McClellan - same sex marriage

[_Darth J]

I have no problem with black people being able to vote, as long as the speed limit on state roads is 85 miles an hour.

[_Darth J]

Spouses are not posessions like the pieces of licorice are. Spouses are not rewards to be given to someone for a job well done.

You have a lot to learn about "traditional marriage," KevinSim.

Riddle me this: why, at common law, could a wife not sue her husband in tort? Why was it held that it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife? Why were divorces on the grounds of cruelty denied, on the basis that a husband has a right to discipline his wife with a buggy whip? Why did we have legal maxims like, "A husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband"?

[_KevinSim]

So, as I see it, if polygamous families are no longer subject to any prosecution in Utah, and these type of unions are acceptable under the law, does that mean that the prevailing reason for the manifesto (the illegality of polygamy) suspending polygamy would be subject to review?

Possibly, but I really doubt the LDS Church would decide to return to polygamy. Perhaps the Church would come out and state that the time for polygamy has passed.

[_KevinSim]

That is because (1) it might require a revelation, and the Bretheren don't have the guts to claim they have had revelations anymore;

I think that's simply not true. When Gordon Hinckley talked about how the construction of the new smaller temples got started, he didn't specifically say that God had revealed it to him, but it was implied. There are even enough Latter-day Saints (myself included) who considered Thomas Monson's decision to lower the age a young man or woman can serve a mission, as a bona fide revelation.

[_Blixa]

... It takes an exceptional woman to realize that her marraige shouldn't be based on selfishness....

What is this I don't even.

[_KevinSim]

I am in favor of a law that would legalize gay marriages at the same time as it legalizes polygamous marriages.

Okay. Make the equal protection argument for polygamy.

It's not the argument for legalizing gay marriage that depends on the argument for legalizing polygamy; it's the argument against legalizing polygamy that depends on the argument against legalizing gay marriage.

[_KevinSim]

Do you know what I deeply feel as hypocritical? The Mormons on the one hand were the first ones in the USA with an "alternative lifestyle" (polygamy); but however on the other hand they condemn homosexuality.

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. After all, Mormons were dragged kicking and screaming away from their alternate sexual lifestyle, and had the Victorian value system shoved down their throats, and now people expect them to rejoice because another alternate sexual lifestyle condemned at least by Victorian ethics as polygamy was, is about to be embraced by the nation as a whole? That seems incredibly unreasonable. If I had lived through the early period of the Church, and was discovering toward the end of my life that gay marriage was now legal in a half a dozen states, my reaction would be, "Then what was wrong with what we did? Why in the world did the United States persecute us nearly out of existence for what we did?!"

[_KevinSim]

KevinSim:

PLEEZE LURN 2 REEDE.

You keep repeating the same non sequiturs because you are not addressing the actual issue.

Okay; I'll grant that the constitutional bases for legalizing gay marriage and polygamy may very well be the 14th Amendment on equal protection and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, two admittedly different sections. Now what are the arguments against legalizing these two? (That's what I said, "what objection can you raise to legalizing" one that "you couldn't use to object to" the other?) The argument against gay marriage is that it makes gay sex just as legitimate as straight sex, something the Hebrew and Christian scriptures strongly forbid. And the argument against legalizing polygamy is that it violates Victorian ethics. Victorian ethics are based on the Bible, so if you legalize gay marriage and therefore throw out the Christian Bible, how can you use Victorian ethics to condemn polygamy? And, by the way gay and lesbian sex violates Victorian ethics too.

Or can you think of any other reason to reject legalizing marriages of polygamous triples, besides appealing to Victorian ethics?

No. Wrong. Completely wrong. You are conflating policy arguments with constitutional rights. The First and the Fourteenth Amendment are not just "two different sections." They are two different areas of law with different jurisprudence.

Back at ya, Darth J. Please learn 2 read yourself. I never drew any kind of equivalence whatsoever between the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. I suggest you go back over what I posted and actually read it.

[Guest]

I have no problem with black people being able to vote, as long as the speed limit on state roads is 85 miles an hour.

Wow KevinSim, everything you say is so true! I agree with you one hundred percent. I think everybody on this forum should be in favor of his law letting two or three adults of any gender combination get legally married. Don't worry about me opposing you any more, because now I see the light.

[_KevinSim]

Spouses are not posessions like the pieces of licorice are. Spouses are not rewards to be given to someone for a job well done.

You have a lot to learn about "traditional marriage," KevinSim.

Riddle me this: why, at common law, could a wife not sue her husband in tort? Why was it held that it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife? Why were divorces on the grounds of cruelty denied, on the basis that a husband has a right to discipline his wife with a buggy whip? Why did we have legal maxims like, "A husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband"?

Darth J, all your statements are in the past tense, and my two statements are in the present tense. Are you saying that even now it's "legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife," that even now "a husband has a right to discipline his wife with a buggy whip," etc.? You might be right; those things might even today reflect the legal system with regards to marriage; but if they do, they most definitely should not. Can we agree on that much?