Congratulations, Limeys, on your Civil Partnership Act going into force, and to all those who have waited a long time to make honest men and women of each other, so to speak, on their upcoming nuptials. Perhaps we here in the US will come of age one day before too long ourselves and realize that legally recognizing *all* loving families out there only strengthens us as a society.

Call me a sentimental sucker if you like and feel free to flame away, but when I read about these two gentlemen on the BBC today, I got a bit teary-eyed; forty years is a long time to wait for the right to call someone your spouse and to protect your family under the law. Drippy, sentimental article here :): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4497416.stm

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. Please move this to Nuggets if it seems more appropriate.

/Shrug I think if the homosexual community here in the states were to start pushing for "Civil Unions" rather than "Marriage" they would get a lot further in the goals.

Sure, it's not much difference, really just a different word for the same thing over all. And to a lot of the *far* right wing nut jobs (and left wing nut jobs) Naming it somethign different isnt enough. But to a lot of the middle of the road people like myself, having that simple destinction between the two Marriage (being between a heterosexual couple, and a civil union between the homosexual couple) would make all the difference. It lets me keep my ivory tower of morality, and gives them the legal protections they deserve.

I think Elemak hits it on the head. A "civil union act" would probably pass immediately. The last sentence kinda sums it up for me.

Dear Elemak:

I think that you are probably right on a couple of levels - firstly, that the term 'marriage' is a religious one, despite our use of it in secular law, and religious institutions have the right to marry, or refuse to marry, anyone they wish (If you're Catholic, for example, there are classes you have to attend before marrying, and you have to vow to raise your children in the Catholic Church, etc). Secondly, marriage *licences* (the legal document) and marriage ceremonies are already separate affairs; as long as the legal benefits of the two contracts are equivalent, it doesn't really matter what they call it. I think that a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is heard on *both* sides with regards to this issue, and such reactionary moves as these 'defense of marriage' acts, ceremonies being held by mayors, etc, has to do with an ego-driven desire to push their view of the 'moral' high ground...

I'm glad that the UK has managed to handle the issue with what appears to be, all things considered, a minimum of fuss, and hope that we can follow suit and, one of these days, just manage to live and let live with regard to people's choices of who they wish to spend their lives with.

Regards,
Nydia

I wouldn't underestimate the opposition to this sort of thing. During the '04 elections, several states had anti-gay marriate propositions up for vote that included anti-civil union language. For some people, anything resembling gay marriage is an invitation to apocalypse and an eternity in the fiery pits.

Dear Mirdorr:

Don't be so sure. The amendment to the Texas state constitution, which was overwhelmingly passed last month, expressly *forbids* the recognition of any alternate civil partnership other than legal marriage (defined as between a man and a woman). I'll try to find the actual amendment; it's so horribly written, and so vague, that there are serious questions as to the legality of thousands of common-law marriages already in force here in the state...

Regards,
Nydia

Well for a country that is all about "freedoms" it looks like we may very well be the last "free" nation to grant liberties to gays. Kind of ironic and sad too.

While it may seem logical to say "oh well if they wanted a union instead of marriage they would have better luck".... I disagree. There are some seriously close minded people out there and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it in any form.

I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that a religion should have the right to marry whomever it wants- or to refuse to marry anyone for any reason.

However, the government has the right to restrict marriage as well- it can (and does) use this right. Marriage requirements vary from state to state in terms of waiting periods, paperwork required, number of witnesses, etc. This leads me to think that this is an issue that should be decided on the state level; if certain states want to open civil unions or marriage to same sex couples, by all means, they should be able to do so. Likewise, if other states do *not* want to open that door, they should also be able to do that as well.



I just can't see a federal law working on this topic. This really is one of those issues that is very far removed from the reality of the time period when the Constitution of the U.S. was written- I just can't imagine that it ever crossed the minds of the people who wrote that document that it would even be an issue someday. Trying to fit it in the current framework of that document without some form of amendment just doesn't seem like it is going to work- either way.

I think Elemak hits it on the head. A "civil union act" would probably pass immediately.As several others have pointed out...not a chance in hell. Too many places in this country where the culture simply makes that impossible.

Let a few states pass it, and let the others see what happens to them. Then let them vote again.

A "Civil Union" is exactly how I'm "married" to my wife. I think anyone who used a non-religious process to enter into a marriage already forms under the "Civil Union" blanket in the eyes of many people, and I also agree that it is unlikely that the laws for non-religious marriages are going to be expanded in all states to allow same sex unions. We are just too divided as a country on the issue of same-sex unions at the current point in time for it to be resolved on a federal level.



However, if a law allowing same-sex unions was put on the books, I could see it quickly being used for reasons unrelated to pair bonding- getting "married" to a business associate on your deathbed so that they can get business assets passed to them in a will or some such economic use.

Dear Esbat:

Your civil union is not, as of last month, recognized in the state of Texas :). Be sure not to die here if you have relatives who don't like your wife, and you want her to inherit your estate!

But in reference to your last statement, I think that's a bit unreasonably cynical, in terms of being an argument as to why we should be wary of civil partnerships. What's to stop opposite-sex business partners from doing such a thing now? Also, Great Britain's Parlimentary system is at least as hidebound as ours, and although they are geographically smaller, they have similar issues to deal with in regards to opposition from provincial populations (in Wales, parts of Scotland, etc), as well as from religious groups, to this Act. I think we'd much better off tackling this on a Federal level, as the current system with the states allowing or expressly forbidding the recognition of certain partnerships is, in our highly mobile society, a train wreck waiting to happen as soon as someone in a civil partnership with contested assets dies or ends up in a persistent vegetative state after having crossed a state line. I guess the fireworks will be working their way up the court system soon enough, however...

Regards,
Nydia

Kudos to Britain and I believe South Africa has recently recognized that Gay/Lesbian couples have a right to marry.


Shame on the US for the way our rights are continuosly ignored and eroded.

You would think that in a country that supposedly sets the example of a free society that we should not need to look at other nations as examples of a higher form of freedom.

Not to derail the thread but I watched an interesting program on fighting terrorism and Spain has done quite well with the methods they are using since the train bombing in Madrid. So perhaps we could learn some lessons in other areas also.

However, if a law allowing same-sex unions was put on the books, I could see it quickly being used for reasons unrelated to pair bonding- getting "married" to a business associate on your deathbed so that they can get business assets passed to them in a will or some such economic use.Marriage isn't a great way to pass those sort of funds, and, well, if your business partner is the opposite sex of you, your evil scheme already works. You're much better of if your business is a corporation and it just keeps living after you die, and you provide a seperate legal status (trust or chapter-S) for your own interests in that coproration anyway.

See, the Palimax trust, and the Palimax corporation already owns my real assetts and my stocks. By the time Palimax passes on, he hopes to have passed most of his financial interest in both of those seperate legal entities to Daughter-of-Palimax or Next-Wife-of-Palimax. Palimax-the-person will keep voting control of the corporation until then :)

"I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that a religion should have the right to marry whomever it wants- or to refuse to marry anyone for any reason."

Some Mormon fundamentalists would disagree with your contention that no one disputes a religion's right to control its marriage laws.

But to a lot of the middle of the road people like myself, having that simple destinction between the two Marriage (being between a heterosexual couple, and a civil union between the homosexual couple) would make all the difference. It lets me keep my ivory tower of morality, and gives them the legal protections they deserve.

This is where I fall in the equation too.

I really feel strongly that legal protections and property rights need to be available, but I cannot get past the upbringing of marriage being a heterosexual *thing*.

What business does the state have in recognizing 'marriage' in the first place? I believe the French have it quite right (and I do not find myself agreeing with their government terribly often) - civil unions are universal between consenting adults. Privately, people should be able to call it marriage, holy matrimony, tax mitigation contract, go-to-the-kitchen-and-bake-me-a-pie-age, whatever works for them.

And congrats to the Brits :)

Just to toss one more factor into this mix, it was not that long ago that some states in this country allowed the marriage of an adult to a child (minors, being under the age of eighteen). Now that honeymoon would get the average *offender* 20 years, and some serious beating in prison. Those laws were written closer to the time of the founding fathers.

I do not see this country being ready to pass any across the board legislation accepting such unions as Britain has done for at least another generation. We really are not as forward thinking as a nation as we want to believe.

Bylimet (and others) touched on the side of the issue that will invariably cause concern, problems or heartaches for a lot of folks.

I believe that a "civil union" is probably the way to address the issue instead of "marriage". As was mentioned, there are many who see marriage as a religious ceremony and will defend that tooth and nail.

If this is not handled at the federal level and made into law, there will be some pretty serious issues for some people. For example... if two people are joined in a "civil union" in New York and later (because of jobs, etc) move to Texas, they could both be jailed or face other civil / legal issues.

For this to work, it is going to have to be done the same way as your state driver's license. The term is reciprocity... it means that your driver's license is recognized in any state and is accepted anywhere in the US. The same thing would have to be true of "civil unions".

The law would have to be written to recognize "civil unions" in all respects as "marriage". This would allow joined couples to enjoy the same benefits that "married" couples now have. I believe that this would have to be a federal law, otherwise there would be states that would not recognize "civil unions".

*tosses two coppers into the ring*

Maybe someone can help identify exactly what rights are being afforded to the UK couples? I have looked and can not find any information stating if the civil union = legal marriage, or if it has "similar" (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=14698&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm) rights. The differences can be found in next of kin status, FMLA (or UK equivalent), portability outside of the state/territory of issuance, beneficiary status....

I am happy for any couple able to find legal validation and enforcable means for their personal commitments. There are three major interests:
1. the rights relating to property/benefit/financial equality;
2. the social acceptance to love, honor, and cherish your partner of choice within a committed human adult relationship; and
3. allowing a person's personal relationship with God to be reflected in the committments he/she makes. Allow God to decide what is right.

One step at a time, I guess.

Dear Flashcube:

A FAQ for the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4497348.stm

And the key points of the bill can be found neatly spelled out here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3585819.stm

It is interesting to note that, as is indicated in the article, that the Act's backers stressed, in writing it, to go for parity in legal status, and not in name, as they, rather practically, felt that that was most important. A list of recent moves by other countries in regards to legal civil partnerships for homosexual couples can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4081999.stm

And a slightly outdated discussion of the status of such bills in the US (doesn't take into account Texas', and several other states', amendments defining marriage this fall) can be found here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3516551.stm

Regards,
Nydia

As an aside...

"I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that a religion should have the right to marry whomever it wants- or to refuse to marry anyone for any reason."

Some Mormon fundamentalists would disagree with your contention that no one disputes a religion's right to control its marriage laws.


Woah, ok just because some whack job ass monkeys in Bumblefuck Utah call themselves "Mormon" does not necessarily mean they have any connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (AKA Mormons) in any shape or form. There is a hu(d)ge difference, between them, and your average every day Mormons. They aren't any recognized part of the church, and if they are before they start their polygamy, they aren't afterwards.

it was not that long ago that some states in this country allowed the marriage of an adult to a child


To the best of my knowledge those same states still do allow those types of marriages.

it was not that long ago that some states in this country allowed the marriage of an adult to a child (minors, being under the age of eighteen). Now that honeymoon would get the average *offender* 20 years, and some serious beating in prison.

Quite a few states still do with the proviso of parental consent to such. Also I believe the age of consent is still down around 15 in some Southern states, although there has been a general trend towards 18 everywhere. Texas is still 17 AFAIK.

The entire subject is such a moral and religious minefield I really think the absolute best track for the civil union proponents to take would be to get either marriage laws or civil union laws (though I'm not fond of separate-but-equal legislation) on the books is as many states as possible and then let political nature take its course over the next 30-50 years as the fundie generation dies off.

<---lives in Utah

Here to tell ya, that the multiple wife thing is only practiced by a very few, and isolated, families anymore. The Church of Latter Day Saints not only disavows them, they help persecute them.

Fandros

To give the "resident Southern redneck" response to Malse and Ibudin; Every state requires a person to be 18 in order to marry without parental consent except for two, which both require older ages: Nebraska ( 19 ) and Mississippi ( 21 ). Every state has various minimum ages, some requiring court orders and most have various waivers allowed if a pregnancy is involved. New Hampshire actually had the lowest minimum age defined in statute that I could find ( 13 for females, 14 for males ), though many states just make reference to under 16 needing a court order in addition to parental approval.

Apologies for the derail, but I have to answer the bigots from north of the Mason-Dixon line every once in awhile.

Fil

Heh, damn, New Hamphsire is 13?

I realize I was unclear in that, I was refering to the marriagable age with parental consent. I'm from Texas and almost got married as a joke when I was 17 in jest (thumbing your nose at the absurdity of something is a lot funnier when you have nothing to lose), in one of the few cases of me ever being thankful for the law :>

Marriage Law (with ages) by US State (http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm)
Age of Consent by Country and US State (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

For marriage, for most every states it's 18 or 16-17 with parental consent (signed, notarized, witnessed, possibly birth cirtificates) and in some cases 14-15 with an OK from your parents AND a judge, and SOMETIMES a state-appointed psych consult :) . Some interesting exceptions

If you are 16 or 17 years old, you may apply if accompanied by both parents who have given written consent. If the bride is pregnant, no parental consent is required if you submit a statement from a licensed physician certifying that the bride is pregnant.

A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions.

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. In Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, the young couple must have authorization from a court. Maryland requires that the minor be at least 16.

Mexico, Paraguay and Chile still lead the western world with ages of consent at TWELVE.

Gandaar makes a good point about needing this to be a federally legislated issue, because if other countries allow such marriages they would not be recognized as legal once they entered our country without some such federal law accepting the validity of such unions. We have already had a number of legal incidents with the Hmong and underage marriage partners.

And is there going to be a vBookie line on who is first to chastise Flashcube for portraying God as a He?

Woah, ok just because some whack job ass monkeys in Bumblefuck Utah call themselves "Mormon" does not necessarily mean they have any connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (AKA Mormons) in any shape or form. There is a hu(d)ge difference, between them, and your average every day Mormons. They aren't any recognized part of the church, and if they are before they start their polygamy, they aren't afterwards.I suppose it's a matter of interpretation, but I read Furt's post in more of a historical context (how did Mormons feel when Utah was up for statehood), not a 'go talk to a "Mormon" in Utah and see what they say'.

Basically, Joe Smith got a divine revelation saying 'take multiple wives', and did so, and encouraged the members of his church to do so. They did so, up until Utah was up for statehood. The US said 'no statehood until you ditch polygamy', and, conveniently, the president (of the church) got a new divine revelation saying 'dont take multiple wives anymore'.

Hence, Furt's statement that "Mormon fundamentalists would disagree with your contention that no one disputes a religion's right to control its marriage laws", in a historical context.

Even if you dont agree with the above, the fact is that there are religions that exist in the US today (not current LDS, but spinoffs, and others as well) that WANT to engage in polygamy, but cannot as others dipute that religion's marriage laws, again supporting Furt's statement.

/hijack off

Gandaar makes a good point about needing this to be a federally legislated issue, because if other countries allow such marriages they would not be recognized as legal once they entered our country without some such federal law accepting the validity of such unions. We have already had a number of legal incidents with the Hmong and underage marriage partners.

And is there going to be a vBookie line on who is first to chastise Flashcube for portraying God as a He?
Ha! Fair enough. God can be whatever s/h/it wants.
Ah, the power of "natural selection" at work....! *ducks* :-)

I really like what Will posted. I think the word marriage should be ditched. It should all be legally civil unions. Then if you go to a church and the service is performed you can call it marriage if you so choose, but it will legally be a civil union.

