General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGay people can have multipartner relationships too.
The idea that the rights that gays and lesbians should have ought to rest on the typical power dynamics of religiously driven men-women plural marriages strikes me as some kind of advanced form of hetronormative narcissism.
Polygamy isn't just about straight people. When you try to use the behavior of straight couples to justify legal prejudice toward gay couples you're being incredibly disingenuous.
I believe in sexual freedom and free association of consenting adults in any kind of arrangement they find satisfactory. This has always been my consistent belief and is probably the political idea that I hold most sacred. If you want to argue against that, fine, bring an argument. Don't you dare try to say that the sexual practices of straight people in insular religious communities or half a world a way is a reason to deny my or any other person's right to equal protection, sexual liberty and dignity under the law. That isn't an argument, that is guilt by tentative association.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Or do they just want to date the person?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I know some that want to get married and I know some that view it was more informal than that. It doesn't change the fact that they are entitled to equal protection, sexual freedom and dignity under the law.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I agree with you that they deserve protections. Funny you should mention dignity. That is what Justice Kennedy stressed in his opinion.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)When the government sanctions some relationships, they impart a special dignity on them. To deny that to any other relationship is a violation of equal protection and basic fairness. That was so self-evidently obvious to me years ago, became obvious to the supreme court rather recently and is obliviously ignored by many people on this subject matter who swear up and down that they now understand it when it comes to gay marriage, but not multi-partner marriages.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
...Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy’s words on marriage, “the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family”? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a “keystone of the Nation’s social order” when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)arrangement they want however as far as the state goes marriage will remain between two people.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Every relationship is entitled to get equal dignity under the law. The minimum system acceptable system to me is one partner considered for tax purposes and all others considered equal for things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance laws and everything else that people who can get married take for granted every day of the week.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)child marriages. Should female childred be farmed out to old men for marriage?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Children and animals can not meaningfully consent to sexual or romantic relationships. Consenting adults are a different case.
Who pronounced you or any other person qualified to decide what relationships between consenting adults deserve basic dignity and rights?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)child rape?
Perfect example of the anti-sexual freedom prudes who compare every action they don't like between consenting adults to non-consensual sex.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)your values on those cultures.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If you can't see the difference between essentially abducting 8 year old girls and forcing her into a relationship with 60 year old men and three adults engaged in a consensual relationship, then I don't know what I could say.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)You said all relationships deserve dignity but clearly in your mind they don't. Clearly you have a culturally determined dislike to child marriages.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)multiculturalism that actually would allow for cultural excuses for child rape. Children cannot consent, period, end of story.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)as they are doing with gay marriage.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Kurska doesn't approve of so-called hetro-normative values but she and you have your own normative values that you are imposing on others.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It is a fundamental human truth that has been DENIED by cultural dictates.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)with the form of the marriage, arraigned heterosexual, monogamous marriages are still relatively common in India, to give an example, and among some immigrant groups from that same country. Its not officially encouraged, but it still happens. Please note that both partners are usually not given a choice in the matter.
I would say that such arraignments are wrong, that everyone should be given a choice, at the age of majority(18+), as to who their partners should be, whether its for life or for the night. I will happily claim that this right should be universal, regardless of where people are, what religion they follow, or what culture they come from.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)India may not consider it rape, but it is indeed, by definition rape. It is indeed, by definition non-consensual. It is indeed, by definition forced.
You're placing their values on our culture.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)How cool is that?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)How cool is that?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Your only argument is to instantly equate consensual arrangements between adults to child rape.
kcr
(15,317 posts)See, I don't think it is because I'm not a Libertarian. I don't believe that exploitation is acceptable. I do think that the issue of exploitation can and should be considered.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to harm one another.
kcr
(15,317 posts)I'm saying they're just disregarding that harm.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You can think whatever you want, you don't get to privilege one before the other in a form of a legal mandate. Only authoritarians want the government in the business of enforcing their personal tastes.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)That's what laws do. No collusion, even if people consent to colluding. No monopolies, even if people agree to monopolies. No selling swampland as subdivided lots, even if there is a consenting buyer and seller. No 39 week abortions, even if woman and doctor consent. No stock selling by insider. On and on and on and on. Laws are made for the benefit of society all the time. Everybody, except the most extreme libertarians, understand this.
The laws must be applied equally to every group, but yes, laws are allowed.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You're using examples of overt business dealings to say we ought to be able to limit private sexual experiences, based on what I can tell.
The problem is I have never found anyone who can find an adequate reason for most of it besides "ew I don't like it".
I liked being a liberal far more when it was understood that the government ought to stay out of our bedrooms. We have apparently evolved past that idea, at least many of us have.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Have sex with anybody and as many people as you like, the government doesn't care.
But when you go to the government and ask for benefits and protections, the government has an interest in determining whether what you are asking them for is good for society. The government does not have the right to apply laws unequally, but they have the right to apply laws.
I have seen several posters post several studies showing that it's harmful to society and especially to women and children. You may not care about that, but others in society do.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Here's the other side:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-without-limits/201304/the-truth-about-polyamory
http://www.livescience.com/27129-polyamory-good-relationships.html
http://www.livescience.com/27128-polyamory-myths-debunked.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/26/living/relationships-polyamory/
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)The study on polygamy talked about how the legal binds of marriage in a poly structure, negatively impact society. Sure, I can see polyamory benefiting some people, that's great! But getting MARRIED is about picking one to share state recognized legal benefits with. Those two state married persons could live with three other state married couples in a big house together and practice polyamory. Great! Polyamory is about freedom, polygamy tends to turn into being about control of men over women and children, in practice.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)To, for example, a third spouse. I don't understand your leap of logic here. How does civil rights for women and children regress in this scenario? Got to remember that monogamous marriage only became an equal partnership after over a century of civil rights victories, and we still aren't done yet. Hell, marital rape was only made illegal a short time ago.
kcr
(15,317 posts)If you're individualistic in your thinking, that's fine. But I'm not and plenty of other people feel the same way.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)That sentence in itself is bigoted. You know very well no-one here is wanting to legalize child rape. We are discussing American laws and culture, not some foreign country. I do know of three adult men who have been together for 5 years. Do you think it is ok to discriminate against them if they wanted to marry each other? I don't!
If all parties involved are adults and freely consent to such an arrangement, it is no-one else's business if they want to get married.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)polygamous arrangement. Once two are married legal arrangements can be be with the others.
That this is a matter of dignity is a lot of baloney. Are you saying people living common law dont have dignity? Marriage has always been viewed by progressives as a repressive institution so why all of the sudden is it required for dignity?
Quackers
(2,256 posts)
if gay people want to be together, they can sit down and write out a contract. Marriage should be between a man and a women!
Yeah, that still sounds like a bigoted statement you're pushing.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)marriage. Not having visitation rights, pensions, health benefits etc is wrong. However once same sex marriage was legalized people can draw up agreements. Any legal agreements even between two people before would not have been legally binding on hospitals etc.
I'd suggest you spend your energy on fighting climate change because this issue is simply a distraction.
Quackers
(2,256 posts)I think consenting adults should have the right to do what they want. You want to say it's icky and shouldn't be allowed. If you get your kicks from calling people names then so be it. I'm done talking with you because of the name calling. You have a good evening.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)liking my opinion. I merely pointed out that your language and attitude nails you as the bigot.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Brother-sister or brother-brother or sister-sister sexual relationships aren't entitled to the same treatment.
