Skip to main content

View Diary: US Supreme Court to DC Bigots: "NO!" w/ Updates (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Damn, there goes the institution of marriage (6+ / 0-)

    Now every man, woman and child can marry their tennis shoes.

    /snark

    P.S. Thank you to the justices who did right here. Enough of this crazy bigotry.

    "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

    by kovie on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 01:44:28 PM PST

    •  Bzzzzt. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, Predictor, Clarknt67

      Either tennis shoe.  But not both.

      •  Bigot (6+ / 0-)

        Now you're against polygamy TOO? Outrageous! If I want to marry BOTH of my tennis shoes, you can't stop me! (Just don't tell them, as I want to keep it a secret from each other lest they get jealous and run off with my hiking boots.)

        "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

        by kovie on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 01:52:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cdreid, kovie, Predictor, Clarknt67, cooper888

          that God has ordained that matrimony between me and my tennis shoe is sacred.  No additional tennis shoe can be allowed to do damage to this sacred relationship and if any shoe or other article of clothing tries to do it

          I'll put 30 rounds into it with my Glock

        •  You know, there really is an issue there... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar

          What is the State's basis for denying more than two people the right to enter into whatever family arrangement they choose, or for treating such arrangements differently under law, assuming that all are adults and there's no coercion involved?

          I say this as someone who doesn't see an intrinsic problem with either homosexual or polyamorous marriages as a matter of law, even though I have no desire to enter into such arrangements myself.

          But you probably wouldn't want to put me on the stand...

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 02:53:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's extremely easy for our society to deal (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clarknt67, cooper888, Steve84

            with same-sex marriage (despite NOM claims to the contrary) in a legal sense.  There's pretty much nothing that distinguishes two men or two women from being married vs. two people of the opposite sex in the eyes of laws and regulations.  Inheritance? No problem.  Social security benefits? No problem. Responsibilities for kids? No problem.  Life and death decisions about your spouse? No problem.

            But when you introduce polygamy, suddenly you have to redefine all the rules.  Which spouse gets to make life and death decisions?  What if there are two spouses and they disagree?  Three and they are not unanimous?

            Is each spouse entitled to full Social Security benefits?  If not, why not?  Half? Amount/N, where N is the number of spouses?  

            Are kids everyone's responsibility or just the responsibility of the woman who had the child?

            And on and on and on.

            So polygamy is, in my view, a very, very different issue and there is really no reason to equate the two.

            this comment first posted by me here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

            •  Different in current law, yes... (0+ / 0-)

              but the existence of multiple-party contracts in other areas of law says that such issues are not insoluble.

              And, if our basic law were to be changed to accommodate pluralistic families, there would be no reason to assume that any such difficulties couldn't be solved.

              I agree that it is both a more complicated issue than same-gendered, two-party marriages and a somewhat separate issue. I say "somewhat" because the fundamental issues of self-determination and the role of the State, if any, are the same, but the practical issues are quite different and it's an irrelevancy when it comes to the specifics of gay marriage.

              Still, there isn't anything there that commercial lawyers haven't been dealing with for centuries. It's the so-called "moral issues" that cloud the landscape.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 03:53:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Clarknt67

              Agreed. From a purely moral point of view, I have no problem with polyamory. If people want to have such families fine. But legally it's a nightmare.

              Another problem is that such relationships are usually polygamous, i.e. one man, many women. With the women having few(er) rights. You can find some cultures that had polyandry (one woman, several husbands) historically, but it's very rare.
              Ideally all parties would be on relatively equal footing, but it's debatable whether that's really possible given typical relationship dynamics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site