I think I replied to most of all that is here in another post. I'm not
trying to duck you. If there is something I didn't answer please put it in
your response...also feel free to snip anything....I know I'm not a good
writer...thank you.
"RobertVB" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:1107312934.be2d93a7baab54a5fad7a30748823936@teranews...
In article <L9ULd.3358$xR1.2082@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
joseph irvin <j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"RobertVB" <nospam@4me.com> wrote in message
news:290120051729493545%nospam@4me.com...
In article <_ayKd.35826$8u5.10497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
joseph irvin <j.m.irvin@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
But the secular civil contract of marriage is more narrowly
defined.
This is just what marriage is...'narrowly defined.' But in that
case it
is
discriminitory.
It is for exclusive enrollment of two humans with each other
capable
of
legally entering to a contract.
If it is exclusive, like traditional marriage you argued it was
discriminatory...what about the people like the Utah man who wanted
many
wives?
And he can have as many religiously married wives as he wants as long
as he doesn't do anything that would make him be considered to have
two
civil marriage contracts at the same time.
So you are agreeing that a state can control marriage.
No they can only control the civil contract. that isn't marriage.
You are discriminating against people who hold his view.
Again your confusion of some generic term 'marriage'(which you oddly
can only think of in some bizzare 'traditional' flavor) with the
civil
contract of the same name. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
I'm talking about the civil contract....can three people enter into a
this
contract...if not why not. Why isn't it discriminatory if they cannot?
No its only designed for two. The state is under no obligation to
offer a marriage contract for someone's marriage, its just if they do
they must administer what they do issue constitutionally.
A person wanting to license the contract with an opposite gender person
can whether they are a polygamist or not. They are just bound by the
design of the contract - only 2 people, mutually exclusive contract.
The people that want to license the contract with a same gender person
just want the same access.
Its is only an equal access issue, the discrimination is due to unequal
access to an existing contract without legal basis.
The civil contract of marriage is desiged for 2 people to be in it
exclusively. The statutes don't work with more than 2. As such the
civil contract of marriage is not being denied to polygamists, they
can
have one just like very one else - they just don't get to have two.
Well, you will have to admit that polygamist are discriminated against
wouldn't you?
No. They have access to the contract - there is no discrimination.
You seem to be using my argument that a state can control
marriage.
No, they can only decide if they are going to offer a civil contract
fostering some quality. The state does license a 2 person contract,
designed to be signed by 2 people only and only one contract per
person.
Opposite gender couples can take advantage of it.
Polygamists can take advantage of it within its functional strictures.
the only people who can't are those who want to have a same gender
partner.
Again, it is an equal access issue to a civil contract, nothing more.
But they can be religiously married to as many women as they want as
long as they don't violate the state bigamy laws where they live.
I though you were talking about the state discriminating when we were
discussing marriage.
No the state has nothing to do with marriage, the only thing the state
has anything to do with is licensing a civil contract of 2 person
marriage which they issue to foster such relationships.
Aren't they discriminating now with the polygamist?
No because he has complete equal access to the contract the state
offers. The state is under no obligation to create a a 'polygamist'
contract. That would be discrimination in fact.
That by its very nature preludes
polygamy and marriage between humans and non-contractable
entities,
whether they be mentally incompetent, non-human or dead. (though
the
french did throw a curve there ;)
Then there is discrimination against polygamist.
You are confused.
Are you now saying that polygamist cannot be discriminated...its
impossible
to discriminate against polyggamists?
Not in the current situation - they have complete access to the
currently existing civil contract of marriage.
1. The state offers a 2 person contract of marriage. It is designed
to be entered into exclusively by two people - the statutes don't work
if there were more than two.
I understand...but why isn't the state discriminating against the
polygamist? Discrimination is what you used.
yes because they were denying same gender couples access to the
existing civil contract. Opposite gender couples already have access
to this contract even if they are polygamists. They aren't being
discriminated against.
2. Polygamists have the same access to this 2 person contract as
everyone else. They can enter into it with one other person. This of
course does not preclude them from religiously marrying as many
additional people as they desire.
Then you have to admit the state is discriminating against the
polygamists?
I am getting the feeling you don't understand what the word means.
Polygamists have exactly equal access to the civil contract of marriage
as it currently exists.
3. Same gender couples just want the same access to this civil
contract that opposite gender and polygamists already have.
Polygamist just want the same access to this civil contract that opposit
gender and same gender couples have...why discriminate?
They do have it! Polygamist with a woman in tow enters courthouse,
fills out papers, pays fee. Now married to woman. He has total
access!
Why can't they (polys) use
the same argument that you used against marriage being
discriminatory?...it
does discriminate.
They can't use them because the arguments aren't the same.
Sure they are...a state can control marriage.
No it can't. It can offer a contract that facilitates some marriages
and if it does it must be open to all people that can use it. Most
states have a contract of marriage that is for 2 people to enter into
an exclusive relationship. The contract is designed as such that it
won't function if there are more than 2 or not exclusively held. With
in that framework anyone who can take advantage of it should be allowed
to.
Polygamists already can, same gender couples only in Massachusetts.