Moreover, the bond/relationship between members of a two- person marriage are more special, unique and committed than some sister wives arrangement.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Just about how a relationship among more than two people could have dignity.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)They said the same thing about gay marriage vs. straight marriage. Have you ever actually met a person in a multi-partner relationship? Are you saying that the quickie two week relationship that end in marriage for Paris Hilton is intrinsically more special, unique and committed than any multi-partner relationship that has ever existed?
It is hilarious how people on the bragging about being on the right side of history so often immediately start using the arguments of those on the wrong side when the next topic comes up.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"Top 5" is not the same as #1.
If you have ten spouses, and one leaves, you still have 9 spouses.
Not the same as when there's only one spouse.
If a polygamist can't say that there's one person to whom they're dedicated above all others, sorry not the same level of importance as monogamists who do make that commitment.
And 
at the glibertarian comparison between same-sex partners who place each other before all others and polygamists who have their bets hedged.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is one of the most insidious lies thrust upon our culture by juedo-christian morality.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Worse things could happen. 
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Of course, that might just mean two guys sitting in front of the TV on Sunday with beer and chips.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is at the core of every argument against sexual freedom. It is just a matter of ripping away the layers until that part of it is exposed.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)polygamy.
Point it out and they deny it, but all you have to do is change the adjective used.
They also have hit all the marks, its bad for children(where have we heard of that before?), legalizes pedophilia(again, sounds familiar), it destroys marriage(sounds very familiar), etc.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Same sh*t, different.. well you know.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)People will argue subjectively, whatever they personally feel is right or wrong, but the way people argue is pretty similar. Pick out the good parts that make your argument better, minimize the bad stuff. Exaggerate the bad parts of the other side to make your argument better, minimize the good stuff.
Marriage itself, between one woman and one man, is a slipper slope to gay marriage. If they get to do it, why not us? That gay marriage would then lead to other things only makes sense, because now you're bringing more people into the fold, and who gets to say when to stop is basically what every argument about anything under the sun is about.
Everything starts out small, and then expands. Wal-Mart started out as a small business, now it's everywhere. America started out as a few settlements, then a bunch of colonies, then a bunch of states, now a global hegemon. The planet started out as dust and gas.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)It strikes me as incredibly weird that the LBGT critics of expanded marriage rights are identifying more with the "Traditional Marriage" people on the right than with the people who actually support their bid for equal rights.
Do they really want to stand with the people who think they are destroying the nation?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Not sure what the beef is.
There's no constitutional right to have polyamorous relationships recognized by the state.
If people are genuinely concerned about this instead of engaging in glibertarian trolling , get to work and build your movement.
No one's going to do the work for you.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Those issues impact multi-partner relationships too.
I can understand difficulties with the tax code, but I don't understand why basic dignities ought to be denied to them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As I said, if you feel this is such a burning civil rights issue, start a polyamory rights user group and lobby.
But it's not related to same-sex marriage.
The marriage bond between a two-person couple is more special than the bonds between members of a ten person arrangement. Thems the breaks.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Really, this is the fight you're willing to die for. Denying consenting adults the right to visit their lovers in the hospital?
It blows my mind.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)If so why? I'm not even talking about the tax code, where I admit there are complications, I'm talking about basic human dignity
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)visitors.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I suspect you're not gay and aren't familiar with what that really means.
Go look up the stories of bigoted family telling gay people they aren't allowed to visit their dying partners bedside.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hospital visitors.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Tax codes, I get that those are complicated. On that issue I am willing to bend, on these other issues of fundamental human liberty I am not.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Only benefits that are provided without discrimination against any protected class.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Some of us come from severely dysfunctional families and our friends (and lovers) are really our family. For hospital visitation, I'd like to be able to have legal paperwork that says this friend or lover is my legal family and another paper that says my biodad is NOT my family and not to be allowed any legal say, especially in terms of hospital treatment.
A elderly friend of mine had a close friend who was dying of cancer. The cancer patient's good for nothing son was just waiting for her to die so he could take her house. My friend was the only person who was really taking care of the cancer patient. They were both elderly with short hair and glasses. My friend told the hospital that she was her friend's cousin. The hospital bought it for visitation purposes, but final medical decisions would have been made by the good for nothing son except that the cancer patient remained lucid until her death and called all her own shots.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)That is the key. I am in complete agreement with you on that.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)A bad family life can leave you bereft of actually kin. My "family" has always been my tight-knit group of friends. They would be the ones who would know what I would want in the case of hospitalization or surgery. The last person I would want there would be my abusive biodad and his golddigging wife. They would just be trying to figure out how to get control of my bank account or take my car.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Legal realities ought to represent this common sense reality.
When you're someone with an abusive family or a gay kid kicked out on the street at 13 that lesson becomes very clear to you.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Wasn't it the hospitalization issue during the AIDS crisis that originally drove the marriage issue?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was one of the issue that thrust it into the spotlight. Just like how it was fueled by realizations that you could spend decades building a life with someone, only for their estranged family to come along and try to claim it as their inheritance.
Gay people more than anyone else know the rights that marriage imparts and that people who can get married take them for granted.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I could see the golddigger doing that. That's why I've got codes on all my bank accounts. Just in case she pretends to be me and tries to get the balance. My biodad knows my SSN and birthday and he's got loose lips.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I recall one particularly heart breaking story of a lesbian couple creating a farm together. One partner dies from cancer and the family who cast her out shows up and fights to get half of the farm.
Bigoted legal system gives it to them, holds the survivor as hostage and forces her to pay out the nose to get it back.
Sickening, but a perfect example of the rights that so many people take for granted.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)until there was money to get. What did they tell the judge? That the money was left "outside the family" and therefore they were welcome to some?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Come screaming for a handout when they die.
Horrible realities of life before same-sex marriage. The exact reality that polygamous people live with today.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I think parents really can disown kids but I don't know if it works the other way. There should be a way to legally sever ties. I'm guessing that's real difficult though.
I'm thinking that the whole marriage thing is really about the tyranny of the family. It's like you're stuck in obligation to all these people, legally, and you can't get rid of that obligation except by marrying someone legally.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Free association (and dissociation) with full protection of the law is the ticket. That is how we solve these issues.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I mean, how would that work?
(I would love NOT to be affiliated with biodad and golddigger.)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)For matters of medical decisions and legal rights.
I think it is simpler than it appears.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I'm just not a paperwork person! 
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)If the patient is married to one of the other people in the polyamorous relationship, then surely that person can say 'yes, it's fine for the others to visit them too'? It's not like when a homosexual relationship has not been recognised by law, and a blood relative is supposed by the hospital to be the next-of-kin and gives them the right to veto visits by the partner.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Or both the married partners are in a car accident, leaving both incapacitated or one dead.
There are a variety of very good reasons why that could be a major problem.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)
You have proof of that? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. Most incest and rape occur in state sanctioned marriages or the standard two person couple.
Does the Bible tell you a two-person couple is more special? Why is it so special? As a therapist, I have seen multi-partnered relationships that are far healthier and happier than two person couplings.
This is the type of shit that right wingers said about denying marriage rights to gays. Straight marriage is a sacred bond. Hell Clinton spoke about that in a video that has been posted numerous times here.
Be careful your bigotry is starting to show.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Problems solved.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Just sayin.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)That's all i got out of that pseudo intellectual gobbledygook OP.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said."
You can figure out the context of it yourself.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Cause if it is, you failed miserably.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If you got an argument, bring it. I'm waiting.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Most people on here are trashing these poly threads and enraged by the hijacked of our victory for gay marriage; you're gonna have a lot of arguments in the future. Pretentious lingo and useless quotes won't help you.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I think the best way to celebrate freedom is to advocate for the extension of further freedom.
Is not a civil rights issue and nothing like gay marriage. Polygamists aren't some oppressed group that need protection, there is no similarity and there never will be. Period.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)As the tide of history rolls right over you.
Or do you mean "flush" cause that's exactly where your argument belongs.
*flush*
Bye. -_-
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Not a word salad at all.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)I'll even give you a starter...
Can 10,000 people enter into one marriage with children (shared, not shared ?)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Beyond that, I don't see why basic rights like hospital visitation ought to be denied to people.
As hard as it may be to believe, governments don't actually have to issue marriage license to everyone. If they have reason to believe a relationship is fraudulent, then they often will deny it if it is an obvious attempt to have some sort of gain like a green-card for an immigrant. If there really did exist a legitimate 10,000 person relationship, I see no reason why it should be denied basic dignities like hospital visitation rights. If it is an obvious attempt to gain some kind of business advantage, that would be highly transparent.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)these may get complicated ("more complicated"
, but doable. Hospital visitation, no problem. Figuring out who gets to make life-or-death hospital decisions might be interesting. Divorce from one but not all spouses could get complicated. Lawyers will love it.
Logistically, hospital visitation by 10,000 spouses might be a burden on hospitals.
Should there be any numeric limit on social security spousal benefit eligibility? This is an area that invites fraud.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You would have to know the person, plan on cohabitating, sexual relations are to be expected, etc. If you can swing those types of requirements with 10,000 people, more power to you.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'm going to have a hell of a time convincing uncle sam that I really love my partner, because he isn't an American citizen. This is why we have photocopied and dated evidence showing our relationship dates back years. Fraudulent relationships to get greencards are rejected all the time and the government is hypervigiliante against those sorts of things.
People who go "Yeah what if 10,000 business associates try to get married for legal benefits" don't actually understand how marriage works.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)allow for the dissolution of the marriage(divorce), even before no-fault divorce became a thing.
Impotence or lack of attraction are two, hard to prove without doctor's notes/other proof. Infidelity is another, again, requires proof.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and how the law should decide that.
Or how this would work with Social Security or employment benefits.
And are you seriously suggesting the government examine every marriage as they do when non-citizens seek to marry citizens?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I don't think there is a maximum number, if you can demonstrate a cohabitation and a variety of other criteria the government already uses to examine marriages to foreign spouses, then whats the problem? There is certainly a logical limit on how many people you can demonstrate it, but if you can show it more power to you.
For things like social security benefits, I don't see why those couldn't just be split equally between all the spouses. In the end if everyone is getting them they would even out anyways. I think there are solutions to all these problems, the question is finding them.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to any more scrutiny than others. How would we legally justify a special test for polygamous marriages that we don't require for two-person marriages?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)To prevent fraud. If you genuinely are marrying someone for the right reasons, demonstrating commitment should be easy and natural, far easier than with someone who isn't even living in the country. It is far less burdensome for polygamist couples than a person with a foreign spouse.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)The legalities in getting him over here even after she had married him were crazy.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I think people seeking multiple marriages would argue that they are no more likely to have fraudulent marriages than anyone else.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)scrutiny. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)requiring more or less scrutiny?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Spent 3 years living with them, less. Only met them on a recent trip out of the country? Draws more. These are qualitative circumstances and there is an appeals process if you feel like you didn't get a fair shake the first time. Systems for this already exist and they can be fleshed out if need be. You're fishing for problems where none exist.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)studies, for limiting state recognition of marriage to 2 person couples. For expanding the number beyond that, without opening it up to any number at all, there would have to be a rational basis for differential treatment.
In the case of non-citizens seeking citizenship, they are free to impose whatever standards they want. It wouldn't be the same for citizens.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's nice and traditional.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)"Know the person" - I didnt have to prove that to get married ..why should you?
"Cohabiting" - same..why you?
"Sexual relations are expected"..are you kidding?
mythology
(9,527 posts)I'm guessing that same sex polygamous relationships are even more rare. The law is always an imprecise tool. There are almost always corner cases where somebody is has a negative result from a law.
For example I'm a bigger than average sized guy, I can drink a fair amount and still be able to walk in a straight line, not slur my words etc. Put me next to the average sized woman and I can probably drink more than she can while remaining functional. But I'm still getting a DUI at .08 because on average a person will lose X amount of motor control at that level. I may or may not based on my individual size, alcohol tolerance and other factors. But going to a judge and explaining that I was really fairly sober and if I didn't get into an accident, then it should be fine, isn't going to get me off scot free. Is that fair? No, but we as a society have held that is where we currently think the line is best drawn for the overall population.
On average, polygamy has a pretty clear negative impact on the women and children involved as well as society as a whole given the concurrent rise in unmarried men. Same sex marriage between two people doesn't have those problems. Additionally there are innumerable legal issues with trying to define a multiparty marriage as well as divorce, child custody/support, legal right to serve as automatic health proxy (which spouse do you give that to if you have 2 or more?), etc.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Rights are self-evident and inalienable. Far to often we are denied these rights with the best of intentions. These injustices scream out across the decades and only in time are they heard. It is job of government to develop workable systems to prevent these rights being abused, not to ban certain people for having rights, because it is too hard.
Any issue with polygamy can and should be addressed, the solution, however, isn't to punish people for the bad behavior of religious cults.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the bad aspects while allowing the good for what is obviously a smaller amount of people than those in religiously polygamous relationships? If it is legal for adults to take many spouses and it is legal to practice any religion, then how do you prevent the farming of new brides, raising them, grooming them and then marrying them to another faith community member? Do you call that consent?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)a problem unique in poly relationships.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It has always been a problem with polygamy. Most polygamy is religious. Fix that and maybe you'll get some movement on this issue. The face of polygamy in America is FDLS.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)No society on earth has legalized polygamy in the full extent. The only thing legal is polygyny, having multiple wives.
The only reason FDLS is the only people you are aware practicing or wanting to practice polygyny, is because you haven't gone through the effort to educate yourself about .
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And because of the damage it has caused. I see nobody coming up with any ideas on how to make it work. Just bitching that it's illegal and calling people bigots (like that's gonna bring peopl over)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Prove to me that these connections exist in modern social circles and not just in religious cults or tribal situations where marriage partners rarely have rights anyways.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm really not the one that has to prove anything. You are claiming that we should accept that and that it is going to work in our society. You make the claim you prove the claim. We can't just only make it legal for gay people- we'd have to allow it for everybody.
How do we know it won't lead to big fdls camps with child brides like happened with Warren Jeffs?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)just like anyone else.
This has nothing to do with outlawing sexual relationships between consenting adults, which no one here has been advocating.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)choosing".
Old arguments, recycled nearly verbatim. The target just changes.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)unlike gender or race.
We all are probably polyamorous -- capable of loving more than one person. But those who want to marry have to choose a single marriage partner.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"No one is born polygamous."
"We all are probably polyamorous -- capable of loving more than one person."
Marriage is an expression of love, nothing more and nothing less.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Polyamorous means someone is capable of loving more than one person.
Legal marriage is more than an expression of love -- it is a set of legally defined responsibilities and benefits.
