In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 820
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
What does that even mean? Of course they are "relataed". They are individuals who want to get married. Seems pretty related to me.
If you wont explain why its dumb...then explain why its "not related"
I explained. Gay marriage has nothing to do with plural marriage.
you didnt explain anything. Explain why they arent related. The are groups of people who want to get married.
Its certainly no argument to say well....two straight people getting married isnt "related" to two gay people wanting to get married. Thats certainly no defense.
Explain why you would make a policy distinction. Why arent they "related" so as to justify one and not the other.
I think there's a pretty simple explanation along the lines of:
Any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adult as long as they are not a blood relative
That statement should apply to all people. Currently it only applies to heteros. There are different rules for gays. Thats not equality.
As for polygamy, its not like some consenting adults are allowed to marry multiple people and others are not. The law is applied equally to all consenting adults.
Lets use an example. George is gay and Steve is straight. They are both in love with a consenting adult. Steve can marry the person that he loves but George can't. Thats unfair. Now, lets say that George and Steve are also polygamists. George wants to marry two consenting adults that he loves. But he cant. Steve wants to marry two consenting adults, but he cant either. That is fair! Pretty straight forward, right?
This post was edited by 1thegame 2 years ago
The rational basis test would apply to any decision by the government to not permit marriage between three or more people; I've yet to see any argument that heightened or strict scrutiny would apply.
There are many rational bases that the government could cite. For example, upon the death of one spouse, property passes to the other spouse without going through probate. But when there are multiple spouses, this doesn't work. The government doesn't get its cut of the estate through estate taxes. You'll also get lawsuits when Spouses B, C and D don't agree on how to dispose of the assets of Spouse A. The government has a rational basis for seeking to prevent such consequences.
You could also have major issues with child custody upon any death or divorce, that don't exist now. In a poly marriage, where nobody is quite sure which of the male spouses is the father of the children but they have each raised the kids in a joint relationship, what do you do? Paternity testing? How do you apply the best interests of the child standard when each of his three moms and two dads are separating? How the hell do you manage visitation? There's a rational basis for trying to avoid this.
Throughout history, societies which have high rates of polygyny are far less stable. It leads to situations where high-status men monopolize women of childbearing age, leaving lower-class men without any prospects for passing on their genes. This has been linked to increased rates of rape, theft, murder, and substance abuse. Again, a rational basis for keeping the number of spouses to two.
Personally, I have no issue with plural marriage. Do whatever makes you happy. But the government certainly has a far more rational basis to prohibit it than it does to prohibit gay marriage.
They aren't related because they have nothing to do with one another. I refuse your rules and won't play your dumb game. Apples and bananas are fruit. we don't talk about apples just because they are fruit when we decide to ban imports of bananas from Dominican.
This post was edited by TortugaGrande 2 years ago
Not very straight forward at all.
You started off fine. The last part gets lost. You are, in short, making the "number 2" argument. Its ok because "two is the number"
Its not valid to defend straight marriage by arguing...any adult male can marry any adult female....regardless of age [so long as adult] religion, race, ethnic background. So...its all good.
It just presumes that two has some special legal significance. It arguable doesnt any more than man/woman.
2 is just as arbitrary as man/woman. it based on religion and Judeo-christian tradition. Plenty of societies and cultures in the past of recognizes multiple marriages.
This makes sense.
I would also say that there is a tax benefit to being married which currently applies to two people. If that were to be extended to polys who wouldn't otherwise enjoy that benefit, it costs the government money.
And anyway, biblical morality has always played a big role in government. Of course morality is nebulous and evolves over time which is why the whole gay marriage debate can even exist today. (Imagine this discussion 200 years ago). At some point in the future I suspect poly marriage will have its day in court as well.
Not a jack ass. I am a 4 star poster on RCMB - spartanfan48413
/ End of thread from a legal perspective.
As I stated above, the government can pretty easily argue a rational basis for having laws against polygamy.
Thats along the lines of Kunal argument. Its the closest...but its still a red herring.
(1) Of course the government gets its cut. That doesnt change one way or the other. It depends on the size of the estate and other factors.
(2) There aren't lawsuit issues that dont already exist. we are assuming the spouse dies intestate. Thats not different than one happens today if a single person dies intestate and has three children...or three siblings...and they dont agree on how to handle the dispition. This procedure is already very well developed. (I have actually litigated a few of these types of cases).
(3) spousal situation and child custody is also a red herring. a married person is presumped under law to be the parent. So...the remaining parents (whether it be 2, 3 4 or whatever) are presumed to be the parents. If the relationship goes south after the death....then its no different than any other custody dispute that goes on. Best interests of the child.
(4) the society argument. [failed society argument] could also be applied to gay marriage. Used to be procreation was used as an argument to defeat gay marriage. Not any more.
Ulimately, Im not sure why strict scrunity should apply as a class to homosexuals.....and not bi/poly/plural marriage proponens.
I appreciate you thopughtful response. I just disagree.
This post was edited by rthhokie92 2 years ago
No tax benefit. reality...is there is for most people a marriage penalty in income tax.
Holy spelling mistakes Batman.
Anyway, I'm not even sure strict scrutiny is needed to decide gay marriage issues. We've had a federal judge in Mass. hold, for example, that DOMA is unconstitutional even under a rational basis review.
Not really. Only if you assume you have to apply strict scrunity to one....and not the other. Im not sure why - legally/logically speaking - one should be a protected class and not the other.
I guess.....to play devil's advocate myself....you'd have to argue being gay is genetic and no choice (like being white, black). Whereas being bi/desiring plural marriage is a "choice"....and this not a protected class.
Im no legal scholar on this issue...but has its been determined before by the S. Ct. that being a homosexual is protected class?
And there are many courts that have held that DOMA....and hetro only marriage has a rationale basis.
by the way.....my actual response would be that marriage is a fundemental right. (I think most gay marriage advocates adopt this position). As a fundamental right.....all legal impediments are subject to strict scrunity. I dont think the procedural issues that you and Tent are putting forth would surivive strict scrunity. So rationale basis review wouldnt be applicable.
To me...the simplest thing is that you said early. GTFO of the marriage business.
1. How does the government get its cut? A, B, C, and D are married. A dies. B, C, and D marry E, who is younger. B and C die. D and E marry F and G. etc. The government never gets its cut.
2. Sure, we have lawsuits in probate when the decedent dies intestate. But when decedent is married, the estate doesn't even go to probate. Allowing plural marriage will require changes in additional laws about what estates go to probate upon death, with an intestate decedent. But we can't only have plural-married estates go to probate, and not dual-married estates, as that would also discriminate. And no estate taxes are taken out of the plural-married estates with which to fund the probate system. See # 1, supra.
3. Best interests of the child is the standard, but there's a rational basis for the government to limit the number of persons presumed to be the parents of a child in order to avoid the administrative headaches as well as the harm to children when such relationships end. I don't think it's a great rationale, but it passes the (very low) rational basis test.
4. The societal argument doesn't work for gay marriage, as there is no credible scientific or sociological evidence whatsoever that demonstrates that gay marriage is bad for society. There was even a full trial on this in CA, and gay marriage opponents got completely shredded on their lack of evidence. Meanwhile, there are literally dozens of peer-reviewed studies on how polygyny is bad for society. Huge difference.
Finally, there's no reason to apply strict scrutiny to polygamists. There's simply no way they consist of a suspect class worthy of heightened protection; most obviously because polygamists are not a group with "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics."
No. That would end the debate if it did.
1) Im not sure who thats different in two person marriage. surivving spouse can keep marrying a "new" spouse who is younger. I dont think we are going to see a rush of people entering into plural marriage as a estate planning scheme. Even if it becomes a problem.,the simple answer is to put a cap as it applies to marriage. Just like the cap otherwise exists.
2) the limits in many states mean the majority of non married estates dont have to go through a drawn out probate because of size. Even if you do in a plural marriage...the existing laws would handle who got what just like intestate laws do as I dscribed. As I said, if its a problem from a tax avoidance/estate planning scheme [which I seriously doubt[...its an easy "fix" (there are many.
3) as I said later....I dont think rationale basis applies to anyone because argubly marriage is a fundamental right and strict scrunity applies. In practical terms however, its not the big a deal. parents die all the the time (together....or as a single parent). No will...and the Court has to sort out custody, vistation issues between multiple grandparents or multiple aunts/uncles.
4) the Cal. trial wasnt the only word on this. There certainly have been cases that have attempted to argue otherwise. I think the society arguments fail for both reasons. I dont think gay marriage weakens families. People arent going to become gay because they can now marry...or because the state is now viewed as sanctioning homosexual lifestyle. I think the same is 100% true for ploy relatioships. [Id also argue that its far from clear cut that poly marriages ruin societies. Lots of societies endured for centuries with poly marriages being allowed.
As I said above....I would think the "right" answer (and one gay marriage advocates have advanced) is that marriage is a fundamental right. As such, strict scrunity must be applied to any laws regarding impediments to marriage. Im not sure prohibitions based on the reasons you listed - or ones like them -would survive strict scrunity review. just my opinion.
Fair enough, although I think the studies on the dangers to a society from plural marriage are pretty strong and would easily satisfy rational basis. Here's a link to the most recent one, although looks like you can only view the abstract.
If polygamy were legal there would be a shitload of sham marriages based purely on expanding health care to friends, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The financial ramifications of legalizing polygamy would be stupendous, that it would be pretty easy for the government to argue that it was against the interests of public policy.
Why can't two same-sex siblings get married?
I have also read that those studies are looking at socities where only men can take multiple wives. In this hypo....it is presumed that there would be cases of a woman taking multiple husbands. This eliminates some of these problems. (i,e, women shortages for men downstream in society).
I also dont think it would also turn into the Roman Empire if it was made legal.
In all honest...appreciate the thoughtful responses. Much more interesting to me that the "just cause" response.
Hmmm, if only there were a pair of twins around here who could take this bold step for pushing the boundaries of decency.....
So in your idea of polygamy could you have like 5 husbands and 5 wives all in the same marriage?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports