Monday, February 14, 2005

More blogging that is totally gay

Could marriage, qua legal status, accommodate polygamous relationships? No! How would divorce be handled in polygamy? Could two "spouses" oust a third? What about property ownership -- could three out of seven spouses own property jointly apart from the others? Can a spouse in one polygamous marriage enter into another polygamous marriage without the consent of all the spouses of the original and the new marriages? What about inheritance? Tax returns? Child support? Powers of attorney? Right-to-die decisions?


Hey here is something funky.. did you know people asked several ( if not all) of those questions about gay marriage .. ;-) yeah they did funny that

The legal implications of the status of marriage require, metaphysically, that it be between two and only two people. But those same legal implications do not require, metaphysically, that it be between a man and a woman.


So arguing metaphysics to deprive a polygamist of his natural rights, and rejecting metaphysics when it impacts your natural rights.. intresting tactic

there is a fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the state would have to show a "compelling interest" in restricting a particular form of marriage. Clearly the sheer impossibility (not difficulty, but impossibility) of implementing legal polygamy qualifies.


yes, because clearly we don't have any unresolved legal issues from gay marriage

like a formerly hetrosexual dies and leaves his child to his SO... the wife, who is a biological parent objects due to her moral values, and right as a parent

no cause i mean courts, and legislatures don't go around ironing out flaws in the legal system... that never happens.

and, lets not forget in the past we have had men with multiple commonlaw spouses.. so there is a precident for sorting this matters out. Also how legal rights work for wives of illegal polygamists

fun from a a stich in haste he has a good blog but the fact real world polygamists are advancing as slowly as the first cases for gay marriage proves him wrong on this point

No comments: