Gay Marriage in California

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Dozens of gay couples were married Monday night after California became the second state to allow same-sex nuptials, offering a preview of the euphoria and anger to come as gay couples from across the nation head west to wed.

At least five county clerks around the state extended their hours to honor specific couples or to mark the historic occasion, and many couples exchanged vows on the spot. The May 15 California Supreme Court order overturning bans on same-sex marriage became final at 5:01 p.m.

"I never thought I'd see this," Michael Groark, 61, said at a San Francisco sports bar, watching on television as Mayor Gavin Newsom officiated the first same-sex wedding in the city.

The big rush to the altar was expected Tuesday, when most counties planned to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of couples nationwide are expected to seize the opportunity to make their unions official in the eyes of the law.

Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month.

Martin sat in her wheelchair during the brief ceremony in the mayor's office, which was open to a few elected officials, friends, relatives and reporters. After Newsom pronounced her and Lyon "spouses for life," the couple kissed, drawing huge applause.

As a printer churned out a license with spaces for "Party A" and "Party B" where "bride" and "groom" used to be, Newsom called officiating the wedding "this extraordinary and humbling gift."

When the pair emerged from the mayor's chamber, a crowd of well-wishers showered them with rose petals and ate complimentary wedding cake.

"When anyone is on the outside looking in, to be finally allowed in is a profound feeling," said Elizabeth Williams, 45, who plans to marry her partner of 16 years later this year.

The celebrations were tempered by the reality that in a few months, Californians will go to the ballot box to vote on an initiative that would overturn the high court ruling and once again ban gay marriage.

Groups that oppose same-sex marriage have pursued several legal avenues to stop the weddings, including asking the California Supreme Court to postpone its decision until after the November initiative. The high court denied that request.

On Monday, just hours before the ruling went into effect, a conservative legal group asked a Sacramento court to order the California agency that oversees marriages to stop issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday.

Three lawmakers and a small group of other same-sex opponents gathered outside the Capitol to criticize the Supreme Court decision. They urged voters to approve the ballot measure.

"This is an opportunity to take back a little bit of dignity ... for kids, for all of us in California," Republican Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa said. "It really disturbs me that the will of the people was overridden by four members of the Supreme Court."

Republican Assemblyman Bill Maze said heterosexual marriage was "God's way."

Opponents also gathered outside San Francisco City Hall holding signs with statements including "Jesus said go and sin no more" and "Homo Sex is Sin."

Despite the efforts, for many gay couples, Monday was the beginning of another so-called "Summer of Love."

"I'm tired of checking the single box," said Danielle Lemay, 34, who picked up a marriage license in Woodland with her partner, Angie Hinrichs. "I feared I'd be checking that my whole life."

In Sonoma County, Melanie Phoenix, 47, and Terry Robinson, 48, were first in line. Together for almost 26 years, they plan to wed in August.

"It's a historic occasion," Phoenix said. "I never believed it was really possible until Gavin Newsom took the first step in 2004."

In February 2004, Newsom challenged California's marriage laws by issuing licenses to same-sex couples. The state Supreme Court ultimately voided those unions, but two dozen couples sued. Those lawsuits led the same court last month to overturn California's ban on gay marriage.

Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, who were plaintiffs in the litigation, got married Monday in a Jewish ceremony in front of the Beverly Hills courthouse.

The couple wept and pressed their foreheads together, and onlookers whooped as the marriage was solemnized.

Rabbi Denise Eger saluted Olson and Tyler for "these many years of coming to this very place and standing on these courthouse steps year after year of being denied this right, this civil right."

A UCLA study issued last week estimated that half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married over the next three years, and 68,000 more out-of-state couples will travel here to exchange vows.

Unlike Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, California has no residency requirement for marriage licenses, and that is expected to draw a great number of out-of-state couples. The turnout could also be boosted by New York state's recent announcement that it will recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Some of those out-of-state couples are likely to demand legal recognition in their home states, setting the stage for numerous court battles.

Derek Norman, 23, and Robert Blaudow, 39, of Memphis, Tenn., were in the Bay Area for a conference and decided to get married at the Alameda County clerk's office.

"We might wait a long time in Tennessee, so this is our chance," Blaudow said.

Well?

Personally, I could care less. I'm certainly not surprised by the California court ruling out here. If anything, I'm a little surprised that it took this long. I understand the argument or marriage being a sacred institution. I think if a religion does not support gay marriage, then they do not have to perform the marriage, and I expect that many will not. That being said, there are plenty of pastors and preachers out there that will.

I know a lot of conservative pundits out there say or think this will open the door for all sorts of wacky marriages for polygamists and people marrying horses (oh yeah, they mention farm animals) and push for a constitutional amendment. I say let's pass a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between two consenting adults. There go, problem solved.
 
Well I couldn't care less :p. I've already stated my opinion on this and don't agree with the "civil union" crap, so I'm good with gay people getting married in California or anywhere else. I agree with the idea of two consenting adults being able to get married (although a constitutional amendment seems weird, I dunno if that would be necessary). I think the farm animal slippery slope shit is just insulting, it's almost like they're implying that gay people are a different species and a dude marrying a dude is just a stone's throw away from a dude marrying a badger. The only difference is that the sexes are the same, that's the one and only thing that's different from an opposite-sex marriage, and as usual I think people are making way too big a deal out of it.
 
There is nothing more disgusting. They are just going to whine and bitch when it gets revoked.
 
Yeah this is a repeat thread.

I think, at most, the government should endorse "civil unions" - yes even for heterosexuals. "Marriages" should be performed by and sanctioned by a religion.

And for the record, I do think Polygamists should have the same rights, as long as they are consenting adults.
 
I personally want to say congratulations to George Takei! (thats Sulu from Star Trek for those who dont know....) on his wedding! Go luck Champ!

george_2.jpg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/06/the-media-swarm.html
 
Monogamy is something that should be encouraged. Anyway it was not too long ago that interracial marriage was viewed exactly the same way.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Monogamy is something that should be encouraged. [/quote]
May I ask why you feel this way? Do you also feel heterosexual marriage should also be encouraged?

Anyway it was not too long ago that interracial marriage was viewed exactly the same way.

"Exactly the same way" is a real stretch. Unless you just mean "socially frowned upon"... But the reasons for each being a stigma were/are very different.
 
[quote name='HuppSav']There is nothing more disgusting. They are just going to whine and bitch when it gets revoked.[/QUOTE]

Well, the thing is--
:realizes who wrote that:

Anyway, :applause: good news. I love how people SERIOUSLY care and are REALLY upset about this. Why?. Let people live and STFU.

Basically, what happens is the people who are stupid trash and think like this.. will have a gay son/daughter. I wish this on them all :)
Watch how all of a sudden people's opinions change.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']May I ask why you feel this way? Do you also feel heterosexual marriage should also be encouraged?

[/quote]

Um... so sexual promiscuity should be encouraged?

"Exactly the same way" is a real stretch. Unless you just mean "socially frowned upon"... But the reasons for each being a stigma were/are very different.

At one point interracial marriage was viewed as "unnatural" and was not recognized by the government and several times constitutional amendments were proposed to specifically ban such unions. Sounds a lot like the current gay marriage issue to me.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']"Exactly the same way" is a real stretch. Unless you just mean "socially frowned upon"... But the reasons for each being a stigma were/are very different.[/quote]

Well there are the obvious differences, but like dopa was saying they were argued against using some of the same reasoning - It being unnatural, against the Bible/Christianity/God/American values, special treatment, that kind of thing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah this is a repeat thread.
[/quote]

Yeah, but the other one didn't have a picture of Mr. Sulu.

I'm getting married on Friday.
 
Once again, if you don't like gays marrying (It's not gay marriage, it's just marriage between gays.) then don't have one.

Mass had had "gay marriage" for four years now, and we haven't been hit by a hurricane, earthquake, or anything in those four years. God loves gay marriage.
 
Seems like people already hate this happening. According to a local news (don't have a link), a couple in Palm Springs were sent a python in an attempt to kill them.

As for same sex marriage, I'm all for it. Marrige is supposed to be with two people who love each other coming together. Why does it matter if they are the same sex? "But the Bible tells us it's bad!" Bullshit reason.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Once again, if you don't like gays marrying (It's not gay marriage, it's just marriage between gays.) then don't have one.

Mass had had "gay marriage" for four years now, and we haven't been hit by a hurricane, earthquake, or anything in those four years. God loves gay marriage.[/quote]



Nope We got a Champion Basketball team instead!
 
[quote name='homeland']Nope We got a Champion Basketball team instead![/QUOTE]

so the kings will finally get their due after they were robbed in 2002, excellent.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Um... so sexual promiscuity should be encouraged?

[/QUOTE]

Could it be any more encouraged than it is already, is the real question.

I'm not sure what sexual promiscuity has to do with married people that happen to be plural. Unless I read you wrong...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']"Exactly the same way" is a real stretch. Unless you just mean "socially frowned upon"... But the reasons for each being a stigma were/are very different.[/QUOTE]

Ooh, I want to see where this is leading. Do tell me, good sir, how the contexts here are different. Voting on state-level constitutional amendments, pushing for a federal one, arguments of the "naturalness" of miscegenation, how inappropriate/problematic mixed race couples would be as parents...boy, this 'un is a whole lot different. :roll:

Anyway, let 'em get married. Us straight folks haven't done a bang-up job protecting the sanctity of marriage when it was our own thing, so perhaps we need some outsiders to come in and show us how monogamy's done. Eh?
 
I don't think he meant the legal/social/political context.

I think he meant the context of the types of marriages being challenged. Mixed race male/female weddings vs. male/male or female/female weddings. The latter being more "unnatural" to many people compared to interracial weddings. Homosexuality is forbidden in the bible etc. etc.

So it is a different context, but exactly the same in terms of the society reaction and bigotted reasons for trying to ban it. Just now there's more "ammunition" for the bigots in the bible, the "they can't procreate" argument and other stupid shit.
 
Our kids are going to be so embarrassed that we grew up in a time where same-sex marriages were so controversial. I am continually astounded that otherwise rational people can be so against another person's happiness.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Our kids are going to be so embarrassed that we grew up in a time where same-sex marriages were so controversial. I am continually astounded that otherwise rational people can be so against another person's happiness.[/QUOTE]

Yep. In that sense it is like the oppression of blacks--obviously not as bad as slavery 200 years ago, but it is at least comparable in that respect to segregation in the 20th century. In that it seems so absurd to us today. The opposition to gays will seem just as absurd to the next generation.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The latter being more "unnatural" to many people compared to interracial weddings. Homosexuality is forbidden in the bible etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Now? Sure. Then? I doubt it. 'matter of fact, I went out to dinner with my father last night, who told me (for the umpteenth time) that his first would-be marriage was ruined because his family (the fightin' Irish) didn't want a "dirty Polack bitch" to become one of their own.

Anecdotal, sure. But we're also talking about a time period during which inter*faith* marriages were either socially prohibited/frowned upon/led to the wife converting to the husband's faith.

This reminds me that one day I'm going to get a copy of the book "The Way We Never Were."
 
[quote name='javeryh'] I am continually astounded that otherwise rational people can be so against another person's happiness.[/quote]

This is my point exactly.

If no criminal activity is taking place, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, then people should be able to pursue their own happiness as they see fit regardless of what it is. Anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite, unless they themselves like people telling them that their right to the pursuit of happiness is void.

Congrats to George Takei BTW. I have read a couple of stories of gay couples who are older and can finally wed, and I think people need to put theirselves in those shoes. Think of their spouses and wonder what it would have been like if you were denied the right to marry your loved one. Loving vs. Virginia celebrated its anniversary last week IIRC. That was dealing with interracial marriage, something once outlawed as recently as the 1960's

Mildred Loving...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_vs._Virginia

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Sometimes it takes being in a situation of a denial of rights yourself to truly understand another person's situation.
 
I was listening to the radio last night, and some news reporter was Live in California, from the scene of a bunch of gay weddings, and I couldn't help but laugh when I could hear Calypso drums and like, parade music in the background. Those silly gays and their fanciful, festive weddings! What every happened to "Here Comes The Bride"!?
 
Originally Posted by javeryh
I am continually astounded that otherwise rational people can be so against another person's happiness.

Yeah? How about people that feel their happiness is in polygamy? Are you for that?

I'm really bored of this topic. But it does continue to fascinate me that people that feel they are so incredibly progressive about accepting gay marriage, since just a generation ago almost nobody did, yet today they still frown upon things like Polygamy.

Yes, I'll keep bringing it up, because it's a fine example of how social tolerance always has, still does, and always will move slow as molasses. But of course people of any given time period think they are very tolerant.

Social tolerance issues seems to be very "Feature of the decade". And that's what I find most fascinating about this stuff.
 
Polygamy is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination, at least in its current practice (forced social isolation, arranged marriages, marriages and pregnancies as young as 13, etc.), such that this "consenting adults" nonsense is not applicable. And that's without getting into the legal rights of polygamous couples and the abuses that go on in polygamous sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_jeffs#Sex_crime_allegations_and_FBI.27s_Most_Wanted

Arguments that go towards polygamy are trying to ground their bigotry as justified based off of disdain for polygamy - not as a relationship ideal, but as how it is currently practiced. Lousy sleight of hand, in my opinion. Really lousy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Polygamy is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination, at least in its current practice (forced social isolation, arranged marriages, marriages and pregnancies as young as 13, etc.), such that this "consenting adults" nonsense is not applicable. And that's without getting into the legal rights of polygamous couples and the abuses that go on in polygamous sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_jeffs#Sex_crime_allegations_and_FBI.27s_Most_Wanted

Arguments that go towards polygamy are trying to ground their bigotry as justified based off of disdain for polygamy - not as a relationship ideal, but as how it is currently practiced. Lousy sleight of hand, in my opinion. Really lousy.[/quote]Warren Jeffs looks a lot like Buffalo Bills coach Dick Jauron.

Jeffs_mugshot.jpg


dick-jauron.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Polygamy is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination, at least in its current practice (forced social isolation, arranged marriages, marriages and pregnancies as young as 13, etc.), such that this "consenting adults" nonsense is not applicable. And that's without getting into the legal rights of polygamous couples and the abuses that go on in polygamous sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_jeffs#Sex_crime_allegations_and_FBI.27s_Most_Wanted

Arguments that go towards polygamy are trying to ground their bigotry as justified based off of disdain for polygamy - not as a relationship ideal, but as how it is currently practiced. Lousy sleight of hand, in my opinion. Really lousy.[/quote]

Thanks. I was going to post something along the lines of polygamy =/= same-sex marriage but that about sums it up. It's a ridiculous comparison. NO ONE is permitted to enter into a legal polygamous marriage. Not affording gays the right to marriage that others enjoy (and take for granted) is discrimination.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Now? Sure. Then? I doubt it. 'matter of fact, I went out to dinner with my father last night, who told me (for the umpteenth time) that his first would-be marriage was ruined because his family (the fightin' Irish) didn't want a "dirty Polack bitch" to become one of their own.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that was just sheer racism that lead to opposing intra-racial marriages. Not backed by the bible, or being biologically unable to reproduce with a same sex spouse etc.

My point wasn't that people weren't just as adamantly opposed to inter-racial marriage as they are to gay marriage today. Just that the race stuff was pure racism and bigotry, while the anti-gay people have the "bible says it's wrong" and it's "not natural because they can't procreate" arguments backing them along with sheer bigotry.

That's the context difference that I think thrust was getting at.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I am *extraordinarily* skeptical of any claim that there was no biblical/religious argument in anti-miscegenation arguments.[/QUOTE]

There were probably some, but not as many since to my knowledge there isn't anything in the bible explicitly against intra-racial marriage while there is against homosexuality. People can always twist the bible to their benefit, but it's more effective when they don't have to twist.

And of course the "unnatural because they can't produce offspring" argument has nothing to do with the bible.

I think these points are ignorant, but I see where thrust is coming from with the different context argument.

That's why gay marriage has taken longer to become "acceptable" (in quotes as many morons still oppose interracial couples)--it's more "different" biologically than intraracial couples and the bible is explicitly against it which keeps most conservative religious folks firmly against gay marriage.
 
Again (we're going in circles here, so I'll leave it at this), I think that you're thinking in 2008 ideas, not early-to-mid 20th century ideas. Mixed race children were most certainly thought of as "unnatural," so I think there are far more parallels with the two eras' social problems than thrust.

But, as for you, po-tay-to/po-tah-to, eh? ;)
 
Yeah, we're on the same page more or less.

I'm not disputing that interracial kids where thought of as unnatural.

Just that its easier to argue that gay couples are unnatural since they can't reproduce like straight couples. There's no difference biological for mixed-race hetero sexual couples.

More or less it's easier to make the "unnatural" argument for gays, as they can base it off more than sheer ignorance and bigotry. It's still a lame argument, but it has a biological fact behind it.

And the fact that the bible says it's a sin doesn't hurt as all as that's a great rallying cry for the bigots. :D

And I'd agree that they are more simlar than thrust suggests, but I do see where he is coming from as there are a few extra obstacles in play for gay couples than there were for mixed race couples.
 
I say we make divorce illegal.
That'll make them bible thumpers STFU.

Divorce is another evil sin, but the people won't go for that because it actually affects THEM. Unlike Gay marriage, they can throw their bibles and 2 cents around and act like bullies...and yet, have secret man sex on the side :nottalking:
 
[quote name='lilboo']I say we make divorce illegal.[/QUOTE]

You shoulda seen the look on my very divorced, very spiteful, very conservative mother's face when I suggested that divorce laws not only be rescinded, but divorces be nullified if we, as a nation, wanted to protect the "sanctity of marriage."

Between telling her that and "well, you know, you and dad sure did a bang-up job of making marriage seem like a useful and sacred institution," I was on her shit list for quite some time.

:lol: But we actually squabble like that politically all the time. 3-hour car rides to visit my family FTW.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I am *extraordinarily* skeptical of any claim that there was no biblical/religious argument in anti-miscegenation arguments.[/QUOTE]

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Judge Leon Bazile
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Polygamy is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination, at least in its current practice (forced social isolation, arranged marriages, marriages and pregnancies as young as 13, etc.), such that this "consenting adults" nonsense is not applicable. And that's without getting into the legal rights of polygamous couples and the abuses that go on in polygamous sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_jeffs#Sex_crime_allegations_and_FBI.27s_Most_Wanted

Arguments that go towards polygamy are trying to ground their bigotry as justified based off of disdain for polygamy - not as a relationship ideal, but as how it is currently practiced. Lousy sleight of hand, in my opinion. Really lousy.[/QUOTE]

And all you are doing with saying the above is solidifying your (along with most people's) narrow perception of polygamy. Polygamy, as it's practiced today, is defined for the public by a very small minority that gets all the attention.

Your perception, as shown above, of polygamy, is heavily inaccurate. Couldn't be more inaccurate. There are FAR more people that practice polygamy off the radar that do not fit your assumptions. Take Big Love for example, do you seriously want to say that what they are doing in that show is wrong, harmful, and should not be tolerated? I've got news for you, many people live the same way without the religious context. I am more and more convinced that it's actually the religious context that breeds the intolerance because of today's religiously intolerant climate.

That is the entire point. Look at how Gays were perceived just 50 years ago. Was it not similar? How many people actually knew gay people and knew that they weren't freaks, psychos, mentally ill, or a blight on society? That was the public perception. Most people thought those things for the same reason most people think what you just described as polygamy. Back then, most people only saw or knew of homosexuals that were very flamboyant and brought a lot of attention upon themselves. That's who the gays were to the public.

How can you not see the parallels?

It has taken us this long for everyone to realize those perceptions were false for homosexuals, yet you and most people still embrace false perceptions about other lifestyles. Being tolerant of polygamy is not being tolerant of the horrible things you just listed, just like being tolerant of homosexuality is not being tolerant of many other evil things. It only adds to the problem to try and justify why a certain group isn't considered worthy of tolerance.

Using Warren Jeff's to somehow represent polygamy and what polygamy should be perceived for the public is like trying to pick a homosexual out of Southern Decadence in his leather S&M outfit as a representative of Homosexuality for the public. It's a disgusting demonstration of narrow-mindedness and bigotry.

Keep in mind I'm merely choosing polygamy as an example of my point. I'm not a crusader for Polygamists.

Trying to explain why polygamist tolerance is NOT the same as homosexual tolerance continues to prove the point I'm trying to make. Because listing stereotypes of a small minority of a group (which is all you've done), doesn't justify being intolerant of the lifestyle.

How many "normal" polygamist families with modernly defined healthy and free lifestyles would you have to see on nightline or represented in movies, or would you personally have to know, in order to change your mind about their rights for marriage?
 
[quote name='lilboo']I say we make divorce illegal.
[/quote]


Whoa dude. What happened to Peach? :lol:

She really let herself go, eh?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You shoulda seen the look on my very divorced, very spiteful, very conservative mother's face when I suggested that divorce laws not only be rescinded, but divorces be nullified if we, as a nation, wanted to protect the "sanctity of marriage."

Between telling her that and "well, you know, you and dad sure did a bang-up job of making marriage seem like a useful and sacred institution," I was on her shit list for quite some time.

:lol: But we actually squabble like that politically all the time. 3-hour car rides to visit my family FTW.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: But it's TRUE. The only thing ruining the sanctity of marriage is the divorce rate! It's a shame that it's like more common to meet single parents and to meet people who have like.. 2 parents and a couple step parents and relatives these days!

[quote name='GuilewasNK']Whoa dude. What happened to Peach? :lol:

She really let herself go, eh?[/QUOTE]

That's her baby sister, Nectarine
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
How can you not see the parallels?
[/QUOTE]

Of course there are parallels--both are equal rights issues.

But there are also great differences.

It's much less drastic of a change to the concept of marriage (and to legal issues with marriages) to change it from "A uninion between a man and a woman" to a "a union between two people" than it is to change it to "A union between a man and multiple women" or vice versa.

Both are changes, but there are different degrees in the changes to marriage being made. Leaving aside the man/woman issues--marriage has always been two people in love wanting to share their lives together.

It's a much more drastic change to go to a man sharing his life with multiple wives than to just drop the man/woman bit.

Both to societal norms/mores and for the legal issues surround state recognizes marriages. I know your solution is to just have the government out of marriage period.

My main point is that I think people get that there are some parallels in terms of equal rights issues--just nearly everyone disagrees that the similarities outweigh the differences.

The Polygamy point is usually just brought up by people who want to fight gay marriage and have no better way to do so than to confound the issue with very different types of marriage issues associated with polygamy. Yes, it's all marriage rights so there is some similarity, but the differences far outweigh the overlap.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
It's much less drastic of a change to the concept of marriage (and to legal issues with marriages) to change it from "A uninion between a man and a woman" to a "a union between two people" than it is to change it to "A union between a man and multiple women" or vice versa.[/quote]

Drastic change to who?

Eh. I won't argue this, but many sociologists and parenting experts would argue to death the importance of both a male and female parent for the healthy upbringing of a child. But ultimately it's semantics and relative, and I don't feel strongly either way about the subject. I only bring it up to say it's highly debatable.

Granted, I don't think anyone would argue that having 2 loving parents of any kind is better than having none or one.

Leaving aside the man/woman issues--marriage has always been two people in love wanting to share their lives together.
I would strongly disagree.

Throughout human history, do you really believe monogamy has dominated for a longer time than polygamy? I have no studies to cite, but my assumption is no. Humans have advanced quite far with a long history of polygamy.

Polygamy, like Homosexuality, was far more accepted in pre-christian times. It's funny how we come full circle on one but not the other, and only because of stereotypes.

It's a much more drastic change to go to a man sharing his life with multiple wives than to just drop the man/woman bit.

Drastic change to who exactly? If you are referring to the "normal people in society" asked to tolerate it, then probably true.

Both to societal norms/mores and for the legal issues surround state recognizes marriages. I know your solution is to just have the government out of marriage period.
True. I'm ok with the state sponsoring civil unions for anyone. I think marriages should be a religious ceremony for those already in a civil union (one of the few European-style policies I agree with).


The Polygamy point is usually just brought up by people who want to fight gay marriage and have no better way to do so than to confound the issue with very different types of marriage issues associated with polygamy. Yes, it's all marriage rights so there is some similarity, but the differences far outweigh the overlap.

It may be true that Polygamy is often brought up to fight gay marriage.

Let me be clear, though - that's not my intention. I actually WANT polygamy legalized. And I DO feel it's a double standard. It's unfair, intolerant, and socially accepted bigoted hypocrisy, that we as a society are opening the doors to a new lifestyle for marital recognition and social acceptance, while still raising our eyebrows and embracing stereotypes of others.

I bring up polygamy, because in my mind it helps illustrate just how far our society still has to go with tolerance; since the overbearing, self-important, arrogant, gloating of our new-found tolerance for homosexuality in our "superior" western-values society gets old (not pointing fingers at anyone specific). Basically my feeling on gay marriage legalization is: "good job America, it's a good baby step, now prove your new-found tolerance with others".

