ll have to come back with a “real” comment on this one… interesting post!
When it comes to marriage and families, I think there is no boundary. Unless, of course, we’re talking about children procreating/marrying adults. The question is when does a child become an adult? There’s where a problem lies. But I say, if you’re able to provide for multiple wives or husbands or a person of the same sex (and I would even take it a step further and allow incest), then go ahead.
And things like money and children will be handled in the same manner they are handed in a single couple heterosexual marriage: in a case by case way.
I think the jump from gay marriage to consent age is a bit much, lol… it seems liek you’re trying to say if we have gay marriage, 6-year-olds will have sex, and that just isn’t true.
How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?
Im not sure the number really matters… personally I couldnt even imagin being married to more then one person. And i think it should only happen as long as every single person involved is truly happy about it. Those mormon towns you read about where one man is married to every woman in town… I dont think that that is ok simply because I do not believe that every one of those women is truly happy with the situation, no one should be getting married because they feel its what they have to do. But then that is horribly difficult for the government to control. If it were me I would say consider each situation individually, because thats the kind of person I am, i cannot make sweeping judgments.
Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?
No idea on this one Im afraid
In
two-person arrangements with no State-Sanctioned Marriage Ceremony, are
they entitled to employer-provided benefits equal to Legally Married
couples?
Probably
How long does a couple have to live together to qualify as a Common-Law Marriage?
Someone said 7 years a few comments up, that sounds a reasonable amount of time. I think between then and 10 years… thats a commited relationship in my opinion rather then a fleeting one. Not that that means it wont crumble.
How does inheritance of property work?
That should be the persons choice. Thats what wills are for isnt it?
If the Family includes more than two people:
How
does it affect the legal status of the arrangement if one or more
people decide they want out of the arrangement, maybe taking children
with them?
Custody of children would be decided by the court as usual. I suppose they might have to take tests to find out the two biological parents if that hadnt been done already. Then the arrangement would just be revised to include the people left in it.
How are employer-provided benefits affected?
No idea
Now, since one aspect of Family Law is making sure all children born are cared for, let’s tackle Age of Consent:
At what age should a person be allowed to enter into a relationship that will be legally recognized as equal to Marriage?
I find this one really difficult. At 16 I thought I was in love, I thought I wanted to marry the person I was with. But you change so much (or at least I did), in the 4 or so years after that that its impossible to tell if it is real lasting love or just 16yearold love. Here the marriage age is 18, 16 if you have parental consent. I would go with 18 though to be honest I am always a little sceptical of marriages at that age as well.
Is a person who is physically capable of reproduction entitled to have
consensual sex, and therefore entitled to marry, or enter into a
legally equivalent relationship?
Age for sex is impossible to dictate… you can only educate, but teenagers will have sex whenever it is that they decide they want to/are ready to. And no they shouldnt be entitled to marry. Ive met loads of 13 year olds who probably have sex and probably think they are totally ‘in love’, but they arent, letting them marry would be a huge mistake, however many tantrums they might have about it being refused.
At what age are people allowed to consent to have sex?
it is 16 here, but it is for the large part ignored. You can have a random age, but in the end you just have to educate everyone and hope for the best.
Should
there be a limit on the age of the partner that one consents to have
sex with? If so, what is a legally acceptable age difference?
If we are talking about young teenagers, I would say no one older then 18. I think at that age the difference needs to be quite small. After everyone is over 18 the age difference is up to the people involved.
If “underage” people do have sex, and produce children, who is obligated to care for those children?
If possible the parents parents/family combined with the parents themselves. If it is unsuitable enviornment for the children to grow up in then I suppose they would have to be taken into care. But that would need to be assessed individually. For the most part it is best for children to remain with their family if possible.
What
do you think about alternative family structures? Which ones should be
legally recognized as equal? Where should we draw the boundaries?
I think homosexuals and heterosexual marriages should not be considered differently from the others. It is two people in love. As for polgyamy etc, I admit that I find that difficult to accept, but I stand by my conviction that it is not up to me to tell them if they are really in love and happy with the situation. I think the people involved need to be adults and all of them need to consent. I think in situations where you end up with hundreds of wives etc that would need to be individually considered.
Finally:
Should these laws be established by States or by the Federal
Government? Think about moving from one State to another, and finding
your Family is no longer legally recognized.
Dont really care since I dont live in any of the states!
Apologies for taking you literally and answering all the questions, I found it interesting!
@happyworld_ofharibo - Thank you for taking the time to really think things through; hope you enjoyed reading this!
@xXjustanother_deadgirlXx - That was an assumption on your part, and a misperception. I actually don’t give any opinion on any of these things. I’m simply asking people to consider what kinds of different families should be legally recognized, and entitled to all the legal benefits & held to all of the responsibilities legal marriage entails. As for 6-year-olds, they are generally too young physically to reproduce, so they do not relate to this post except as the responsibility of their parents/the adults in the family.
@brokenbindings2 - @SamsPeeps - @LyricallyCharged - Thanks for reading, and sharing your views.
This is a really interesting post, defiantly deserving a rec. You have good points in it and good questions. I will come back with a better comment on this one when I have a bit more time, later on.
@lonelywanderer2 - Well you aren’t exactly phrasing your questions unbiasedly is all.
The truth is, the age for a legal adult is 18. So, if we go off of that, once you’re over 18, it souldn’t matter to the government or lawmakers what you do in your personal life unless another person is negatively affected by it and makes a complaint.ex: You’re a nudist. Fine, the government doesn’t care. Leave your blinds open and bug your neighbors, they call the cops, now that government can be involved. But they shouldn’t make nudism illegal, they should just ask you to remember to close your blinds.Personally, I think nearly all laws are too friggen nit-picky. Co-habitation is illegal in my state, and in July I move into a house with two guys. OH NO! illegal!
The law should be required to recognize all family-structures. It’s function is to protect the people and enforce major laws like theft, murder, etc… not tell people how they can live their lives.
As for the age of consent, it is probably fine the way it is for the time being. I have met people 16 to 17 years of age with more wisdom and intellect than most people five times their age. The laws of consent exist to protect the proles; the uneducated majority and for that reason it is best that they remain the way they are.
Regarding laws of possession and inheritance… I have nothing to say. I have no intention of being married and do not concern myself with the laws regarding it very often. I’ll let those with stock in the situation sort it out amongst themselves.
Family law is, and should be, controlled by state law. A state can define “marriage” or “family” any way its citizens choose, i.e., vote, which is as it should be. Nearly all the questions you posed are currently answered by state statutory schemes or state common law. The complexity of the questions does not prevent the law from answering them; laws are formed over time, through legislation and court decision. Any law can be changed to reflect the change of the times. Changes in the law are accomplished through legislation or court decision, or both. To sit down and decide answers to each of these questions is a little bit of a useless exercise. A better question might be, “how do we want to change our current state laws to better reflect our changing values about families?”
I’m upset I didn’t get to see this earlier! Tomorrow I will read it again and comment more. You gave me too much to think about.
common law marriage is kinda weird, they dont give you benefits with insurance and things of the sort, you picked a pretty heated topic with the two under that haha
Nice work, Pandora. Let me know when you find the lid.
It Takes a Village. He-he. How much easier would it be if the village were married to each other? Nah, I’m joking.
@xXjustanother_deadgirlXx - I don’t think that’s it at all. It’s just, where do we draw the line? We’ve had the current line for a while now, but it seems to be time to re-draw it. But where? Whatever we do we are going to cut some person off from “marrying” someone whom they “love.” Why not recognize multiple marriages by one person to many? Why not recognize marriages of young people? “Those are wrong” some say, but some still say that about gay marriage. So what now? Either way someone is going to complain.
@ELIZerson - @ordinarybutloud - @xXjustanother_deadgirlXx - You have all recognized my points exactly, even down to answering whether the current age of consent is what it should be. Once you start changing one aspect of family law it puts all others into question as well. Like ripples after you throw a stone into a pond.
@wolvenchic - @ExecutionofSwiftVengeance - @SwordAndSacrifice - Once in awhile, you gotta stir the pot!
Gay marriage should definitely be allowed i mean, i can see why it’s so controversial. It’s because Marriage use to be held in holy places, it use to be a holy act but ever since the totalitarianism era, marriage shifted to be more of a civil act rather than being associated with churches, popes, and the bible. Some people are still deeply religious while those who aren’t don’t simply care that much about it. Love is love and it’s upsetting to know that two couples of the same sex have to have permission to be together in most places. I know both religious and non religious people who oppose it and support it but it mainly comes down to morales and holy principles.
x Thanks :] btw. for the comment.
polyandry!!!!!!
@bluebear2cute - agrees with u
all good points… but makes my head hurt right now. i really don’t have strong opinions on it, except to say that men and women were meant to be together so they could reproduce. a woman with a woman cannot reproduce so i’m not so sure it’s right they have kids. same with a man and a man.
There is a lot to respond to here, so i am just going to pick one. Common-law marriage is a big pet peeve of mine, for a simple reason. Those people that say “marriage is just a stupid piece of paper” are right. From a technical standpoint, a marriage license is simply a legal document. Not going through the legal hoops for marriage is analogous to failing to sign the guest book at a wedding. Yeah, it is the one part of the whole ordeal that everyone likes the least, but that doesn’t make it less important. You can’t walk indignantly past the guest book one day, and be mad that you don’t get your thank you card the next.
