McClellan - same sex marriage

[_Brackite]

I see that Daniel O. McClellan, sometimes called maklelan, says on his blog that he is not opposed to gay marriages. Is this a trend in the Mormon Church?

Yes, it is.

Jon Huntsman Comes Out...

[_KevinSim]

Yes, it is.

Jon Huntsman Comes Out...

And Huntsman was my candidate, from the day he announced his run for the presidency until he dropped out of the race. So when Huntsman announced he favored gay marriage it gave me a jolt. I still think, as my exchange with Bazooka illustrated, that if gay marriage is legal there's no real reason to keep polygamy illegal. But, unlike some, I don't think it would be a major catastrophe if gay marriage were legalized.

[_3sheets2thewind]

Perhaps I am late to this, but in the Prop 8 trial polygamy was stated to be within the preview of traditional marriage - this was from the group trying to uphold prop 8 and the same group deemed same sex marriage as something the State should reject.

[_Darth J]

Darth J, telling me over and over again that polygamy "is a recipe for oppression, and a foot in the door for the patriarchal principle" does not answer my question, does not explain why polygamy of necessity is a recipe for oppression, or why polygamy of necessity leads to the patriarchal principle.

I will remind you yet again the statements were about real polygamy people were really doing in real life, not your hypothetical thought experiment about a legally-sanctioned menage-a-trois.

The reason we are talking about Reynolds v. United States is because of your non sequitur that gay people should have an equal protection right to marriage as soon as some state legislature enacts three-way polygamous marriages, and because of your obliviousness as to why this is a non sequitur

Why does Reynolds v. United States have anything to do with whether or not my connection between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamy is a non sequitur? I'm not advocating the form of polygyny mentioned in Reynolds; I've been very clear about what forms of polygamy my law would legalize.

Right, right. The conclusion totally follows from the premise. I forgot. Anyway, tell me about your substantive due process and/or equal protection basis for legally recognizing three-way marriage.

You are talking about a political question, in which you think it would be a good idea to change existing marriage law. Proponents of same-sex marriage in Hollingsworth v. Perry are not asking for a change in substantive marriage law. They are asking for the same substantive rights as everyone else. That is a legal question---how the Constitution applies. It is not a political question.

Okay, and what I'm saying is that if legislation is drawn up that answers the political question the way I want at the same time that it answers the legal question the way you want, then I will support that legislation.

And that's not the issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry. What you just said, and continue to say, is that gay people get the constitutional right to equal protection of law only if legislature decides to increase the number of people in a marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

There already is such a thing as two-person marriage. Proponents of gay marriage are arguing that there is no rational basis to deny them the same rights that already exist for everyone else. You are saying that gay people should not get the same rights that already exist for everyone else unless we invent a new statutory right that nobody has yet. This reasoning is not different in any way from, "black people can vote as soon as the speed limit is 95 MPH."

Why am I saying you are illustrating it as taking two women to equal one man? Because your illustration was two women and one man.

This is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Yes, my illustration is indeed "two women and one man." How in the world do you go from a group of two women and one man to the need to divide them on gender boundaries?

Hey, you are the one picking your illustrations.

That is still totally irrelevant to the current issues that actually exist in the real world regarding monogamous same-sex marriage.

You asked a question; I assumed you wanted an answer.

Perhaps it was unclear that people are generally looking for an answer that has some tangential relationship to the real world in these kinds of things.

Will this legal scheme you have thought through so well make it so the three-way marriage is voidable for failure to consummate, Kevin?

Any member of the triple can leave the marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. The three-way marriage then becomes a two-way marriage, between the two remaining spouses.

No, wait. Wife 1 divorces Husband but stays married to Wife 2, who is still married to Husband as well. What happens if they want to do that?

And how do you intend to equalize the parties' standard of living when you award alimony in this? How do you equalize the standard of living so that one divorced person is equal to two still-married people?

And what if the divorcing spouse has been dependent on the other two? Do the two remaining spouses both have to pay alimony to the one who leaves?

How do you plan to divide up whatever retirement has vested for any of them?