Polyamorous people who care only about marriage as an expression of love are free to marry informally, without involving state licenses or civil ceremonies.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Any different than people being naturally polyamorous and wanting a polyamorous marriage?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)All people are capable of loving more than one person. Most of us do love more than one person. (Not every love is sexual.)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Then if polyamory is natural human instinct, it really ought to qualify for marriage protects.
That is my point.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)5? 10? 100?
What would the justification be for the limit?
How would Social Security benefits work with multiple spouses? Employment benefits?
My point is that most people are attracted to and even love a number of people before they finally settle on a single marriage partner. But that doesn't mean society can't define a legal marriage as involving only two people who select each other to be a spouse.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)We already have logical limits to prevent marriage being used in fraudulent ways for matters of taxes, greencards and assortment of other issues.
If you can have a meaningful and full relationship with 10,000 people, more power to you. If you can demonstrate cohabitation, sexual intimacy and variety of other things we use as standards for granting a marriage, then again more power to you.
On taxes, I am willing to bend, perhaps you designate one person for shared taxes. I am far more concerned with matters of basic human dignity, like inheritance rights and hospital visitation. Imagine you've built a life with two other people and they die in a car accident. Their family could emerge out of the woodwork and try to claim almost everything you have. It isn't right. We need simple legal remedies to address these issues.
That is all I am asking for.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)+1.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)the sexual feelings don't have to be inborn. Maybe I'm wrong, but give it a read and see if I'm way off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
Like many people at the Supreme Court last month, I was deeply moved by the historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. At such a transcendent moment, it is difficult to do anything but celebrate the triumph of what Justice Anthony Kennedy called the “dignity” and “profound hopes and aspirations” of the many loving couples who had been denied the recognition of marriage.
But Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.
For the record, I have long advocated the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the most direct way the justices could have arrived at their conclusion would have been to rely on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. It, along with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, holds that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law, no matter their race, sex, religion or other attributes known as “protected classes.” Kennedy and his allies could have added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes, making the denial of marriage licenses an act of illegal discrimination. This approach would also have clarified the standard in a host of other areas, such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations.
Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference — “not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions.
In reality, he has been building to this moment for years, culminating in what might now be called a right to dignity. In his 1992 Casey decision, he upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of “personal dignity and autonomy [that] are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Kennedy wove this concept of protected dignity through a series of cases, from gay rights to prison lawsuits, including his historic 2003 Lawrence decision striking down the criminalization of homosexuality. These rulings on liberty peaked with Obergefell, which he described as an effort of the petitioners to secure “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” He used the word “dignity” almost a dozen times in his decision and laid down a jurisprudential haymaker: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
These words resonate with many of us, but it is not clear what a right to dignity portends. As Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in an earlier dissent to Lawrence, it signals “the end of all morals legislation.” Some of us have long argued for precisely that result, but the use of a dignity right as a vehicle presents a new, unexpected element, since it may exist in tension with the right to free speech or free exercise of religion.
Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy’s words on marriage, “the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family”? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a “keystone of the Nation’s social order” when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.....
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I've always stated that it doesn't matter to me nor do I care if I was born gay or not. What matters is that I am a human being with the capacity for self-determination and my life is no less dignified than anyone elses.
No one is born naturally christian, yet we include religion as a protected class. Why should sexualities be treated differently?
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)That's how his opinion reads. This article is by Jonathan Turley who actually defended that guy from Sister/Wives"
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/09/25/utah-appeals-sister-wives-ruling/
He would be the first lawyer concerned about whether marriage to more than one person would be able to be legalized based on Kennedy's language.
We do protect people's right to their own spirituality and belief system, even though, as you said, these come way after we're born. I think it may have been a practical matter for the Constitution's writers. They were much closer to all those religious wars in Europe and the philosophers of that era learned their lesson about divisive religion could be.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reason: "Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=324427&sub=trans
So what's sort of funny in an ironic, meta way is that your friend had multiple accounts posting about multiple marriages. A truly poly poster, a poster who was many posters. Not crispy and authentic but crass and exploitative.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)simpatico going down. That sock insulting people up and down this thread, the OP just grinning at it all.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Like long lost twins. I have never seen the op write in favor of plural marriage on DU before very recently. I keep wondering if they are 'coming out' of the polygamy hidey hole or just trolling us for shit and giggles. I had no idea that DU was a haven for polygamists. 
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It was people posing and fools falling for it. The pie is in the face of the DUers who fell for it thinking they were being super hip and inclusive.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I've been called a bigot over this issue a few times recently by people who fell for it. I felt kinda bad for them.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)I'm to the point of thinking none of these pro-poly posts are genuine. The internet is depressing.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)whether feelings are inborn or not.
This is an article by Jonathan Turley:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
Like many people at the Supreme Court last month, I was deeply moved by the historic ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. At such a transcendent moment, it is difficult to do anything but celebrate the triumph of what Justice Anthony Kennedy called the “dignity” and “profound hopes and aspirations” of the many loving couples who had been denied the recognition of marriage.
But Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences...
I'm not a lawyer but Turley is, and if he's right, it doesn't matter what your status is (race, sexual orientation, gender). Everyone deserves the dignity of marriage.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)they want.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Not legally.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Turley meant.
From later in that article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
...Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy’s words on marriage, “the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family”? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a “keystone of the Nation’s social order” when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.....
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)He's not just some blogger. He's a very famous lawyer and he's actually handling the polygamy case of Sister/Wives:
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/09/25/utah-appeals-sister-wives-ruling/
I don't think he's making things up here. If Kennedy really didn't make the gay marriage decision based on gays as a class (like race or gender), then the inborn nature of people's sexual desires is not the basis of marriage equality. The idea of dignity is.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which basically took the position Turley agreed with.
I'll go with those Justices over Turley.
http://fox13now.com/2015/07/01/same-sex-marriage-decision-might-not-impact-utahs-polygamy-appeal-because-of-one-word/
“It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage,” Roberts wrote in the dissent to same-sex marriage.
But the Utah Attorney General’s Office said it may not be so — because of how the Supreme Court’s majority opinion worded its ruling on gay and lesbian unions.
“I don’t think in the majority opinion I saw anything but ‘two’ and ‘couple’ throughout,” Parker Douglas, the Utah Attorney General’s Federal Solicitor, said in a recent interview with FOX 13.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)You know how we all know you're not a lawyer? 
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Turley was doing an analysis of Kennedy's own words. Turley is mostly looking forward to his fight of the Utah appeal and thinks Kennedy may have left the door open by not basis his opinion on gays as a class but by creating this right to dignity.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Like you and I could read directions for an exam and come to the conclusion that we have 40 minutes, that we may not use our text book or notes, and that we should have essays that are no more than 200 words. We wouldn't have to check with each other, the text is pretty clear to both of us.
There's no reason to assume Turley checked with Roberts or agrees with him because he talked to Roberts or because Roberts is his friend (assuming he is).
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)would have read Kennedy's opinion but NOT the dissent that was attached to it in the same SCOTUS document?
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)with or without the dissent.
That's all.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)has already been rejected by the more liberal and moderate members of the court.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)He has a case that may eventually ride on the Kennedy decision. I am sure he looked far more carefully at the decision than most.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)LGBT are not protected groups under current Constitutional jurisprudence, nor was Obergefell decided on that basis.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
But, nope, not equal protection. Is this crazy land?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)decision sounding primarily in Equal Protection would've required, based on existing caselaw.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)those in a suspect classification. That is dead wrong. Whether the person is in a suspect class and whether a fundamental right is implicated will affect what level of scrutiny is applied -strict, intermediate or rational basis. That's it. This decision, despite the flowery dicta, was clearly based on the fourteenth amendment.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)issue marriage licenses to gay people because the fourteenth amendment requires it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I don't know what your emphasis means, given this discussion.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)
amendment. You started this by saying it was granted based on the concept of dignity, not equal protection. That's BS. The opinion literally starts: The Fourteenth Amendment requires. ....
