Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 132
Thanks Tree31Thanks

Thread: Definition of Marriage

  1. #61
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    50,574
    Thanks
    15553

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Yes you are still married -- but not because you did not sign a document to that effect. A marriage is voidable due to some pre-existing defect that incapacitates one or both parties to fulfill his or her marital duties.
    Does that mean that 2 men who are legally married are still married if they walk away?

  2. #62
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    50,574
    Thanks
    15553

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    If same-sex marriage is contemplated here, why is a mere contract insufficient to define it?
    Maybe it could. why bother with a contract when they can just get married?

  3. #63
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    50,574
    Thanks
    15553

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    But a distinction exists -- opposite-sex marriage results in the family and same-sex marriage does not (within that union). If that distinction does not exist (or is irrelevant to the state), why make a distinction between marriage and mere contracts in the first place?
    Marriage hasn't a fucking thing to do with having a family. Plenty of heterosexual couples get married and do not have children and never had any intention of doing so.
    Thanks from PACE

  4. #64
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,286
    Thanks
    3097

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by PACE View Post
    Wow, you really believe that? Kinda ridiculously far fetched
    Not really, if I decided I wanted to marry 6 women and was turned down for a marriage license, I could file a complaint , hire some activist to stir up the masses till a court decided I deserved equality of the law. The Gay people have already laid out a plan to follow, all I have to do is follow in their footsteps

  5. #65
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,579
    Thanks
    20686

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Not really, if I decided I wanted to marry 6 women and was turned down for a marriage license, I could file a complaint , hire some activist to stir up the masses till a court decided I deserved equality of the law. The Gay people have already laid out a plan to follow, all I have to do is follow in their footsteps
    Gay people are Americans they deserve the same civil rights as you. Your religion doesn't exempt you from being just like everyone else. You are and so are they.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,286
    Thanks
    3097

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Once again, you demonstrate you do not understand the law or how judge's make decisions, which is why you want judges who will engage in judicial activism and make political decisions instead of studying the law and making legal decisions. The only one in this conversation with a "bleeding heart" is you, who seeks to punish people who do not share your religion and reward people who do.
    Obama was good at one thing, Judicial Activism. He appointed judges that would overturn laws that would work towards a political goal. He did that with Same Sex Marriage. It can still be done only by a different party. Why would you object to Obama’s methods?

  7. #67
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,286
    Thanks
    3097

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by PACE View Post
    Gay people are Americans they deserve the same civil rights as you. Your religion doesn't exempt you from being just like everyone else. You are and so are they.
    I am not arguing against Gay marriage, I am arguing for Plural Marriage. The Gay marriage ruling laid out the path for Plural Marriage. I don’t buy the idea it has to be a protected class for it to take place. All it takes is one individual asking why they can’t get married while others can.

  8. #68
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    24,579
    Thanks
    20686

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I am not arguing against Gay marriage, I am arguing for Plural Marriage. The Gay marriage ruling laid out the path for Plural Marriage. I don’t buy the idea it has to be a protected class for it to take place. All it takes is one individual asking why they can’t get married while others can.
    No you are saying Pandoras box was opened by gay marriage I am saying Americans regardless of creed color or religion or no religion are equal and have the same rights, now you sound like Man Dog Santorum.

  9. #69
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,372
    Thanks
    34040

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Obama was good at one thing, Judicial Activism. He appointed judges that would overturn laws that would work towards a political goal. He did that with Same Sex Marriage. It can still be done only by a different party. Why would you object to Obama’s methods?
    You are making that up because you do not like the courts' decisions.

    Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk
    Thanks from PACE

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    100,705
    Thanks
    8661

    From
    Vancouver
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It could, in a couple of ways. Note that polyamorous persons do not constitute a protected class, and thus the standard of review under the equal protection clause would be whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

    If you had a married couple, and party #1 disappears and marries party #3 without consent of party #2, then you do not have a fully-consenting trio of adults - i.e., it would not be a true "multiple marriage" in that sense. True, you could have one person married to two other people without the other two being married to each other (see the Denobulans in ST:Enterprise); but that could cause enough significant issues upon dissolution of either relationship that the bigamy laws might be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Such cases could clog the courts for years, and they are already (at least in some places) notoriously backed up.

    For that matter, those issues could likewise be posed even with such a trio as you describe, though the could be less problematic, especially with the use of an antenuptial agreement binding on all members (which might have to be a legal requirement, conforming to a new set of laws that would have to be developed).

    Legal status between two members of the same sex easily fit into the same family structure that already existed prior to their inception. Multiples beyond two, however, would require additional legal structures to make it work.
    That’s why I supposed a challenge in a Constitution based legal system.

    Your last scenario in say, The UK, might end with a court saying “this is outside the scope of a marriage and would require new laws. So sorry, no”.

    That same challenge here in Canada, I feel, would end with a court saying, “that would require a whole new set of laws. So Parliament must create suitable laws or be in violation of The Human Rights Act, and has 2 years to create such laws”

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 388
    Last Post: 13th June 2015, 10:56 AM
  2. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 04:47 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 26th August 2012, 10:26 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th August 2012, 07:41 AM
  5. What is the definition of a RIGHT?
    By The_Bear in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 24th February 2009, 12:03 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed