Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality

Equality is not "sameness". Sameness is not required for the existence of equality.

It would just involve changing the name. Everywhere in the law where the word "marriage" appears would be changed to "domestic partnership".

 

Still hung up on that separate but equal crap.? What exactly is your problem??Get over it! Why are you so freaked out about same sex MARRIAGE?

 

Why are you so hung up on the world "marriage" ?

Why does it have to be that word?

 

Actually is is. Two water fountains, one labeled white and one collared are not equal

 

But why.?? To avoid the recognition of same sex marriage? Marriage is just fine the way it is. It has just become more inclusive, broadening the base and strengthening the institution. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater . If it ain't broken don't try to fix it. Get over it!

 

Okay, then we should also have three-person marriages, correct?

If it was just fine the way it is, then you wouldn't be trying to change it.
How incredibly ironic you try to say that in your argument.

 

We probably could, but not a single piece of legislation put forth ever did this.

A completely different dynamic. Limiting the number within a legal marriage (as opposed to any other type) does not violate any of the protected classes. Basically, right now with the laws as they are, it logistically cannot be done. Even if the will were there, we would first have to change a bunch of other laws, so that they worked regardless of the number in the legal marriage, then change the number allowed in a legal marriage.

 

Neither does limiting marriage to one man and one woman, by that type of logic.

I mean really, think about it.

What makes you think limiting the number to 2 is really fundamentally any different from limiting it to one man and one woman?

 

2 people is 2 people regardless of whether they are a man and a woman, two women, or even brother and sister, or brother and brother. The logistics of such a legal arrangement is the same regardless of the other details of the two people, especially when we allow for families to have children not from their own physical bodies. Once you start adding to that number, the logistics of that change. That is not a statement of whether that change is good or bad. it simply is. All the other laws are written based upon two people, and make no accommodation for 3 or more. Those laws would have to change before a change in the actual law of marriage limiting the number of participants could be done. Remember that I am part of the poly community, and I would love nothing more than to be able to make my other two spouses legally so. So I am not just coming up with excuses why it can't be done. Most of the poly community understands that there is way more ground work that needs to be done before that law can change. Right now, logistically speaking, it would be way easier to get incest marriage legal, then poly marriage legal. That's logistically, mind you, and not will of the people.

 

So what. That's still not really logical.
All you've basically really actually said is that members of the same gender in a union is really a subset of any union with a number greater than 2, but the same is not necessarily true the other way around.

That's kind of a circular argument. The logistics are the same in terms of the numbers we are looking at.

Again, all you're really basically saying is that same gender marriage is a subset of 3-person marriage, but 3-person marriage is not a subset of 2-person same gender marriage. So yes, three person marriage would involve an additional element beyond that which you are describing, but that additional element is not really fundamentally different from the element you are trying to throw in.
In other words, what is it exactly that makes 3-person marriage so different from the idea of 2-person same gender marriage?
You seem to be rather vague in your explanation.
You said "logistics". Are you trying to bring up the argument that 3-person marriages would be inherently less stable than 2-person marriages? (That argument has been used in the past against same gender marriage)

Maybe, but shouldn't we write new laws to accommodate them? Aren't they entitled to that?

Could you give an example how a 3-person marriage would cause more complicated problems in the law?

 

See post #122. The better question is "why not marriage?" You seem to be one who is "hung up " on the word

 

Speaking of not logical, If B is a subset of A, then A cannot be a subset of B. To be a subset means that A consists of B and C (at the least), but as the subsets, neither B nor C consist of each other. While there can be overlaps, each subset (B or C) would only hold some items of the whole (A). Therefore A, having all of B or C, cannot be a subset of either.

That's kind of a circular argument. The logistics are the same in terms of the numbers we are looking at.

You keep using that word (subset), but I do not think it means what you think it means. Of course a larger set is not a subset of a smaller one. The additional element is another person. Their gender/sex is irrelevant. Logistically speaking, a MF marriage is no different than an MM marriage or an FF marriage, especially in the context of changing law. As noted, logistically speaking, it would be much easier to make incest marriage legal because it is still a 2 person marriage.

I think you may be confusing the logistics of getting the law changed vs the logistics of the marriage itself. The logistics of the actual marriage (whether there is a legal recognition present or not) is wholly dependent upon the participants, just as a 2 person marriage is. If all are excellent communicators, then it will be a lot easier than if all are absent minded and forgetful, looking at just one possible factor. More below as the next line is an excellent segue.

Actually no. Again a reminder that I am a polyamourous person in a quad marriage. Why would I argue against my lifestyle in that manner? I could argue why a poly marriage might be less stable for given individuals, but that is always on a case by case basis. For that matter I could point to some individuals, and show how even a 2 person marriage is unstable with them.