Okay, so your comment about monogamy also having inherent problems was essentially a trivial observation that adds nothing to your unsupported assertion that there is some logical relationship between an equal protection right to same-sex marriage and a hypothetical statute allowing three-way marriages.

There's nothing trivial about it at all. At issue is whether a household led by three adults is more complicated than a household led by two adults. I concede that it would pretty much have to be. Then I pointed out that a household led by two adults is similarly of necessity more complicated than a household led by one adult. None of the three are equivalent to either of the other two. A polygamously led household is more complicated than a monogamously led household, which is more complicated than a single-parent led household. My point is that complexity in the relationship of those that lead a household is not the only concern in whether that relationship should be granted legal sanction; if it was, then the monogamously led household would be illegal and all we would have would be single-parent households.

Who is being "led" here? If two people get married and have no children, which they are not required to, then you don't have a household "led" by two adults. The household consists entirely of two adults.

Your fallacy here is trying to compare the "complexity" of being by yourself to the "complexity" of an interpersonal relationship. There is no relationship with a single person. It's just you. There is no interpersonal relationship to deal with. The complexity is the relationship itself, so there is no "complexity" to compare between a single person and a couple. And it doesn't matter if complexity is the only reason why a state might choose not to recognize three-way marriage. If it is a sufficient reason, you can stop. You don't need to explore anymore. And you're jumping right back into that continuum fallacy by suggesting that the complexity of a legally-sanctioned domestic partnership between two people is not substantially less than the complexity of a three-way one.

[_KevinSim]

I will remind you yet again the statements were about real polygamy people were really doing in real life, not your hypothetical thought experiment about a legally-sanctioned menage-a-trois.

Are you saying that all you have is the observation that in the past actual polygamous societies have been oppressive, and have led to "the patriarchal principle," and that you therefore don't know that there's something inherent to polygamy that results in oppression or leads to the patriarchal principle?

Right, right. The conclusion totally follows from the premise. I forgot. Anyway, tell me about your substantive due process and/or equal protection basis for legally recognizing three-way marriage.

What does "substantive due process and/or equal protection" have to do with whether three adults should be allowed to marry?

And that's not the issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry. What you just said, and continue to say, is that gay people get the constitutional right to equal protection of law only if legislature decides to increase the number of people in a marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

There already is such a thing as two-person marriage. Proponents of gay marriage are arguing that there is no rational basis to deny them the same rights that already exist for everyone else. You are saying that gay people should not get the same rights that already exist for everyone else unless we invent a new statutory right that nobody has yet. This reasoning is not different in any way from, "black people can vote as soon as the speed limit is 95 MPH."

I have already explained the connection between legalizing marriages of gay couples and legalizing marriages of polygamous triples. Have you even attempted to explain the connection between black people voting and raising the speed limit to 95 mph?

I explained this to Bazooka, and he understood it. Did you miss that? I asked Bazooka what the reason was why women reject polygamy, if they don't do it out of selfisness. He replied:

Kevin,

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer your question (I'm not a woman! Nor have I had occasion to reject polygamy) however I can offer some suggestions as to why they might reject polygamy.

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe polygamy to be a perversion
3. It's against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children
5. They are frightened of it becoming dysfunctional in an abusive way (as has been seen to happen on occasion)

Shortly afterwards he posted:

Kevin, yes, I think you have consistently stated that as your position.
However I always fail to see how you connect marriage between multiple partners with marriage between two partners, even when they are the same sex.

My reply was:

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer your question (I'm not a woman! Nor have I had occasion to reject polygamy) however I can offer some suggestions as to why they might reject polygamy.

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe polygamy to be a perversion
3. It's against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children
5. They are frightened of it becoming dysfunctional in an abusive way (as has been seen to happen on occasion)

I'm sure there are others.

Bazooka, thank you for this list. I will admit this list has nothing to do with selfishness.

Kevin, yes, I think you have consistently stated that as your position.
However I always fail to see how you connect marriage between multiple partners with marriage between two partners, even when they are the same sex.

Many people oppose legalizing gay marriage because

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe gay marriage to be a perversion
3. In most states gay marriage is against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children

There is the connection between "marriage between multiple partners" and "marriage between two partners, even when they are the same sex." People oppose legalizing gay marriage for almost the same reasons they oppose legalizing polygamy. So how can you say gay marriage should be legal and at the same time say polygamy should not be legal, at least for adult triples as I've said?

I don't know whether or not gay marriage opponents "are frightened of it becoming dysfunctional in an abusive way"; perhaps that applies too.

You seem to be overly obsessed with the reasons provided for legalizing gay marriage, and legalizing polygamy, "due process and/or equal protection" and stuff like that. The connection is not between the reasons provided for these two items; it is between the reasons provided against, as illustrated in the exchange above. Bazooka understood my reasoning; why are you having so much trouble understanding it?

Hey, you are the one picking your illustrations.

Yes, I'm the one picking my illustrations, and you're the one that has been saying that my illustration implies that one man equals two women. In particular, my illustration was Alice and Brian and Cathy, which you called one man and two women (which they were), and you said that that illustration implied that Brian = Alice + Cathy. How in the world does my illustration of Alice and Brian and Cathy necessitate dividing those three on gender boundaries?

Perhaps it was unclear that people are generally looking for an answer that has some tangential relationship to the real world in these kinds of things.

You asked if my proposed law would legalize marriage of one woman and two men, and you asked if my proposed law would legalize marriage of three women, and now you're saying you didn't really want an answer to those two questions?

No, wait. Wife 1 divorces Husband but stays married to Wife 2, who is still married to Husband as well. What happens if they want to do that?

Darth J, all you appear to be saying is that legalizing marriages for polygamous triples would be complicated, and therefore we shouldn't do it. I've spent a little bit of time speculating on possible solutions to problems you've raised, but the real solutions will have to come from people with actual experience working with polygamists, with negotiations between those who favor it and those who oppose it.

But let's say for a moment that when three adults marry and one of them leaves the marriage, the law requires the joint property to be divided in two pieces, one one third of the whole and the other two thirds of the whole, the third to go to the spouse leaving and the two thirds to go to the two spouses left behind, and that's it, no alimony, no anything. You may argue that such a law would be grossly unfair, but what you're really saying is that a group of three people, knowing the risks of a three-way marriage, should be protected against those risks by being forbidden to marry. Why in the world shouldn't the group be allowed to take the risks, if it can be established that they fully understand the risks?

Your fallacy here is trying to compare the "complexity" of being by yourself to the "complexity" of an interpersonal relationship. There is no relationship with a single person. It's just you. There is no interpersonal relationship to deal with. The complexity is the relationship itself, so there is no "complexity" to compare between a single person and a couple.

Darth J, when a single person gains a relationship and decides to get married, does that or does that not add complexity to this person's life? I think it's pretty clear that it does add complexity. But that, you seem to be saying, is bad; adding complexity like that is a bad thing; so by your logic monogamy itself should be illegal, and everyone should be required by law to stay single.

And you're jumping right back into that continuum fallacy by suggesting that the complexity of a legally-sanctioned domestic partnership between two people is not substantially less than the complexity of a three-way one.

Sheesh. You just haven't given up on that continuum fallacy thing, have you? I have never suggested that "the complexity of a legally-sanctioned domestic partnership between two people is not substantially less than the complexity of a three-way one. Darth J, you should probably go back over my past posts and really read them this time; what I actually said might surprise you.

[_Darth J]

Right, right. The conclusion totally follows from the premise. I forgot. Anyway, tell me about your substantive due process and/or equal protection basis for legally recognizing three-way marriage.

What does "substantive due process and/or equal protection" have to do with whether three adults should be allowed to marry?

I'll give you some time to realize that you just refuted everything you've been babbling about before I respond further.

[_KevinSim]

What does "substantive due process and/or equal protection" have to do with whether three adults should be allowed to marry?

I'll give you some time to realize that you just refuted everything you've been babbling about before I respond further.

Darth J, how does me asking what "substantive due process and/or equal protection" has to do with "whether three adults should be allowed to marry" refute everything I've "been babbling about"?

Look, I'm not a legal expert. I don't know precisely what "substantive due process" really means. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote, or to support political causes. What I do know is that there are reasons some conservative groups oppose legalizing gay marriage, and that, as I illustrated with Bazooka's posts and my response to them, they are roughly the same reasons why people typically oppose legalizing polygamy. So when the political system is on the verge of making gay marriage legal, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask why that political system is still opposed to legalizing marriage for polygamous triples.

[_Res Ipsa]

Kevin, here's the problem I have with your end of the argument. Here is your list of common reasons:

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe gay marriage to be a perversion
3. In most states gay marriage is against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children

These reasons are comparable to arguments made against mix-race marriages. Back in the day, would you have said: The reasons for opposing mixed-race marriage, gay marriage, and three person marriage are the same, therefore I won't agree to mixed-race marriage until we legalize gay marriage and polygamy?

My opinion is that the two issues are separate and each should be considered on its own merits.

It sounds like maybe DarthJ is focussed on the constitutional issues while you're focussed on whether you would vote to extend marriage to same-sex couples.

[_Darth J]

What does "substantive due process and/or equal protection" have to do with whether three adults should be allowed to marry?

I'll give you some time to realize that you just refuted everything you've been babbling about before I respond further.

Darth J, how does me asking what "substantive due process and/or equal protection" has to do with "whether three adults should be allowed to marry" refute everything I've "been babbling about"?

Look, I'm not a legal expert. I don't know precisely what "substantive due process" really means. That doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to vote, or to support political causes. What I do know is that there are reasons some conservative groups oppose legalizing gay marriage, and that, as I illustrated with Bazooka's posts and my response to them, they are roughly the same reasons why people typically oppose legalizing polygamy. So when the political system is on the verge of making gay marriage legal, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask why that political system is still opposed to legalizing marriage for polygamous triples.

Kevin, when you go to court and sue a state to have a state constitutional provision declared unconstitutional, that is not "the political system." The electorate doesn't vote on who wins a court case about interpreting the Constitution.

The reason why same-sex couples should have the same rights as everyone else is not roughly the same reason why the U.S. Supreme Court refused to find a right to practice polygamy under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. You are not even wrong. You are saying that real gay people in the real world should have the Supreme Court decide they have a 14th Amendment right to equal protection of law---which is a legal issue---if and only if some hypothetical state legislature or ballot initiative votes to create three-way marriage---a political issue---such that decades of law delineating the rights and duties of married persons would have to be reinvented. Judicial review, like what is currently really happening in the real world with Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, is not "the political system." It is the judicial system determining whether the political system has violated the Constitution.

And your premise is completely mistaken as well. The Supreme Court did not deny Mormons a right to practice polygamy based solely on whatever you think "Victorian morals" means.

You're not addressing the issue that you have raised. You don't even understand what the issue is. Being blunt doesn't appear to make you realize this, either. What you're asserting is incoherent gibberish. "The 14th Amendment should apply to same-sex marriage as soon as we vote to create three-way marriage" makes as much sense as, "I like birthday cake because marsupials and Lawrence of Arabia."

[_Darth J]

Kevin,

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer your question (I'm not a woman! Nor have I had occasion to reject polygamy) however I can offer some suggestions as to why they might reject polygamy.

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe polygamy to be a perversion
3. It's against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children
5. They are frightened of it becoming dysfunctional in an abusive way (as has been seen to happen on occasion)

Many people oppose legalizing gay marriage because

1. They believe God wouldn't approve
2. They believe gay marriage to be a perversion
3. In most states gay marriage is against the law
4. They believe it a harmful environment within which to raise children

There is the connection between "marriage between multiple partners" and "marriage between two partners, even when they are the same sex." People oppose legalizing gay marriage for almost the same reasons they oppose legalizing polygamy. So how can you say gay marriage should be legal and at the same time say polygamy should not be legal, at least for adult triples as I've said?

You are making a statement about why polyandrous relationships should be de-criminalized, not why they should be legally sanctioned. And you keep asserting this is why people oppose both polygamy and same-sex marriage, without providing any evidence that that is the case. And in your list of reasons people oppose same-sex marriage, 1 and 2 are redundant, 3 is circular reasoning, and 4 is irrelevant, because you don't have to have children to be married, nor be married to have children.