Romney: Marriage is between one man and one woman

[_Darth J]

Is it really that hard to understand? The LDS Church was nearly legislated out of existence for its efforts to legitimize its own alternate sexual lifestyle, that church had to choose between extinction and embracing the Victorian value system, Woodruff led it on the road to barely surviving by embracing that value system, and now we Latter-day Saints are supposed to rejoice because another group of violators of that value system are on the verge of getting their lifestyle legitimized?

If we should follow the Victorian value system, then let's follow it. But if by legalizing gay marriage we're abandoning the Victorian value system, then let the United States government admit it was wrong to try to force that value system down the Mormons' throats back in the late 1800s.

You are confusing several different issues.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is law.

Marriage is a legal relationship. Therefore, the 14th Amendment is applicable to determining what persons have the right to marry.

Victorian social customs are not law. They are not relevant to the issue of whether gay people are entitled to equal protection of law. The constitutional basis for recognizing same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do polygamy. If it were framed as a constitutional issue, the basis would be either free exercise under the First Amendment (as was unsuccessfully argued in Reynolds v. United States) or freedom of intimate association. Those are very different legally questions.

You are also confusing legally recognizing polygamy with decriminalizing polygamy. If you just want to live with any number of people and believe that you are spiritually "sealed" to them, but you don't purport to be married, nobody can stop you. You're not breaking any law. If you purport to be married to one person, though, then you are practicing polygamy, which is a crime. Decriminalizing polygamy would simply mean that you can live with whoever many people you want, but only one person is going to be legally recognized as your spouse. Legal recognition of polygamy would mean that every person you marry has the legal status of being your spouse.

And none of the above paragraph is relevant to same-sex marriage between two people.

[_Darth J]

No, nobody has to resort to huge numbers to explain the difference between arbitrary discrimination against a classification of persons and rationally-based discrimination based on numbers---a distinction that you simultaneously do and do not understand.

Darth J, what is the rationale for discriminating against polygamous triples?

I already explained that. I'm not going to do it again. You are welcome to re-read this thread to your heart's content.

You're also acting as if Lord Mansfield's Rule has any real significance anymore. Genetic testing has made that rule obsolete, so you're hand-wringing about birth certificates is meaningless.

[_Darth J]

Also, you guys, a birth certificate is not determinative of paternity. Leaving the father's name off a birth certificate, or putting someone else's name on there, has no effect on the duty to support the child or a father's parental rights to that child. A birth certificate is only useful for identification. It does not create or take away any substantive legal rights.

EDIT: I made some edits.

[_moksha]

Romney spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University today, and said:

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 11621.html

Whether or not the LDS church currently practices plural marriage, they still believe in it. Is he lyin' for the Lord, or is he Mormon in Name Only?

Romney's personal views on polygamy are irrelevant. He is trying to strengthen the political bond between himself and Evangelical voters over their shared dislike of Homosexuals. After all, it is not like he can comfortably talk about the joys of stripping the financial assets of American businesses, through leveraged buyouts, at the cost of putting Americans out of work. Nor can he talk about religion without getting the crowd riled. Best to stick with commonalities.

[_Drifting]

If marriage is between one man and one woman how is Brigham Young to decide which one of his wives is the right one?

[_Shulem]

Sheesh! I came out and clearly said that if a law was proposed that would make it legal for a group of two or three people of any gender combination, to marry, I would support that law. How much clearer do I have to get? A woman and two men is a gender combination; I said I would support that law; therefore I support allowing a woman to marry two men. Fair is fair. Paul, why are you having so much trouble grasping this concept?

OK, I respect your point of view but I feel the legal sytstem has to rule on the finer matters of law which I'm not one to grasp very well. I'm certainly not a sociologist so I can't tell you the ins and outs of sociology. Granted I took sociology 101 in college but that's just an introduction to the topic.

To be clear, I don't have a moral issue with polygamy one way or the other. If three people want to have a great time in bed together I'm all for it! Rock on baby and have great sex . . . .

Bottom line: I fear there could be real social problems with the numbers by introducing polygamy into society and over the course of generations it could upset the natural order of things. I can't prove it. It's just a hunch. Let the legal system and the professionals figure it out and make their determinations based on what's best for a safe and secure society where all people can have a good life and an opportunity to meet people and have relationships under the protection of law.

There. I hope that helps.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

If marriage is between one man and one woman how is Brigham Young to decide which one of his wives is the right one?

The Mormon church has thrown Brigham Young under the bus. If Brigham were alive today he would want absolutely nothing to do with the present day LDS church. It isn't the same church at all that Brigham had. The LDS church has mutated into so many states of apostasy that not even Joseph Smith could make heads or tails of it. LDS prophets today are nothing more than a committee trying to run a church business. The prophets of the past would find the prophets today to be little more than apostates who have taken over the family church business.

Paul O

[_KevinSim]

Are you ok with legalizing gay marriage?

Not by itself. I think it would be unfair for the government to make gay marriage legal while leaving polygamy illegal. But, as I said before, if Congress were to consider a law that would make it legal for two or three people of any gender combination to get married, I would support that law. So yes, I am okay with legalizing gay marriage, as long as the same law legalizes polygamy among three people.

[_KevinSim]

I already explained that.

No you didn't. All you did was make an irrelevant comment about allowing 10,000 blacks into a theater to small to hold them. I'm not talking about making it legal for a man to marry 10,000 wives! You never said why it should be illegal for a group of three people to get married. Why shouldn't it be legal for a group of three to get married?

[_KevinSim]

Bottom line: I fear there could be real social problems with the numbers by introducing polygamy into society and over the course of generations it could upset the natural order of things. I can't prove it. It's just a hunch. Let the legal system and the professionals figure it out and make their determinations based on what's best for a safe and secure society where all people can have a good life and an opportunity to meet people and have relationships under the protection of law.

Paul, are you listening to what you're saying? Have you really read what you just posted here? These are precisely the reasons why people oppose gay marriage! People don't want to allow gays and lesbians to marry because they fear there could be real social problems by introducing gay marriage into society. People oppose gay marriage because they think "over the course of generations it could upset the natural order of things." They can't prove legalizing gay marriage would cause those problems; once again it's just "a hunch."

So the real bottom line is that you're as prejudiced against polygamists as the typical Mormon is prejudiced against gays and lesbians. Is that really what you want to be, or are you willing to open your mind about who should be allowed to marry?

Kevin S