Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

...and laws can be changed. What is to stop that from happening?

The will of the majority can also be overridden by judicial fiat. Where do you stop it and how could you if you wanted to? So if someone brings a suit to allow some other form of marriage (you pick your poison) a judge just has to agree to hear the suit and may at his whim overturn the law prohibiting it. Hence the slippery slope.

The will of the majority cannot violate the rights of the minority.

Amazing how judges are only activist when they disagree with you.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

If you put in a caveat that if you choose to enter a polygamous marriage, you must show the ability to actively provide for said marriage then could it open the door?

Almost like the equivalent of adoption criteria.

Who would have to be shown to provide for it? What happens in case of traumatic circumstances?

I'm beyond pro-polyamory, I just don't think it's legally possible the way that the government uses marriage as a social/legal/financial structure. It's totally possible outside of that realm.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Who would have to be shown to provide for it? What happens in case of traumatic circumstances?

I'm beyond pro-polyamory, I just don't think it's legally possible the way that the government uses marriage as a social/legal/financial structure. It's totally possible outside of that realm.

I agree.

As long as government is in bed with marriage, I don't think any of the slippery slopes can truly come to fruition.

Which is why prop 8 was overturn, and I doubt it will be re-established.

If there were no governmental/private financial advantages to marriage, this would not even be an issue on both sides.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Bigamy, polygamy, communal/group marriages. Any problems with these? Just wondering where others draw their lines as there are many out there who would postulate for rights that you might want to deny them. What would give you that right?

This one is the easy one - we have nearly 200 years' worth of rulings that there is a rational basis for banning polygamy and communal marriages, mostly based on the potential for abuse and the difficulty of legally sanctioning (and enforcing) those contracts (for example, how can we be sure that the first wife is "OK" with the second marriage, free of coercion?). Now, if things have changed enough that polygamy will equal something other than "one man, many wives, starting from age 14" then I'd be for it, presuming the contractual difficulties could be sorted out - after all, what do I care, and once we've eliminated that harm that is the rational basis for the ban, who is getting hurt?

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Either way though, "slippery slope" is a terrible reason to fight something, particularly when your worst-case scenario for falling down the slope is brothers/sisters or bigamy - I'm not exactly sure those are apocalyptic consequences.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This one is the easy one - we have nearly 200 years' worth of rulings that there is a rational basis for banning polygamy and communal marriages, mostly based on the potential for abuse and the difficulty of legally sanctioning (and enforcing) those contracts (for example, how can we be sure that the first wife is "OK" with the second marriage, free of coercion?). Now, if things have changed enough that polygamy will equal something other than "one man, many wives, starting from age 14" then I'd be for it, presuming the contractual difficulties could be sorted out - after all, what do I care, and once we've eliminated that harm that is the rational basis for the ban, who is getting hurt?

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Either way though, "slippery slope" is a terrible reason to fight something, particularly when your worst-case scenario for falling down the slope is brothers/sisters or bigamy - I'm not exactly sure those are apocalyptic consequences.

Since it's my cause du jour, I want to make a distinction between religious polygamy and other forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The latter is entirely different from the former.

[KSUViolet06]

The level of hysteria among the evangelical peeps on my FB feed is at an all time high.

OMG TEH GAYS IS TAKING OVER TEH UNIVERSE. EVERYBODY RUNNNN!!!!TEH WORLD IZ ENDING!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

The level of hysteria among the evangelical peeps on my FB feed is at an all time high.

OMG TEH GAYS IS TAKING OVER TEH UNIVERSE. EVERYBODY RUNNNN!!!!TEH WORLD IZ ENDING!

BRB GONNA GO MARRY MAH GAY TURTLE


This is why I don't have those people on my friends list anymore.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.

Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?

It's just a guess, and I could easily be wrong. Four of the nine justices have to vote to take a case for the Supreme Court to hear it. As a general rule, they prefer to take cases where there is a divurgence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals -- split circuits, it's called. They view their job as being to resolve the split among the circuits.

Also as a general rule, they prefer to let cases percolate up among the circuits to see if a split or a consensus develops. Why should they use up their limited time on a case if the circuits end up being in agreement?

So my hunch on this one is that if the Ninth Circuit reverses, which would basically perserve a status quo in that circuit, they'll think it prudent to wait and see what happens in other cases in other circuits. But if the Ninth Circuit affirms, I think at least four of them will think the decision constitutes enough of a legal shift with potential effects outside California and the Ninth Circuit that they have to step in and decide themselves.

But I could be quite wrong.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Since it's my cause du jour, I want to make a distinction between religious polygamy and other forms of consensually non-monogamous relationships. The latter is entirely different from the former.

Feel free to make that distinction and fight for your cause.

However, the law really can't make that distinction (at least not easily) - you can understand why I've treated them the same for purposes of this discussion, I'm sure? I don't mean any offense by lumping them together, or to imply one is akin to the other.

[DaemonSeid]

[PiKA2001]

I always thought the benefit of being gay was the fact that you COULDN'T get stuck in a shitty marriage?

“My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.”
-Rodney Dangerfield

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Feel free to make that distinction and fight for your cause.

However, the law really can't make that distinction (at least not easily) - you can understand why I've treated them the same for purposes of this discussion, I'm sure? I don't mean any offense by lumping them together, or to imply one is akin to the other.

I didn't think you meant to cause offense and didn't take any. Since most religious polygamy occurs in nigh cult like environments (at least here, I don't know enough about African or Islamic polygamy to comment) and underage marriage can occur with parental consent it is probably legally impossible to make such a distinction as things stand.

I only raise the point since he grouped group relationships with the more concerning categories as something to fear on the scary slippery slope that ends in child molestation. -.-

/thesis topic

[agzg]

This is just me, and drole you can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "western" open relationship different than polygamy in the fact that for many couples/groups in polyamorous relationships is that it's not, in fact, permanent? It may be long term, but the implication of marriage is that it's permanent (no matter how easily any given couple can get a divorce).

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

This is just me, and drole you can correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "western" open relationship different than polygamy in the fact that for many couples/groups in polyamorous relationships is that it's not, in fact, permanent? It may be long term, but the implication of marriage is that it's permanent (no matter how easily any given couple can get a divorce).

I know poly relationships that have lasted just as long as a typical marriage. Or ones that include more than one marriage within the group (A quad of two couples for example.) But American relationships in particular are not as marriage focused as they used to be, even if the long term relationships are considered permanent. And being in a non-publicly accepted relationship could also explain why some don't last as long as they otherwise could.

It depends on the relationship and the rules involved. Some have just one long term relationship with multiple more transient ones, some are very stable/long term and involve raising kids through adulthood.

I'd argue that though marriage implies a permanent commitment it's the commitment part that's the important part.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Close relatives is dicier, but rooted in science - in many places, first cousins are fine, for example.

Really???? In which states can first cousins marry?