Then you started saying, nope, not equal protection because gays are not a suspect class. ...blah, blah
Now you start talking about due process. ...geez, red herrings abound.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)...For the record, I have long advocated the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the most direct way the justices could have arrived at their conclusion would have been to rely on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. It, along with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, holds that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law, no matter their race, sex, religion or other attributes known as “protected classes.” Kennedy and his allies could have added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes, making the denial of marriage licenses an act of illegal discrimination. This approach would also have clarified the standard in a host of other areas, such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations.
Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference — “not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions....
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)it is based on the equal protection clause and the due process clause. And more specifically, equal protection of due process. Another literal quote from the opinion:
"The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection."
Regardless, it was NOT based upon some outside the law dignity theory.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)that is the basis of the right to marry.
The only way to really solve it is to get the actual decision and read through it at length with a trained legal eye. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer and have to rely on lawyers to understand these things. If you're a lawyer, I'll be happy to listen to your analysis of the decision.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)equal protection clause. Non-suspect classes just get rational basis review, whereas suspect classes get strict scrutiny. Lots of attorneys have analyzed the opinion. Most recognize, at a minimum, that the opinion rests on both equal protection and due process. No lawyer believes the opinion "sounds in dignity, not equal protection." Turley, very obviously, has an agenda.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Are you a lawyer?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)and appellate judges decide who is right. And then judges disagree, and on and on.
You've read the opinion and don't think it has anything to do with the equal protection clause? ?
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I'm not a lawyer, so maybe you can help me understand the decision. I actually tried to look at it but it's hard to figure out what is important to this point Turley is making and what is not. It's confusing for a layperson. Is there something in the decision itself that defines gays as a protected class? In other words, is Jonathan Turley wrong about that? If he is, then that changes the bar for polygamy.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)on my phone. But, when I get time and to a computer, I will.
Short answer: No, they're not a protected class, but that's not one millionth as relevant as he wants it to be.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I don't mean to take time out of your day. I have to leave myself in a bit, but I hope we can revisit this.
Nice to meet you, by the way!
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Nice to meet you, too.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Is there a code?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)had a chance to read Turley's article in its entirety. He is saying that in his opinion, the Court should have relied almost exclusively on civil rights legislation plus 14th amendment equal protection clause. That's where this "protected class" talk comes from -civil rights legislation. I think it's hard for you to read the opinion and reconcile it with what Turley is saying because Turley is not explaining the opinion. He's explaining, in his opinion, the route the Court should have taken. (Civil rights legislation) plus (14th amendment equal protection clause)
Turley also is criticizing Kennedys flowery way of not directly giving clear guiding legal principles, which I agree is annoying.
Turley is also criticizing what he thinks is an expansion of substantive due process. To show how annoyed he is, he exaggerates to say that the court expanded substantive due process to include dignity. Which, I assume, while doing that he is being silly to prove a point about how annoyed he is by the route the Court took.
The court relied on an equal right to substantive due process concept ("equal liberty" , and leaves civil rights legislation (including protected class ideas) out of the mix.
This law professor explains the decision better than I could and I agree with him: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/gay_marriage_supreme_court_ruling_how_skinner_v_oklahoma_laid_the_foundation.html
"...the Supreme Court relied on the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects liberty, and its Equal Protection Clause, which outlaws state discrimination"
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Let me have some time to read the Slate article. Turley definitely has a dog in this hunt, so it might be nice to read the opinion of someone who doesn't.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)because an argument supporting polygamy or plural marriage does not have to prove a civil rights argument.
Is that correct?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)definitely saying that. But, in my opinion, he's blowing it way out of proportion because he's irritated by the way the opinion was written. I could be wrong though, of course.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)The Slate article is saying (I think) that the concept of Equal Liberty is what Kennedy based his opinion on. Equal liberty is not about civil rights or a class of people, but about the kind of thing being denied to any group. So if the thing being denied is not a fundamental right, equal liberty might not apply, but because marriage is a fundamental right, equal liberty applies.
Is that correct?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Equal protection applies to all laws and all people, although the level of scrutiny will change.
Substantive due process applies to all people, but only to those laws that implicate a fundamental right.
A fundamental right is either implicit in the concept of ordered liberty or deeply rooted in our history or traditions. Fundamental rights laws must withstand strict scrutiny.
Curiously, Kennedy did not state the level of scrutiny to be applied. He simply says that same-sex marriage could not even meet a rational basis test. It's hard for any laws to withstand strict scrutiny.
Kennedy seemed to stop short of declaring SSM or ANY marriage a free-standing fundamental right, thereby requiring strict scrutiny. Marriage has achieved fundamental right status in past cases mainly because it was tied to procreation, an obvious "true" fundamental right.
So Kennedy recounted the benefits and history of marriage and stated that there's no rational basis to preclude same-sex couples from those benefits. Women get intermediate scrutiny, do gay people get rational basis? But if marriage is a fundamental right, shouldn't strict scrutiny apply, regardless? Or is non-procreative marriage not quite a fundamental right?
Certainly, receiving governmental recognition is not a fundamental right. But, the government not discriminating against you is a constitutional right. But, non- discriminatory marriage could just be civil unions.
Kennedy resolved all these things by saying that marriage creates a synergistic relationship between substantive due process and equal protection. Equal protection on its own would only lead to civil unions and the right to have the state recognize your couplehood is not a fundamental right. But if marriage is held onto by the state, as the state should, after all, it's deeply rooted in our history and traditions, then it cannot be denied to same-sex couples without a rational basis.
So, I'm sure that I cleared up nothing, but this is why Turley is so annoyed. The court said a lot but it's hard to predict what any of it means for the future. I think Kennedy was making plural marriage arguments difficult with his opinion, personally. He didn't slam the door shut, but he didn't open it any wider.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)If the argument had set up gays as a class, then equal protection would have applied, but a state could have set up a civil union system that would have given these same protections by a different name. They wouldn't have had to call it marriage.
Is that correct so far?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)is confusing the issue. Equal protection applies regardless of suspect classification. The only difference is the level of scrutiny to be applied.
But, generally, yes. If they just went under equal protection, without considering the historically important right to marry, then civil unions might do the trick.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I also don't understand equal protection very well. 
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Kennedy went to due process because due process is where the "rational basis" test is. And it is that test that is used on fundamental rights?
I am sorry if I sound a little off on this. For a layperson, this can get very twisty.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)no. Substantive due process concerns fundamental rights which require strict scrutiny.
Past case law has declared marriage a fundamental right, but because it was tied to procreation. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in history or tradition, nor tied to a "real" fundamental right.
NO couple, same sex or opposite sex, truly has a FUNDAMENTAL right to have the state recognize their couplehood or confer benefits on them.
But marriage has been fundamentally important to our nation's history and citizens. And having been so conferred for over a century, it should not be easily abolished or applied in a discriminating fashion.
Equal protection alone = civil unions
Fundamental right alone = states being able to say no marriage, because a state conferring benefits is obviously not a fundamental right.
