Texans Vote To Amend Constitution to Ban SSM


Nascar_James
#1
Right On! The constitution in Texas will now ensure that Gay marriage stays illegal. 18 other states already ban SSM within their constitutions. Placing this measure in the constitution will safeguard it against future court decisions. It looks like this approval of banning SSM is reflected by most voters across all racial and party lines in Texas since all participated in the vote.

Here in Oklahoma we are one of the 18 states who already have the protection within our constitution. In April 2004, Oklahoma legislators passed an amendment to the state constitution that would deny marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships to same-sex couples. On November 2004, we voted in favor of this amendment. It is now law. We won by a huuuge margin. One state I recall, Mississippi won by a 6-1 margin. Therefore in Oklahoma, SSM is illegal as stated within our constitution.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...measures_x.htm

Quote:

USA Today:

Posted 11/8/2005 9:04 PM Updated 11/8/2005 11:05 PM
Texas voters approve ban on gay marriage

By Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY (AP) Texas voters approved amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriages Tuesday, making it the 19th state to take such action. The vote came as seven states around the nation considered 39 various ballot initiatives.

In another contentious vote, Ohio rejected overhauling election laws. On the ballot in Washington state was a rollback of a gasoline-tax increase. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was pushing a cap on state spending.

In California's special election, ordered by Schwarzenegger, the eight statewide propositions included four that pitted the Republican governor against the Democrat-controlled Legislature and unions of government workers.

One of Schwarzenegger's initiatives would limit state spending and give him more power to make budget cuts. Another proposal would make it easier to fire teachers. A third initiative would require public-employee unions to get members' consent to use dues for politics.

The governor also supported shifting the power to draw congressional and state legislative districts from the Legislature to three retired judges.

A separate California proposition would require doctors to notify parents that a teenage girl wanted an abortion.

Ohioans rejected a neutral commission that would have mapped political districts instead of the Legislature. Ohio also voted down transferring oversight of state elections from the elected secretary of state to a bipartisan commission.

In Texas, the Legislature had passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but proponents of placing the measure in the constitution said it would guard against future court decisions. Similar measures are heading for the ballot next year in several states. Same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts.

Maine considered whether to keep or toss out a law that protects gay men and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing and education. The referendum marked the third time the Legislature had approved the anti-discrimination law and voters petitioned to put it on the ballot. Voters narrowly rejected the gay rights laws in 1998 and 2000.

In Washington state, voters considered a statewide ban on smoking in public places that would be the USA's most restrictive. Smokers would risk a $100 fine for lighting up outdoors within 25 feet of a building entrance. Another measure would limit damage awards and attorney fees in medical-malpractice cases. Doctors could lose their license if they are found to have committed malpractice three times. Voters also were deciding whether to veto a 9.5-cent-a-gallon hike in gasoline taxes that the Legislature passed.

New Jersey voted on whether to create the office of lieutenant governor. Seven states do not have that office. Recently, two New Jersey governors left office early, leaving the state Senate president as the chief executive while also ruling the Senate.

 
Andygal
#2
I am not surprised. Texas has always been well known as a cesspool of bigotry and ignorance. I am sorry to see that some thing never change even when they should. But not surprised.

Nascar do you really hate human rights so much that you would praise a state barring SSM possibly permanately even if opinions change (which they will albiet slowly as this is Texas we are talking about).
 
Nascar_James
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Andygal

I am not surprised. Texas has always been well known as a cesspool of bigotry and ignorance. I am sorry to see that some thing never change even when they should. But not surprised.

Nascar do you really hate human rights so much that you would praise a state barring SSM possibly permanately even if opinions change (which they will albiet slowly as this is Texas we are talking about).

Not so Andygal. I voted in favor of the amendment myself here in Oklahoma one year ago. This has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with keeping the traditional institution of marriage. Only one super power has the authority to change the definition of marriage.

What would happen if we look at it from a Human Rights point of view? If we legalized marriage for the gay community, we would then also be obligated to do the same for the polygamists. Otherwise we look like hypocrites in arguing for human rights. We in result would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.
 
unclepercy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Andygal

I am not surprised. Texas has always been well known as a cesspool of bigotry and ignorance. I am sorry to see that some thing never change even when they should. But not surprised.

Nascar do you really hate human rights so much that you would praise a state barring SSM possibly permanately even if opinions change (which they will albiet slowly as this is Texas we are talking about).

What an unkind and hateful statement to make.