$0.02
Hmmm…. I don’t really think that gay marriage is related to age of consent at all. And I think that this group marriage thing sounds like a commune/ cult of some sort (like The Manson Family) more than something that is likely to become common or popular. I believe that marriage should be about two people who love each other- regardless of gender.
I think that the thing that you are neglecting (or perhaps this explains the jump to consent) is that homosexual couples who are seeking marriage are (for the most part, since nothing is 100%) in mature, committed, loving, consensual relationships. There is no abuse, force, child brides, Joy books and sister wives, guilt or “commanded by the prophet” nonsense going on. No quicky marriages in Vegas, green card schemes, legal testimony evasion, shotgun weddings- or anything else that perverts the institution of marriage. Just love. Any whether you believe homosexuality is wrong or the best thing since sliced bread, why would you deny someone a chance to celebrate their love?
If you’re looking at marriage as purely a legal contract (and that is all the courts have addressed to date), then it should be available to two consenting adults, regardless of gender.
Common law marriage is already recognized where I live, and in a number of other states besides, so that’s a moot point here.
Foster care and adoption of children is also, already allowed.
Bringing children as sexual partners into this argument is illogical and inflammatory. As is polygamy.
The courts have addressed a long standing legal contract between two adults, and found that to exclude people on the basis of sexual orientation is discriminatory. Period.
If people are so genuinely concerned with “the sanctity of marriage”, perhaps they should be rallying to ban divorce, which Jesus specifically addressed, unlike homosexuality.
Should the government be involved at all?
@PrimevalWench - The whole subject of changing definitions of legally recognized marriages is inflammatory, which is why it is being discussed. And why is it any more inflammatory or illogical to discuss the number of partners to be allowed, or the ages, than to discuss same-sex marriages being included? All involve changing perceptions of what is socially accepted and legally recognized as family.
@Free_2Cents - That is arguable, but they inevitably will be when there are disputes about benefits the family is entitled to, and the “best interests of the children”.
@lonelywanderer2 - I should add I’m not saying you’re wrong, just saying I think it’s worth discussion.
@lonelywanderer2 - Because rulings allowing gay marriage have nothing to do with polygamy or the consent of children in any way, shape or form. They are unrelated topics which are only brought up to enrage people and don’t address the issue at hand.
All states currently allow two adults to enter into a contract known as marriage. Some states have ruled that this should apply to all adults, not just those of certain sexual persuasions, and to do otherwise is discriminatory. Period. These rulings no more address the topics of children or polygamy than they do bestiality.
I think I will need to compose a response blog to answer all those.
You covered just about every possible question…. If you number your questions it would make it easier to give a point by point responce. If the idea is not to really garner a point by point response but to shed light on the slipperly slope we are entering by changing marriage law then you made that point well…..
@lonelywanderer2 - I think I will give it a try
@echois23 - Your last sentence captured my intent perfectly. But we as a Society really would have to address all of those issues point by point under law to be fair about this whole thing. I would love to see you, or anyone, do a response post. Please mention and provide a link to my post, and user-tag me if you do. I look forward to reading it!
I think law should deal only with individuals and leave family structure out of it except for damage control. Different strokes for different folks but every single individual should have a choice about the situation they get into. No forced marriages, but marriages of any kind with the full cognizant consent of those involved… and no child marriage because a child is not yet mature enough to give cognizant consent but would be more likely to be coerced or bamboozled into such a situation. Births should, however, be limited to those who can afford it, want it, and show that they can do right by their children.
Times are changing and we must evolve and get current with today’s beliefs. Most people I know accept, or at least tolerate, homosexuality. So, why not give them the same rights? You’re right. It is just a piece of paper, but if they want that piece of paper, who are we to tell them they can’t have it? If one of my kids ever told me they are gay/les I’d be the first one to get into rainbow gear and march in a gay rights/pride parade with them! Haha!
Now Polygamy and polyandry, I don’t know about….Me and my hub have a hard time keeping up with eachother’s needs, adding another person to the mix would be marital suicide! lol
@SwordAndSacrifice - lol. I love your comment.
@ElliottStrange - i agree with you. the gov’t shouldn’t tell you how you should live your life. all marriages should be legally recognized.
You tackle a controversial topic and do it very well, I agree with your points, thank you for sharing
In Christs Love
Michelle~
I think marriage should just be simple.
Will you marry me?
yes.
all the rest is complicated.
Marriage should be restricted to two people no matter their sexual orientation. Beyond two people things get out of control. What happens in a three person marriage if a medical choice has to be made about the thrid and the other two don’t agree? That just gets complicated.
The age of consent is a little more complicated as well. We give 16 year olds in many states the right to drive thousands of pounds of metal down the road at high speeds, possibly endangering the lives of many others. Yet we take issue with their own personal sexual escapades if they happen to get with someone who is just north of 18.
I understand the laws exist to protect children and no one hates injustice toward children more then I do. But I think by the time people reach high school they are pretty familar with sex. So this gets into a large grey area that has to be treated on a case by case basis instead of a definite brick wall of separation from one age to the next.
Interesting post, but no, actually, recognizing gay marriage is not going to change things so drastically as to allow marriage between a 6-year-old and a 40-year-old or whatnot (although those marriages happen today anyway, even in the USA). You have to take these things one issue at a time – what you’re also asking, basically, is whether this will be incentive for people to advocate changing the legal age of an adult in the USA. Which is 18.
Besides, “underage” people already do have sex and they do get pregnant and so on… and again, that’s another issue entirely, but they have abortions and adoption available to them if they can’t take care of the child – or their parents and so on to help if they can.
@lonelywanderer2 - As for 6-year-olds, they are generally too young physically to reproduce, so they do not relate to this post except as the responsibility of their parents/the adults in the family.
Homosexuals are unable to reproduce yet they relate to this post. How do you explain your reasoning concerning 6 year olds?
Once society gets away from marriage as between man and woman then anything becomes possible. This is because what is acceptable becomes a matter of personal opinion. And since one person’s opinion is as valid as anyone else’s those who prefer 6 year olds just become part of the crowd.
Well done and quite an interesting mix of comments on the subject. Kudos
The way to avoid that pandora’s box, as far as I can figure…is to focus less on “what’s accepted traditionally by law” and to offer more legal OPTIONS for alternative sorts of partnerships, families, marriages, etc.
In many places and in various ways in our country we do have alternatives to traditional marriage, but just not always to such a great extent. Trust me; if there’s enough demand…someone will see a profit in it, and it’ll happen. It’s just that you gotta get people thinking about it.
Less government involvement, more by the people, you know? It gives us more control over it.
Things change. America is always growing, always always growing.
That is the way it is. Let them ask those questions.
great post–
i’m all for gay marriage, i see no reason why the government has been debating this for so long, this should not be a choice debated between govt. but between the two partners. if two people are really in love, prohibiting them from marriage will not stop them, so why doesn’t the government just allow it so partners can acutally live moral lives? if they were to make gay marriage legal it would certainly slow down the spread of HIV and AIDS since gay couples can now settle down.
the age of consent should also be brought down to 16 because i have personally have had relationships with men over the age of 18 while i was under the legal age and we had a great, healthy relationship. as you know, girls mature faster than boys so we more than often seek older men; and as long as it was consentual sex i see no problem with a 16 year old having sex with an 18 yr. old.
..oh man, do not even get me started on the goverment, lawmakers and the media. haha but great post i’ve really enjoyed responding to this and reading everyone else’s comments.
and thanks for the read!
I absolutely DO NOT believe in Gay Marriage nor alternative families. Marriage should not be re-defined … marriage is between man a woman …. and man and woman then bear children … and gay people cannot bear children. I know there are some alternative families out there who adopt … which is something I also do not believe in. I think its wonderful that there are couples out there who want to adopt but I just feel that its in the best interest for children to have heterosexual parents … a male and female role model. I think kids who have gay parents are confused and it only makes their lives more difficult. I’m sure those kids get teased and taunted… and it’s so unfair to them.
My sister who passed away was a lesbian. My other younger sister is also a lesbian as well …. I do accept their lifestyle … and I believe they should be happy … but within certain limitations.
This may be a little different. I recently posted about the fact that any religious marriage ceremony is invalid in the state’s eyes, unless you do it by their rules.
I wondered why we allowed the state to interfere at all with marriage. Who is the state to say that a religious marriage ceremony isn’t complete until they say so…until it’s “legal”? God may be the one who joins together, but the state is the final authority…why?
@saturnnights - Marriage has to be addressed by the Government to deal with job benefit obligations of employers, inheritance of property and obligations of parents to provide for the care of their offspring.
Yes. Gay/Common Law marriage should be recognized by the Federal Government. They are people, too, and should get the same rights as anyone else.
But that’s just me. . .
@theDaniellegrind - So sorry to hear about your sister passing away, and I agree. Just vecause we don’t believe that gay marriage should be legal does not amount to hate. All people, regardless of their lifestyle, should be respected, and loved.
I’ve put in italics those questions which are actually related to the topic of allowing gay marriage.
I’ve put in bold those questions which are actually related to the topic of allowing polygamy.
How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?
As many as desire it. The majority of people would continue to practice serial monogamy (what we currently do in the u.s.) as is part of our culture. Also, even in cultures where more than one wife or husband is allowed, most people usually only have one wife or husband because of resources. This would not be a major issue.
Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?
