The unintended consequneces of gay marrige ballot wins?

Those of us against gay marrige are called bigiot-homophobes and accused of not wanting "equality." We are asked, *I* have been asked here, "how will the world end if we allow gay marrige?" My retort has been it will not happen on day one, but wait for the law of unintened consequences.

Well, here is a good essay on some of what may happen.

As marrige is changed from "one man and one woman" it loses a status. So, as some of us said, it is only a matter of time before we may legally have to allow polygamy. Think about it, if we accept an overseas gay-marrige then isn't it discriminatory to not accept a muslim who wants to bring his four wives to live in the USA. And if we accept that then do we not have to allow such marriges here as if we say the overseas marrige is not valid then equality demands we have the same here.

You can call me a "right wing nut" if you want to, but those who know law know I have a point here. The legal argument that marrige is not "one man, one woman" means that the door is open for all kinds of unions. The argument that you will recognize *any* non OMOW marriges means you must recognize *all* such unions.

Quote: AZDuffman

"how will the world end if we allow gay marrige?"

As marrige is changed from "one man and one woman" it loses a status. So, as some of us said, it is only a matter of time before we may legally have to allow polygamy.

The argument that you will recognize *any* non OMOW marriges means you must recognize *all* such unions.

So what? How does any of this affect you living a few states away? Why do you care what other people do?

The world will not end because of this. It only bothers you in your own head.

Quote: zippyboy

So what? How does any of this affect you living a few states away? Why do you care what other people do?

The world will not end because of this. It only bothers you in your own head.

Lets see, if we start allowing polygamy for starters I would guess that is going to have a huge affect on society. For starters I can see the increase in welfare and support costs. And if you do not think there will be a big structural change in society you are fooling yourself. Same as alarm was raised about the rise in illegitimacy rates was raised and those who raised the alarms should mind their own business, now we see the results.

Are you OK with a guy with four wives living next door?

With all this focus on gay marriages, I think you've finally shifted the focus to where it belongs: on marriage.

We used to elevate marriage as a contract enforced by the state even when neither party wanted it. Of course it was far worse when only one party no longer wanted it. We celebrate the genius of Frank Lloyd Wright but forget quite conveniently how he was hounded by his wife and had to refuse commissions to design homes. We go to Edwardian Balls now to celebrate the styles of the day but forget the marriage-bending Edwardian weekend parties where a morning bell would be rung to signal that gentlemen should return to their correct rooms. An Edwardian marriage was all show. Proper decorum in public and proper decorum enforced upon servants at all times.

Now we have a great deal of polygamy in this country, some of it in cults most in honorable and obviously successful marriages.

We have even more polyamory with much of it clearly debasing our archaic views of a marriage yet the presence of long-term "extra" partners in marital relationships seems not to have increased the divorce rate at all. Sexual and commercial interests have always blended. Our concept of Community Property comes from the Spanish law. Our Colonial marriages often had far more commerce involved than love. Extra marital relationships were often punished solely if they impinged on the economic freedoms of the community such as by producing excessive numbers of bastards that had to be educated by the community.

Often great wealth allows freedom from convention and greater geographical mobility to seek out convenient forums. France was famous for collecting hotel room registrations but for doing absolutely nothing about clearly incestuous registrations.

Marriages have always been elevated by the law and the press far above their actual situations. The Navaho seem to have the best system. A man places his gifts at the front door and if they are taken inside, the woman is considered to have married him. If he ever comes home and finds his property is again at the front door, she is considered to have divorced him. Simple.

Its probably no coincidence that gambling and divorces were limited to Nevada for a long time.

Quote: Fleastiff

The Navaho seem to have the best system. A man places his gifts at the front door and if they are taken inside, the woman is considered to have married him. If he ever comes home and finds his property is again at the front door, she is considered to have divorced him. Simple.

The Navajo invented that last part? I've met a few guys who had that happen......

Quote: AZDuffman

Are you OK with a guy with four wives living next door?

Four wives? Fine. Just not 4 barking dogs.

Quote: AZDuffman

Those of us against gay marrige are called bigiot-homophobes and accused of not wanting "equality." We are asked, *I* have been asked here, "how will the world end if we allow gay marrige?" My retort has been it will not happen on day one, but wait for the law of unintened consequences.

Well, here is a good essay on some of what may happen.

