Comments on: Marriage is a right, not a privilege

By: Roger Green

Roger Green — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:16:36 +0000

The specific comment was about “why not polygamy?” The answer was for the same reason bestiality is not legal, i.e., an exploitative relationship. I for one was NOT making the case against gay marriage, and in fact have been clear elsewhere that I support gay marriage.

By: jakester

jakester — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:22:36 +0000

Jeffrey, I can see why someone interested in having more than one husband or wife might bring it into the conversation… if they all were agreeing to marrying the same man or women, but I guess it always turned out that the men were sick, manipulating, using sob’s.

It’s not like a rich, well educated man or women was willing to take care of all these people out of love and the good of their heart.

I think some would draw simularities from having the freedom to do whatever you want in this country, if the others involved agree… ?

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:43:47 +0000

Can anyone explain to me why, when a discussion on same sex marriage comes up someone invariably brings up polygamy or worse yet, bestiality? Apples and oranges people. Because I am gay and want to marry my partner of 18 years, I now have to support polygamy? Gay marriage is legal in several states and nations and to my knowledge, no one has demanded the “right” to marry their harem or their horse for that matter.

By: Jango Davis

Jango Davis — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:48:17 +0000

Why is it that the only polygomy we see in America are wacko religious men with multiple wives and not an atheist woman with multiple husbands? Because the root of polygamy is male sexism and exploitation. It is rightly categorized as deviant behavior.

By: Roger Green

Roger Green — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:27:52 +0000

Hounder – I believe that the idea of polygamy, while theoretically equitable, has proven to be more exploitative than the society would like. This is not to say that monogamous relationships cannot be that way as well. But polygamy is placed in the same category as bestiality and sex with minors.

By: jakester

jakester — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 16:50:07 +0000

I guess what’s lost in stating all these opinions is that the LEGAL defintion of marriage is between a man and a woman.

That being said, men and women do have the RIGHT, presently to marry… same sex do not have the right to marry, but there’s no law prventing them from living together/common law…

By: hounder

hounder — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:42:42 +0000

Slightly off topic here, but I do think it’s awfully hypocritical that many advocates of same-sex marriage also support the current prohibitions against polygamy. How is THAT marriage equality? If it’s a right for homosexuals, then it should be a right for everyone. I would have to do some research since I’m not sure where many organizations stand on this issue, such as the ACLU, but I don’t think it is at all a valid argument to state that polygamy constitutes unfair discrimination on the basis of gender. Nor is it fair to refer to it as a selfish predatory practice. What is a right for one is a right for all, which brings us back to the 14th amendment as I mentioned in an earlier post. Without getting into the argument of constitutionally protected cultural practices, the bottom line is that marriage equality should apply to citizens of all practices and diversities, not just same sex marriage.

By: Roger Green

Roger Green — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:32:00 +0000

Loving is huge in this conversation. I wrote about it here: http://www.rogerogreen.com/2010/10/05/l-is-for-loving-day/

My favorite parts involve the lower court arguments:
From the trial judge:
“‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’”

The Lovings lost at every court, with the primary reasoning being that “because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.”

By: hounder

hounder — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:05:38 +0000

Tom J, you might want to research the 14th Amendment and Loving v. Virginia before you dig yourself any deeper. Additionally, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in the above 1967 case that: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men”. This is in regards to marriage between man & woman; There is no ruling yet on same sex marriage.

By: justagirl

justagirl — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:38:50 +0000

I’m not sure if I agree that marriage is a right. But I do not believe it is acceptable to restrict the “privelage” (if that’s what you consider it to be) to only a select set of adults. Everyone is entitled to apply and test for a driver’s license when they reach a set age. If they abuse the “privelage”, DWIs, reckless driving, etc. they may have the “privelage” revoked. If marriage is a “privelage” everyone over a certain age should be able to be married. If they abuse the “privelage” i.e. strings of divorces, spousal abuse, etc. The “privelage” should be revoked. We all know countless people who are on their 3rd or 4th marriage – why hasn’t their “privelage” been revoked? Maybe because it is a “right” after all. Hmmmm….