Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[falafel]

I don't know... maybe someone bringing up a little history:


http://rationalfaiths.com/the-new-ld...rriage-letter/

Of course, as someone points out in the comments, there is a simple answer for this:



See? These early church history marriages were not polygamy. They were marriages composed of "a man and a woman" and in some cases, multiple marriages of the same man to different women. Different women and different marriage or plural marriages.

Makes sense to me. The women weren't married to each other.

[pellegrino]

I don't know... maybe someone bringing up a little history:


http://rationalfaiths.com/the-new-ld...rriage-letter/

Of course, as someone points out in the comments, there is a simple answer for this:



See? These early church history marriages were not polygamy. They were marriages composed of "a man and a woman" and in some cases, multiple marriages of the same man to different women. Different women and different marriage or plural marriages.

[All-American]

Makes sense to me. The women weren't married to each other.

Which in turn suggests the answer to one of the most intriguing prospects of a polygamous marriage, alas, is no.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Legalization of polygamy would be difficult and is unlikely.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/0...n-of-polygamy/

Second, legalizing polygamy is not something that could be effectively done with a single court decision. Once we gave up coverture, marriage in our law became essentially blind as to gender in its particulars (other than the question of who may enter the state in the first place). Now that gay marriage is lawful, our family law does not need a huge overhaul to accommodate it, as it is still a binary between two people only.

Legalizing polygamy would not be anywhere near so simple. It would require an extensive reworking of our law in many areas in order to be workable. Will these be treated as one group marriage (rather like a business association, which would then be governed by a board of some sort), or a series of (nonexclusive) binary marriage contracts? With multiple legal spouses, what do we do about insurance benefits? Who gets to make medical decisions? Child custody issues? Does a polygamous spouse get the immigration benefits of marriage? Which spouse gets social security benefits, or do you allocate them pro rata among all spouses or something like that? How would intestacy work? The practical challenges to legalizing polygamy would be legion.

These legal challenges could be solved by motivated legislatures committed to solving them. After all, writing laws is what they do, and certainly creative solutions to these kinds of conundrums could be found. But in the absence of a substantial constituency backed by public opinion stumping for such legal marital structures, it just ain’t gonna happen.

[TripletDaddy]

lol @ polygamy

[cowboy]

Legalization of polygamy would be difficult and is unlikely.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/07/0...n-of-polygamy/

Says one person. None of the issues listed in your quote are difficult hurdles, and most have been addressed in cases where a single parent has multiple children. Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why is anyone who supported gay marriage worried that polygamy will be next? It is a no-brainer that, if the fair thing to do is allow gay marriage, then the fair thing to do is allow any two consenting adults marry, regardless of either person's marital status. The lack of moral outrage over polygamy still being illegal is one thing, people who oppose polygamy altogether while supporting gay marriage are no different than the churches they have so roundly criticized for trying to impose their own morals on others through legislation.

lol @ fairness

[scottie]

Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

Says one person. None of the issues listed in your quote are difficult hurdles, and most have been addressed in cases where a single parent has multiple children. Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why is anyone who supported gay marriage worried that polygamy will be next? It is a no-brainer that, if the fair thing to do is allow gay marriage, then the fair thing to do is allow any two consenting adults marry, regardless of either person's marital status. The lack of moral outrage over polygamy still being illegal is one thing, people who oppose polygamy altogether while supporting gay marriage are no different than the churches they have so roundly criticized for trying to impose their own morals on others through legislation.

lol @ fairness

I don't think there are very many people who even care about poligamy, for or against it. Plenty of people are probably disgusted by how it is/has been implemented, and it's an easy target for people who don't know much about the LDS church to make fun, but I just don't think very many people really even care (probably in large part because they don't personally know a polygamist; most everyone personally knows a gay person, don't they?).

Edit: cowboy, what are you thinking/getting at when you say, "The lack of moral outrage over polygamy still being illegal is one thing..."?

[Moliere]

Says one person. None of the issues listed in your quote are difficult hurdles, and most have been addressed in cases where a single parent has multiple children. Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why is anyone who supported gay marriage worried that polygamy will be next? It is a no-brainer that, if the fair thing to do is allow gay marriage, then the fair thing to do is allow any two consenting adults marry, regardless of either person's marital status. The lack of moral outrage over polygamy still being illegal is one thing, people who oppose polygamy altogether while supporting gay marriage are no different than the churches they have so roundly criticized for trying to impose their own morals on others through legislation.

lol @ fairness

I don't understand how we need to allow polygamy in the name of fairness. It seems totally different to me than allowing gays to marry...because before they could get married they were being denied basic benefits that were allowed to heteros. What benefits are being denied to polygamists?

[Uncle Ted]

Says one person. None of the issues listed in your quote are difficult hurdles, and most have been addressed in cases where a single parent has multiple children. Why is this even a topic of discussion? Why is anyone who supported gay marriage worried that polygamy will be next? It is a no-brainer that, if the fair thing to do is allow gay marriage, then the fair thing to do is allow any two consenting adults marry, regardless of either person's marital status. The lack of moral outrage over polygamy still being illegal is one thing, people who oppose polygamy altogether while supporting gay marriage are no different than the churches they have so roundly criticized for trying to impose their own morals on others through legislation.

lol @ fairness

Yep...

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.
[...]
Another common argument, and another unsatisfying one, is logistical. In this telling, polygamous marriages would strain the infrastructure of our legal systems of marriage, as they are not designed to handle marriage between more than two people. In particular, the claim is frequently made that the division of property upon divorce or death would be too complicated for polygamous marriages. I find this argument eerily reminiscent of similar efforts to dismiss same-sex marriage on practical grounds. (The forms say husband and wife! What do you want us to do, print new forms?) Logistics, it should go without saying, are insufficient reason to deny human beings human rights.

If current legal structures and precedents aren’t conducive to group marriage, then they will be built in time. The comparison to traditional marriage is again instructive. We have, after all, many decades of case law and legal organization dedicated to marriage, and yet divorce and family courts feature some of the most bitterly contested cases imaginable. Complication and dispute are byproducts of human relationships and human commitment. We could, as a civil society, create a legal expectation that those engaging in a group marriage create binding documents and contracts that clearly delineate questions of inheritance, alimony, and the like. Prenups are already a thing.
[...]
Progressives have always flattered themselves that time is on their side, that their preferences are in keeping with the arc of history. In the fight for marriage equality, this claim has been made again and again. Many have challenged our politicians and our people to ask themselves whether they can imagine a future in which opposition to marriage equality is seen as a principled stance. I think it’s time to turn the question back on them: given what you know about the advancement of human rights, are you sure your opposition to group marriage won’t sound as anachronistic as opposition to gay marriage sounds to you now? And since we have insisted that there is no legitimate way to oppose gay marriage and respect gay love, how can you oppose group marriage and respect group love?

I suspect that many progressives would recognize, when pushed in this way, that the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice. What we’re left with is an unsatisfying patchwork of unconvincing arguments and bad ideas, ones embraced for short-term convenience at long-term cost. We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism. The course then, is clear: to look beyond political convenience and conservative intransigence, and begin to make the case for extending legal marriage rights to more loving and committed adults. It’s time.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...l#.VZi50nhClUQ

[TripletDaddy]

If the church didn't want the gay marriage fight, it really doesn't want the polygamy fight. How awkward will it be for the church to take a stance on polygamy? Either way it loses.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't understand how we need to allow polygamy in the name of fairness. It seems totally different to me than allowing gays to marry...because before they could get married they were being denied basic benefits that were allowed to heteros. What benefits are being denied to polygamists?

Were polygamists born that way or did they choose to be polygamist? Maybe they can be cured of polygamy by singing hymns. Or electroshock therapy.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Whoa. Didn't see that coming. LOL.

While I never thought I’d speak about this in such a public forum, there are far too many faithful LGBT members in the Church who, for various reasons, remain quiet on this subject. If I may be so presumptuous as to speak for a significant but particularly silent segment of this population, I’d like to express some of our pains regarding some LDS church members’ support of gay marriage. You mean well, and do your best to show love to LGBT individuals, but for us it can seem like you’ve ignored your LGBT brothers and sisters within the Church in favor of supporting those without.

It hurts when—on those days we need additional strength to keep our covenants—our brothers and sisters in Christ flood our feeds with symbols of a life we’re fighting to forsake. It hurts when people who don’t experience same-sex attraction take lightly the prophetic council that affects our lives and the thorn in our side. It hurts when we seek for strength from Church members, only to find enticements calling us away from the counsel of the Lord’s anointed. It hurts when Church members help Satan whisper in our ears: “See, even members who don’t experience these feelings can see that Church leaders are misguided and outdated.”

http://www.millennialmormons.com/you...g-gay-members/

[Uncle Ted]

A Canadian law school with a BYU-like honor code is denied accreditation because it asks students to abstain from sexual intimacy outside of a heterosexual marriage...

Ontario law society’s decision to refuse Trinity Western accreditation upheld

An Ontario Superior Court has dealt a blow to Trinity Western University, ruling that Ontario’s law society acted within its rights when it denied accreditation to the proposed law school from the Christian-based, B.C. university in an April, 2014, vote.


The decision by directors of the Law Society of Upper Canada infringed TWU’s freedom of religion, but the court considered that it did so to protect individuals’ rights to equal treatment. Since announcing its plans to open a new law school, TWU has been at the centre of a national debate over its Community Covenant, which asks students to agree to abstain from sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage or face possible suspension or expulsion.
[...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle25230491/

If this will happens to BYU we can turn the law building into another engineering building.

[ERCougar]

Nothing new here, but pretty funny anyway.
http://rationalfaiths.com/lds-church...gamy-decision/

[smokymountainrain]

I don't understand how we need to allow polygamy in the name of fairness. It seems totally different to me than allowing gays to marry...because before they could get married they were being denied basic benefits that were allowed to heteros. What benefits are being denied to polygamists?

Most (all?) employer benefit plans only allow one spouse. Seems like a pretty basic benefit.