It's wishful thinking I'm afraid. While it makes perfect logical sense there are some people who just won't ever go for it. I would venture to say that trying to change the term from marriage to civil union and be federally recognized would be harder than passing legislation to allow gays to have civil unions and be nationally recognized.

I do think that this topic is going to stay in the forefront of political campaigns for many years yet. It's not going away and soon it's going to be one of those defining party lines kind of thing.....I know it is now to some degree.....I'm just saying it's going to be like defining a candidate who is prolife or prochoice.

I'm curious about the UK law though. Was there some history to it (I'm sure there was) but did it start kind of small like the Mass. thing where one area passes laws allowing it and then it followed suit? Was it a national election?

A recent example (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/16/national/main1050731.shtml) in Georgia of teenage marriage that has the locals in a fit (and note the first line of the article -- 2 examples, really).

That is some really messed up stuff.

Nydia,
Your civil union is not, as of last month, recognized in the state of Texas :). Be sure not to die here if you have relatives who don't like your wife, and you want her to inherit your estate!
Really? I was fairly sure a marriage by a judge (a civil process/union/marriage/whatever you want to call it) was reciprocated by other states, but if what you say is true, Texas isn't one of them any longer. Are they only recognizing unions performed within the bounds of a religious institution? Just Christian marriages? What if you're Jewish?

But in reference to your last statement, I think that's a bit unreasonably cynical, in terms of being an argument as to why we should be wary of civil partnerships.
I'm not wary of civil partnerships at all, and I agree that opposite sex partners can- and possibly do- the same thing now.

I think we'd much better off tackling this on a Federal level, as the current system with the states allowing or expressly forbidding the recognition of certain partnerships is, in our highly mobile society, a train wreck waiting to happen as soon as someone in a civil partnership with contested assets dies or ends up in a persistent vegetative state after having crossed a state line.
Just because somebody could possibly move and make assumptions regarding the laws where they were moving to and get burned by it? Ignorance of the law is no excuse; 24 hours worth of research (or a legal consultation at the most) is a small price to pay to ensure you're not making a huge mistake when you move. Hell, I failed to do this when I moved from NY to NC and realized that I couldn't buy many of the beer I enjoyed drinking any longer due to some rather silly laws on the books at the time. Mea culpa.

Likewise:
Gandaar makes a good point about needing this to be a federally legislated issue, because if other countries allow such marriages they would not be recognized as legal once they entered our country... [quote]
Just because other people are doing it doesn't mean we have to do it, too! Again, this falls into the rights of sovereign nations to decide what is OK to do within their borders. Somebody from Amsterdam can't move to the US and expect to enjoy the same rights here regarding drug use as they have in their homeland. It just isn't a reasonable assumption to make (yet).

Palimax-

Your logic works for me, perhaps I'll form Esbat Corporation soon.

[quote]Some Mormon fundamentalists would disagree with your contention that no one disputes a religion's right to control its marriage laws.
True, but we both looked at one part of the issue and not the whole. While it could be seen as splitting hairs, the Mormons still have the right to believe that they can engage in polygamy- they just can't do it *here*, much like Rastafarians can't smoke ganja *here*. Regardless of what you believe, there is an expectation that you'll follow the laws of the land in which you live, even if you don't agree with them. In our country, there is always the hope that the laws can be changed (however unlikely it might be in reality).

The issue of Mormon polygamy has already been touched upon in some other replies. Still, the last time I checked, there are many people who call themselves Mormons practicing polygamy. However, it does run afoul of the laws regarding that issue. However, the Mormons agreed not to practice polygamy hundreds of years ago when Wilford Woodruff recognized that butting heads with the Federal Government was going to be more trouble than it was worth- and well, they could just hide it, right?

What business does the state have in recognizing 'marriage' in the first place?
I think that is one of those things they just have the right to do- like setting up a sales tax. To properly address this issue, we'd have to have a discussion about the extent of State's Rights we think is appropriate. That, or we'd have to agree as to what a marriage is in the first place- something that a lot of people can't seem to do right now.