Synergisticly Together = states should have marriage, they can pass other laws regulating it, states cannot discriminate
He went to due process to preserve "marriage" though, yes. I think so.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)But--and I'm really trying to get this---marriage is not a fundamental right but is an important institution historically, and because of that, it should not be applied in a discriminating fashion?
But I am right about going through due process to make sure it was marriage.
So Turley wanted equal protection alone? Civil unions?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)this opportunity to point out this is only my opinion and other lawyers may disagree.
I don't want to say it was just procreation, but yeah, marriage has been tied to procreation in most marriage decisions. It has also been tied to vitality and other flowery language, as well.. but still that procreation thing is there. The Loving opinion said marriage is tied to our very survival, for example. No court has ever said, couples have a fundamental right to have the state confer benefits to them.
I got from Turley's article that he wanted a straight civil rights based opinion. I don't know that Turley wanted civil unions or cared one way or the other. But, I think a straight equal protection opinion without due process considerations would have paved the way for civil unions. I think the court was reluctant to create another protected class, quite frankly. I also think the Court wanted to preserve marriage but not elevate it to the point that it was almost impossible to regulate at all.
Really, it's a difficult opinion to pin down. I do think most lawyers would agree with that. I'm thrilled that it came out to protect gay people's right to marry. I think it was long overdue and it will be interesting to see how it's used in the future.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)It sounds like Kennedy was trying to avoid the road to civil unions. However--and this is the big question--since he avoided making a new protected class, and the decision was based on this synergy idea that crucially relies on due process (do I have that right?), is polygamy something that could also be covered by the due process-based ruling? That seems to be Turley's point. Now, I know he has a dog in that hunt, but he is not the only one who thinks the door has been opened.
So, could someone take the due process argument and say that denying marriage (which is now not based on the right to procreate) to someone who, say, is naturally bisexual by now allowing them two partners would not pass the "rational basis" test? Or would that be completely outside the realm of possibility?
Also, there seem to be a lot of people on DU who think that a new protected class was created. Some of these DU polygamy arguments are based on the idea of inborn sexualities (like bisexuality) and equal protection clause, but that would be wrong on its face, right?
Sorry if I sound confusing. It's approaching midnight here and I'm beginning to nod off. But it's rare that I get to talk to someone who can go through this with me. I want to understand what happened.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)at all for you to be confused. Constitutional law professors disagree about it, it's confusing. That's why I say, please understand these are just my opinions.
I don't see how polygamy could wiggle in very easily because Kennedy went to great pangs to describe the couple type of marriage that is rooted in our Nation's history and traditions. And, I think the government could come up with a rational basis as well. Rational basis is a low bar.
Gay people were not part of a "protected class", but they were recognized to be a class of people who only have romantic/marriage feelings towards same sex individuals. Elderly people are a class but not a protected class. A law that said only people under 65 may get married, would be struck down on an equal protection ground, as well.
The Court said since we've long had couple marriages and they've been so important throughout history, same-sex couples may not be excluded from them.
If you read the opinion again now just looking for how often Kennedy specifies couple and two people being the history of marriage, you'll see what I mean. So, he tied the due process concept pretty squarely with the marriage structure that has been in place for over a century. Then he said same-sex (and elderly) couples cannot be excluded from that state sanctioned longstanding structure that is so fundamentally important.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)From what you're saying--and here again, this is how I understand it--American tradition has only had couples marriage as part of its tradition. Therefore, a due process argument would not work for a polygamous marital structure to be legalized since the due process argument is connected to a type of law or institution that represents a longstanding tradition in US law.
I've just read that over and I think that's what I intend to say. I feel like I'm traveling along mental spaghetti.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)It's 2:20 here and I'm amazed that you've been able to decipher anything I've said. Haha
The smilies are on a button under the subject line.
Good talking to ya!
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I really appreciate it. I assume that there will be more articles to come, but at least I have a better idea about how the decision actually reads. Thank you!
Oh, there are the smilies! LOL!
(A lot of choices here. Let's try this one.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I appreciate it. 
(See, I now know how to get these cool ones)
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I didn't know how to get the wavy guy. It's so dumb now that I look at it. They were right there. 
Have a good night.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I think he believes that Kennedy left the door open for him in his case against Utah's appeal.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Kody Brown (from Sister Wives) is fighting the Utah appeal of his and Turley's victory over the ban on polygamy. Turley may end up arguing his interpretation of Kennedy's decision in front of the Supreme Court. That is why his opinion is important.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Turley is a major-league asshat, however, and I wouldn't pay an ounce of piss for his opinion
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Kody Brown applied for a marriage license and that case will be heard in court as well. Turley may be seeing this as a way to win for his client.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)his arrangement has been decriminalized, not bestowed with benefits
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)then that could be exactly what happens.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/polygamy-attorney-on-gay-marriage-decision-scotus-opinion-resonates-with-our-arguments/
(note: Daily caller is a rightwing rag, but he provided the statement to them, ergo the citation)
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)The link you posted was from June 26 and note that Turley uses the past tense--they have not in the past argued for legally protected plural marriages. Then he goes on to say that Kennedy resonates with their arguments. It sounds to me like he is leaving open the possibilities for the future.
Turley's more lengthy Washington Post article from July 2 (one week later) makes the case that Kennedy might be used to argue for polygamy.
I'm not keen on Kody Brown getting marital tax breaks for a bunch of wives either. But Turley maybe be either evolving in his perspective on Kennedy's decision or he may be carefully controlling the message.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I love that sort of 'logic'.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Polygamy isn't an "orientation," it's a practice.
Being LGBT or straight is an orientation, whether it is ever practiced, or not.
The government has the right to regulate the number of people in a legal relationship, just as it does to regulate many other things. There is a rational basis for same sex marriage to be allowed, and for 2-person marriages, that doesn't exist for polygamy.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)When same sex marriages were being considered in the Courts, a great deal of evidence was introduced demonstrating that same-sex marriage had no harmful effects on anyone involved, including the children. So disallowing SSM was discriminating based on gender, and had no rational basis.
The same could not be done in a polygamy case. There is plenty of evidence of harmful effects from polygamy that provides a rational basis for laws that don't give legal recognition and benefits to those who practice it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)that they can't have the same set up and privileges as two consenting adults who love each other?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that could happen.
But I don't see 2-person marriages being overturned in the courts. There was a great deal of research showing no harm from SSM, and there is plenty of research showing harm to women and children in polygamous families.
And since polygamy (like monogamy) is a practice, not an orientation, its practice can be regulated by law.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The 'harm' does not lie in the relationship, but in the people. Whether it's Warren Jeffs or Ray Rice, the abuse takes place because of the kind of person the abuser is, not the number of people they're involved with.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's like gun massacres vs the steady flow of one at a time murders. The massacres get the headlines and the attention, but far more people end up dead shot singly.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that have already been completed would be entered into as evidence -- and they don't support the opinion that polygamy is without harm.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html
History suggests that it is. A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny, which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.
“Monogamous marriage reduces crime,” Henrich and colleagues write, pulling together studies showing that polygynous societies create large numbers of unmarried men, whose presence is correlated with increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse. According to Henrich, the problem with unmarried men appears to come primarily from their lack of investment in family life and in children. Young men without futures tend to engage in riskier behaviors because they have less to lose. And, too, they may engage in certain crimes to get wives—stealing to amass enough wealth to attract women, or kidnapping other men’s wives.
