It's official: Obama backs same-sex marriage.

[_Darth J]

Why is this an argument that gay marriage should be legal and not an argument that polygamy should be legal? How does this reasoning apply any less to polygamy than it does to gay marriage?

Because there is a rational basis for limiting the number of partners who can participate in a marriage. But since marriage in actual, real-life law (not Garden of Eden Sunday school stories) is nothing more or less than a domestic partnership, there is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I find it baffling that a secular government can accept taxes from all of its citizenry, but somehow exercise objective discrimination deny equal rights to all. It doesn't make any sense.

Marriage is simply a contract that's legally recognized by a government. That's it, and that's why you can't simply declare yourself unmarried when it suits you. The other partner is entitled, by law, to certain rights. Those rights should be extended to everyone who recognizes being governed by our government, and seek protection/rights under a recognized contract. That's why marriage through a secular government to animals, or children, is a fallacy because neither of those two have the ability to enter into a legal contract.

If Mormons, Muslims, or Christians want their religious institution to recognize their marriages then they ought to seek it through their religious institutions, but leave the secular government out of the question other than to guarantee contractual rights by a governed people.

Jesus.

- VRDRC

[_KevinSim]

Because there is a rational basis for limiting the number of partners who can participate in a marriage. But since marriage in actual, real-life law (not Garden of Eden Sunday school stories) is nothing more or less than a domestic partnership, there is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

What is the "rational basis for limiting the number of partners who can participate in a marriage" to just two, as opposed to my suggestion, which was two or three?

[_Darth J]

Because there is a rational basis for limiting the number of partners who can participate in a marriage. But since marriage in actual, real-life law (not Garden of Eden Sunday school stories) is nothing more or less than a domestic partnership, there is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

What is the "rational basis for limiting the number of partners who can participate in a marriage" to just two, as opposed to my suggestion, which was two or three?

There are rights and duties that come with a marital relationship. The more partners that are involved, the more those rights and duties become diluted--tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance benefits, etc. These rights and duties often involve third parties. For example, a husband and wife are jointly liable for marital debts, even if that debt is nominally incurred by just one spouse (the issue is the purpose for which the debt was incurred). It is rational for the State to say that there should be a limit to how many partners can participate in the domestic partnership called "marriage."

A similar rational basis does not exist to preclude same-sex couples from getting married. There is nothing about the rights or duties of marriage as they actually exist in law that require the partners to be of the opposite sex.

[_KevinSim]

There are rights and duties that come with a marital relationship. The more partners that are involved, the more those rights and duties become diluted--tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance benefits, etc. These rights and duties often involve third parties. For example, a husband and wife are jointly liable for marital debts, even if that debt is nominally incurred by just one spouse (the issue is the purpose for which the debt was incurred).

This example is an argument for raising the limit to three, not for keeping it at two. One spouse incurs a debt and then dies, leaving the other with a double whammy; not only does the survivor have to deal with her/his grief at the loss of the other spouse; the survivor also has to deal with the terms of the debt.

In this case the dilution you refer to is a good thing; instead of the survivor having to deal with the loss, and the debt, alone, s/he has someone else who can both bear her/his share of the burden, but can also act as someone the survivor can talk to at this time of loss. Who would the survivor need more at this time, but a shoulder to cry on? And vice versa?

It is rational for the State to say that there should be a limit to how many partners can participate in the domestic partnership called "marriage."

I have no problem with "the State" imposing a limit; I just want to know why it makes more sense to make that limit two than it does to make that limit three.

[_Darth J]

There are rights and duties that come with a marital relationship. The more partners that are involved, the more those rights and duties become diluted--tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance benefits, etc. These rights and duties often involve third parties. For example, a husband and wife are jointly liable for marital debts, even if that debt is nominally incurred by just one spouse (the issue is the purpose for which the debt was incurred).

This example is an argument for raising the limit to three, not for keeping it at two. One spouse incurs a debt and then dies, leaving the other with a double whammy; not only does the survivor have to deal with her/his grief at the loss of the other spouse; the survivor also has to deal with the terms of the debt.

In this case the dilution you refer to is a good thing; instead of the survivor having to deal with the loss, and the debt, alone, s/he has someone else who can both bear her/his share of the burden, but can also act as someone the survivor can talk to at this time of loss. Who would the survivor need more at this time, but a shoulder to cry on? And vice versa?

This is another combination of non sequitur and mistaken assumptions. If a debt is a marital debt, then the spouses are jointly and severably liable. The marital debt was the surviving spouse's debt already; the death of the other spouse does not change that. If it is a separate, individual debt that was not incurred to benefit both partners of the marriage, then the surviving spouse is not liable for the deceased spouse's debt. The estate of the deceased spouse is liable for that debt. Adding any number of partners to a marriage will not change that.

And managing a deceased person's financial affairs is just part of what happens when someone dies. It's not an especially compelling reason to say that three people should be able to enter a legally-sanctioned domestic partnership, with all the rights and duties that involve third parties, just so the surviving two can comfort each other when one member of the partnership dies.

Who would the survivor need more at this time, but a shoulder to cry on? And vice versa?

Yes, I'm sure the shoulder would appreciate a survivor to cry on.

It is rational for the State to say that there should be a limit to how many partners can participate in the domestic partnership called "marriage."

I have no problem with "the State" imposing a limit; I just want to know why it makes more sense to make that limit two than it does to make that limit three.

That's curious, because it looks exactly like you're engaging in a non sequitur argument to second guess the rational basis test in 14th Amendment jurisprudence so you can claim that homosexuals are being favored over Mormons.

I have an idea that might help you flesh out your "same-sex marriage, therefore polygamy" thesis, though. How would you propose dividing the martial estate in the case of a one spouse in a polygamous divorcing the others in a way that would not screw the remaining spouses? Please specify whether you are talking about a community property or an equitable distribution jurisdiction.

[_Darth J]

It is rational for the State to say that there should be a limit to how many partners can participate in the domestic partnership called "marriage."

I have no problem with "the State" imposing a limit; I just want to know why it makes more sense to make that limit two than it does to make that limit three.

That's a misplaced use of scare quotes. In law, the government (in the general sense) is frequently referred to as the State.