time for true marriage equality (1 Viewer)

[B-Deep]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

 

[NCCommish]

He does. Present divorce/custody law is entirely premised around a 50/50 community property idea and the best interests of the children of the two legal parents. Throwing a third plus party wrench in there with the assumption that he/she would have the same rights would be a freaking mess. Our legislatures would probably have to re-write the marital laws and courts would become even more packed with litigation but adding new issues and a third or more party to a case.

Sounds like a big win for the lawyers then. In reality it isn't that hard to do. We wrote rules once we can write new ones if necessary. Personally I think in practice we would be talking about a few hundred "couples+" in the whole country. People are taking longer and longer to marry in general. I don't see a big rush to do Big Love.

 

[NCCommish]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

If the government hadn't gotten involved to start with we wouldn't have those rules. We would do what patients want and what people prescribed in their wills instead of turning to nanny to tell us what to do.

 

[B-Deep]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

If the government hadn't gotten involved to start with we wouldn't have those rules. We would do what patients want and what people prescribed in their wills instead of turning to nanny to tell us what to do.

ok

short of a time machine...

how do we unring that bell?

would every married couple in the nation have to go to an attorney and spell out the rights which are already spelled out for them by law? how does that help society?

it is not a nanny issue, it is a generally accepted rights of a spouse issue

all you are doing is ripping up those rights

great deal for the lawyers i suppose

lets burry the courts in cases deciding the rights of spouses instead of spelling them out

other than "government sucks" i don't see how this helps people

 

[NCCommish]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

If the government hadn't gotten involved to start with we wouldn't have those rules. We would do what patients want and what people prescribed in their wills instead of turning to nanny to tell us what to do.

ok

short of a time machine...

how do we unring that bell?

would every married couple in the nation have to go to an attorney and spell out the rights which are already spelled out for them by law? how does that help society?

it is not a nanny issue, it is a generally accepted rights of a spouse issue

all you are doing is ripping up those rights

great deal for the lawyers i suppose

lets burry the courts in cases deciding the rights of spouses instead of spelling them out

other than "government sucks" i don't see how this helps people

Really? It going to become chaos? People don't write wills now? People don't give written instructions to hospitals now? Come on it isn't really that huge a deal.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

If the government hadn't gotten involved to start with we wouldn't have those rules. We would do what patients want and what people prescribed in their wills instead of turning to nanny to tell us what to do.

ok

short of a time machine...

how do we unring that bell?

would every married couple in the nation have to go to an attorney and spell out the rights which are already spelled out for them by law? how does that help society?

it is not a nanny issue, it is a generally accepted rights of a spouse issue

all you are doing is ripping up those rights

great deal for the lawyers i suppose

lets burry the courts in cases deciding the rights of spouses instead of spelling them out

other than "government sucks" i don't see how this helps people

Really? It going to become chaos? People don't write wills now? People don't give written instructions to hospitals now? Come on it isn't really that huge a deal.

I think over 50% of people die without a will.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's stopping polygamist wannabes now? It's not the old days, threesomes could domesticate themselves in just about any neighborhood in the US.

But some rules are gonna be needed along the lines of inheritance, medical decisions and tax liability, otherwise it's gotta default to the original couple retaining all those rights and the additional parties are outside looking in.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Government should get out of the marriage business and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with their private lives.

The consenting adults part is fine. But there are two problems with your overall statement: The first is that whenever I hear "government should get out of the marriage business", it's usually a cop out, made by people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage but desire to justify their position by espousing a libertarian argument rather than a restrictive one. I am not saying this applies to you, but that's usually what it means. Let's be practical: government is NEVER going to get out of the marriage business: there are too many reasons why- taxes, inheritance, divorce rights, etc., etc. Maybe in a perfect world it should happen but it never will. Therefore, the proper approach is not to wait until government gets out of the marriage business, but for government to make gay marriage legal. Now. The second problem is that, while I agree in principle that polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legal to consenting adults, the fact is that these issues are used as "slippery slope" arguments by those opposed to gay marriage. Nobody is really pushing for them. There are millions of gay people who want to be legally married. How many people want to legally enjoy polygamy or incest? A few hundred? Therefore, even discussing this issue is disingenuous IMO and a means for people to come up with reasons to be against gay marriage.

In the abortion argument "rape, incest, & health of the mother" is used as a defining reason to have abortion laws but they are an infinitesimal amount compared to the overall amount of abortions that take place. Gay marriage is an infinitesimal amount of the overall amount of marriages taking place. I am not saying that any types of marriage are wrong, just the concept of if it only effects a few then it is not a concern. I think the government should look at everyone strictly as individuals and then as partners, if they are legally licensed as such; once you get past the procreation part of a union, you only have a legal sense anyway.

