tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post115757461064559144..comments2023-12-28T18:17:11.191-05:00Comments on Gruntled Center: Who Thinks Gay Marriage and Polygamy Are Connected? Judges Do.Gruntledhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1159356134799136052006-09-27T07:22:00.000-04:002006-09-27T07:22:00.000-04:00Yes, gay marriage would be a legal, as well as cul...Yes, gay marriage would be a legal, as well as cultural revolution like no other.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1159350622078598612006-09-27T05:50:00.000-04:002006-09-27T05:50:00.000-04:00Some gay marriage supporters insist that denying g...Some gay marriage supporters insist that denying gays to many is analogous to miscegenation laws where interracial couples where legally forbidden to marry. It would lead one to think that at no time in US history (or the history of the world) were blacks and whites allowed to marry. This comparison is false. There were four states that never had laws against interracial marriage (i.e. Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan and Kansas). And, while it is true that the majority of the states (thirty-one) did ban interracial marriage by law, only two had it enacted by constitutional amendment (i.e., South Carolina and Alabama). I am not aware that any state EVER allowed same sex couples to legally married. Ever. The analogy fall even further apart when one considers marriage laws world-wide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157691275782033972006-09-08T00:54:00.000-04:002006-09-08T00:54:00.000-04:00The interracial marriage analogy is a fair questio...The interracial marriage analogy is a fair question, one that has often been canvassed in this debate. I think the difference is that marriage is primarily about the care of children. That is why homosexual marriage goes more directly to the core issue of marriage than race does. The analogy, good or bad, doesn't settle the question about the prudence of same-sex marriage, but I do see a distinction.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157691125323744482006-09-08T00:52:00.000-04:002006-09-08T00:52:00.000-04:00Not to jump ship, but I believe that someone yeste...Not to jump ship, but I believe that someone yesterday brought up something that I feel contradicts your point today, Gruntled. <BR/><BR/><BR/>At one time marriage law was not simply one man and one man, but one woman and one woman of the same race; race was one of the pillars of “traditional marriage” the way heterosexual relations is now. Your logic (if one pillar falls, the others would be subject to fall) does not hold historically because one of the pillars did fall in the past and the others held. It was ONE + WHITE + MAN and ONE + WHITE + WOMAN; when the middle requirement was dropped the other two stood without it (contrary to what detractors at the time claimed would happen, I’m sure). Who’s to say that changing the last requirement would cause the first to fall? <BR/><BR/>ONE survived without WHITE, why can’t survive without the last classification as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157652971392103872006-09-07T14:16:00.000-04:002006-09-07T14:16:00.000-04:00"Fair enough. Too bad we have no committed polygam..."Fair enough. Too bad we have no committed polygamists in this conversation."<BR/><BR/>My wife would kill me first. :-)Mark Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06744333045874641836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157639118500333672006-09-07T10:25:00.000-04:002006-09-07T10:25:00.000-04:00Isn't it interesting how "big" topics can bring to...Isn't it interesting how "big" topics can bring together such disparate groups?<BR/><BR/>Examples:<BR/>1) Everytime there's a wet/dry vote (I realize this may be completely foreign concept to many of you) in the neighboring counties here in Kentucky, the conservative Christians and the bootleggers join together to defeat the proposition.<BR/>2) Most environmental conservation in the U.S. is accomplished by a combination of tree-hugging hippies and redneck hunters (I somehow fit into both categories, being the exception that proves the rule).<BR/><BR/>The mention by Gruntled of joining fundamentalist Mormons and homosexuals made me think of these unions. Nothing substantial, just an interesting thought.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157577112913799092006-09-06T17:11:00.000-04:002006-09-06T17:11:00.000-04:00As attorney-in-residence, I militantly disagree. ...As attorney-in-residence, I militantly disagree. <BR/><BR/>Marriage laws work as rules for the relationship of one person to one other person. That leaves all sorts of things very clear, such as:<BR/><BR/>* If A is in a coma, A's spouse B is the one who signs medical authorizations.<BR/>* If A dies, B inherits if A has no will, and may be entitled to inherit some stuff even if A has a will saying otherwise.<BR/>* A's income can be garnished to pay off debts B signed for.<BR/><BR/>Adding in C and D is just not easy. If A has two spouses, who gets to make medical decisions? If A wants to marry a third spouse, do B and C have a say? If not, aren't B and C losing property rights? And, for a further twist, does B have parental rights or any other rights in relation to children conceived by A and C? <BR/><BR/>Nearly all of marriage law has a clear meaning when applied to a same-sex couple. Nearly all of it becomes a tangled mess with millions of questions when applied to any group of three or four.SPorcupinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12088269844922566716noreply@blogger.com