1. Same gender couples want access to an existing civil contract, one
that polygamists already have access to. This contract is designed to
be entered into by two people exclusively - its statutes don't work if
there were more than 2 in the contract.
Once you start excluding, you start discriminating so goes you. If 2
people
why not more than two people....why not people and a fish.
Because that isn't the contract. Again the confusion still seems to be
thatyou think the state is administering 'marriage' when all it is
doing is issuing a civil contract with the same name.
The state need offer NO contract in support of any kind of marriage.
None zip. People were getting married without a civil contract for
thousands of years - this is a totally new thing relatively.
The state does offer a contract of marriage that is designed for 2
people and to be held exclusively. Because it does, then all couples
that could use this contract should be allowed access. The state is NOT
obligated to offer contracts for all possible kinds of marriages;
polygamy, with your fish, with your dead aunt, whatever. Their only
obligation is that if they are going to offer ANY civil contract it
must be available to all citizens who have a need for it.
A polygamist can have one with one of his opposite gender spouses. That
doesn't mean they can't have more spouses, but that also doesn't mean
the state must offer him more contracts. The polygamist has EQUAL
ACCESS to the existing contract that's all that's required.
The only people excluded from equal access to this 2 person contract is
same gender couples. Hence the discrimnation.
2. What a polygamist might be asking for is a new contract to be
formed
that would support more than 2 people in the contract. He would have
to
convince the government that this was a desireable thing.
No, it has to be the same contract. > Civil unions don't cut it. ..it
has to
be the same contract.
Exactly! The polygamist already has access to the existing contract
the state offers so it need provide nothing further. In fact to do so
would be providing the polygamist with special rights.
The only people who can't have access to the current contract are those
who want to partner with a same gender person (exp in Mass of course)
So 1 is a simple equal access issue to license an exiting civil
contract, 2 is asking the government to design a new civil contract
for
the exclusive use of polygamists. Very different issues.
Oh back of the bus huh?...another contract huh?...why can't they have
the
same contract.
They do they do they do they do! the polygamist already has total and
complete access to the current contract of marriage.
...no civil unions.
right - a separate contract would be disasterous because if a brand new
contract was made for one faction then other factions could say they
must have one too. That is one of the BIG reasons why same gender
couples should just be allowed access to the current contract, just as
opposite gender couples, single and polygamist, already are.
Same gender couples aren't asking for anything new to be created, just
for equal access to a legal construct that already exists.
That is just what the polys are asking...just minor change.
No for polygamist are asking for multiple contracts when all the parts
and statues of the current one are designed for 2 people in an
exclusive contract. The current contract won't work if its not
exclusive.
Conversely, the current contract works without an iota of change
regardless of the genders of the couples, only the licensing
requirements to get a contract specify gender restrictions need be
changed, not the contract itself.
There in is the difference:
Same gender couples want unnecessary licensing discrimination for the
unchanged current contract, the one that polygamists already have
access to.
The current contract won't support nonexclusive multiple issuings.
See the difference? One is asking for equal access to something that
already exists, the other is asking for something new one way or the
other.
The polygamist is of course free to religiously marry as many partners
as they like beyond their exclusive civil contract with one other as
long as they don't violate any other state statutes like the
cohabiltation and common law problems in Utah.
Recognizing that the state can control marriage.
No they can only control the civil contract of marriage - a totally
different thing than marriage. You can religiously marry as many
people as you want in Utah as long as you don't civilly marry more than
one, or cohabitate with a woman while being married to another making
her your common law (civil) wife also.
Only the contract is under the state adminstration, not 'marriage'.
It still seems you are confusing a limited quality secular civil
contract with the concept of 'marriage' in general. People marry
without civil contracts all the time. But because a civil contract
for
2 person marriage exists and as such MUST be available to all citizens
who have need of it and it already is to those that want to contract
with someone of the opposite gender, polygamist or not. What's being
asked is for equal access to this contract for a few same gendered
couples, nothing more.
Thats all polys are asking just for more people.
Actual that's wrong on several levels:
The kind of polygamy practiced by mormons, bibilical lords, and the far
east is really bigamy - the man is married to many women, the women are
married only to the man. True polygamy would be more the hippie
communes of the the 60's.
The current contract of marriage doesn't work for bigamy or polygamy -
the statues are all written with the understanding their is only one
'spouse'. Allowing the man to hold more than one would render the
contract pretty useless and as such the state can argue it need not do
so successfully if challenged.
And as has been pointed out a number of times the polygamist already
has equal access to the existing contract - he can license one without
the bat of an eye, he just can't have more than one just like everyone
else. There is no discrimination.
its only his confusion of the religious rite of marriage and the
secular civil contract of the same name that leads him down these
bizarre paths.
I'm talking about, here, just giving the govt the power to issue
contracts.
Yep and the only contract available to ask for equal access to is the
2
person contract of marriage designed to be entered into exclusively.
So lets all citizens have access to this contract!
You are discriminating....;)
In what way? Who doesn't have access to this contract other than same
gender couples? Polygamists do, People who want a single opposite
gender partner do. Only same gender couples are denied access to this
contract. Hence the discrimination.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way
clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive
reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our
lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and
tomorrow
and tomorrow."
"After all, what else is marriage for?"
-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
.