As marrige is changed from "one man and one woman" it loses a status. So, as some of us said, it is only a matter of time before we may legally have to allow polygamy. Think about it, if we accept an overseas gay-marrige then isn't it discriminatory to not accept a muslim who wants to bring his four wives to live in the USA. And if we accept that then do we not have to allow such marriges here as if we say the overseas marrige is not valid then equality demands we have the same here.

You can call me a "right wing nut" if you want to, but those who know law know I have a point here. The legal argument that marrige is not "one man, one woman" means that the door is open for all kinds of unions. The argument that you will recognize *any* non OMOW marriges means you must recognize *all* such unions.

Congratulations... you have also figured out how slavery fits in with this. My opine in the WoV has been independantly demonstrated.

Quote: 98Clubs

Congratulations... you have also figured out how slavery fits in with this.

Many women consider marriage a form of modern day slavery. As far as slavery in the US went. Shipboard life was the most brutal, particularly on coastal ships. Slavery in the small remote villages of New England was often far worse than plantation life in the South. Its hard to define quality of life based on statutes since the degree and manner of enforcement is what matters. Most sides on the slavery issue took extreme cases as the focus of their arguments and did not concern themselves with the average situation.

Georgia was viewed as a settlement of small farm owners but Englishmen who were already supporting themselves successfully were not permitted to emigrate, so the only Englishmen who survived the vetting process were not inclined to hard work. The major crop was rice which required massive investments in dikes and often would be economical only beyond the statutory fifty acre limitation on property ownership. Slavery was banned in Georgia until the 1750s. The Carolinas were the area of highest priced slaves, harsh plantation life and high slave mortality.

The view of marriage as slavery seems appropriate in many circumstances since despite the Koran's admonition that wives had to be treated equally there is no requirement that they be treated well and often additional "wives" are merely servants for existing wives.

Quote: Fleastiff

Many women consider marriage a form of modern day slavery.

They are called "feminists." Generally they tend to be the most unhappy and miserable women you will meet in your life in my experience. Rarely in a good mood or happy.

Quote:

Georgia was viewed as a settlement of small farm owners but Englishmen who were already supporting themselves successfully were not permitted to emigrate, so the only Englishmen who survived the vetting process were not inclined to hard work. The major crop was rice which required massive investments in dikes and often would be economical only beyond the statutory fifty acre limitation on property ownership. Slavery was banned in Georgia until the 1750s. The Carolinas were the area of highest priced slaves, harsh plantation life and high slave mortality.

Georgia was formed as a way out of debtor's prison. Rice was one of the first crops that required slaves to work as the English coulod not handle the hot, sweaty conditions. The slaves genetically could do so. Later it was found this was the same gene that caused sickle cell anemia.

Treatment of slaves in the USA could be wildly different. Southern culture looked down on a master who intentionally abused and neglected his slaves, yet it still happened all the time. When people owned only one or a few it would be better for the slave as the master would eithe be working the field with them or the slave would have been more of a "house" slave and personal servant. There were doubtless masters and slaves alike who did not like the system but knew they had to live with it, so if you owned one and you and s/he were comfortable around each other then you are not going to mistreat each other nearly as much. Stockholm syndrome would crop up.

OTOH if you own 20 or more and rarely visit the field you hire an overseer who might be very brutal.

Quote: Fleastiff

The view of marriage as slavery seems appropriate in many circumstances since despite the Koran's admonition that wives had to be treated equally there is no requirement that they be treated well and often additional "wives" are merely servants for existing wives.

My understanding of how it's done in Saudi Arabia is that a man can have a maximum of 4 wives and each is set up in her own house. That's quite a responsibility for the husband to provide for, and he must be able to do so or he isn't allowed another wife.

I don't think I would enjoy being in a polygamous relationship but it's been practiced for 1000's of years and hasn't brought the world to an end yet, so I think as long as everyone is consenting I don't have a problem with it.

I explained my take on all of this on WoV sometime back. Basically, I think the government should get out of the marriage business and into the civil union business. A marriage should be a religious ceremony and any configuration the church is ok with should be allowed. A civil union would essentially be a business agreement recognized by the state and any configuration (partnership, corporation) should be allowed. I think to have a polygamous marriage you'd have to draw up documents (by-laws) that outlined how members could leave (divorce) or enter into the marriage at a later date.

This could potentially cause problems for insurance companies that would have to retool a lot of forms to accommodate, but think of the employment opportunities for actuary's calculating the risk and rates for all the various possibilities...