All legal family members. My father’s employer pays the benefits of my mother, me and my brother. If the father of the Dugger’s got that kind of a job his employer would have to pay the insurance on him, his wife, and all 18 of their children. If a man has two wives the employer should pay benefits on all three of them. Once again, this happens rarely and would not be a major issue.
In
two-person arrangements with no State-Sanctioned Marriage Ceremony, are
they entitled to employer-provided benefits equal to Legally Married
couples?
Of course. Why not?
How long does a couple have to live together to qualify as a Common-Law Marriage?
In Massachusetts it’s 4 years, that seems good to me, let the law makers hash out the little details.
How does inheritance of property work?
The same way it always works, you write a will. If you don’t write a will it gets given to your spouse or divided between your children if your spouse isn’t around. If you have multiple spouses, divide it amongst them.
If the Family includes more than two adults:
How
does it affect the legal status of the arrangement if one or more
people decide they want out of the arrangement, maybe taking children
with them?
Like any other divorce. If, for example, a man had two wives and one left, and both households were perfectly able to care for the children, then they would have to hash it our amongst themselves like any other custody battle. If it was a friendly divorce, they might opt. for joint custody or perhaps just open visitation rights. I could be messy, but so is a custody battle between two parents.
How are employer-provided benefits affected?
However it is affected when two people get a divorce, it should be the same way.
Foster Care & Adoption of children
must also be looked at:
Should multiple-adult-partner families be
allowed to take in foster children, or to adopt children? When
multiple-partner families split up, who gets custody of which children?
They should absolutely be able to adopt. Anything is better than leaving a kid in the orphanage/foster care system. The custody battles should be handled as i stated above.
Now, since one aspect of Family Law is making sure all children born are cared for, let’s tackle Age of Consent:
At what age should a person be allowed to enter into a relationship that will be legally recognized as equal to Marriage?
What ever it is for regular marriage in your state now.
Is a person who is physically capable of reproduction entitled to have
consensual sex, and therefore entitled to marry, or enter into a
legally equivalent relationship?
Once again, all based on the current state laws. Technically a girl who has hit puberty can reproduce but that starts as young as ten in some girls and no state puts the age of consent there. the age of consent is based on when our law makers think a person is capable of making an informed decision on their own.
At what age are people allowed to consent to have sex?
Whatever the state currently says it is
Should
there be a limit on the age of the partner that one consents to have
sex with? If so, what is a legally acceptable age difference?
Yes, whatever limit the state has set it at. There are some states with straight-forward laws (over 18 only) and others with extremely complicated ones for teen relationships New jersey’s laws for example).
If “underage” people do have sex, and produce children, who is obligated to care for those children?
Same as they are now, the mother takes care of it and the father pays child support. Since they are both under aged the parents of those children are responsible until they turn 18 and are legal adults.
What
do you think about alternative family structures? Which ones should be
legally recognized as equal? Where should we draw the boundaries?
No boundaries, family is what you make it. If you live with someone and care for each other, you’re family.
Finally:
Should these laws be established by States or by the Federal
Government? Think about moving from one State to another, and finding
your Family is no longer legally recognized.
I think all family structures should be recognized by the fed. the consent laws you stated might be better of fed as well but I’m not as concerned about those.
Overall, these are good questions but
a) all of the questions on age of consent have nothing to do with either polygamy or gay marriage, they are questions which your state law has already answered and there would be no reason to change them. Also, quite a few of the other questions dealt in polygamy issues but only a few had anything to do with gay marriage at all and they were minutely related at best.
b) there is nothing which states that allowing gay marriage will definitely lead to polygamy being allowed as well (though i wouldn’t be opposed either way) so the problems with polygamy aren’t problems for gay marriage. they can be handled as separate issues
c) These questions you posed are easily answered, as you can see, and they do not justify drawing the line in the sand that only heterosexual marriage between two people is allowed. In order to draw that line and have it not be a line in the sand, one must state why that is legally better than other living arrangements.
@jenessa1889 - Such a wide-open interpretation of family promises a great opportunity for lawyers, and a horrible setting in which to be an employer or, for that matter, a child.
@lonelywanderer2 - I firmly disagree with that. There is nothing which says children would be harmed by this any more than heterosexual, two-person marriages in which the parents get a divorce, have a troubled marriage, lack the skills or resources to raise a child properly, etc. yet we allow these people to all be parents. There are homes where the grandmother lives with the family, where a sibling of one of the parents lives with the family, why would that be any different than another wife living with the family? Other than what’s going on in the bedroom (which the child won’t know about anyway), it is no different than any other living arrangement which includes other adults. Many people see being raised with another adult family member in the house as highly beneficial.
As I said, employers would rarely encounter this problem because it doesn’t happen often even in cultures where it is allowed. Also, by that logic, employers shouldn’t have to cover all of the Dugger’s 18 children if the mother of father got a job of that type.
What opportunities would this give a lawyer and why would they be bad?
@jenessa1889 - It’s okay; I don’t mind that we disagree. I admire that you put forth your own thoughts on the subject. That was the whole idea.
@lonelywanderer2 - yay agreeing to disagree! =)
Thank you so much for not being rude about it! so many people don’t understand that you can disagree with people and still be nice and appreciate their thoughts.
Simple way to not open the Pandora’s Box. No more legal marriage, but civil contracts between any two or more consenting adults that want them.
I guess in that case polyamorous contracts still have the kid issue, but with how often custody is decided by the courts (and thus effectively contract), it does not seem like too big a stretch to bring a contract into that too.
Technically, polyandry is a form of polygamy. The opposite of polyandry is polygyny.
In principle I’m fine with polygamous marriages, but in practice they are often used to keep women subservient to men, and in some cases border on the men “owning” their wives.
Common Law marriage, by definition, is not state-sanctioned. Why is it even an issue then?
I’m trying to figure out what point you’re trying to make here. Are you insinuating that if we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow group marriage? And that this, in turn, would make insurance difficult? If so, it’s not a terribly convincing argument. Also, if you’re arguing against polygamy, then argue against polygamy, don’t argue against gay marriage.
@warangel634 - i agree with you to a point, but what about hetero couples who are infertile for whatever reason? since they can’t have children naturally, does it follow that they shouldn’t be able to adopt either? i can understand what you’re getting at but unfortunately the logic only plays out to a certain extent. just something to think about.
re: post- interesting points you bring up here. i suppose i had thought of these ramifications before but not to such an degree. if nothing else it will be interesting to see how these issues are addressed/resolved.
@follow_home - first… let me clarify that i am still uncertain what i fully believe/feel on the subject.
but a true christain believes that god has a master plan… or there is a reasoning for everyone. therefore, adoption really doesn’t make sense, either. if god doesn’t want you to have kids, then you are infertile…etc.
but, on the same account, one could argue that god did not want you to have kids because you were meant to take in an unwanted, abused, or unsheltered child.
like i said, i’m not really 100% sure how this works. all i do understand is that the bible says male and female were made to be together. to me, this seems obvious because the parts are meant to go together… unlike female and female parts, which do not match/satisfy each other w/out a little help or alternate plan… same as male and male.
@GodlessLiberal - i think (and i could be wrong) that the point being made here is that once you start shifting the previously held boundaries of what should legally be considered “marriage” it simply has to be addressed what the new standard or limit would be. and more so, where the basis for that line would come from. not many people would argue that our laws were made when a large quantity of the population considered themselves “Christian” or adhered in one way or another to Biblical principles, which is where the idea came from that marriage should be between a man and a woman. so if the biblical principles as the standard/limit/line are removed (and i’m not saying that would be the end of human society or something), what is our new measuring post? what now is our set of guidelines for what is and is not acceptable? that’s what i read, anyway. to me it seems more like a series of questions than an attack of any kind. i think we do have to be careful, however, to resist the “slippery slope” logical fallacy, which is i think what you’re afraid you’re seeing in this post. like… “once we allow gay marriage, it’s only a matter of time until our society degenerates and we’re all killing and raping each other in the streets!” but i’m not sure that’s what is being postulated in here. the fact of the matter is that if we’re going to redefine “marriage” we’re going to have to consider all facets of the issue, not just hetero vs homo.
@follow_home - Fair enough. But just remember that the worries about redefining marriage were present in the 50s and 60s when interracial marriage became legal across the country. And you’re right, I am afraid of the slippery slope mentality.
@warangel634 - i can understand your reasoning to a point, except a couple of things:
i think we should be really hesitant to define to each other what a “true Christian” does or does not believe, do, etc.
i also think if God puts things like that (infertility, for example) in our lives, it’s usually not because of something he’s denying us but because of an impact he wants us to have on the people/situations around us (childless women who long to be mothers are in a perfect position to love and nurture children who have been abandoned, abused, etc).
i’m not saying i disagree with your overall point, i’m just not sure that the logic of not being able to reproduce is the best argument.
@GodlessLiberal - I’m not arguing for or against anything, particularly on so-called moral grounds. I’m simply pointing out that any one alternative form of marriage or family being deemed legal begs the question, “If it’s okay to have variation A, why is variation B then NOT acceptable?” In other words, why should the courts say same-sex marriage with two partners is more acceptable than group marriage? Is gender a less significant variable than the number of adult partners involved? In the end, as with many things, it comes down to finances. Any group of people could form a “family” in order to force one member’s employer to pay for medical insurance, and perhaps life insurance for all of them and their children. Do you think the employer is going to simply accept that, and eat the possibly crippling costs involved?