Percy
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#5
Quote:

Only one super power has the authority to change the definition of marriage.


what superpower would that be??? Marriage and such contracts are a man made institution......and man can change them at will. It is the religions that have made marriage into something other than that.



quite sad to see Texas stay in the dark ages with something like this.........but heck.....if that is where they want to stay ......let them. Just don't preach your "values" to others let alone try to impose them on others either.

and like it or not : andygal has a valid point. Texas has a "history".......and it is not all that pleasant. Plus it is such a phony society. Hypocrits are born and bred there.
 
Andygal
#6
Quote:

What would happen if we look at it from a Human Rights point of view? If we legalized marriage for the gay community, we would then also be obligated to do the same for the polygamists. Otherwise we look like hypocrites in arguing for human rights. We in result would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.

This is bad reasoning.

The reason we are obliged to support gay marriage is because if we do not we are denying one segment of the population rights that are granted to others (the right to have their unions recognized).

Nobody is allowed to marry more then one person at a time, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for polygamy to be illegal.

Sorry Nascar, but your "slippery slope" arguement is based on false logic.
 
Shiva
#7
The decision of Texans is not surprising considering that until a few years ago, they had a law on the books making sodomy illegal and punishable by law. It was only overturned by the Supreme Court only two years ago after two men were arrested for having a consensual sexual relationship.

It's a shame that so many religious-minded people are so insecure that the idea of other people having relationships recognised by the state causes fear that it will undermine their rights. It's a shame that they feel they can force their religious views on others through a democratic process that is supposed to be free of religion. It's a shame that they have used government to create two classes of people, one with rights, and one without. The real slippery slope that opponents of same-sex marriage have not realised is that when you use the law to ensure that certain classes of society have more rights than others, it could be your turn some time down the road to suffer the same fate.
 
Ten Packs
#8
In the past year or two that MY Province has okayed SSM, it has affected my 34-year marriage to my wife - about as much as the dust between a flea's toes.....
 
zenfisher
#9
Hmmm... I wonder what would happen if Bushie boy decided to give everyone in the United States a tax break...except the people of Oklahoma. Just because they were well ...Oklahoman. What you are saying NJ is this is perfectly acceptable. You are denying something to a section of people that the rest of the union is entitled too. That is why it flies in the face of the constitution. We are all equal and are entitled to equal rights....including the right of marriage.
 
Nascar_James
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Andygal

Quote:

What would happen if we look at it from a Human Rights point of view? If we legalized marriage for the gay community, we would then also be obligated to do the same for the polygamists. Otherwise we look like hypocrites in arguing for human rights. We in result would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.


Nobody is allowed to marry more then one person at a time, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for polygamy to be illegal.

Sorry Nascar, but your "slippery slope" arguement is based on false logic.

Well if my slipery slope is based on false logic, then so is yours. I can use the same argument you just did.

Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for SSM to be illegal.

SSM is illegal in 19 states here as defined within the constitution.
 
Shiva
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Andygal

Quote:

What would happen if we look at it from a Human Rights point of view? If we legalized marriage for the gay community, we would then also be obligated to do the same for the polygamists. Otherwise we look like hypocrites in arguing for human rights. We in result would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.


Nobody is allowed to marry more then one person at a time, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for polygamy to be illegal.

Sorry Nascar, but your "slippery slope" arguement is based on false logic.

Well if my slipery slope is based on false logic, then so is yours. I can use the same argument you just did.

Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for SSM to be illegal.

SSM is illegal in 19 states here as defined within the constitution.

No, I don't think you've understood his point, Nascar. There is no right to polygamous marriage, it's illegal, and it is illegal for all people everywhere regardless of class, gender, or creed. People are being equally treated in this case, and no group is being granted a right not existing for others. In order for someone to challenge the law to have polygamous marriage in the way that gays and lesbians are for the right to marriage, there would have to be a group of people who are allowed polygamous marriage, and others who are not, and then someone who doesn't have this right could claim they should have the right to polygamous marriage because not having it goes against their equality rights. This is not the case, so opening marriage to gays and lesbians through the right to equality guaranteed in the constitution could not be used as a pretext to have polygamous marriages as well.

On the other hand, the constitution does guarantee equality rights, and marriage as an institution is granted to some people but not others. It's entirely legitimate to use the equality provision to end this unconstitutional process of discriminating against certain citizens, giving some citizens more rights than others. Even if nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, people are guaranteed equality rights in the constitution, so the law against same sex marriage does exist but is a violation of their right to be treated equally as anyone else in the law.

Based on all this, your slippery slope argument is invalid. The way that marriage would be opened for gays and lesbians could not be used to create polygamous marriage. And same-sex marriage may currently be against the law, but that's becuase a majority of people are ignoring the rights of minorities and using their greater numbers to create unconstitutional laws to steal rights from others already guaranteed in the constitution.
 
Reverend Blair
#12
Just more homophobia from someone who has continuously no real respect for human rights or his own constitution. No suprise there.
 
no1important
#13
Quote:

In California's special election, ordered by Schwarzenegger, the eight statewide propositions included four that pitted the Republican governor against the Democrat-controlled Legislature and unions of government workers.

One of Schwarzenegger's initiatives would limit state spending and give him more power to make budget cuts. Another proposal would make it easier to fire teachers. A third initiative would require public-employee unions to get members' consent to use dues for politics.

The governor also supported shifting the power to draw congressional and state legislative districts from the Legislature to three retired judges.

A separate California proposition would require doctors to notify parents that a teenage girl wanted an abortion.

And they all failed. Link or Link or Link
 
Andygal
#14
Somebody posted this on another forum. I found it amusing so I will repost it here.

Quote:

'm not American, nor do I live in Texas - but I have received this information from people whose grasp of American law I judge to be much better than my own.

In an attempt to ban omg gay marriage, Texas just outlawed heterosexual marriage:

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.


A) defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
B) makes it illegal.

All for the lack of the word..."other" between "any" and "legal".

 
unclepercy
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze

Quote:

Only one super power has the authority to change the definition of marriage.


quite sad to see Texas stay in the dark ages with something like this.........but heck.....if that is where they want to stay ......let them. Just don't preach your "values" to others let alone try to impose them on others either.

and like it or not : andygal has a valid point. Texas has a "history".......and it is not all that pleasant. Plus it is such a phony society. Hypocrits are born and bred there.

Like you are the expert. I don't pretend to be an expert on Canada, and you may not pretend to be the expert on Texas.
I am the expert on Texas, and I can assure you that it is indeed a most pleasant place/has a proud history/the nicest people you would ever want to meet, and that's why so many people move here from other states.

We are not preaching our values to anyone - especially YOU. But we are entitled to decide our own local issues, and we have. And if the US of A don't like it - honey, we have the right to secede.
That's right. So, quit preaching hatred toward Texas.

Percy
 
Nascar_James
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Shiva

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Andygal

Quote:

What would happen if we look at it from a Human Rights point of view? If we legalized marriage for the gay community, we would then also be obligated to do the same for the polygamists. Otherwise we look like hypocrites in arguing for human rights. We in result would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.


Nobody is allowed to marry more then one person at a time, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for polygamy to be illegal.

Sorry Nascar, but your "slippery slope" arguement is based on false logic.

Well if my slipery slope is based on false logic, then so is yours. I can use the same argument you just did.

Nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, therefore it is not a violation of anybody's equality rights for SSM to be illegal.

SSM is illegal in 19 states here as defined within the constitution.

No, I don't think you've understood his point, Nascar. There is no right to polygamous marriage, it's illegal, and it is illegal for all people everywhere regardless of class, gender, or creed. People are being equally treated in this case, and no group is being granted a right not existing for others. In order for someone to challenge the law to have polygamous marriage in the way that gays and lesbians are for the right to marriage, there would have to be a group of people who are allowed polygamous marriage, and others who are not, and then someone who doesn't have this right could claim they should have the right to polygamous marriage because not having it goes against their equality rights. This is not the case, so opening marriage to gays and lesbians through the right to equality guaranteed in the constitution could not be used as a pretext to have polygamous marriages as well.

On the other hand, the constitution does guarantee equality rights, and marriage as an institution is granted to some people but not others. It's entirely legitimate to use the equality provision to end this unconstitutional process of discriminating against certain citizens, giving some citizens more rights than others. Even if nobody is allowed to marry a person of the same sex, people are guaranteed equality rights in the constitution, so the law against same sex marriage does exist but is a violation of their right to be treated equally as anyone else in the law.

Based on all this, your slippery slope argument is invalid. The way that marriage would be opened for gays and lesbians could not be used to create polygamous marriage. And same-sex marriage may currently be against the law, but that's becuase a majority of people are ignoring the rights of minorities and using their greater numbers to create unconstitutional laws to steal rights from others already guaranteed in the constitution.

You are wrong as well Shiva. Polygamy isn't illegal everywhere. The Netherlands have legalized it. You cannot play favorites to the gay community and leave the polygamists aside. They will come asking for the same rights.

Here's a link stating the legalization of polygamy in the Netherlands ...

Netherlands Legalizes Polygamy

Therefore my argument against Andygal was justified. She argued that SSM is different from polygamy because polygamy is illegal. Not so. In fact in some places the opposite is true. For instance here in Oklahoma SSM is illegal, but in the Netherlands Polygamy is legal.

So in summing up, my initial argument that in legalizing SSM here, we would eventually have to deal with the polygamists which in turn all this would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.
 
no1important
#17
Well with 50%+ divorce rate for first marriage, 70%+ for second marriage and 85% for 3rd marriage isn't marriage already cheapened?
 
Nascar_James
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Well with 50%+ divorce rate for first marriage, 70%+ for second marriage and 85% for 3rd marriage isn't marriage already cheapened?

I'm afraid i'll have to agree with you on that, no1. Divorce is indeed one of the drawbacks of marriage. For some reason, it has taken off the last 40 years. Our society is going downhill. I recall that in Ireland up till 6-7 years ago divorce was still illegal. There are still some countries around the globe that don't allow divorce ...

A could think of a couple of Island countries ... Malta (Europe) and the Philippines (Asia). Divorce is illegal in both countries.
 
no1important
#19
Quote:

For some reason, it has taken off the last 40 years

No kidding. I wonder if any studies have been done to find out why? Maybe people just give up to easy? Not try hard enough to make it work? I dunno.
 
Shiva
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

You are wrong as well Shiva. Polygamy isn't illegal everywhere. The Netherlands have legalized it. You cannot play favorites to the gay community and leave the polygamists aside. They will come asking for the same rights.

Here's a link stating the legalization of polygamy in the Netherlands ...

Netherlands Legalizes Polygamy

Therefore my argument against Andygal was justified. She argued that SSM is different from polygamy because polygamy is illegal. Not so. In fact in some places the opposite is true. For instance here in Oklahoma SSM is illegal, but in the Netherlands Polygamy is legal.

So in summing up, my initial argument that in legalizing SSM here, we would eventually have to deal with the polygamists which in turn all this would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.

Are we talking about the Netherlands, or are we talking about America? Because I don't recall talking about the Netherlands, nor did I say that polygamy was illegal everywhere. I was talking about America, and what I said was true for America. So in fact, I wasn't wrong, you're just changing the topic.

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

If you want to make a separate argument that changing the definition of marriage might lead to others asking for it to be changed as well for them, then that's fine. However, one cannot do that from a rights point of view. There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy. They would have to lobby Congress or their state legislature to try and get a law passed to change things because they couldn't do it in the courts on a rights basis. Since there are good non-religious arguments against polygamy, and since the number who would want polygamy are very few, it is unlikely to be the case that any such lobby would be effective, so I wouldn't be overly worried about it. And the reality is that if such a lobby exists they exist already today anyway, regardless of anything to do with homosexuals.
 
Shiva
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

Quote:

For some reason, it has taken off the last 40 years

No kidding. I wonder if any studies have been done to find out why? Maybe people just give up to easy? Not try hard enough to make it work? I dunno.

It probably has something to do with the fact that women are now economically independent and are not required to stay in a marriage they don't want in order to eat. They have higher standards for men and aren't willing to put up with making all the compromises anymore to keep the relationship going. Add to that a lesser taboo surrounding divorce itself, and bingo! There's a recipe for an increase in divorce.

Just because there weren't as many divorces before doesn't mean that there were many stable or happy marriages. It just means that people who hated each other had to live with each other whether they liked it or not. There was also the phenomenon where people would just one day walk out on each other and move far away to escape a spouse they couldn't stand because they had no other way of ending the relationship. This idea that divorce has led to a more unhappy society overlooks all the unhappiness and hardship that existed before.
 
Nascar_James
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Shiva

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

You are wrong as well Shiva. Polygamy isn't illegal everywhere. The Netherlands have legalized it. You cannot play favorites to the gay community and leave the polygamists aside. They will come asking for the same rights.

Here's a link stating the legalization of polygamy in the Netherlands ...

Netherlands Legalizes Polygamy

Therefore my argument against Andygal was justified. She argued that SSM is different from polygamy because polygamy is illegal. Not so. In fact in some places the opposite is true. For instance here in Oklahoma SSM is illegal, but in the Netherlands Polygamy is legal.

So in summing up, my initial argument that in legalizing SSM here, we would eventually have to deal with the polygamists which in turn all this would wind up marginalizing marriage as some cheap second class institution.

Are we talking about the Netherlands, or are we talking about America? Because I don't recall talking about the Netherlands, nor did I say that polygamy was illegal everywhere. I was talking about America, and what I said was true for America. So in fact, I wasn't wrong, you're just changing the topic.

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

If you want to make a separate argument that changing the definition of marriage might lead to others asking for it to be changed as well for them, then that's fine. However, one cannot do that from a rights point of view. There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy. They would have to lobby Congress or their state legislature to try and get a law passed to change things because they couldn't do it in the courts on a rights basis. Since there are good non-religious arguments against polygamy, and since the number who would want polygamy are very few, it is unlikely to be the case that any such lobby would be effective, so I wouldn't be overly worried about it. And the reality is that if such a lobby exists they exist already today anyway, regardless of anything to do with homosexuals.

All right Shiva, I'll say it slowly ... Same Sex Marriage is illegal in 19 states in the US. Just as Polygamy is illegal in all states. What difference does it make if it's illegal in one state, or several, the fact of the matter remains that in many states (including mine) SSM like polygamy remains illegal as defined within our constitution.

So now ... why is there a difference between legalizing SSM versus polygamy?

We do not play favorites with one community otherwise we will be seen as hypocrites.
 
Nascar_James
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Shiva

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy.

The constitution in 19 states says that SSM is illegal, Shiva. So how do you demonstrate that that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy?
 
no1important
#24
In all seriousness Nascar, how would same sex marriage affect yours or your neighbours everyday life?

Inter racial marriages were illegal in America at one time and America did not collapse. Canada, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium it is legal and those countries have not gone all to hell.

Same sex marriage was passed by the House in California but the bigot governor veteo'd it. Maybe the new Democrat governor next year will not veto it if the house passes it again.

Britain is legalizing "Civil Partnerships" for Dec 21,2005. It is basically the same thing as marriage.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is an Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 2004. It was announced in the Queen's Speech at the start of the 2003/2004 legislative session, and its full text was revealed on March 31, 2004. It received royal assent on November 18, 2004, and will come into force on 5 December 2005, allowing the first couples to form their civil partnerships on 21 December 2005. (some couples will be allowed to have their ceremonies on 20 December in Scotland) The act will come into force in Northern Ireland on 20 December. The act is the first statutory instrument in the United Kingdom to grant legal status to gay and lesbian couples.

Link
 
Shiva
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

All right Shiva, I'll say it slowly ... Same Sex Marriage is illegal in 19 states in the US. Just as Polygamy is illegal in all states. What difference does it make if it's illegal in one state, or several, the fact of the matter remains that in many states (including mine) SSM like polygamy remains illegal as defined within our constitution.

So now ... why is there a difference between legalizing SSM versus polygamy?

We do not play favorites with one community otherwise we will be seen as hypocrites.

But you are playing favourites, Nascar, because you're saying that heterosexuals can have more rights than homosexuals. You're saying it's okay for one community to have more rights than another, and you've enshrined it in law. The only reason you changed your constitution was because it would have been constitutional for same sex marriage in the original constitution. You had to add an article changing the spirit of your constitution to ensure that equal rights would not have been granted to the homosexual community. That is why you are seen as hypocrites (a hypocrite is someone who has one set of rules for himself, and another set of rules for others, and you have literally institutionalized one set of rules for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals!).

You don't seem to grasp the equality rights argument, which is why you confuse the issue of homosexual fighting for marriage and polygamists wanting polygamous marriage.

All people are granted equal rights. What I can do, you can do. So if the law says that I can marry, you can marry, too. You get to have that same right as I do. So if heterosexuals can marry, homosexuals should have that right, too (and that is what your constitution would have guaranteed, which is why you had to change it...the current law on marriage was unconstitutional until you rewrote the rules). On the other hand, polygamy is illegal for all people everywhere. So there is no constitutional basis to argue for polygamous marriage because everyone is being treated equally. Same sex marriage would not have paved the way for polygamy.
 
Shiva
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote: Originally Posted by Shiva

Originally you were saying that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America might be used by people who want to legalise polygamy. I demonstrated how that is not possible.

There is no right in the constitution that allows polygamy.

The constitution in 19 states says that SSM is illegal, Shiva. So how do you demonstrate that that the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy?

You've changed your post so I'll reply to your new post.

You added a new amendment to your constitution in 19 states to avoid a legitimate interpretation of your constitution. You had to change your constitution to prevent same-sex marriage, because the current definition of marriage would have been struck down as unconstitutional if you didn't add this new amendment.

Even though that is the case, you still cannot argue for polygamous marriage on the basis of equality rights (which has been done for same sex marriage).

The idea of equality rights is that the same right is extended to all people. Currently, heterosexuals have the right to marriage, but homosexuals do not. So homosexuals can argue from an equality rights position that they have been discriminated against, and then the marriage laws can be declared unconstitutional (and then the marriage laws would have to be rewritten to allow for homosexuals to marry).

However, since nobody has the right to polygamous marriage, you cannot argue that anyone's equality rights have been violated. All people have equally been banned from polygamous marriage.

Therefore, the equality rights provision being used by gays & lesbians in America could not be used by people who want to legalise polygamy, because homosexuals are being denied a right given to others, whereas people who want polygamy are not being denied a right given to others because polygamy is illegal for all people.
 
Nascar_James
#27
The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.
 
Shiva
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.

Okay, that's a different argument from before, and that's where I thought you were ultimately going with things. I genuinely understand your concerns on this point, and I am equally against polygamy as you are.

Polygamous relationships are not equal relationships. Usually when women are involved in them, it involves them being in a subservient position, servicing her husband (even polyandrous relationships where there is one woman to several men involves her essentially servicing her husbands). If you look at societies where polygamy occurs, it's usually the case that it's allowed 'if the man can afford to take care of more than one wife'. This linkage of women to money, where they are seen as a thing that is afforded by a man, is akin to making them property that a man buys if he can afford it. That's morally wrong.

All I'm saying on this matter, is that you cannot get polygamy in the same manner as homosexuals are trying to get marriage. Polygamists would have to lobby for the existing laws to be changed, whereas homosexuals are essentially asking that existing institutions are open freely to all people. Especially in the U.S., this could be more of an issue than say here in Canada. I do think that you could probably get around this problem, but I do understand your fear on the matter.
 
Nascar_James
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Shiva

Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

The problem Shiva is that if we were to allow SSM, the Polygamist community will surely come knocking on the door, just as they did in the Netherlands. They would ask the government to legalize Polygamy through the Constitution.

Especially here in the US, where we have a very strong Polygamist community in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah. Currently, they are left alone as they have a right to their "Freedom of Religion".

A branch of the Mormon religion, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is America's largest polygamist group.

Okay, that's a different argument from before, and that's where I thought you were ultimately going with things. I genuinely understand your concerns on this point, and I am equally against polygamy as you are.

Polygamous relationships are not equal relationships. Usually when women are involved in them, it involves them being in a subservient position, servicing her husband (even polyandrous relationships where there is one woman to several men involves her essentially servicing her husbands). If you look at societies where polygamy occurs, it's usually the case that it's allowed 'if the man can afford to take care of more than one wife'. This linkage of women to money, where they are seen as a thing that is afforded by a man, is akin to making them property that a man buys if he can afford it. That's morally wrong.

All I'm saying on this matter, is that you cannot get polygamy in the same manner as homosexuals are trying to get marriage. Polygamists would have to lobby for the existing laws to be changed, whereas homosexuals are essentially asking that existing institutions are open freely to all people. Especially in the U.S., this could be more of an issue than say here in Canada. I do think that you could probably get around this problem, but I do understand your fear on the matter.

The real issue hear Shiva is that slowly, we keep marginalizing the institution of marriage. I personally would like to keep the traditional definition, no exceptions. So far 19 states have amended the constitution to do just that after consultation with the people of course. So this wasn't done unilaterally. It appears that many here share my views against having a cheapened definition of marriage. The people have democratically spoken.
 
Shiva
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

The real issue hear Shiva is that slowly, we keep marginalizing the institution of marriage. I personally would like to keep the traditional definition, no exceptions. So far 19 states have amended the constitution to do just that after consultation with the people of course. So this wasn't done unilaterally. It appears that many here share my views against having a cheapened definition of marriage. The people have democratically spoken.

It is not a democracy if you trample on the rights of minorities.

Constitutions exist in the first place in order to prevent those without power being abused by those with power. That's what the whole separation of powers in your constitution is all about.

What you've done is used the majority to take away rights that would have been legitimately given to homosexuals by adding a new clause to your constitution. That is not democratic.

Your marriage would not have changed at all by allowing homosexuals to marry. And if it would have, you don't have much of a marriage to begin with. That you would refer to the relationships of homosexuals being recognised by the law as marriage as a 'cheapening' of the traditional marriage definition only demonstrates how you look down on and hate homosexuals.
 

Similar Threads

10
17