I don't see how the two are at all similar. Marriage to multiple partners is fundamentally different than marriage to the partner (singular) of your choice.

Huh? You need to clarify that one bub! :hmmm:

Marriage to one person is completely different than marrying a bunch of people?

How is that? Please explain the two some difference than three some in the sack. :hmmm:

Where I live they never check for ID or anything. I just gave my name, my name was on the list and I walked in the booth. :hmmm:

I don't know the exact wording of those laws, but if they specify that marriage can only exist between two individuals, and no more than that number, then they are addressing the number of spouses one person can have and not which two people can marry each other where only two people are involved to begin with.

If they bring sex into the issue by stating that a man cannot be married to more than one woman at a time, well, nothing's changed there. A man still can't be married to more than one woman at a time. (He can't be married to more than one man at a time either.) As long as the law doesn't specify that marrying a woman is his only option for wedded bliss, it shouldn't be affected by this judge's ruling.

Well, it looks like James, The Frau, Mookie and Krashkart said it all, so there's not much for me to add. It's not about "One judge versus seven million voters", it's about rights, and what rights are guaranteed and what rights are not. The judge's ruling was based on the evidence given and on the Constitutionality of the laws passed.

I'm not even arguing if the judge is right or wrong at this point. It will be heard by an Appelate Court, and if need be the Supreme Court. At this point it's not about Gay Rights, the voters or anything else. It's about the law. Did the voters pass a law that goes against the Constitution? That has yet to be finally determined.

I'll let you know when it happens.

I think that is against my civil rights. I should be able to have more then one wife. I think that law is unconstitutional. It should be overturned. I don't care who voted for it. :03:

But what is so fundamentally different about it? They're still consenting adults, correct? Being married to one person does not legally prevent someone from sleeping with another person. In fact a group of three or more consenting adults can live like they are in a polygamous marriage and it's only the formalization of this arraignment that the government can prohibit.

When a survey was made about integration of African Americans into a single non-segregated system in the late 40s. The VAST VAST VAST Majority of GIs polled said it was wrong.

If the Civil Rights laws depended on a vote we might have still been segregated today.

The rights of people can't come up for a vote.

Frau nailed it - you can't marry multiple partners, no matter the gender. That goes for if you're gay, straight or other. That's a completely different issue than saying "you can marry one person if you're straight but you can't marry anyone at all if you're gay."

How so? Because the law says I can not have two wives? This is unconstitutional as far as I can tell. I think the judge should overturn this law no matter what the voters say.

Who then determines what are the rights of the people?

Sadly the courts have had to be depended on time and time again to establish the rights of people. From Roe vs Wade to Brown vs Board etc...

What I worry about tho is if the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case because it is such a hot topic. Idiot prop 8 supporters think the Supreme court will hand them an easy victory. But what they don't seem to get is that if they rule a right... It is VERY hard to get them to revisit that ruling... That is why abortion hasnt been touched much in the past few decades.

Actually I have no problems with a legal mechanism being put into place to allow for some type of recognized "union" between more than two consenting adults who have chosen to live in that fashion, provided it applies equally to everyone regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the individuals involved.

Obviously considering any such arrangement a "marriage" would involve a complete redefinition of the concept above and beyond what is necessary to include same-sex couples.

And needless to say I would not support anything that restricted such a union to one (male) husband taking multiple (female)wives. I doubt that any of the religious groups that still condone and practice polygamy, or that might consider doing so again, would be willing to accept the possibility of equal opportunity and protection for women in this matter in order to make it once again legal for their menfolk. The institution of polygamy as a cultural "norm" is so inextricably intertwined with the exploitation and oppression of women that removing those elements and giving equal status, rights and protection to any females involved would make it unappealing to anyone who still clings to it as a vestige of male prestige and power.

You have the inherent right to do anything you want, except deny that same right to others. Anything else is legislating morality.

Cultural 'norm'....there in lies the problem. Gay marriage is not seen as a cultural norm and probably will not be seen as the norm for quite sometime. Are you saying then that women in polygamous marriages are exploited and oppressed? Please explain.

That is why it is not up to us but up to the highest courts. Remember Interracial marriage for instance.

Certain groups practice polygamy in a manner that does not faithfully represent a mutual love and respect between partners. In such cases it is centric to the male, and the females are submissive counterparts. I believe that is what frau kaleun is referring to.

If mutual love and respect becomes a prequisite for marital union, then I imagine that at least half of the current marriages in the country will have to be immediately dissolved.

However, I applaud the court's decision. It is high time that homosexual couples were made to suffer just as their hertosexual counterparts.