As marriage historian Stephanie Coontz has pointed out, polygyny is less about sex than it is about power. Rich old guys with lots of wives win twice: They have more women to bear them babies and do household work, and they also gain an advantage over other men. After all, in such societies a young man in want of a wife cannot simply woo her. There is too much competition, and he probably has too little to offer. So he winds up having to do work for a more powerful, polygynous man, bringing him gifts and tributes, in hopes of someday being rewarded with one of that man’s many daughters. “Often the subordination of women is in fact also a way of controlling men,” says Coontz, who was not involved in the study out of the University of B.C.
That polygyny is bad for women is not necessarily intuitive. As economist Robert H. Frank has pointed out women in polygynist marriages should have more power because they’re in greater demand, and men should wind up changing more diapers. But historically, polygamy has proved to be yet another setup that screws the XX set. Because there are never enough of them to go around, they wind up being married off younger. Brothers and fathers, realizing how valuable their female relations are, tend to control them more. And, as one would expect, polygynous households foster jealousy and conflict among co-wives. Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious,” Henrich writes, with what must be a good dose of understatement.
Children, too, appear to suffer in polygamous cultures. . . . .
SNIP
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#.VZ7De2C4mgw
In this article, I noted other research suggesting that societies become inherently unstable when effective sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females, such that a sixth of men are surplus commodities in the marriage market. That's not a big number: "The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives—numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while."
By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that almost no liberal democracy allows polygamy. Here's the map:
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You're comparing polygamy in backwards cultures to American society and how it might express polygamy? Tribal cultures, cultures that still embrace patriarchy and theocracy.
Hardly a reasonable comparison.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)more egalitarian. It isn't a coincidence that modern egalitarian cultures do not embrace polygamy. They've rejected it.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3fQEkjTAb
In this article, I noted other research suggesting that societies become inherently unstable when effective sex ratios reach something like 120 males to 100 females, such that a sixth of men are surplus commodities in the marriage market. That's not a big number: "The United States as a whole would reach that ratio if, for example, 5 percent of men took two wives, 3 percent took three wives, and 2 percent took four wives—numbers that are quite imaginable, if polygamy were legal for a while."
By abolishing polygamy as a legal form of marriage, western societies took a step without which modern liberal democracy and egalitarian social structures might have been impossible: they democratized the opportunity to marry. It's no coincidence that almost no liberal democracy allows polygamy. Here's the map:
SNIP
Kurska
(5,739 posts)In those countries most polygamy is illegal. Homosexual polygamy, polyandry, only one form is allowed and legally protected, having multiple wives. Show me a nation where all of them are legal, then you've have an apt comparison to what we are advocating.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)For them its polygyny, and misogynistic, abusive polygyny at that, or bust.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)polyandry would continue to be much more rare than polygamy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that seems to only apply to polygyny(according to the article), should legal marital protections be extended to poly groups of 3 or more people? And if not, why not?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)How would any limit be justified?
How would this work for Social Security and spousal benefits?
For employer benefits?
In a libertarian dream world where there were no governmental benefits involved, any form of marriage could be recognized and it wouldn't matter. But unless you support dismantling Social Security and required employee benefits, then I don't see how it's practical.
Most people are polyamorous, that is, capable of loving more than one person at a time. Marriage requires the same thing out of the polyamorous as it does anyone else -- selecting one person to be the spouse.
Being polyamorous isn't an orientation like being gay. Or, if it is, it's an almost universal orientation. It's only the practice, of living together in a polyamorous household, that is rare.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)That's based on popularity. Legal arguments are made based on perceived rights allowed in the US Constitution. The question is about the right of a person to marry more than one spouse, not whether or not the practice is popular.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)as a part of legal argument, because research can support the "rational basis" of a law.
That's why the attorneys presenting the case for SSM provided the courts with a great deal of sound research showing that SSM was not harmful to children or families.
The constitution doesn't protect the right of people to enter into group marriages -- although if a state were ever to legally recognize such marriages, then the law requiring states to recognize each other's marriages would likely apply.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)"If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings,that could happen. "
You're saying that if polygamy became popular it could be legalized. That's about popularity.
The legal argument is about whether the Constitution allows for the right to polygamy and if Kennedy's decision points the way to acknowledging that right.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Unless illegal discrimination is involved, as it was with bans on same-sex marriages, which discriminated based on gender.
Discriminating against the practice of polygamy/polyamory isn't illegal, as long as there is a rational basis for the law.
Kennedy's decision doesn't address group marriages once. You're relying on the Turley/Roberts opinion, which was the DISSENT.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)The court is supposed to weigh the issues in reference to the Constitution. The cases may be brought forward because of popularity, but the court is supposed to step back from that. The court can and does make unpopular decisions.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)If a case ever reaches them about polygamy, they will be consulting such research as a part of rendering their Constitutional opinion.
So where is the sound research showing polygamy's lack of harm, which would be needed to counter the large amount of research showing negative effects?
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)and many other relevant pieces of information. Poll numbers and popularity don't enter into it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Can you show any that doesn't?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614.html#ixzz3fQEkjTAb
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)You're admitting you were wrong?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And popularity doesn't matter when a law is discriminatory.
And here's the part you're missing: a law defining marriage as 2 people is NOT inherently discriminatory. No one is born polygamous, and there is plenty of peer-reviewed research showing that the PRACTICE of polygamy has harmful effects.
On the other hand, the law preventing two people of the same gender from marrying each other WAS inherently discriminatory. It discriminated against people by gender, which was as wrong as discriminating against people by race.
The law defining marriage as between 2 consenting adults does neither.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Perhaps someone else will be interested in talking with you.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reason: "Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=324427&sub=trans
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of two-person marriages benefits society and that opening the door to polygamy would be bad.
every law has winners and losers.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I mean look at the them. Look what what you have been posting.
"Two person marriages are inherently more valuable"
Was probably the highlight.
Change maybe 1 2 nouns and you have the same spiel.
I have been consistently in favor of sexual freedom on these issues.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)In reality, there's a MASSIVE difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.
Same-sex couples wanted to participate in the institution of monogamous marriage. Polygamy advocates--assuming they actually exist--want to destroy the institution of monogamous marriage by rewriting the rules for everyone.
Same-sex marriage doesn't require any changes to the legal structure, not a single law has to change in its operation, the institution itself is exactly the same. Every heterosexual marriage remains unchanged.
The only change is that a category of couples is no longer excluded from monogamous marriage. Just like interracial couples were no longer excluded from monogamous marriage.
It is MUCH different to argue that the institution of marriage itself needs to be radically overhauled.
That is what would be required to convert from a monogamous marriage system to a polygamous one.
That would change the rules for everyone. That would change the legal status for every existing heterosexual, and homosexual marriage. It would require drastic rewrites of many, many areas of law.
The question is whether we impose that kind of change on the rest of society in order to cater to a vanishingly small group of people who aren't even particularly motivated to seek it.
Duh, of course not.
This is a troll issue for libertarians to wank about.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Do you even listen to yourself? These are the exact same arguments put forth against gays, literally word for word. You are parroting right wings tropes at a new target.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Alito--that the arguments for and against same-sex marriage being a right are the same arguments for and against polygamy being a right.
I happen to align with the attorneys for the Obergefell plaintiffs--the same-sex couples seeking to have their monogamous marriage recognized.
You are aligned with Justice Alito.
Roll the tape:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
Ms. Bonauto: I believe so, your honor.
Justice Alito: What would be the reason?
