|Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):|
Wow now I really see that both sides of the gay marriage debate have hypocritical stances.
Because Aesma is "one side of the gay marriage debate?" No, he isn't. So hop off that train because it's not sitting on the rails.
It is not hypocritical to argue for gay marriage and against polygamy. In fact, that is EXACTLY what gay marriage opponents argued; that legalizing gay marriage would clear the way for polygamy. Gay marriage supporters pointed out (rightly) that this is not the case.
And it *ISN
'T* "because we don't like it" or Aesma's "they're backward" argument. Those are not valid reasons to oppose multipartite marriages.
|Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):|
I see Doc's point about how unraveling such unions would be pretty messy, but unraveling the current bipartite unions are messy anyhow, and it should be about what the people want, and not about how difficult it is for the courts to sort out if/when things get ugly.
Given that the people pay for those same courts... But also, it's not that simple. A bipartite marriage is a contract between two individuals, A and B. In the absence of a pre-nuptial agreement, it is a single, uniform agreement. There is only one way for that agreement to be broken, and it winds up with those two people being single. In the case of a multipartite marriage, there are many different ways it could go and the state DOES have a secular interest in avoiding such massive cases. There is also a huge potential for abuse if there is no limit on the size of people entering into a marriage, abuse which is difficult to regulate and enforce.
Also, there is a legalistic reason why it is not a right. In the Loving v. Virginia
case, the argument went like this:
"Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby may not marry Jenny because Bobby is Black." Clear violation of Equal Protection and the Civil Rights Act. In the gay marriage case, the argument is "Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby may not marry Scott because Bobby is a man." Again, clear violation of Equal Protection clause.
However, in the case of polygam/andr/amory, the argument is: "Bobby may marry Susie, but Bobby and Jenny may not marry Susie because Bobby and Jenny are two people." No law has ever held that being a group of people is a protected class or that groups of people have the same protections and immunities as individuals. Groups, of course, do enjoy some protections, but they do not enjoy the same protections as individuals. For example, groups may not cast a ballot. Groups do not have the right to trial by jury (the individuals in the group do have the right to their own individual jury trials). Etc.
So there are a number of very good secular and legal reasons why multipartite marriages should not be allowed.
By contrast, there are ZERO secular and/or legal reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed. And this has been demonstrated in court after court after court.