PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: Same-Sex Marriage: State or Federal Issue




Paulitics 2011
02-24-2012, 01:22 AM
Now, I know the tenth amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But doesn't the 14th amendment say:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And amendments, since they are changes to the Constitution, override previous articles of the Constitution.

Now, Ron Paul says that ideally, he would not have govt. involved in marriage at all. However, he says that while it is, it should be decided by the states. Doesn't the 14th amendment require all states to give equal rights to same-sex couples then?

Cleaner44
02-24-2012, 01:29 AM
Marriage should not be a government matter at all. It should be a private matter. People can and should get married in churches without asking the govt for permission. People have a right to get married, it is only a privlidge when people go to the govt and request a license.

Here is an interesting read:
http://hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

MaxPower
02-24-2012, 01:36 AM
Now, I know the tenth amendment says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But doesn't the 14th amendment say:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And amendments, since they are changes to the Constitution, override previous articles of the Constitution.

Now, Ron Paul says that ideally, he would not have govt. involved in marriage at all. However, he says that while it is, it should be decided by the states. Doesn't the 14th amendment require all states to give equal rights to same-sex couples then?
Here, you are working from the premise that "couples" have rights. A law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not, in point of fact, discriminate on an individual level; a straight man has the right to legally marry a woman, and a gay man also has the right to legally marry a woman. You might say the gay man wouldn't want to marry a woman, but that is beside the point; the law treats both individuals in the same way. A "couple" is a collective abstraction, not a "person" such as the Constitution refers to.

This isn't to say that I support laws defining marriage-- like Dr. Paul, I think marriage should not be legally defined. But it is perfectly consistent to say that, constitutionally-speaking, the issue falls under state-level jurisdiction to whatever extent-- if any-- it is to be adjudicated at all.

Paulitics 2011
02-24-2012, 08:45 AM
Marriage should not be a government matter at all. It should be a private matter. People can and should get married in churches without asking the govt for permission. People have a right to get married, it is only a privlidge when people go to the govt and request a license.

Yes, Ron Paul says that he doesn't think it should be a government matter, but he also says that states have the right to choose.

The point is that there are tax breaks, medical benefits, etc. that are given to married couples, but not civil unions, though the two are supposed to be equal. Isn't "separate but equal" unconstitutional?


Here, you are working from the premise that "couples" have rights. A law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not, in point of fact, discriminate on an individual level; a straight man has the right to legally marry a woman, and a gay man also has the right to legally marry a woman.

The Bachmann response, really? Lol.

My point is that states give gay couples civil unions, which are "separate but equal" (not actually equal). Isn't the fact that there are separate legal constructs for different people against the law?


You might say the gay man wouldn't want to marry a woman, but that is beside the point; the law treats both individuals in the same way.

Not the point. It's a regulation on a private contract between to consenting individuals that treats two people of one sex differently than two people of a different sex.


A "couple" is a collective abstraction, not a "person" such as the Constitution refers to.

Gay people need to start forming corporations together. Then they can get individual rights, since a corporation is one person. Lol.


This isn't to say that I support laws defining marriage-- like Dr. Paul, I think marriage should not be legally defined.

Agreed.


But it is perfectly consistent to say that, constitutionally-speaking, the issue falls under state-level jurisdiction to whatever extent-- if any-- it is to be adjudicated at all.

It's depriving a person of the liberty to marry another person. That is officially marry.

specsaregood
02-24-2012, 08:50 AM
My point is that states give gay couples civil unions, which are "separate but equal" (not actually equal). Isn't the fact that there are separate legal constructs for different people against the law?


I just love how people make light of what blacks in america had to go through by comparing it to not being able to have the official label of govt marriage, because govt civil unions just isn't enough. I say we get rid of gender labels on all govt documentation, all bathrooms and from the english language. i mean "seperate but equal" and all that, it is simply discriminatory to label people male or female.

awake
02-24-2012, 08:57 AM
It is an issue for neither state of federal governments. It is a free and voluntary contract between individuals.

tod evans
02-24-2012, 09:13 AM
It is an issue for neither state of federal governments. It is a free and voluntary contract between individuals.

You're right........Only thing is the ****'s want a "simple" legal contract that affords them the same rights under law as a traditional marriage.
I have to wonder if everybody would be in such an uproar if such a contract were permitted under law but given a different name?

specsaregood
02-24-2012, 09:21 AM
//

awake
02-24-2012, 09:31 AM
We are not discussing real marriage, those who wish to be with a partner of the same sex are not prevented from doing so, we are discussing legal marriage that gives both parties the option to extract property from the other upon separation. Legal marriages often decay into simple transfers or extractions of property out of the joint property agreement. Property rights are at the center of all this.

When a person is hired, it is a form of relationship for productive services, he or she does not automatically own the companies property. In Marriage a person joins with another and gets to own all the property of the other (the Gold Digger effect came from some where). A lot of marriages work, don't get me wrong, but when they end, it is always a property rights battle, lawyers and government always gain in the situation.

Prenuptial agreements are an attempt to clearly define property rights before a legal union. They are considered bad generally, but they reduce the potential for conflict upon separation and define the utility of legal contract in mitigating conflict in such matters.

tod evans
02-24-2012, 09:41 AM
Personally I find that stance ridiculous and the insistence of using the term marriage confrontational.



They already complain about that, it isn't good enough. Look at new jersey. NJ has civil unions that afford the exact same privileges under the law (at state/local level) as traditional marriage. But many of them are up in arms about the fact that they can't have the label "marriage". So yes, just as much uproar.

specsaregood
02-24-2012, 09:46 AM
and the insistence of using the term marriage confrontational.

I'm pretty sure that is the point.

ForLiberty2012
02-24-2012, 10:04 AM
I have a small question... Is there any religion that condones homosexuality? Marriage isn't a legal "right", it's a religious joining of two souls... Or something like that lol. I'm not anti-gay or anything, but I find it funny that homosexuals want these religious ceremonies when there isnt a religion that accepts homosexuals... Perhaps I could be wrong on that point, but it's hard to wrap my brain around the whole concept. I could care less about the matter but it's annoying like someone pointed out that they can have a civil union and have equal rights and not be okay with it? Who ccares what the state calls it... As long as you are getting your "rights".

MaxPower
02-24-2012, 02:09 PM
The Bachmann response, really? Lol.
I wasn't aware of Bachmann's opinion on this issue. However, Bachmann also supports auditing (or even abolishing, from some of her past statements) the Federal Reserve, for example; rabid warmonger and trampler of civil liberties though she may be, she is capable of taking good positions.



My point is that states give gay couples civil unions, which are "separate but equal" (not actually equal). Isn't the fact that there are separate legal constructs for different people against the law?
Ah, but in those states, anyone can get either a "civil union" or a "marriage." I'm not gay, but I could still get a "civil union" with another man, just as a gay man could still get a "marriage" with a woman. Individuals aren't being discriminated against; rather, the same standard is applied across the board.




Gay people need to start forming corporations together. Then they can get individual rights, since a corporation is one person. Lol.
I don't believe a corporation is a person. The law recognizes it as such, of course, but if two gay people formed a "corporation" together, would they not for purposes of that corporation be the same person? "Marrying" itself?


It's depriving a person of the liberty to marry another person. That is officially marry.
DISCLAIMER: I fear the following statement might be taken as insensitive or demeaning to gays, but I do not mean it in that way:
Under this line of reasoning, the law also deprives us all of the liberty to "marry" our blood siblings, or our parents, or a city, or a fish, or an infant, or an inanimate object. There is no universal, legally-enforceable right to "marry" whatever you want. If it is to exist as a legal entity (which it shouldn't, especially since it causes complications and disputes like this one), "marriage" has to be susceptible to some kind of definition, and with that definition naturally come specific circumstances under which it can exist. There are also specific contingencies according to which the law recognizes someone as being eligible to hold a public office, be a legal guardian to someone else, etc.

On the other hand, I think a better argument that marriage laws are discriminatory can be made-- not that they discriminate by "sexual orientation" (they don't) or against "couples" (for "couples" don't have rights), but rather that they discriminate by sex itself. I've already explained that a straight person and a gay person of the same sex are legally the same, but it is true that the standard is different from individual to individual depending upon sex, and one could argue, for example, that if "'marriage'-to-a-woman" is seen as a "protection" of the law, that women are thus being denied "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment. The problem with that, of course, is that the law currently allows for all kinds of statutes that treat men and women differently and are not taken to be in violation of this standard the way that, say, a similar statute differentiating between white and black people would be; sex still seems to be seen as a valid legal line of demarcation. One could argue that a re-examination of this fact is in order, though that would mean changing an enormous body of laws even aside from this one (eg. no more "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms in public facilities).

otherone
02-24-2012, 05:35 PM
I have a small question... Is there any religion that condones homosexuality? Marriage isn't a legal "right", it's a religious joining of two souls... Or something like that lol. I'm not anti-gay or anything, but I find it funny that homosexuals want these religious ceremonies when there isnt a religion that accepts homosexuals..

The Episcopal Church marries homosexuals in states where it is legal. Frankly, I don't care what people choose to call their relationship. It's not my business, it's not the state's business, and certainly in no way impinges on my Rights.

Brett85
02-24-2012, 05:51 PM
Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. That's an issue I'm always going to disagree with libertarians on. I can agree with libertarians on foreign policy issues, the Patriot Act, and the drug war, but not on this. If that makes me "anti liberty," I really don't care.

PierzStyx
02-24-2012, 05:57 PM
Had a discussion about this here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?361677-Heterosexual-vs.-Homosexual-Marriage-is-a-liberal-division-tactic&highlight=gay+marriage+liberal


Fact is that the state shouldn't be involved either. The state screws up the entire idea just as much as the Fedgov does, and every problem that exists with Federal marriage would exist with state marriage. Better to keep government out of it all together. The whole argument over definition or privileges becomes irrelevant once this is done. Liberty really does make both sides happy.

Titus
02-24-2012, 05:58 PM
On the other hand, I think a better argument that marriage laws are discriminatory can be made-- not that they discriminate by "sexual orientation" (they don't) or against "couples" (for "couples" don't have rights), but rather that they discriminate by sex itself. I've already explained that a straight person and a gay person of the same sex are legally the same, but it is true that the standard is different from individual to individual depending upon sex, and one could argue, for example, that if "'marriage'-to-a-woman" is seen as a "protection" of the law, that women are thus being denied "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment. The problem with that, of course, is that the law currently allows for all kinds of statutes that treat men and women differently and are not taken to be in violation of this standard the way that, say, a similar statute differentiating between white and black people would be; sex still seems to be seen as a valid legal line of demarcation. One could argue that a re-examination of this fact is in order, though that would mean changing an enormous body of laws even aside from this one (eg. no more "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms in public facilities).

This is not accurate, although I understand the fear. The law is permitted to discriminate based on gender if there is a "real difference" at issue. This is a biological difference than can be pointed to. Bathrooms are a perfect example. Hopefully, I don't need to elaborate. There is unlikely to be a biological difference that requires such a rule.


Several people have discussed the separate but equal rationale.
Marriage actually is a fundamental right according to Virginia v Loving. A state government attempted to ban interracial marriage. The court applied strict scrutiny there which means that there must be a compelling federal interest and is the statute "narrowly" tailored to the "compelling" interest. The court did not find one. However, the protected class, if any, is gender not race. So the court would use the real biological differences.

There is also a full faith and credit clause issue but this issue is unlikely to come up. DOMA was the prior law but that is gone. In order to have a case come up, a couple would have to get married in a gay marriage legal state and want benefits somewhere else. Then the case would have to come up through the appellate courts.

Truth be told, I don't see the Supreme Court clarifying this issue anytime soon. Whatever decision the Supreme Court decides, there will be others pushing for a constitutional amendment.

The courts are actually doing more for liberty by requiring the confrontation clause to be fulfilled rather than the former "reliability" test garbage.

PierzStyx
02-24-2012, 06:01 PM
The Episcopal Church marries homosexuals in states where it is legal. Frankly, I don't care what people choose to call their relationship. It's not my business, it's not the state's business, and certainly in no way impinges on my Rights.

The mere presence of government in marriage infringe son your rights. It infringes on your First Amendment rights to call your relationship whatever you want to call it. It interferes in your rights to privacy as it defines who you can and cannot have a relationship with, how many people you can have that relationship with, what you do within that relationship, and how it must begin and end.

Brett85
02-24-2012, 06:10 PM
It interferes in your rights to privacy as it defines who you can and cannot have a relationship with.

That just isn't true at all. A law defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not mean that gays can's "have a relationship" with each other. Gays can still live together, sleep together, and do whatever else they want to do together. Nobody is trying to "keep gays apart." The government is not telling people that they can't have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex. The government is simply saying that they aren't going to recognize a relationship between two people of the same sex.

ForLiberty2012
02-24-2012, 06:14 PM
I agree government shouldn't be involved at all. The government doesn't have the RIGHT to give special privileges to anyone... That's a breach of individual freedom. Just because you're married doesn't mean you get special rights, and just because you get divorced doesn't mean the government can take your property and money and give it to someone else. I know people are going to morally be uneasy with what I just said, but let me explain myself.

Just like welfare encourages people to not work and to be reliant on government, government policies on marriage encourage bad behavior. It causes women to marry for money... and it increases the incentives for women to file for divorce. Think it's a coincidence women file for divorce at twice the rate of men?? I think not. When the government gets involved, it gets incentives to bad behavior. If government isn't involved, what I buy is mine, and what you buy is yours and you can prove that... The courts can handle disputes of what property goes to what person, but to say... well the man has to give half of what he owns is absurd.

Gay, straight, bi... whatever you are... the government shouldn't be using force to violate personal liberties and property rights just because they decided to create their own definition of what is marriage.

Individual liberty.

PierzStyx
02-24-2012, 06:16 PM
That just isn't true at all. A law defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not mean that gays can's "have a relationship" with each other. Gays can still live together, sleep together, and do whatever else they want to do together. Nobody is trying to "keep gays apart." The government is not telling people that they can't have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex. The government is simply saying that they aren't going to recognize a relationship between two people of the same sex.

It is true. Because, as you just said, it defines marriage as being between only a man and a woman. That means that gay people can't get together and call their relationship what they like. And if two people of the same sex want to have a married relationship they can't. They can date but never, in their own eyes, have more. If you want to get "married" you HAVE to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you do not then you CANNOT be in a married relationship. It shatters the First Amendment altogether (their right to call their relationship what they like) as well as limits their personal relationship by legal force.

As I said before it is better government be out of marriage altogether. Religiously its blasphemous to give the power to regulate a covenant between you, your spouse, and God to the worldly government. Secularly it is a violation of personal rights.

PierzStyx
02-24-2012, 06:20 PM
That just isn't true at all. A law defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not mean that gays can's "have a relationship" with each other. Gays can still live together, sleep together, and do whatever else they want to do together. Nobody is trying to "keep gays apart." The government is not telling people that they can't have a "relationship" with someone of the same sex. The government is simply saying that they aren't going to recognize a relationship between two people of the same sex.

And as a heterosexual, why ON THE EARTH would you want to give the Federal or State government the power to define, limit, expand, and otherwise control your relationship? Give the state a foot it takes a football field. People gave the state the power to define their heterosexual partnerships in 1862 and since then it has been a slow slide down hill to where we are now. It has degraded the definition, the sanctity, the holiness, the purpose, and the blessing of marriage in every way and form. And you want to give the government MORE power? How depressing. If you really wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage you would work to remove government from it altogether.

Brett85
02-24-2012, 06:29 PM
And as a heterosexual, why ON THE EARTH would you want to give the Federal or State government the power to define, limit, expand, and otherwise control your relationship?

I don't see any evidence at all that that's happening. I'm pretty sure that the government doesn't control what goes on in someone's particular relationship. That seems like a straw man argument to me.

Brett85
02-24-2012, 06:31 PM
That means that gay people can't get together and call their relationship what they like.

Sure they can. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from going around and calling themselves married. There's no law that prohibits gay couples from saying they're married, and they can be married to each other in their hearts. They can also have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or wherever else, and they won't get arrested for it. "Gay marriage" is already decriminalized.

awake
02-24-2012, 06:44 PM
All of this falls under freedom to associate. Or not to do so.

I wonder what would happen if you made friendship into a legal contract? A friendship license and certificate?

Homosexuality is as old as prostitution. Laws will not abolish it and neither is a act of coercive violence against their fellow man.

Get the government out of the marriage business, they have ruined it like everything else they touch.

otherone
02-24-2012, 06:48 PM
The mere presence of government in marriage infringe son your rights.

That was my point. What I said was homosexuals being married does NOT infringe on MY Rights. It's none of my business.

Lishy
02-24-2012, 06:55 PM
Wait, so will ron paul make it a state issue, or federal? I'm confused.

ForLiberty2012
02-24-2012, 07:05 PM
Wait, so will ron paul make it a state issue, or federal? I'm confused.

Ron Paul would leave it up to the states, but he believes the government should not be involved at all. Government shouldn't be defining what marriage is nor should they be able to offer special privileges and/or taking away from personal liberties just because you are married.

MaxPower
02-24-2012, 08:13 PM
This is not accurate, although I understand the fear. The law is permitted to discriminate based on gender if there is a "real difference" at issue. This is a biological difference than can be pointed to. Bathrooms are a perfect example. Hopefully, I don't need to elaborate. There is unlikely to be a biological difference that requires such a rule.
I wasn't "afraid" of it; I doubt any disastrous social consequences would ensue if public bathrooms were desegregated. There have been such bathrooms in other ages and other nations without trouble. I was simply saying that if we are to argue that the marriage definition can be struck down on the grounds that it discriminates by sex (an argument I found stronger than "it discriminates against 'couples'" or "it discriminates against gays"), we would also have to reexamine other such laws drawing sex distinctions. Regarding the law's "permission to discriminate based on gender if there is a 'real difference' at issue," I assume you must be referring to a court ruling or someat, since the Constitution does not include such an exception to its anti-discrimination clauses. The courts would thus arguably be ruling wrongly, depending on how staunchly literalistic we want to be.

Paulitics 2011
02-24-2012, 10:30 PM
I just love how people make light of what blacks in america had to go through by comparing it to not being able to have the official label of govt marriage, because govt civil unions just isn't enough. I say we get rid of gender labels on all govt documentation, all bathrooms and from the english language. i mean "seperate but equal" and all that, it is simply discriminatory to label people male or female.

I'm not comparing the plight of blacks in American history to the situation with gays. I'm comparing the application of the law.

As for bathrooms, I'm not actually sure if that's illegal. The owner could kick you out if it is bothering other customers though.


It is an issue for neither state of federal governments. It is a free and voluntary contract between individuals.

Right, but Paul says that states should be able to decide who can get the government seal of approval.



You're right........Only thing is the ****'s want a "simple" legal contract that affords them the same rights under law as a traditional marriage.
I have to wonder if everybody would be in such an uproar if such a contract were permitted under law but given a different name?

Well that's what civil unions were supposed to be. They're supposed to give them equal rights and equal treatment.

The reason there's a push for marriage is that they WEREN'T equal as promised. There were plenty of legal loopholes, they didn't get treated the same in terms of insurance, medical situations, tax benefits, etc.


They already complain about that, it isn't good enough. Look at new jersey. NJ has civil unions that afford the exact same privileges under the law (at state/local level) as traditional marriage. But many of them are up in arms about the fact that they can't have the label "marriage". So yes, just as much uproar.

Not true.

NJ's own Review Commission concluded that they were NOT equal.

I suggest you read the report.
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf


I have a small question... Is there any religion that condones homosexuality? Marriage isn't a legal "right", it's a religious joining of two souls... Or something like that lol. I'm not anti-gay or anything, but I find it funny that homosexuals want these religious ceremonies when there isnt a religion that accepts homosexuals...

Marriages are also registered by the govt and help you get tax breaks, insurance benefits, medical rights, etc.

No proposed law has ever tried to make churches wed those that they don't want to.


Perhaps I could be wrong on that point, but it's hard to wrap my brain around the whole concept. I could care less about the matter but it's annoying like someone pointed out that they can have a civil union and have equal rights and not be okay with it? Who ccares what the state calls it... As long as you are getting your "rights".

They're not equal, for example, in NJ - as I pointed out.


I don't believe a corporation is a person. The law recognizes it as such, of course, but if two gay people formed a "corporation" together, would they not for purposes of that corporation be the same person? "Marrying" itself?

Kidding.


DISCLAIMER: I fear the following statement might be taken as insensitive or demeaning to gays, but I do not mean it in that way:
Under this line of reasoning, the law also deprives us all of the liberty to "marry" our blood siblings, or our parents, or a city, or a fish, or an infant, or an inanimate object.

Honestly, I don't mind the law allowing you to marry siblings, parents, etc. I don't think it's morally right, but I also believe in freedom of choice - which includes freedom to do stupid things.

As far as infants, fish, etc. they're not legally able to enter into contracts, so that's not really a valid comparison.


There is no universal, legally-enforceable right to "marry" whatever you want.
Loving v. Virginia

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."


If it is to exist as a legal entity (which it shouldn't, especially since it causes complications and disputes like this one), "marriage" has to be susceptible to some kind of definition, and with that definition naturally come specific circumstances under which it can exist.

Why not simple contract law? Two voluntarily, consenting individuals of age. That seems to work for every other personal contract out there, why not marriage?


There are also specific contingencies according to which the law recognizes someone as being eligible to hold a public office, be a legal guardian to someone else, etc.

Those are explicitly defined in the Constitution.


Though that would mean changing an enormous body of laws even aside from this one (eg. no more "Men's" and "Women's" bathrooms in public facilities).

Again, I'm not sure those are actually legally enforced though.


Sure they can. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from going around and calling themselves married. There's no law that prohibits gay couples from saying they're married, and they can be married to each other in their hearts. They can also have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or wherever else, and they won't get arrested for it. "Gay marriage" is already decriminalized.

The more important point is that they're robbed of tax benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and joint medical rights. Regulations also frequently overlook them, leaving loopholes that can be abused in the case of civil unions.

Brett85
02-25-2012, 08:33 AM
The more important point is that they're robbed of tax benefits, insurance benefits, retirement benefits, and joint medical rights. Regulations also frequently overlook them, leaving loopholes that can be abused in the case of civil unions.

What exactly makes those things "rights?" Should a man who wants to marry ten women also have the right to all of those benefits?

DerailingDaTrain
03-05-2012, 07:17 PM
What exactly makes those things "rights?" Should a man who wants to marry ten women also have the right to all of those benefits?

They aren't rights but since the government awards these benefits to men and women who get married the same should apply to homosexual couples who get married. Doing otherwise means that the government thinks that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. I think your problem is simply a religious one and you can't come to terms with homosexuals ever being allowed to marry and "tarnish" the religious sacrament of marriage.

NoOneButPaul
03-05-2012, 07:18 PM
State

Feeding the Abscess
03-05-2012, 07:27 PM
Individual issue

QuickZ06
03-05-2012, 07:38 PM
Individual issue

I agree.

Paulitics 2011
03-05-2012, 08:03 PM
What exactly makes those things "rights?" Should a man who wants to marry ten women also have the right to all of those benefits?

If someone wants to marry ten women, in terms of the law, I could not care less. It's not something I agree with, but I don't get to make moral decisions for others, do I? I can advise them, reason with them.

Although I'm not sure how that would work out, in terms of medical decisions and such. Who would get the final say? What would happen in the case of a dispute? The law would have to be reworked.