On marriage equality

[uppityperson]

There is no reason to restrict marriage based on an intrinsic inborn characteristic like sexual orientation or skin color. None. To do so is bigotry, period. I don't care if it is couched in "freedom of religion" terms or legal terms or "think of the children" terms. It is wrong to do so and I am very glad that the SCOTUS has finally ruled so.

There has been too much bigotry against other people due to these inherent characteristics and it needs to stop. Judging someone as lesser, as evil, as sinning because of their inherent, inborn characteristics is wrong. Dead wrong. Anyone doing so needs to be called on their behavior (if possible without risk). Laws denying someone equal rights due to those characteristic need to be changed. ASAP. Period.

Marriage statutes provide legal rules, basically, about stuff, about assets, about who has rights to what, including being able to have access to your spouse while in the hospital and other similar things many take for granted. It doesn't say anything about procreation, or love, or any of that. Perhaps a church wedding might, but a church wedding in and of itself is not a legal marriage (though there are common law marriages, etc, here and there. I am speaking in general terms). Legal marriage is a license given by the state, a legal partnership.

There is no reason to deny that between couples, no matter their inherent inborn characteristics. There is no reason to deny them that even if you think those inborn inherent characteristics are by choice which brings up a larger issue of what the fuck. My mom did not "decide" to be left handed and have her hand tied to her chair in school. My cousin did not "decide" to be born with red hair and bullied during his school years. My uncle did not "decide" to be gay and be beaten. My grandfather did not "decide" to have dark skin and be denied the legal ability to marry my grandmother in many states.

And yes, I know left handedness or hair color in no way compares to the shit that has happened to too many in other categories of inherent inborn characteristics but I have found bringing it up to those who claim choice makes them think. A little. So I add them in.

I have seen several posts on DU about polygamy, with strong words going back and forth. IMO, this piggybacks the recent ruling on marriage equality but also is very different than the recent ruling on marriage equality.

The recent ruling on marriage equality is about not denying someone based on their inborn inherent characteristic of sexual orientation. This will, hopefully, extend beyond the issue of marriage into greater acceptance of others overall. Stopping the stupid hurtful "pray the gay away" bullshit. Stopping any acceptance of bullying or criminal acts towards people because of their sexual orientation. Acknowledgment and acceptance that denying rights is bigotry and wrong.

The discussion on polygamy is about expanding the legal aspects of marriage based on desire for legal protections in partnerships. They both are about marriage, they differ WIDELY and wildly in that 1 group has experienced persecution for something out of their control, the other has not.

They are VERY different issues with the similarity right now of questioning the legal definition of marriage. Maybe it is time to ALSO discuss marriage statutes, what "marriage" means, legally, yes even socially. But this in no way means I am saying the 2 issues, the 2 categories, are in any way the same as they are not.

I apologize in advance for not wording this the absolute best way as I am sure I have not. I will try to respond to those who are wishing discussion as this is thoughts in progress.

[Bagsgroove]

1. Well said

I think a lot of people have difficulty separating the idea of marriage as a religious institution and marriage as a civil institution, because of course it is both those things.

As a religious institution, the state should have no business involving itself in how religious denominations want to define marriage. If the Catholics don't want to marry gay folks, the government should not compel them to. If the Unitarians do want to marry gay folks, the government should not stop them.

I think a lot of the controversy about "legalizing" same-sex marriage is due to the belief by some that your conservative Southern Baptist pastor will now be compelled to perform gay marriages. In fact, Justice Kennedy's majority decision expressly rules that out, but how do you get the Fox News crowd to actually read a Supreme Court decision full of big words?

On the other hand, marriage as a civil-secular institution -- that is, "married" as a legal status -- should not be denied to gay folks based on any religious denomination's definition of marriage. I may not be able to get a Catholic marriage, but my marriage by a Unitarian pastor (or a Justice of the Peace) will give my spouse and me all the legal status as a couple married in a Catholic mass.

On the polygamy discussion, I agree with everything you said. Gay marriage and polygamy are not comparable. But I suspect that before long people will see that this has been a straw-man argument all along. Does anyone (other than Fox Newz) really believe there is going to be a rising grass-roots movement to legalize polygamy? (Or legalizing marrying your dog or a 7 year old or whatever other nonsense pops into their dim heads?) I suspect that in a very short time all the heated discussions about polygamy will die out when people realize that there just aren't many people interested in doing it.

[PeaceNikki]

2. It's NOT both of those things.

It's always a civil institution and sometimes a religious one.

[pnwmom]

3. There seem to be a lot of DUers pushing the view that "discriminating" against polygamous marriage

is morally the same as not allowing same-sex marriage.

[oberliner]

5. Why must polygamy be compared to marrying dogs and 7 yr olds?

we are talking about consenting adults here - by equating this with children and animals you are engaging in something I consider unfair

[pnwmom]

4. I think you said it well, uppityperson.

I've getting sick of people who can't tell the difference between what is truly a chosen "lifestyle" and what is an inborn characteristic.

[booley]

6. even if being gay wasn't' inborn it wouldn't matter

The government has to make a case that it has a legitimate government interest when it restricts a right

You can make that for polygamy.

But the restrictions for same sex marriage all seemed to be based on bad science and animus.

Now maybe a case could be made for marriage of more then two adults. Things is that still a seperate argument.