Many laws that are not directly about marriage but are based on the results of marriage, and as such are worded under the assumption of only two in the legal marriage. For example, laws that give the spouse legal authority over anyone else in medical matters where the person cannot speak for themselves. For an unmarried person, that permission is automatically that of the parents. But what if there are 2 or three spouses? Who has the priority? Does nothing happen if there is a deadlock? Yes, there are ways around it, but if you don't need a separate legal document to place your spouse over your parents, then why should you need one showing a priority in a poly marriage?

Such is my argument. All I am saying is that these new laws need to be in place, before the law allowing more than two people in a legal marriage is changed. Otherwise, the other laws can be pointed to and the argument made that those laws don't address 3+ marriages and thus the marriage doesn't have to be recognized or honored.

The idea here is to make poly marriage, legally speaking, as close to 2 person marriage as possible. If it is wrong to make same sex couples go through additional legal hoops to get the same rights, then why is it not wrong to make 3+ person marriages to go through additional hoops? When same sex couples achieved the right to get legal marriages, they did not have to do anything extra that an opposite sex couple needed to do. The same would be true if, theoretically speaking, we were to make incest marriage legal. Now granted, that there might have to be some additional steps created for 3+ person marriages, such as legal designation of medical authority or such. But in making sure those laws are in place first, then instead of it being a matter of going to a lawyer with massive fees (at least relatively speaking), it would be a matter of changing the record at a government office for the standard fee of changing any document or record.

I did above. But we could also look at insurance. Right now, the law requires that insurance provides the ability of a person to include their spouse. Not spouses, spouse. They could then claim that since the person already has one spouse on the policy they can't add any more. The law doesn't require them to. There are so many laws and areas of law where there is no room in the language to allow for more than a single spouse. The poly community, overall, recognizes that because of this, we can't just have the prohibition against polygamy lifted, just as the prohibition against same sex marriage was lifted, or the potential of incest marriage ban being lifted.

 

I am not opposed to further expanding the scope of marriage. But we have to consider the social and legal implications. Group marriage is a separate issue. I have no moral objections so please don't suggest that I'm a hypocrite.

 

Any change to marriage will have social and legal implications. I believe that's still partially even true when you just flip the gender of one of them.

 

All change has social and legal implications and consequences. Ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, ending abortion bans, establishing and ending prohibition, the list goes on. The question is whether or not it was for the better. And in the end that is a subjective view.

 

We should abolish the recognition of marriage in government completely. There is no reason to give tax deductions to couples who already have the financial advantage of a shared income. What's more, is that a lot of the protections people think they get in marriage don't exist. You need signed agreements and legal documents to have a lot of the rights and protections and those agreements can be made with anyone... Will... Durable Powe of Attorney... Advanced Healthcare Directive...

One big exception is family health insurance. I have no idea what regulates coverage for married couples.

 

It's a matter of degree and whether the change is for better or worse.. Think about it.

 

Because of the marriage laws, a spouse does not need a Will, or Durable POA, or really anything else. Those things are for if you want either someone else todo those things for you, OR if you want to designate in advance someone other than your spouse in case your spouse either precedes you or passes with you. Otherwise, all that is automatically defaulted to your spouse.

Whether or not a married couple should get a tax break or special rate or really any other benefits is rather separate from whether or not the government should be tracking the legal status for any and all legal benefits.

 

Dude. People do not get a tax break for being married. They get to file a joint return which may or may not reduce their taxes depending on their individual situation.

While government recognition of marriage is a relatively new concept, it has become an integral element of our social and legal system. Think about parental rights and obligations. Think about inheritance and inheritance taxes. Are you familiar with the Windsor decision at SCOTUS,? You mentioned health care. You have no idea? Think about it. Obviously you have not really thought about that and much more

What is your problem with legal marriage. ? Either it stems from some anti government paranoia, or it is just a ploy to avoid legal recognition of same sex marriage. Marriage as we know it works. There is no reason to mess with it and there is no political support to do so. Give it a rest.

 

Huh? That's a bizarre argument. "Marriage as we know it works", therefore you want to change it.
But what you're really trying to say is that marriage between 3 people might not work. You are still being vague and not really explaining how that would be so different.

 

non sequiter. His argument is towards the poster's argument for the elimination of marriage, not the expansion of marriage for equal rights.

 

How do I want to change marriage? It was and still a legally sanctioned union between two people.

I am not here to argue for or against expanding marriage beyond 2 people. You brought that up as a red herring logical fallacy. I was discussing the governments involvement in marriage. Now you are just moving the goal posts- another logical fallacy.

 

Since marriage equality was made the law of the land, do you have any examples of awful things happening to the country as a result? Why does it need to be overturned?

 

You won't get a coherent answer because there is none

 

Do you think we'd have any "examples of awful things happening to the country" if we had 3-person marriage?
I suspect we would, but they might not be so blatantly obvious that no one would be able to deny it.