The issue of Mormon polygamy has already been touched upon in some other replies. Still, the last time I checked, there are many people who call themselves Mormons practicing polygamy.

I think the number is about 12,000; maybe that counts as "many."
That, or we'd have to agree as to what a marriage is in the first place- something that a lot of people can't seem to do right now.
I think this is an important point, especially when drawing comparisons with Rastafarians (or any religion using controlled substances), sales tax, and any institutions or prohibitions overseen or mandated by the government. Taxes, for instance, seem quite different from marriage, for a variety of reasons.

I think the number is about 12,000; maybe that counts as "many."Lets see, a pair is 2, a few is 3 or 4, and 12,000....yeah, that's "many" all righty.

Your logic works for me, perhaps I'll form Esbat Corporation soon.Esbat, sorry, almost lost this in your mis-quote. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm already the co-majority interest holder in my family corporation along with my brother. Our parents each own 1% of the total value of the company and my brother and I 49% each. My parents hold the only voting rights, and their wills grant the surviving senior partner the other's voting rights. In short, my parents have already seen to pass the "company" to their children without paying taxes (or at least not in the traditional sense -- I still file a Schedule K1 each year for passive loss/gain activity in the corporation). This corporation will outlive me and my brother as well, passing (hopefully) what we leave behind to our children [which is currently only my daughter].

So, for everyone who thinks getting gay-married for health insurance and tax benefits (ala Drawn Together) is a good plan, there are certainly better choices out there already -- and presumably a plethora of people on either side of the gender line willing to marry you in time for tax season.

I think the number is about 12,000; maybe that counts as "many."

Depends on your point of reference. It is a number too large to be ignored completely, and might very well be larger if it were not illegal. Compared to the population of China, it seems very, very small.

This number also isn't likely to count the non-Mormons who practice polygamy in this country (marrying another before you are divorced, for example), though I admit the situations are not the same.

"Traditional Family Values" arguments aside, there really isn't any overwhelming reason why polygamy as a concept is inherently bad*- be it men with many wives or women with many husbands. There are plenty of reasons why it is impractical in the United States- mostly regarding laws of inheritance, property and the like, which just are not set up to deal with multiple-partner lifestyles.

*There are plenty of arguments as to why it is bad as practiced by the not-quite-so-Mormons in Utah.

I'm not against polyamorous relationships.

I am against the way that "mormons" in northern Arizona and southern Utah practice polygamy - taking young brides...breeding young brides into servitude. It's ugly and reprehensible.

I'm not against polyamorous relationships.

I am against the way that "mormons" in northern Arizona and southern Utah practice polygamy - taking young brides...breeding young brides into servitude. It's ugly and reprehensible.

I agree. Polygamy isn't inherently evil, and neither is polyamory, but the way polygamy is practiced is almost always polygenous. Given that marriage has its roots in biology - that is, procreation - polyandry doesn't make much sense, but sticking one male with a horde of females certainly has its advantages. The historical mormon 'system' follows the same principle, and usually leads to a rather shitty existence for those involved.

A lot of African and some Indonesian countrys have plenty of Polygamy going on but its more so all those women can raise the pigs and grow the crops so the man can run around and talk shop!

Dear Esbat:

Really? I was fairly sure a marriage by a judge (a civil process/union/marriage/whatever you want to call it)

Notice your use of interchangable terms. I'll admit to some confusion when you said you'd had a civil union, because in Texas we have, or should I say had, (their legality is now in doubt because of the new amendment) some civil arrangements that don't require that a wedding ceremony be performed before a Justice of the Peace or other public official, namely common-law marriage. Many states have these laws, which state that if you've been cohabitating for a certain period of time, and *declare* that you're married, voila! You are, in the eyes of the law, with all the rights, priveleges, obligations, and tax breaks that that implies.

What you had, as you admit in your second post, was a *marriage*, whether done at the JP with little more than signing a document or not - and this sloppy use of terminology (by the state, not simply by you) to define a *legal* arrangement is what's heading us towards the aforementioned trainwreck.