 

[B-Deep]

I think having laws about the rights of spouses makes sense and is a perfect business for government to be in

one of the big issues (and most heartbreaking issues) homosexuals have when not allowed to married is being locked out of hospitals, medical decisions funerals, funeral decisions and the like because they have no legal status

why extend those issues to the entire population?

If the government hadn't gotten involved to start with we wouldn't have those rules. We would do what patients want and what people prescribed in their wills instead of turning to nanny to tell us what to do.

ok

short of a time machine...

how do we unring that bell?

would every married couple in the nation have to go to an attorney and spell out the rights which are already spelled out for them by law? how does that help society?

it is not a nanny issue, it is a generally accepted rights of a spouse issue

all you are doing is ripping up those rights

great deal for the lawyers i suppose

lets burry the courts in cases deciding the rights of spouses instead of spelling them out

other than "government sucks" i don't see how this helps people

Really? It going to become chaos? People don't write wills now? People don't give written instructions to hospitals now? Come on it isn't really that huge a deal.

there are routinely stories of gay people being denied access because they have no legal rights, it happens

it is more than just a will, there is a lot of access and a lot of rights confered on someone for being a spouse, all of those owuld need spelled out in every relationship

it is a waste

 

[B-Deep]

and if there is a"will" and it is contested or unclear then if "the government is out of marriage"the spouse has 0 legal relationship to the deceased where as family by blood has one.

f the govenrment is out of marriage then only documents you and your wife and lawyer have prepared seperate him or her from me in regards to your estate. Are you documented up enough for that?

not to mention, much of the "government involvment" in marriage is at the state level. Are opponants of this saying the federal government should dictate to states that they are not allowed to pass laws regarding spouses? We gonna stomp on states rights like that?

I think many times people say get out of the marriage business and they really mean stop the tax breaks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

and if there is a"will" and it is contested or unclear then if "the government is out of marriage"the spouse has 0 legal relationship to the deceased where as family by blood has one.

I think many times people say get out of the marriage business and they really mean stop the tax breaks.

Just because they're out of the marriage business doesn't mean they're out of the enforcement of contracts business.

And yes, tax breaks are part of the issue.

 

[B-Deep]

and if there is a"will" and it is contested or unclear then if "the government is out of marriage"the spouse has 0 legal relationship to the deceased where as family by blood has one.

I think many times people say get out of the marriage business and they really mean stop the tax breaks.

Just because they're out of the marriage business doesn't mean they're out of the enforcement of contracts business.

And yes, tax breaks are part of the issue.

the point is the law establishes a base set of rules for marriage and the rights of a spouse

if you keep those laws, you are in the marriage business

if not every marriage, existing and future, needs to be run through a lawyer (or a set of lawyers) an appropriately documented, and after that a spouse has no more legal rights than any other business partner.

how is that better? i'll grant you it would avoid having to say gay people are not icky and thus can marry, past that it puts a huge burden on all present and future marriages, and it will create a ton more legal issues

if you want to say "no tax breaks" say that, that's a separate issue. But there are very good reasons why a spousal rights laws should exist, and if those exist than government is involved in marriage, because it has to say who can and cannot be a spouse

i cannot think of a more unpopular position for a politician to take than to say "there is no marriage, everyone get a lawyer and document your relationships appropriately, your spouse has no rights"

even if it was the best idea ever, which it is not, you may as well wish that our army all road unicorns, because that is every bit as likely to happen

 

[Andy Dufresne]

even if it was the best idea ever, which it is not, you may as well wish that our army all road unicorns, because that is every bit as likely to happen

No, I'm sure you're right.

One of the biggest reasons I talk about it in those terms though is so that my gay bashing conservative bretheren are forced to think of it as a legal issue (which it is) rather than a moral one.

And I still don't like the idea that single people are left out in the cold.

But I did say that if you cover all or cover none the effect is the same to me so either way I'd be happy with.

Edit: Oh, and on the flip side, gay marriage supporters need to stop talking about it as a matter of "love" because, again, it's a legal issue.

 

[B-Deep]

even if it was the best idea ever, which it is not, you may as well wish that our army all road unicorns, because that is every bit as likely to happen

No, I'm sure you're right.

One of the biggest reasons I talk about it in those terms though is so that my gay bashing conservative bretheren are forced to think of it as a legal issue (which it is) rather than a moral one.

And I still don't like the idea that single people are left out in the cold.

But I did say that if you cover all or cover none the effect is the same to me so either way I'd be happy with.

Edit: Oh, and on the flip side, gay marriage supporters need to stop talking about it as a matter of "love" because, again, it's a legal issue.

that seems like a tax issue

simply having spousal rights laws does not leave single people out in the cold

there are a billion things wrong in the tax code, if you want to say tax breaks for married people are one of them i am not gonna put up a fight

 

[Andy Dufresne]

even if it was the best idea ever, which it is not, you may as well wish that our army all road unicorns, because that is every bit as likely to happen

No, I'm sure you're right.

One of the biggest reasons I talk about it in those terms though is so that my gay bashing conservative bretheren are forced to think of it as a legal issue (which it is) rather than a moral one.

And I still don't like the idea that single people are left out in the cold.

But I did say that if you cover all or cover none the effect is the same to me so either way I'd be happy with.

Edit: Oh, and on the flip side, gay marriage supporters need to stop talking about it as a matter of "love" because, again, it's a legal issue.

that seems like a tax issue

simply having spousal rights laws does not leave single people out in the cold

there are a billion things wrong in the tax code, if you want to say tax breaks for married people are one of them i am not gonna put up a fight

I think we're on the same side here.

 

[NCCommish]

even if it was the best idea ever, which it is not, you may as well wish that our army all road unicorns, because that is every bit as likely to happen

No, I'm sure you're right.

One of the biggest reasons I talk about it in those terms though is so that my gay bashing conservative bretheren are forced to think of it as a legal issue (which it is) rather than a moral one.

And I still don't like the idea that single people are left out in the cold.

But I did say that if you cover all or cover none the effect is the same to me so either way I'd be happy with.

Edit: Oh, and on the flip side, gay marriage supporters need to stop talking about it as a matter of "love" because, again, it's a legal issue.

that seems like a tax issue

simply having spousal rights laws does not leave single people out in the cold

there are a billion things wrong in the tax code, if you want to say tax breaks for married people are one of them i am not gonna put up a fight

I think we're on the same side here.

My side is it's a bunch of excuses. A contract is a contract. If it is legally written it is enforceable. It would be very easy to come up with a marriage contract that would cover these things. It could be as easy as some state code boilerplate that you sign when you sign your marriage license.

 

[Kanil]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

TL;DR

Cliffs notes?

 

[zed2283]

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

Legalize polygamy.

 

[CBusAlex]

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utahs polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLCs reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

Waddoups ruling attacks the parts of Utahs law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages." Today, however, simply living together doesnt amount to being "married," Waddoups writes.

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes.

 

[zed2283]

Federal judge declares Utah polygamy law unconstitutional

A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utahs polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

Judge Clark Waddoups 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLCs reality series "Sister Wives." The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.

Waddoups ruling attacks the parts of Utahs law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages." Today, however, simply living together doesnt amount to being "married," Waddoups writes.

"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes.

Baby steps!

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm okay with this, but no gay polygamy. That just hurts traditional polygamy.

 

[Tchula]

So is that saying there is no such thing as common law marriage?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Montana polygamist family applies for marriage licenseBILLINGS - Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

As the two filled out their marriage application they were met with questions.

"There's a spot on there where you put the dissolution date of your previous marriage and we put 'not applicable,'" said Christine.

In fact, the couple was met with varied reaction from employees, who were caught off guard.

"So, are you legally married, you didn't get divorced?" asked one clerk.

"We'll have to deny that, let me go grab the other supervisor real quick so I can get confirmation but as far as I'm aware you can't be married to two people at the same time," said another clerk.

The Colliers were initially denied the license, and the clerk later returned to tell the couple that they would have to check with the Montana Attorney General's office.

When asked for comment, the Attorney General's office referred MTN News to two sections of Montana law, stating polygamy is illegal.

"It's two distinct marriages, it's two distinct unions, and for us to come together and create family, what's wrong with that?" said Christine. "I don't understand why it's looked upon and frowned upon as being obscene."

The couple's goal is to have their story heard.

The Colliers say if the state of Montana could only recognize their marriage as legal, it could be the catalyst for other states to follow suit.

"All we want is legal legitimacy. We aren't asking anybody for anything else. We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves," said Nathan.

MTN News is still awaiting to hear whether or not the marriage application was officially denied.

If it's accepted, it would be the first in the nation.

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license