Ms. Bonauto: One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and and consent and disrupting family relationship when you start talking about multiple persons.
...
Justice Alito: Well, that if there's no--these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not--it's not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let's say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers.
(laughter)
Justice Alito: What would be the ground--under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Ms. Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental--
Justice Alito: But--well, I don't know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it's a good one. So this is no---why is that a greater break?
Ms. Bonauto: The question is one of--again, assuming it's within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that's my answer on that."
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I do think that polygamy should be legal for the same reasons same-sex marriage should be legal. Alito is trying to use the "ick" factor of polygamy to turn people against same-sex marriage. That tactic isn't effective on me, because I don't feel the need to dictate to other people their behaviors based on my own preferences.
Look at your arguments, you could switch a few words and you'd have a classic post on free republic about gay marriage. In this thread, you have stated the polyamorous relationships are inherently less meaningful and that polygamists want to destroy the institution of marriage.
Do you really not see the similarities in your lines of attack on poly people with those used to assault gay people?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)with the right to have the government recognize and bestow benefits upon a relationship.
There are rational policy reasons why polygamous marriage should remain unrecognized and unlicensed. These do not intrude upon private behavior, they merely fail to reward all forms of private behavior.
there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, licensing it, and attaching legal consequences to it.
There are no rational reasons for discriminating against same-sex couples.
Ergo, the difference.
It is not rightwing to treat differently things that are radically different from one another.
quite honestly, single people have a better argument than polygamists do in terms of equal protection.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)But relationship is a very broad term and marriage is quite specific
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)only last month.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)I think part of the issue is we're putting Scalias dessent in the light of the lie it is.
Yes, a lot of hippies would like matrimony if we could be more inclusive of the non-traditional and non-monogamous families that are becoming more and more common.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)"What if letting gays marry opens to door to all kinds of consensual activities between adults that I don't like?"
Good, I hope it does.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)That is a pretty awesome side-benefit, isn't it?
Maybe he'll start mumbling incoherently again about how much he likes orgies. That's always amusing in a horrifying way.
Response to Kurska (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kurska
(5,739 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,988 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Do people really need to spam every single thread about this with"Lol, don't worry I'm going to shut down this source of dissenting opinion too.".
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Good liberals putting out picnic baskets for trolls. Worse than feeding Grizzly bears 2 feet from your tent in the woods.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)This is an issue and it does matter. I'm a gay man myself and I'm thrilled about gay marriage. I plan to get married very soon actually.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)There are still numerous trolls trying to tear liberals apart using this issue.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I see people immediately turning to the 'I got mine, screw you' mentality here.
Immediately using the same Republican arguments against polyamorists that Republicans used against gays, then laughably claiming that the pro-polyamory people are the ones using RW talking points.
No one comparing polyamorists to people who want to have sex with animals or children has a leg to stand on in claiming anyone else is using RW talking points.
The only polyamorous triple I ever met was one straight guy, one lesbian woman, and one bisexual woman. They seemed very happy, and I think would have jumped at the chance to get married together.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)taxes, and you say one spouse would be the tax purposes spouse. This means the other spouses are not equal spouses. That is not marriage, if one party has more rights and standing than another. It's a hierarchy right off the bat.
Second, you bring up hospital visits. I think anyone should be able to visit anyone in hospital, that the patient wishes to be there, period, no reasons needed at all. That should be the law.
But with medical decision making, that is a role that always comes down to a single decision maker in the end. Siblings dealing with an ill parent have to pick one sibling to be the decision maker, even if they make it together, obviously the legal power has to rest with one person. Single people very often name a friend or loved one to do that for them, one does not have to be partnered to have such needs. But because it is a decision making role, it is a single person who is that decider. It's not a committee. Obviously people can handle it among themselves as they wish, but in the end it is one signature that counts.
You can't have vital emergency decisions in the hands of several people, not even loving siblings in a healthy family. So like the taxes, major medical or end of life decisions are not divisible, not with the interest of the patient in mind.
A sincere community seeking rights would have actual answers for all objections. They would not pretend that polygamist history and other countries today are irrelevant to the discussion, because that's absurd. They would not wave away questions about specifics to these laws. They would have actual answers to 'what about taxes, what about pensions' instead of saying 'it might be hard but so what' they would have plans, ideas, thoughts. Specifics.
They would most certainly be ultra prepared to speak to issues involving children and custody and they would be willing to have those conversations. Gay people did not brush those concerns off, we met them head on with specifics, with examples from our own real lives, and with respect for the fact that people do have a stake in the youth of this world and that we all should try to make sure they are well cared for.
So when people ask about custody of children, anyone advocating sincerely for any sort of family rights needs to be ready to give a real response.
It's hard for me to take seriously any 'movement' that can not even cope with simple objections raised. Is it a shock to the 'poly community' that when marriage is mentioned, people ask about children and taxes and insurance and money? Why are they unable to speak about these things without becoming angry or vague?
Rex
(65,616 posts)I never expected it to piss off so many people here! A real eye opener!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Along with many others. Kurska didn't start this thread in a vacuum, and despite the motivations of those posters who first brought this up, that does NOT mean that those who are unfairly attacked, generalized, and insulted shouldn't respond.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the insulted group, not with those of dubious motives and timing even you admit is suspect, who suddenly and out of the blue take up this issue with repeated, spammy posts. You keep waving away the motives and timing of the people who started this shit when that is the entire point. 'Despite the motives of those who started this and despite the suspicious timing'. Please. The timing and the motives are not inconsequential to this bullshit being served up here. It's the entire problem.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and let their lives, lifestyles and families be insulted by ignorant jackasses who should know better?
Attack the shit stirrers for what they are, leave the rest alone for fuck's sake.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)strongly oppose others speaking for them in ways that makes them look mean spirited and rude and disrespectful. Which is what you are doing.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)I might be wrong, but it's worth looking at the OP
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reason: Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=324427&sub=trans
randys1
(16,286 posts)I once said "Gay people born that way"and my Lesbian Black friend said
"maybe yes, maybe no, doesnt matter, none of your business either way"
Her point was it should not matter, even though she believes Gay people are born that way, she was making a point that I learned from...
If that is not the SOLE point being made by Kurska, then that is different
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'm also a proudly open gay man. The best way to celebrate freedom granted is to fight for further freedoms still denied.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)unperson.
I've been an open advocate for LGBT rights for years, both in real life and on DU, but none of that matters, our "history" is now automatically suspect because we don't accept the ignorant framing of people's relationships.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Whenever I institute a social reform in Victoria 2, a huge chunk of the liberals switch to conservative or reactionary, requiring you to build support back up for the the next one.
It really has never been more clear to me the aptitude of that mechanic until I saw the reaction to this issue.
Tatiana La Belle
(152 posts)Maybe that's why.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)a lot of the reactions throughout these topics the last couple of days have mirrored the conversation that came up during the recent big BDSM topics as well.
A whole lot of "ew" and not really understanding it because it's been outside of the mainstream for so long.
Change comes slowly and then it washes over everything. Perhaps in my lifetime this will as well. Having grown up reading things like Stranger in a Strange Land, Time Enough for Love and numerous other SF books out of the 60's that explored very different relationship dynamics, I'm ever hopeful for people to expand the love and find the configurations that work for them.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I did seem to miss the recent BDSM topics.
Given my own D/s relationship and the bullshit about poly's now, I am frankly glad that I did.
I read those same Sci Fi novels.
