Definition of marriage, the sequel

[Tammarion]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/08/21/15099086.html

TORONTO - The Green Party of Canada will consider a motion Sunday on whether or not they will push to decriminalize polygamy.

...
“It's a human rights issue,” said Trey Capnerhurst, a Green Party candidate in Edmonton East, noting that she is polyamorous.

Polyamory is the process of having more than one intimate relationship at the same time, according to the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association.

Capnerhurst says in cases where police suspect domestic abuse against multiple wives and children, that should be the subject of criminal charges.

“We should be not be charging people with polygamy,” she said.
...

Capnerhurst says there's a bias against those in polyamorous relationships, of which she estimates number in the tens of thousands in Canada.

She compared it to the status of same-sex marriage rights a decade ago, and says being in a polyamorous relationship is sometimes used as a reason to deny child custody to parents in divorce cases.

[MickeyFinn]

Publicity stunt I believe. It won't happen any time soon, no politician wants to subject a child to a situation as unstable as that. The only way the homosexual community was able to get by was to prove a stable and safe environment for a child; you can't have that when a kid gets to have three moms and two dads.

[Post]

While I disagree with a stable environment being much more difficult than any other relationship, I see it as a bigger issue of legalities. Things like wills and divorce. How do you split up property when one person is divorcing 5 other people?

[MickeyFinn]

prenup?

[Post]

Well, not only is a prenup not a requirement (I think prenups should be a required part of marriage but that's another conversation), there are plenty of times they're thrown out. Then there's child custody rights, visitation, different marriage length times for each person...

Oh, and insurance? Policy coverages?

[MickeyFinn]

You already know how I'd handle it. I'd remove marriage from the law completely and leave it as a religious ceremony, not a legal one

[Tammarion]

The problem being that marriage forms the basis of several legal matters. We'd still have to have some kind of secular equivalent, like "Primary Supportee" similar to next-of-kin.

The reason I bring this up is that all the people who want to open the doors to same-sex marriage (which i'm not against, just not wildly for) haven't talked about how they plan to close the doors on all the other variations that we don't approve of.

[Post]

I just don't see the issue. We have a huge legal structure based upon two consenting adults in a legal contract known as marriage. Part of that structure relies on (1) there being ONLY two, and another part relies on (2) them being consenting adults.

Everything else is inconsequential from strictly a rights perspective, so the other variations are taken care of because of those two points. And while I'm not "crazy" about gay marriage, I am "crazy" about equal rights and freedom.

[Tammarion]

I'm not sure about how the size of the legal structure matters. Isn't the normal process for the old structure to be struck down as unconstitutional and the legislature forced to come up with a new one?

Its not as if other societies that sanction polygamy don't have legal structures.

[Noleader]

Why is marriage a state legal function anyways? Really why does the state care about who you live with and what you do with them?

Contract law can cover all the aspects of marriage... lets leave marriage to the church.

[Post]

"Its not as if other societies that sanction polygamy don't have legal structures."

The ones I know of don't have equal rights and/or doesn't handle property like our society does.

[Post]

"Contract law can cover all the aspects of marriage... lets leave marriage to the church."

For practical purposes, that's what we're talking about. Marriage in our society, in how it's legally recognized, is a legal contract between two consenting adults. If we just make it something different, we still have a big structure based upon that contract.

[Noleader]

State control of Marriage is nothing more then giving the government the ability to pratice social engineering. Let private contracting between the parties deal with the details.

[Post]

While that sounds like a pretty simple solution on paper, removing marriage from the law books (ie, making a union between two people NOT a binding contract until they make an explicit private one), just won't happen within our lifetimes.

I can't think of one civil society, past or present, that doesn't have a type of marriage implicit contract. Can you?

[]LoL[Harm]

State control of Marriage is nothing more then giving the government the ability to pratice social engineering. Let private contracting between the parties deal with the details.

Don't we need some type of basic structure, otherwise how will the courts deal with it?

[Noleader]

LoL[Harm;175132']Don't we need some type of basic structure, otherwise how will the courts deal with it?

It happens every day in the business world when partners part way... why is marriage different? Partners don't have a contract for dealing with every desk, computer, etc. yet the courts tend to sort it out and make sure the parting is equitable for all involved.

[Noleader]

I can't think of one civil society, past or present, that doesn't have a type of marriage implicit contract. Can you?

Many things we do in normal day to day life have implicit contract obligations yet we do not require the approval of the state to enter into said obligations.

Here is a good segment of the wikipedia article on marriage licensing:


Black's Law Dictionary defines "license (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/License)" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/License) by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Rights) to marry; marriage is a privilege (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Privilege). Those born in the US receive a birth certificate (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Certificate), not a birth license (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/License).

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)), for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[4] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-3)[5] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-4) Some Christian (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Christian) groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract [6] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-5) which is seen by some as an infringement.[7] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-6)

Marriage licenses have also been the subject of controversy for the LGBT (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/LGBT) community who believe their right to marry is being violated. Perhaps most notably, California's Proposition 8 (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)) has been the subject of heavy criticism by advocates of same-sex marriage (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage).[8] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-7)

In October 2009, Keith Bardwell (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Keith_Bardwell), a Louisiana (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Louisiana) justice of the peace (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace), refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, prompting civil liberties groups, such as the NAACP (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/NAACP) and ACLU (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/ACLU), to call for his resignation or firing.[9] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-8)[10] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-9) Bardwell resigned his office on November 3.[11] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-10)

The marriage laws and license requirements of many states originated from the ideas of eugenics (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Eugenics)[12] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-11). Such ideas had the support of scientists such as Linus Pauling (http://www.legionoflions.com/wiki/Linus_Pauling), who advocated that people with genetic defects be denied marriage licenses.[13] (http://www.legionoflions.com/#cite_note-12) Today the science of eugenics, being highly suspect and often overtly racist, has been largely repudiated, although the requirement to obtain a license has persisted, along with the associated fee.

[MickeyFinn]

imo removing marriage from the legal system would increase it's meaning. People who marry would do it truly for spiritual reasons.

[Noleader]

Well said Blake

[Post]

"Many things we do in normal day to day life have implicit contract obligations yet we do not require the approval of the state to enter into said obligations."

But that's the point. The part that concerns me isn't state approval, it's state recognition. An implicit contract that is recognized legally is state recognition.

I'm philosophically for getting rid of marriage and forcing EVERY "marriage" to get a prenup, even if it's a premade standard contract that is just a form like filling out a driving license. The issue is, you still come back to not being able to do that for something like polygamy. There are still complications that disallow that being a standard contract when it isn't two consenting adults.

[Noleader]

The issue is, you still come back to not being able to do that for something like polygamy. There are still complications that disallow that being a standard contract when it isn't two consenting adults.

Not every business is managed by only two owners or less yet we manage to sort it out when they go under or part ways. Those that just jump into marriage, like business, will quickly learn the hard learned lessons of contracting. Why do you feel it is governments job to protect people from themselves?

[Post]

You're confusing my personal preference to what can realistically happen within our society and our lifetimes. I do not feel it is government's job. I do feel it's unrealistic to act as if government will simply walk away, or that people will vote it out anytime in the foreseeable future.

[Noleader]

If one goes into the debate already defeated then there is no reason to actually join the debate.

Remember that the Patriot Act was unpassable until an event allowed for it. I suspect as things worsen in the economy we will see tide turn on government involvement in our private lives. If you go in thinking it is impossible you are only reinforcing the minds of those that think we need an overlord to run our lives.

[Post]

Look, I'm for getting rid of half of the military budget and reigning in our troops from around the world, but I sure wouldn't be for having it done tomorrow and worrying about the ramifications then.

[Noleader]

If not tomorrow then when?

[Post]

Who can legitimately answer that on a forum? I can say one day isn't enough, and 100 years is way more than enough, but to state something like 14 years with all of the variables to place in it? What would be your answer?

[Noleader]

Tomorrow is as good a day as any. The problem is we spend all our time considering all these possible variables and the net result is nothing changes because, like it or not, there is to many variables and how they will play out.

The only thing that really needs to be considered is "Does our presence in Where ever defend Americans from invasion?" If we are not in direct danger (Like a army getting ready to storm our shores) then there is no reason for any troops to be there.

[Post]

So if you had the power to snap your fingers and bring all of the troops home and cut the military budget in half without any of the cleanup or preparation done beforehand, you'd do it?

Wow.

And please, stop confusing my stance of gradual change to me disagreeing in an end result. Your entire second paragraph was about justifying taking away our troops (and the budget, don't forget about the budget and its associate fallout), when we're in agreement in that.

What about welfare? Should we just remove government-mandated welfare altogether in one day and toss everyone currently using it to the wind? It's as good a day as any?

And if you don't agree to that, don't worry, I won't assume you're for government-mandated welfare simply because you're not for instant removal of it.

[Noleader]

So if you had the power to snap your fingers and bring all of the troops home and cut the military budget in half without any of the cleanup or preparation done beforehand, you'd do it?

Yes I would. Preparation for what? We would eliminate the primary cause of terrorism overnight (Blow back from our foreign policy). Close all the bases around the world and bring the troops home.

As for the two wars I would cut them tomorrow and ship the troops home as well. Why should we prop up a corrupt government in Afganistan and support of what can only be considered a puppet government in Iraq (both of with will fall apart when ever we decide to leave anyways).

And please, stop confusing my stance of gradual change to me disagreeing in an end result. Your entire second paragraph was about justifying taking away our troops (and the budget, don't forget about the budget and its associate fallout), when we're in agreement in that.

Gradual change in the scope of things amounts to no real measured change. I am not claiming you do not want to see the end result; I am only stating that your path without any real line in the sand results in little to no action.

What about welfare? Should we just remove government-mandated welfare altogether in one day and toss everyone currently using it to the wind? It's as good a day as any?

Tomorrow I would tell everyone 40 and under that the government will not have a SS check or Medicare payments for them. I would work to help those that are between 50-65 phase out of it as much as possible. I would continue support for those already past retirement age that are on the programs (cutting it for those that make $40,000.00/yr or more via investments or IRA's).

Basically my idea has a line in the sand for all those involved... one group is now, mid group is phased, and the last group will die out in the near term.

For the record I am in the screawed over group that has paid into it for years and will get nothing if my plan was used

And if you don't agree to that, don't worry, I won't assume you're for government-mandated welfare simply because you're not for instant removal of it.

My problem with the whole gradual plans thing is you end up with one word campaign signs with Hope and Change that actually mean More and Same because at the end of the day it was a lot of unmeasurable promises to keep the masses happy.

[Hollus]

LoL[Harm;175132']Don't we need some type of basic structure, otherwise how will the courts deal with it?

We do have a basic structure established for the past several thousand years, give or take.

Unfortunately for some, it's based in religion in 90% of the world, regardless of God or gods.

I don't think that government should say who should or shouldn't get committed to whom.

I, and this is strictly religion on my part, don't like calling it marriage when it's between two of the same Gender however.

[Post]

"My problem with the whole gradual plans thing is you end up with one word campaign signs with Hope and Change that actually mean More and Same because at the end of the day it was a lot of unmeasurable promises to keep the masses happy."

To be fair, though, you're insinuating it's counterproductive to act on the basis of things working as they should be (ie, gradual change just like you described with welfare), because in the real world it doesn't get done. When in fact, you find yourself in a similar position if you push for a change like getting rid of marriage tomorrow.

You either apply real world politics or you don't. If you don't, then it's perfectly legitimate to push for gradual change. If you do, then it's unrealistic to push for something as grounded as marriage in our society to be eliminated without a long process.

[Noleader]

I guess the issue is gradual change without real fixed measureables. We can all talk about things we want to change but if we don't fix some measureables or path to reaching the goal we might as well just be writing fictional books.

[Post]

I can agree with that. Marriage is just so... Overrated? I don't mean in importance to the people who are married, I mean its ratio for people willing to fight to keep it the way it is compared to what it literally means in law. It's hard for me to put up much of a fight to get it changed beyond equal rights to people (gay marriage), to what it should be (your proposal).

It's like those weird laws that stick around without usefulness, such as no spitting on the sidewalk. Yeah, that should be gotten rid of, but if society as a whole was willing to fight tooth and nail for it, I'm going to pick about a million other things to fight over first.