But, as always, just imho. :)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It may be true that Polygamy is often brought up to fight gay marriage.

Let me be clear, though - that's not my intention. I actually WANT polygamy legalized. And I DO feel it's a double standard. It's unfair, intolerant, and socially accepted bigoted hypocrisy, that we as a society are opening the doors to a new lifestyle for marital recognition and social acceptance, while still raising our eyebrows and embracing stereotypes of others.

I bring up polygamy, because in my mind it helps illustrate just how far our society still has to go with tolerance; since the overbearing, self-important, arrogant, gloating of our new-found tolerance for homosexuality in our "superior" western-values society gets old (not pointing fingers at anyone specific). Basically my feeling on gay marriage legalization is: "good job America, it's a good baby step, now prove your new-found tolerance with others".

But, as always, just imho. :)[/quote]

But NO ONE is permitted to enter into a legal polygamous marriage. It's not about recognizing certain groups of people - it's about not discriminating. If some people were allowed to marry more than one person and others were not then I think you'd have a better argument.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Granted, I don't think anyone would argue that having 2 loving parents of any kind is better than having none or one.
[/quote]

And I think most would say having 2 loving parents of any kind is better than having 1 dad and multiple moms and vice versa. That's just asking for family conflict, discipline problems (who does the kid listen to when the parents disagree--it's tough enough with 2 parents to raise a kid well).

I would strongly disagree.

Throughout human history, do you really believe monogamy has dominated for a longer time than polygamy? I have no studies to cite, but my assumption is no. Humans have advanced quite far with a long history of polygamy. Polygamy, like Homosexuality, was far more accepted in pre-christian times. It's funny how we come full circle on one but not the other, and only because of stereotypes.

Instead of "always" I should have said modern times. Marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman for modern times in mainstream, civilized society. Thus it's easier, IMO to drop the man/woman stipulation than it is to change to allowing mulitple spouses. Both socially and for legal purposes as legal rights get complicated in polygamy marriages.

Drastic change to who exactly? If you are referring to the "normal people in society" asked to tolerate it, then probably true.

More drastic to mainstream society. More drastic to the legal system unless you have no legal marriages or civil unions and have no automatic benefits, rights etc. associated with it and force people to hire a lawyer and iron out wills, power of attorney etc. on their own rather than spouses automatically having next of kin rights etc.

It may be true that Polygamy is often brought up to fight gay marriage.

Let me be clear, though - that's not my intention. I actually WANT polygamy legalized. And I DO feel it's a double standard. It's unfair, intolerant, and socially accepted bigoted hypocrisy, that we as a society are opening the doors to a new lifestyle for marital recognition and social acceptance, while still raising our eyebrows and embracing stereotypes of others.

Fair enough. I don't really care one way or the other. I don't like the idea. I think polygamy tends to exploit women as it's so often in the form of oppressive cults. How many women WANT to share their husband with multiple men while not being able to have muliple partners themselves? And how often do you hear of polygamy with a Woman with multiple husbands?

And I don't see it as good for children to grow up with mulitiple moms etc.

But, that said it doesn't directly effect me, so I don't care what people do. I wouldn't oppose measures to legalize polygamy. I wouldn't campaign for them either.


[quote name='javeryh']But NO ONE is permitted to enter into a legal polygamous marriage. It's not about recognizing certain groups of people - it's about not discriminating. If some people were allowed to marry more than one person and others were not then I think you'd have a better argument.[/QUOTE]

And that really gets at another reason why the issues are different.

With gays it's very clear discrimination as heteros are allowed to marry one person and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage. Gays cannot marry one gay person and get those benefits.

No one has the right to marry multiple people. So while it is denying marriage rights to a group of people, it's less blatant discrimination as there's no one in society with the right to marry multiple people vs gays where they are being denied the right to marry one person that others in society enjoy.
 
I've always felt that a polygamous marriage would create an unequal protection amoung the parties involved. For. example: there would be no rights between wives and a whole new set of laws would need to be created to address it.

At least with gay marriage we can pretty much change man and women to "two people" and that's the end of it.
 
bread's done
Back
Top