@lonelywanderer2 - Just curious, but if an employer would make a decision between hiring somebody with one wife and someone with two wives, why would he not also choose a single man over a married man?
@follow_home - i don’t disagree with you either. i’m not sure there is a right and wrong… to any point of christianity… let alone something as bit as impacting our own lives vs other people’s lives. i’m actually kinda thinking you presented a much more sound argument than i did… and maybe i should consider your views a bit stronger than my own.
@GodlessLiberal - So far, there are limits. A single man or woman may marry, and even possibly adopt or take in foster children. But one spouse is the current limit for man or woman. They must get rid of one spouse by a divorce, before taking on another. The EX-spouse is then no longer entitled to employer-paid benefits.
@follow_home - You seem to understand what I am saying, and reply to it, in the most complete and coherent way I have seen. The only way my own view of it differs is I have gone to great lengths not to involve any specific religion’s views, and to acknowledge that it also brings age of consent into question..
The legal questions just seem moot, to me. I’ve never understood why people want to throw their relationship into the written, legal system at all. It is what it is, regardless of where it’s written or who else knows about – or what anyone else thinks about it.
And on the moral side of things ! – I tend towards the Polyamory model of relationships. It seems totally acceptable to me for multiple people to be in a mutually committed relationship. ie, 3 4 5 people committed to each other altogether. Polygamy is fine, too. Swingin’ is all the more fun
In fact, I met a guy one time who lived on a commune, where they shared everything. There were something around 10 people living there, and they had one pool of clothes that everyone would pull from, everyone would chip in to make food, and they all shared sex together. No children had been born, but their plan was to raise the children as “children of the group”, with no single mother or father. It’s a really interesting idea, and I wonder how it would turn out.
It’s a really interesting subject for me, the whole drive that people have to have particular types of relationships with other people. Where did those models come from? If people were raised in a society where the model in front of them was polyamoury, would they be inclined to think of relationships with other people that way? Or is monogamy some sort of in-born drive, an image people have in their minds naturally?
Whoop! My comment was really for a different discussion, on the relationship models themselves. I re-read the post and found that I was off the mark. I’m gonna post another comment that’s more on-topic in a bit.
@brokenbindings2 - This is a good point. So much of marriage law deals with the benefits you get from other people because of the marriage relationship you have.
I guess in a situation where multiple-adult marriage arrangements are recognized legally, there has to be some sort of limit on the number of people. As it would be mainly a channel to gain some bundle of benefits from other people, legally sanctioned benefits, large groups of people might abuse that channel who were not in an actual relationship.
There may be a different term for the type of relationship, besides marriage.
Possibly there should be a different term for homosexual “marriages” – ie, ok let’s call marriage a heterosexual relationship, and a similar relationship between two homosexual people a different thing. That might ease the nerves of the people who find homosexual marriage offensive, today.
Inheritance and property ownership could be a complex issue. How many of the people in the multi-person marriage can be on a single bank account? Is ownership of property now split equally between all of the members? Maybe the entire group, itself, could be formed as a legal entity – the way corporations are formed as an legal entity today. Then, that entity, as a whole, has the responsibility of caring for the children. And each member of the entity has some sort of legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the group.
@Dargon - “Simple way to not open the Pandora’s Box. No more legal marriage, but civil contracts between any two or more consenting adults that want them.”
W00t. Very good idea. : If you really want to sign a contract with a partner or partners, go ahead and draft one and sign it together. Beyond that, there are no benefits provided by the law.
The inheritance issue could be dealt with the same way. : No more inheritance whatsoever; if you don’t have a will, everything goes to the state. Just make sure you have a will on record, and everything will go exactly where you want it to.
Let’s just say that my vote was on the winning side in California.
I loved this post and most likely will do a paired report to answer your questions in my own words and opinions.
I, of course, like before, will take the time to mention you and add your link. =]
I will also tag you.
I will need a few days to think things out before posting though. So, look forward to it hon!
Short note: I think there’s a slight misunderstanding regarding polygamy in your post. Polygamy is the big umbrella category of multiple marriages of either gender. Polygyny is a subgroup for multiple wives and, as you said, polyandry is multiple husbands. Just an FYI.
@B2yan_C - Thanks for the info!
@sle21408 - Cool, and of course I look forward to it! Muah!
Has anyone thought about the fact that sometimes we make our lives so very difficult by bringing in too many complications that come out of our wants? There are so many diseases that we bring upon ourselves by opening up to various sexual partners or same sex partners? There is a reason that God ordained that a marriage between a man and a wife is sacred and binding. I am not saying that those that choose to live outside of those realms can never be good people. God meets us right where we are, but loves us too much to allow us to stay there (without consequences). Yes you can be good without God, but you can never be truly free!
Wow. You sound a lot like Glenn Beck with his show with his dollies and all that silliness. Just a way of dragging red herrings all over the marriage issues. “Family structures” are not legally reconized in any kind of way in particular, it’s not like we say, “O, I hereby legally recognize you as a nuclear family with one biological mother, never married before, and one biological father, never married before, now married to each other, and the traditional 2.5 biological kids and a dog.” those things are as scarce as marriages that last forever nowadays, meaning SCARCE!
@SwordAndSacrifice - rotfl! I second Pandora’s box comment
I know a couple of people who were raised by parents with same-sex partners… they turned out fine. I don’t care about the issue.
I believe I have read that statistically speaking heterosexuals comprise the majority when it comes to pedophilia anyhow.
OR how about we tell the government to get the heck out of marriage all together?
@DirtyAndShaken - I agree with that idea completely. Some or all of these issues would still exist, though, I’m afraid. Particularly those involving insurance, property and financial obligations.
@Paul_Partisan - I’m not condemning any particular arrangement, just pointing out the issues involved. It is easy to judge a certain lifestyle, homosexuality, polygamy, whatever it may be, until you personally know and care about one or more people practicing or affected by it.
I still think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Having said this you have raised many interesting points on the for and against issues relating to this topic. The legal problems arising from multiple marriages, gay marriages etc would be mammoth and complex if the unions broke down.
Thanks so much for visiting and your comment!
My home state, Tennessee, no longer recognizes common law marriage. As for benefits in same sex marriage, many companies now recognize the growing demand for equal coverage by same-sex couples as well as straight living together couples. They are now setting up policies for their employees to recieve benefits for them, their significant other (regardless of sex), and their children.
I thought that you would like to know that I posted the
Cherokee
Wisdom
thought proviking poem…smile
They should be recognized as any other family would be, and the government really has no right to define what “marriage” or “family” is. If a gay couple adopts a child and loves it like it were their own, that’s a family.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate, if I may. The idea I’m posing is not necessarily one I believe in; rather I’m tossing it onto the table to hopefully expand upon the discussion.
So with that disclaimer said:
What if you were to move the other direction — As in not refine the law to include more variations, but remove the law entirely? In other words, no longer have legal regard for personal relationships. Make a marriage something not governed by law. Each individual, married or not, answers for their own taxes, benefits, etc. (Basically, the law treats every single or married person as purely an individual.)
Theoretically, it would then not matter if the marriage was gay, polygamous, etc., as everyone would truly be treated equal, as individuals. Marriage would then purely be a social construct, not a legal one.
What I want to see happen in the next century in regards to this. The government finds it has no right under the Constitution to reconize and favor one form over another. It dissolves all laws over this and restricts itself to a bare minimum involvement. People who want to be reconized as partners for their finances are left to their own devices and must create Contractual agreements between themselves if they feel so inclined. When a violation of the agreements between these consenting adults occurs, the court system can act as a moderator and eventually the final say on whether a violation has occured or not. Maybe not overnight, but ultimately, American society would be better for it. Since it is left up to them, and it is their sole responsibility to look after their own interest, they would have more incentive to be careful about who they enter relationships with. Maybe with this, people become more aware of the users and other undesireables, and people like that would have trouble finding victims to take advantage of. “Divorce” would cease to be nearly as profitable as it is, and people I think would be happier.
@The_James_Blog - I honestly see nothing wrong with this. Keep the government out of people’s bedrooms and financial situations. At best, it really has no place other than protecting your rights. It is impossible to plan for every possible undesireable effect and then attempt to outlaw it anyway. This whole idea of prempitive law making against possible violations of people’s rights seems to actually cause more unintended consequences than people expect. The consequences usually stem from the use of the law to actually violate a person’s rights, the very rights that was supposed to protect. Abuses, loopholes etc etc.
It will not open a pandora’s box, because it’s not the same thing. A common-law marriage is structured so that no one gets legal benefit. If they wanted legal benefit, they would have gotten married married. Multiple partners will probably never happen, except in an extreme situation. Hell, in Utah (where it is actually legal) not that many people do it. What are you so afraid of, is what I want to know.
You have some great questions. I have talked this over with my friends both Christians and non and homo and hetero sexual. We have come up with what we think is a workable if imperfect plan. I did a response post to this one you can find it here.
@angelwingfive - I am not afraid of any of these; I merely point out the issues that inevitably arise. Many societies in other parts of the world have entirely different family structures than we in the USA do.
@explosive - That may be, but there is much more to this post than just that situation.
@tsh44 - Headed that way next!
@DarthPatriot - @DarthPatriot - Less Government intrusion into our lives is one of my boggest goals. Thank you for reading and commenting!
@lonelywanderer2 - It’s simple. Why are you making it so complicated?
Hello Lovely!
I wanted to stop by and tell you about my site, I have hott photography & qoutes! We just recently opened and we need 100 subscribers! If you like what you see sub! I am glad to do ads! & I only require that I get one in return.
Love,
Bella
This is a very thoughtful and thought provoking post.
When children are involved, I think it best for them to have a stable home environment until they are grown. If their parents decide to have them then these parents (man woman, two men, two women, or whatever combination) should commit to sacrificing their own selfish inclinations until the kids are grown. That means they stay together unless abuse is involved (then custody is not an issue).
@lovelylace1207 - You are welcome to visit any time, but I have to ask one thing:
Did you REALLY just come to my site to tell me (and my readers/friends) about YOUR site, and not even comment on (nor read, if I were to guess) my post???
all of these are issues the law and the society have to deal with right now and have ALWAYS had to deal with. We have a series of rules about them established over time and the rules have always been questioned. Marriage has evolved for as long as it has existed.
Whether or not gay people are allowed to marry influences these questions not at all in the slightest way. It opens no pandora’s box. It just allows a large number of people to be treated as equals under the law.
The law can define marriage however it wants. What makes your arbitrary line of two person adult man/woman pairings any better than someone else’s arbitrary line of two person adult pairings regardless of gender or orientation? The only difference is preference.
This is called a discourse where people seriously consider the possibilities. WOW! THOSE EXIST IN MAINSTREAM INTERNET SITES???!?!?!
I’m impressed.The dialogue you opened is worthwhile.
@inthenameofwater - Thank you; I am so glad to meet you!
I’m not really into politics, but, I’m going with what I know as of right now… I think we go through stages as to what should be legal and what shouldn’t/what we’re comfortable with according to popular opinion—kind of life how white men were legally allowed to vote first. Then black men. And THEN, women, more than a century after white male adult property owners were given voting rights. And currently the popular hot topic is whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I don’t seem to be hearing a lot of support for legalizing polygamy compared to gay marriage. Yet.
Gay marriage is not related to age of consent at all. What gay marriage stands for is the right for two gay people to get married. Two gay people should have every right, just like any other couple, to get married. Simply dismissing them because they are gay is a form of prejudice. It is the same as stating that two Chinese people cannot get married, or two blind people cannot get married just because of something they did not choose to be.
Age of consent is another topic to be discussed (which I do find ridiculous for it to be 18 or 16 in some states) simply stating that reaching a certain age means that you are mature and capable of making smart decisions when I know plenty who aren’t.
For polygamy, it’s a matter of all parties consent to be married to the individual who is practicing polygamy. If they can’t handle their spouse being intimate with another person, then they don’t have to be married to them.
As for foster children and adopting, as long as the adults are capable and are loving, there should be no problem with it. It’s the same with any regular couple wanting to adopt. If they prove to be capable, then they can adopt a child.
The problem is that no mattr what you believe in and what you feel is totally wrong, one has as much right be recognized as the other.
I plead the 5th-opps I drank the 5th.
Congratulations for 107 comments so far. This was a very well put together post. I suppose when I thought of alternate family styles I was thinking about a perfect world. I thought anyone who loved should be able to be married. But this is not a perfect world…over 50% of accepted heterosexual couples get divorced and children are always caught in the middle. I think that most companys may give their employees free insurance but charge for the family…I am sure they would be able to work out rates for more than one other adult and children to be deducted from the employees pay. Wills would take care of dispensing worldly goods as it does in heterosexual marriages. I think it would probably work if the alternate marriage was allowed in one state in which you have had residence for at least 6 months then it should be recognized by all states even if the marriage wasn’t allowed in that state. At one time common law marriage was considered a legal marriage after 6 months now your commenters are saying 7-10 years, ok. Age of consent should be no younger than 18 without parental consent. I married at 17 and I did okay. And as for as Mormons..they outlawed poligamy 100 years ago…the sect that hit the news was a cult…no different than Jim Jones or David Koresh. But I have to come back to the children.. if we accept alternate families we can’t legislate that they can have no children, that woujld be wrong but it would indeed be a Pandora’s box if the polygamous marriage dissolved. It is a Pandora’s box now. Thank you for this insite.
@PrimevalWench - agreed. I second your comment.
As far as I’m concerned, the government does not have the right to regulate marriage as it is an institute of religion.
If it must recognize couples/unions, than I say that it should just call it civil unions across the board from a legal perspective and leave the definition of marriage to religion alone. This is to me a case where the separation of church and state is relevant.
Yes, I still believe homosexuality is a sin. But it is not my place to regulate a person’s life and the lifestyle choices they make. I will not change my definition of marriage. But I will not try to stop them from being equal in the eyes of the government. I will leave God to do the judging.
As for age of consent, I believe it is fine where it’s at. When it comes to employer benefits, I don’t see why they can’t cover more people or just change policy to fit their own company. My hubby works for a small business and has no health benefits whatsoever. It just depends on who you work for. With inheritance and adoption/custody of children, it should be looked at on a case by case basis as it already is. The legal aspect of it all wouldn’t be much different than it is now. The States should be the one making decisions about that part…not the Federal government, in my opinion.
I’m sure this has been pointed out already, but this whole argument seems to be about the slippery slope fallacy. If you’re against gay marriage, argue against gay marriage, not against what might come after that. Otherwise it’s just as absurd as saying “we never should have legalized interracial marriage, because it led to the possibility of gay marriage!”
@GodlessLiberal - exactly!
I respectfully disagree. Allowing same sex adults to marry and be allowed the benefits of man-woman marriage is just equality. It doesn’t equal polygamy, child marriage, box turtle marriage, that is honestly just ridiculous. That’s all I’ve got to say.
A lot of good questions. Marriage needs to stay between one man and one woman.
I wanted to tell you about something I read or heard… can’t remember which one… but if people start saying that they’re being discriminated against because they can’t marry, what about children and adults, parents and they’re children, siblings, aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews, grandparents with they’re grandchildren? Now, things don’t really bother me much, but I think that would be disgusting. Sometimes I truly believe this whole discrimination thing is gonna go too far, and everything will be okay to do one day. Gay marriage… I’m okay with. Multiple marriage… I don’t agree with at all. To me, it’s just a way to make sex with multiple partners okay. I think it’s more of a sex thing than a love thing. But that’s just my opinion.
Now, I’ve heard cousins can get married in places. I’ll admit, I did want to marry one of my cousins. I was fucked up on meth though (which I do not do anymore), and after a few years, I finally realized that it was a sick thing to do. Plus, it does hurt someone. If you end up having children, your kids can have some deformities or other physical problems. At least, that’s what I’ve heard.
One of the main reasons I think it should be okay for a gay couple to get married is because people that change their gender can be with someone of their original gender so what’s the difference?
@xXjustanother_deadgirlXx - Yeah, I agree, lol..
Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think it’s fair to categorize legalizing gay marriage, with polygamy and all those other things. I’ve heard people claim that if gay marriage is legal, it’ll only be a matter of time before they allow bestiality.. In my opinion, it’s just ridiculous because those are two completely different things. :/
In my opinion, gay marriage SHOULD be legalized, because people of the same gender shouldn’t have to be withheld from marrying when heterosexual couples can whenever they want. AAAAND, marriage should only be between two people, so I don’t really support polygamy. xD
This is such an old and invalid arguement. I am old enough to remember the fight for the rights of blacks to marry whites. This is the same arguement used by those who would have forbid it. Note:
“The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same Footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)
It was wrong then (1948-1967) and it is wrong now. Read a little history and stop talking as if you know when you know nothing.
My Reply: http://yarnspnr.xanga.com/744211446/gay-marriage-v-interracial-marriage/
*boggle*
Well, I support same sex marriages but not Polygamy. About ages… I think 18 is fine… Underage people producing kids, well, they should shoulder the responsibilities themselves with some state support. You cannot make someone else responsible for their children. I’m not into this whole ‘age gap’ concept. As long as you love the other person, difference in age shouldn’t really matter.
Look, I’m naturally for gay marriage because it helps me escape. If everyone conforms then I get trapped in castes. Marriage naturally destroys me. Usually, and amazingly, they try to box me with the dominant male. However, since I have to join the ranks of neonazis in their strong cause, I have to oppose it.
On the down side for a whole group of people, we’re going to be escaping our castes. They need us to make babies at a certain age to keep them afloat. Not only, but they’re going to get a bunch of single, selfish people that never have families doing this. I’m one of those. Say it loud and proud. And make sure to wear a rainbow.
What stands out to me about this whole idea is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UToAWHBVrk0
Thanks to the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, morality should not dictate laws, because so many of us have so many different moralities. If a gay couple marries, this doesn’t affect others. The gay married couple next door is not going to abduct your kids and indoctrinate them. Therefore, if it doesn’t hurt anybody else, I don’t see why it should be illegal.
@Colorsofthenight - @Saridactyl - @darkjoe89 - Notice how easy it is for people to say this variable matters, but no others do? Just as easily, one can demonize anyone that disagrees with their view by saying that person is hateful, bigoted, ignorant, et cetera.
Wow, didn’t realize this was a really old timestamp at first. Surprised that you didn’t change some of the content, since it’s fairly obvious that from the post itself that you didn’t understand that many states have recognized “common law marriages” as legal marriages for a very long time. You understand this now (after many comments pointing that out), right?
Sigh. At the rate I’m going, Group Marriage may be the only way I get anyone to marry me.
@whataboutbahb - I do recognize that many states recognize common-law marriage. I always did. I also did not write this to condemn any of the family structures discussed, merely to point out that there are many types of “family structures”, all of whom have people advocating them,
People are too quick to say their “alternative” family is legitimate but others aren’t, and to attack anyone who disagrees as hateful, bigoted, ignorant, crazy, et cetera.
@lucylwrites - You could be a sister wife!!!
@lonelywanderer2 - Pat Robertson compares Gay marriage to bestiality. I could talk about how ridiculous that is, but I’ll just say this: I don’t care what someone’s religious beliefs are unless they are trying to legislate them. Then it’s personal.
” Just as easily, one can demonize anyone
that disagrees with their view by saying that person is hateful,
bigoted, ignorant, et cetera.”
Bigot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Ignorant
uninformed; unaware.
Now, I’m not calling you those things, I’m just posting the definitions here so I can be incredibly clear. If someone disagrees with gay marriage than I feel, by the definitions above that they are either one (or both) of the things above, based solely on definition.
As far as hateful goes: I do believe that solely excluding a particular group of people because of religious beliefs in a country that supposedly prides itself on freedom and equality is hateful. Especially considering a majority of those people are in the Christian community. A religion that is supposed to be peaceful and tolerable is advocating strict exclusion of basic rights to a group of people based solely on their sexual orientation. Not every religion finds being gay abominable..
@lucylwrites - Cheer up. Till it’s legal (when Christianity probably becomes illegal), you could always join a cult.
This is exactly why the government has absolutely NO business in such matters. It is stupid anyway. A person does not cost more because they now have a marriage certificate. Taxes should not be based on such things, nor should insurance or any of that type of legal matters.
My objections to plural marriage center on children.
1. Most people engaged in the practice marry kids young…12 or 13 years old. They run off the young men so MUCH older men can marry the youngest women…and i don’t hold with that sort of crap, particularly not in the name of “GOD”.
2. I simply do not trust people to meet their obligations to children of plural marriage. If the father in a polygamous relationship dies, with ties to fundamentalist Mormonism, their families are split up…wives and children are basically handed off, without their consent. Also done in “the name of god” (Sort of like female genital mutilation?)
3. Even without the factor of religion, I don’t trust people to support their own kids if the relationship goes South. Within the structure, there is support…but what if one of the mothers, or even the father decides they were wrong? Now you have not one family, but several…all needing financial support, as well as emotional care. Sorry, but people have proven how damned wretched they can be…or there would not be 800K children in the US today without parents or homes. Adding to their number is a mistake.
@Saridactyl - The whole point I am trying to make with this post is that the laws are as they are largely because of property rights and trying to do what is in the best interests of children, particularly very young children, who can not look after themselves, or choose the type of family they are in.
The LGBT community is not merely seeking the “right to marry”. They are also seeking political power, the power to force employers to pay their insurance, and full acceptance by Society that their lifestyle is a good thing.
Even in common-law states, the employee’s “partner” can not get insurance from their partner’s employer, in most cases, I don’t believe. Regardless of their sexual orientation.
@galadrial - Good points, all.
Welcome to the world of law. These are just a sample of questions law makers must (…or, should) consider every time a new law is introduced, or an old law is invalidated/changed. Something should not be avoided just because “Well, change is like…hard! And we’d have to …think about stuff!!” We elect people to deal with these issues. When they do not deal with these issues the way the majority deems appropriate, we elect different people to do the job.
It is entirely acceptable if people do not wish bigotry/intolerance to be a factor of those in charge of making the law.
Personally, I don’t care who marries whom. I don’t think the government should be in the business of marriages at all. If anything, civil unions/partnerships across the board. I believe any two consenting adults should be able to enter into any contract (including “marriage”) should they desire to do so, granted it doesn’t infringe on the rights of any third party.
@mtngirlsouth - @Grtt -
The whole point I am trying to make with
this post is that the laws are as they are largely because of property
rights and trying to do what is in the best interests of children,
particularly very young children, who can not look after themselves, or
choose the type of family they are in.
The LGBT community is not
merely seeking the “right to marry”. They are also seeking political
power, the power to force employers to pay their insurance, and full
acceptance by Society that their lifestyle is a good thing.
Even
in common-law states, the employee’s “partner” can not get insurance
from their partner’s employer, in most cases, I don’t believe.
Regardless of their sexual orientation.
@lonelywanderer2 -No religion should have the right to tell consenting adults OUTSIDE their beliefs who they can marry. Society can make choices…but there is no “universal” religion in the US that gets to call the shots/…nor should their be.
@lonelywanderer2 - I am all for private property rights. I just don’t see what property has to do with living arrangements. I also am not for anyone being forced to do anything, and that includes businesses. If people want to insure other members of their family or whoever, it seems reasonable that in a free country they would be allowed to seek the best plan for them. NOT some monopolized one size fits all plan forced on all by the government. And as far as society is concerned, the beautiful thing about a free country is hat everyone is supposed to be free to believe, condemn, approve or disapprove of anything they want by any standard they want – as long as they do not hinder the rights of others.
(I think a lot of people have no idea what true liberty is really about.)
How many people are allowed to be legally recognized in an arrangement like this?
I see no reason for marriage to be a legal issue, but since it is recognized, there is no legitimate basis for limiting a plural marriage.
Who does an employer have to provide insurance for?
Whomever the employer chooses to.
In
two-person arrangements with no State-Sanctioned Marriage Ceremony, are
they entitled to employer-provided benefits equal to Legally Married
couples?
No. Common-Law marriage is ridiculous. They never applied for marriage, so there’s no reason to assume that they desire to be married.
How long does a couple have to live together to qualify as a Common-Law Marriage?
N/A
How does inheritance of property work?
Whatever the person puts in their will. If no will, then split among spouses and/or family.
If the Family includes more than two adults:
How
does it affect the legal status of the arrangement if one or more
people decide they want out of the arrangement, maybe taking children
with them?
Divorce, custody battles.
How are employer-provided benefits affected?
No more should be afforded to multiple spouses than single by the government (but individual employers should have the ultimate discretion, as I said earlier, as the job belongs to them to offer), otherwise people will use extra spouses for welfare like they do all of their unnecessary children.
Foster Care & Adoptionof children
must also be looked at.
Should multiple-adult-partner families be
allowed to take in foster children, or to adopt children?
I don’t see why not.
When
multiple-partner families split up, who gets custody of which children?
Whoever has the best lawyer(s), just like how it is now.
Now, since one aspect of Family Law is making sure all children born are cared for, let’s tackle Age of Consent:
At what age should a person be allowed to enter into a relationship that will be legally recognized as equal to Marriage?
You mean what age can someone marry? I don’t think marriage should be recognized outside of private religious ceremonies. The government has no business taking part in it.
Is a person who is physically capable of reproduction entitled to have
consensual sex, and therefore entitled to marry, or enter into a legally
equivalent relationship?
A person is entitled without limitation the first and ultimate rights to their own person, self-ownership. Regardless of age, consensual sex is a part of self-ownership.
At what age are people allowed to consent to have sex?
See above.
Should
there be a limit on the age of the partner that one consents to have
sex with? If so, what is a legally acceptable age difference?
probably. Since people and gender differences are highly variable to the situation, I don’t think specific ages should be set in stone like they are now. A 16 year old boy will not likely be “traumatized” by having sex with his 25 year old hot teacher. A 16 year old girl in the reverse situation might. Every situation is different.
If “underage” people do have sex, and produce children, who is obligated to care for those children?
Ultimately, underage people should be sterilized until they prove to be fit parents.But realistically speaking, so long as the act was consensual as was the pregnancy (i.e. wasn’t forced to keep baby when wanted abortion), the parents should be responsible. Why would anyone else be?
What
do you think about alternative family structures? Which ones should be
legally recognized as equal? Where should we draw the boundaries?
You need to be more specific here. The boundaries need to be drawn where clear, legitimate problems would arise and could be proven as such. For example, a person with a violent criminal record should not have children.
Finally:
Should these laws be established by States or by the Federal
Government? Think about moving from one State to another, and finding
your Family is no longer legally recognized.
I would argue more that it’s the laws that are not in the book but only assumed from “tradition” that need dropped. Less is more. Get rid of the laws we have now; don’t ADD more.
@DrummingMediocrity - Get rid of the laws we have now; don’t ADD more. I totally agree with you on that!
@lonelywanderer2 - I read this response the first time you wrote it. Really wasn’t necessary to paste again, but…
Property rights and the welfare of children may very well be part of the reason the way the law stands as it is currently. However, there is absolutely no way you can say — without lying or being ignorant of American history — that the history of the legal definition of “marriage” in the US is free of prejudice. Presenting questions about the “what ifs” of legalising same sex marriage in no way suggests or confirms that marriage is all about individual property rights and the welfare of children.
I am part of the LGBT community. Are you? Did you come to one of our secret meetings and listen to our agenda? Damn it. I knew we should have stricter door policies.
The “LGBT community” is as diverse as society as a whole. There is no “gay agenda.” There are individuals of all political viewpoints within that community. “Gay” is not a political party.
I am seeking no political power other than that which I already have. To vote, be heard, etc. I am, as a tax-paying citizen of the US of A, requesting my government, which I help to fund via said taxes, recognise a contract I willingly enter into with another consenting man as just as valid, but no more than, my heterosexual neighbours’. That is all. If you have a problem with that, it truly is beyond my control to help you with it.
@mtngirlsouth - Your last line is dead-on.
Oh, it’s about time people just got over gay marriage. Personally, I believe marriage is some special thing two people of opposite sexes do, blah blah blah. But legally, I can’t imagine telling someone that they can’t marry someone who is not married to someone else, who is of age, and who wants to marry them back, and they aren’t related by blood. In a world where real crime happens, shouldn’t we just get the heck over the hang up of gay marriage then? I think so.
It’s pure selfishness. Some people don’t want to allow gay marriage just so they can get into heaven by pointing out to St. Peter that they followed all the rules. But for all I know, St. Peter will point out the “Love they neighbor” rule and some people ain’t getting into heaven like they think.
Let’s fight the fight, one step of the way. Is there a large demand for legal polygamy? No, I don’t think so. Common law marriage is a stupid idea, IMO. It’s no longer necessary and forces a status on someone who doesn’t want it. As a society, we should be able to look at a situation with an open mind. Does gay marriage really, really hurt someone? No, I don’t think it causes real harm. Does plural marriage, well, technically I think it does cause some real harm for some real people.
I think Common Law is usually seven to ten years depending on the state involved.
Polygamy is illegal everywhere except for the Mormons, same with the other poly-stuff. The loophole around it is simply not getting marriage licenses. (Though now, even the Mormons prohibit it, so it’s really only legal for the uber-fundamentalists.)
@Grtt - Even when we disagree, and we certainly will, I care more about
people as individuals than any ideology. I don’t judge anyone by one
aspect of their being. Thanks for reading and giving me your
insights!!!
As with everything on this blog, it is the way I see it, and I have no hatred of anyone. Ignorance, I try to remedy by learning. I ask for others’ views so that I might gain much-needed insight. I do not claim to know everything, nor that my beliefs are absolutely right. Nor do I consider you wrong, bad, or whatever you might think from any one blog or comment.
@lonelywanderer2 - I could sneak into a group marriage ceremony and then be like, nyahh you’re stuck with me now!
I don’t think government is necessary to define family. I really don’t think that they should even be issuing marriage licenses. I think that their unwillingness to deal with these issues stems mostly from laziness, but I can help them out.
Property: If it’s not in a will, then whoever grabs it first, gets it.
Insurance: The employer and the insurance company design their own policy.
Age of consent to marry/have sex is the age that one can enter into contracts- usually 18. Children from underage children get to be raised by whomever can prove themselves most competent. Same thing with custody cases.
Foster children and adoptees should be allowed to go to families who can support them properly and appropriately, regardless of how many people that consists of and what gender they are. Perhaps if they are over a certain age, say, 14, the child may be allowed to have a say in whether they want to go to a non-traditional family.
If you take the government out completely and let them in only to deal with contracts and protecting rights, things tend to simplify themselves.
*edit* I forgot to say that doing this would place the responsibility of the legal marriage stuff onto the spouses, for example, they could draw up their own marriage contracts, prenuptial agreements, wills, etc. This would be more work for them if they wanted legal protection, but maybe it should be more work by the individuals involved and less by the state anyway.
the easiest solution would be to make marriage a purely social construct. have everyone recognized individually by the government.
… and this is coming from someone who’s putting the pressure on her SO to get married, because my job doesn’t offer health insurance
@flapper_femme_fatale - As long as you love each, that’s not a bad reason to make it official. My sister-in-law remarried her husband (they had divorced and then been living together) for that very reason. Luck and love to you.
@WaitingToShrug - Good ideas. I tend to agree with you.
@bloggicus_maximus - Thanks for your insights
@lucylwrites - lol, I wanna see that wedding video!!!
IN the eyes of the law marriage should be held in the boundaries of consenting adults.
Through the eyes of theology is another story….. for me I struggle bc I don’t want the government deciding things like this at all…on the other hand my heart leans towards the lose of God’s favor on the US if ‘sin’ is legalized.
Check out my site for a story about a fellow wanting to marry a statue.
Gay marriage, polygamy, incest, etc. should all be legally recognized. So long as all parties are consenting adults, they should be able to enter into a contract that offers tax benefits, joint property, the right to open up bank accounts/insurance policies/etc. together, hospital visitation rights, etc. etc. etc.
@MadisonLinh - I’ll be one of yours
good points.. but at the same time, i find it kind of sad that you think we should continue discrimination because dealing with it directly is somehow too hard. these questions SHOULD be dealt with.
@LyricallyCharged - I agree. I don’t think there should be laws regulating what defines “a marriage” or a family when the people doing the marrying and/or procreating are adults. To me proclaiming that allowing homosexual couples to marry opens the floodgates for allowing people to marry children is about as valid as saying getting rid of sodomy laws that prohibit any sexual position aside from heterosexual and missionary opens the flood gates accepting bestiality.
What does the fact that underage people have sex and get pregnant have to do with marriage? Teenagers have been having sex and getting pregnant since forever? It has nothing to do with sex and marriage between consenting adults.
In response to the title, because no way am I in the mood to read about anyone’s insecurities about “the gays” right now, YES.
@Kris0logy - @secretbeerreporter - @RazielV - @flapper_femme_fatale - @Erika_Steele - @theKisSilent - Any insecurities you think I have, or judgments you think I am making occur only within your own heads. I merely point out questions that will be raised. More than one of them has already been raised, in fact. Society will decide on what they believe are the right answers. As @vexations - points out, there are people that want to “marry” and have intimate relations with inanimate objects, and we are increasingly told there is nothing wrong with love and passions of whatever kind. The man in the following link calls his “real doll” his wife. LINK As for age of consent, that was decided and signed into law by Society, and as we are being told by those advicating “marriage equality, what is and should be acceptable is subject to review and change. This link discusses the history of “age of consent”, “age of majority” and “marriageable age” laws. LINK
@lonelywanderer2 - What makes you think I think you have insecurities? I don’t see what the age of consent has to do with marriage and relationships formed by consenting adults. I also don’t see what teen pregnancies have to do with allowing homosexuals to marry or polygamous families. Also so what people want to marry their living dolls? Some people like to screw animals. Those people are pathological. No one is going to stand behind their want to give human rights to an inanimate object any more so than anyone is going to stand behind giving people the right to marry their goats.
I also don’t see taking a step backward and people allowing those under 18 to marry without their parents’ consent in this country and if their parents give consent, that raises other issues that already exist as problems today. Tackle teen pregnancy, adults sexually abusing children, and religious practices that condone marrying off mostly young girls to older men as the separate issues that they are. Seriously, the arguments about whether or not homosexuals and/or polygamous families should have rights are as weak as the arguments against blacks (and other minorities) not being able to marry or interracial couples. People need to stay out of the bedrooms and life decisions of other consenting adult humans (sad that I have to add the human part).
As far as what happens to the children in polygamous relationships should said relationships fall apart, why don’t we let the adults involved in the relationship make the decision in or out of court like we do for monogamous heterosexual couples.
@lonelywanderer2 - Really? It’s all in my head? Check my footprints on your blog today. I’ll refer you, specifically as one example, of your agreement with @MtGirlSouth that homosexuality is a mental disorder, a sexual deviance, and that like alcoholics, homosexuals have to first accept that they have a problem before they can correct said problem. You’re entitled to your opinion, as ignorant as it may be, but don’t even put the onus on the reader to overlook your past proclamations of intolerance (in spite of attempts to mask it) and accuse them of imagining insecurities. Ask all the questions you want, but your opinion is known and if it’s been misunderstood more than once, there’s a very good chance that is YOUR fault.
@lonelywanderer2 - Wait, how does supporting equality and consenting adults make ME insecure?
@lonelywanderer2 -
“I merely point out questions that will be raised. More than one of them has already been raised, in fact. Society will decide on what they believe are the right answers. “
We are a nation of laws– a republic where our Constitution recognizes and protects fundamental liberties. Marriage is a basic right. No majority should be able to deprive it of any minority class– not on the basis of religion, race, or sexual orientation.
@lonelywanderer2 - The thing with trying to marry a statue, a doll, or an animal is that inanimate objects as well as animals are unable to consent to marriage. Hence, it is a complete non-issue.
@Erika_Steele - You are one of the most open and secure people I see here, in my opinion. You are also very intelligent, and express your thoughts very well. @RazielV - You were included in the reply only because you had read and commented. @theKisSilent - You are the one who accused me of having insecurities, and you don’t know me, aside from reading a few of my thoughts and ponderings. I confess I have not spent time enough on your blog to get to know you very well at all, and I plan to try to remedy that. @Celestial_Teapot - I reply to you just to be polite, and somewhat give you the benefit of the doubt. To be honest, I have not seen where you say anything of substance very often, to my way of thinking. You seem just to like taking potshots at others and ridiculing their beliefs. That brings you no respect from me. @firetyger - It is an issue because there is an increasing push to accept those people who deviate from the normal. That actually might be, and I think actually is, a good thing, as long as they are harming nobody by doing what they do, and thinking as they do. Last, again to @firetyger - I say to you what I said to @Erika_Steele - You are one of the most open and secure people I see here, in my
opinion. You are also very intelligent, and express your thoughts very
well.
@lonelywanderer2 - Aww. You got hurt feelings.
@lonelywanderer2 - huh?
my point is simply this: whatever issues might come up shouldn’t have an effect on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed.
since inanimate objects and animals cannot enter into contracts, marrying them won’t happen unless we do away with the idea of marriage as a legally binding agreement.
the age of consent has always fluctuated. and it can be circumvented in many areas with parental consent. i think it’s entirely arbitrary, and i believe there should be one age of majority for everything.
@lonelywanderer2 - Sure. Whatever you say!
@Celestial_Teapot - You don’t have the power, nor the eloquence from what I’ve seen, to hurt my feelings. @flapper_femme_fatale - That is the most well-thought-out comment I have seen from you, and you make good points, whether or not I agree with every single one. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts!!!
@lonelywanderer2 - There is deviating from what the majority of people do but there is still a limit as to how far you can push before you’re talking about something else entirely. A relationship isn’t a one way street. If a man says he is married to his dog or he is married to a statue, I’d argue that he isn’t married at all since those things cannot consent or agree to the relationship.
Let us get this straight, that Marriage is a religious term. It comes directly from the Old and from the New Testament, and if one examined even closely the customs of Bible times, then it would have been traditional for the parents to have agreed with other parents their children should be united in the ceremony of marriage. These marriages were monogamous, and were sealed in the presence of the believers of the Judeo Christian ethic, and the courthouse weddings of this day would have not counted as a marriage. There were no Justice of the Peace, no super cool pastors who were going to open up their churches and hearts to same sex unions, because girls were considered eligible for marriage when they had reached the sign of womanhood; And God help us, for even then — It probably happened way sooner than parent wanted to let their daughters leave home, but Parents, the religion of that day which has lived unto this day had a tradition of the wedding, the wedding feast, and the primary purpose was procreation. Some such as Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth could not conceive, but God had Mercy and saw to it that John The Baptist would be preaching in the Wilderness before the son of Mary would face all the temptations of the world before he would begin his ministry as the Christ. I am not asking you to believe any of this, but if you are of lineage from Judaica, Gentile, or Servant or Free, Man or Woman, then in the known world of scripture; Marriage was a community, family, and Holy celebration, and Jesus first miracle was at the wedding in Cana.
You can get anyone you want to perform a civil union, for my daughter in law got a certificate to be a pastor in the state of Ohio to perform her best friend’s wedding. If your choice is a civil union; then I believe that is your right. I do not believe any pastors, Priest, Rabbis or otherwise Protestant religions have been sanctioned to perform marriages, though I know people in all of these realms who have taken it upon themselves to decide that what is nearing 6000 years of religious history can be changed, because they have come to the conclusion that if you are in love and wish to marry; then if you come to them, come before the church, and the church says, “Yes,” then you should be able to go and get a legal certificate to marry.
We who do not believe that you can pick and choose what scripture and testaments you shall follow, because you are some kind of new age ambassador of God — Have the right to rewrite the entire religious code of what marriage is and is not. You are simply not that important to change an entire doctrine handed down from Christ himself. Is that too legalistic for you, which is now used to say; “Gee you are not cool,” then you are correct. I feel this is a legalistic issue within all churches, for there is no wiggle room in how Marriage and the Church relate to one another. Marriage is a Holy Institution.
I will give you the courtesy to state that the law of the land can give you the right to Civil Unions. Using the arguments that your lover, friend, civil wed by The Church of Ancient Flowers and Open Rule Church, or if you go to the courthouse, or a drive by window in Las Vegas or else where, then I do not wish to interfere, but you have had a Civil wedding of your own choosing, and you get the benefits of whatever your jurisdiction wishes to give to you, for we do have separation of church and state. All states granting such weddings should also know that their jurisdictions are responsible for your choice. It is traditional in this country for Civil Unions of men and women to mean a wife receives both some health and death benefits from most companies which you work for; and marriage partners have been able to receive survival benefits. It is my conclusion, therefore, that all states recognizing same sex unions, should thus bear the entire and full responsibility of seeing that you do receive the same care and benefits in your state. Change the customs, so take on the responsibility which you have voted for, and do not whine when your budget state and city budgets are overwhelmed to the point even child welfare cannot be seen to.N
Not only that, let your state see that you have insurance coverage even in or out of state. We hear the wedding bells ringing and we see all of the posters, so for heaven’s sakes; Do let those who believe that you deserve all of the rights of weddings pay for your benefits; And please leave us alone where we agree that Marriage is Biblical, and you are rewriting the word of God. Please leave us alone with your legalism. You want to change among the Holy Institutions recognized by a way larger portion of Americans who are not counted in the polls. We are not so dumb as to perceive that CNN is largely biased in opinion as to where all of this is going..
If you can afford children, and you prove that you are taking good care of them, then I do hope you will have the courtesy to read them similar books to what was written for us. We were to show our children that some households have two Moms, and some households have two Dads; So will those of you who seek civil unions of the same sex please read to your children that many communities still have one Mom and one Dad, but that we are not prejudice toward the children of your house. I did teach my children not to presume all children would have the same ideas and kind of home we had, for I was beside myself when a Christian woman once stated her daughter could not play with a school mate who came to their house in a rickety old car, and everyone just looked like the Beverly Hillbillies. No, most of us are more kind than that. You need, as all of us did, to know how your children will be cared for when you are working and your partner has other commitments. You also need to know that divorce will involve splitting time with the children, and if it was a drug addict who rehabs, gets well, and wants their children back you are apt to lose in a court room.
If you have left a living will as well as advanced directives during a time of sound mind and body, then it is a lie that you cannot inherit, that you cannot have your same sex partner in the hospital room, and that they cannot control the circumstances of your estate. Are we as Americans ready to take on giving same sex couples the benefits which involve our tax dollars, then if you live in a state where your union is legal, then let that state pay with their tax dollars. I can reassure you that the writers of the constitution of The United States of America saw no such issue coming up in any future date where weddings of the same sex would come up as something the forefather’s needed to address.
Our forefathers came here for religious freedom, not for the same sex union issue which had cropped up in the mother lands. Stating the Constitution has nothing against same sex marriage is almost laughable, especially coming from Gavin Newsom, a divorced and remarried Catholic. I wonder if he had a religious or a civil service the second time around, for The Newsoms are known for supporting Catholic charities in San Francisco. The Catholic Colony of Maryland was the first to recognize, “Freedom of Religion!” Isn’t that an amazing thing? Religious persecution of protestants in the old country had been on-going for centuries, and a bunch of Catholics called for religious freedom? That was applicable to a country being brought out of European’s tendency to behead those who did not choose to follow the rules of the state.
I believe that The Supreme Court is going to do the right thing and say that this is not something they should be hearing in the first place. This treads way too deeply into an area that is one which gays have said they believe deeply in which is The Separation of Church and State. I fully expect that before my life is over, if I live to be an old woman, then most states in this union will have voted in Gay Unions of one sort or the other; But by the Grace of the Constitution and God — Then churches can still choose to follow the ancient text which has been our guide from the beginning of our known existence as a church.
Gay and Marriage are just now two terms which are Biblically acceptable, and what little we see exposes a great unacceptability of what were considered to be unholy acts. It is not up to me to make myself popular by following the world, for I hope not to be of this world someday; It is also foretold of extremely tumultuous and times of arrogance before this earth shall pass away. Churches keep being painted as relics, the battle between what is described as good and evil. False prophets and false doctrine are foretold. I am going to waive stating that I know what ever is going to become of any of us. I have met angels, and I have felt the burden of the cross. I have been near death more than once with a small glimpse in to the peace of life’s end…
Yes, I am legalistic about many things, based on the law of man, as well as the law of the church. I would advise all o GLBT to have wills, to have advance directives, to make legal unto your partner what can be legal. As to Marriage, it appears to me that the scriptures have not changed. 8 States out of 50 have given you the right to marry; So let those states be your supporters, and we know that your wishes will advance in ward in to the country, for you are advertising to the very young, and young will believe, and your cause is apt to move throughout the states; But you might hope and pray that The Supreme Courts does leave it up to the people, leave it out of our churches — We who cannot believe that Bible history is ours to change. If you are able to add to the laws of this nation all which you are expecting, then the people who have given you the law to do so needs to be prepared for all of the consequences, not just the giddy and feel good days. You know, the truth is, half of all marrieds have found those days sustain little in the first place. You will be no exception to the rule. Barbara
@PinkHoneysuckle - My wonderful friend, I cannot begin to address everything you discuss here, at least right now. I have been going through a situation you are aware of, although I ask you not to get into details here. Even so, I did not make a vow to be with my wife as long as things are going well, and we were blissfully happy every day, nor did she. We stand by each other no matter what challenges come our way. Some of the actual words, in the most traditional vows with which I am most familiar:
Marriage is not an institution to be entered into lightly…I take thee to be my lawfully wedded wife (or husband) for richer or for better or for worse, ’til death do us part”
We’ve seen richer and poorer, better and worse, and we have not yet been parted by the death of either of us, thankfully.
I’m sure this has been covered in past comments, but common law marriage exists in many, if not most, states. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution typically handles issues involving whether and what states most recognize from other states. Issues like inheritance and age of consent are handled by state law.
State law is going to typically be responsible for setting the property law, family law, and criminal law within that state, unless those laws violate the Constitution. I believe sexual orientation produces classes–like race, religion, etc.–that need to be protected from majorities. Thus, to me it isn’t crazy or complicated to think that states shouldn’t be able to discriminate, based on sexual orientation, when it comes to marriage, just like we currently don’t allow states to discriminate on race. (It’s shameful that it took us until 1967 before the Supreme Court decided that state anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.)