To give you an example: The new Texas law not only prohibits any legal domestic partnership that isn't one man and one woman in a *marriage*, but it prohibits the state from *recognizing* any such arrangements that are valid elsewhere. Sure, that's been stated already, and one can consider the issue when deciding whether to move to another state, but what if you happen to be in Texas on business or vacation, and get hit by a bus? The state is *forbidden* from recognizing your rights, which means when your spouse shows up and wants to make a decision regarding your care...

Also, what happens when companies who have operations nationwide transfer their employees around, as they frequently do? Does one quit ones job, or face retaliation at work, for refusing that transfer to Dallas? Finally, one nice thing about the British law is that individuals who wish a civil union may have the ceremony performed in confidence, and since the union is recognized nationwide, a person doesn't have to disclose it to their employer/hostile family members unless they wish to. That might seem rather silly to you, but there are still people who fear reprisals for coming out, often for very good reason (loss of job/persecution etc).

I feel strongly that at some point this issue will *have* to be dealt with on a Federal level, simply to untangle the mess of conflicting terminology and the huge legal morass that the patchowrk of wildly conflicting laws is beginning to present us with. We *are* a nation, not simply a confederation of states, and I think that this issue, interestingly enough, will force both individuals, and governments, to look at the issue of legal civil union versus marriage more clearly, and hopefully something beneficial will emrge from it that will result in some level of protection for everyone who wishes to enter into a domestic partnership, and a clear distinction between legal partnership and religious marriage.

I'm sorry I don't have more time to devote to this thread today and I apologize for the haste of this post, it's not as well thought out as I'd like it to be - and I've especially enjoyed the introduction of polyamory/polygamy to the thread. I share Palimax's general opinion that if people want to engage in multipartner relationships, they should not be persecuted for doing so (although I'm not sure our country is ready for multipartner legal civil unions), but that the child abuse that is going on among the Utah polygamists under the guise of 'marriage' (a fourteen year old cannot give informed consent to marriage!) is reprehensible.

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Roliel:

Polyandry isn't without historical precedent, and it does have its biological uses - namely, keeping population numbers (and society) stable in a society with very finite natural resources. The most cited example is Tibet's familial polyandry (a woman is married to all the male siblings in her groom's family), which enabled inheritance of fixed, finite parcels of land and resources to be maintained, and kept the population below the carrying capacity of the region. As a result, nearly 2/3 of the women in this society did not marry at all; many entered the priesthood, and others became tradeswomen or otherwise supported their married sisters' familes. This practice continues today among some Tibetan families, by the way, despite attempts by the Chinese government to eliminate it.

Centralizing scarce childrearing resources has numerous fitness benefits for cultures who live in extreme environments. Even for those who don't, overpopulation and its associated resource degradation have historically both precipitated warfare and tolled the death knell for numerous cultures throughout the world, from Mesoamerica to the Middle East to Angor Wat. In the absence of modern birth control techniques, it's one of the less inhumane means of keeping population numbers stable...

Regards,
Nydia

Is there anyone on this forum who actually has a problem still with non-traditional "families" as long as they're not conceived in some sort of forced "Mormon" breeding-factory? Does Adam and Steve scare anyone still? Does Ted and Bob and Carol and Alice actually bother anyone?

*beats the dead horse some more*

They aren't Mormon, they have no connection with the church, other than claiming the name to somehow excuse the sick and twisted shit they do. Any active church member found to be practicing polygamy (even in countries where it is legal) are ex-communicated.

I'd actually be a bit curious to know the answer to that as well - yours and my points of reference may be a bit skewed, Max, as we both have been, shall we say, free spirits for most of our lives and know a fair number of folks who have less-than-cookie-cutter relationship webs. I suspect that a decent-sized majority here *do* take issue with multiple-partner or non-monogamous relationships (despite being willing to acknowledge that 'cheating' is part of the human condition) either for religious reasons or perhaps more accurately, because the tendency towards monogamy or nonmonogamy, and territoriality or nonterritoriality, with regard to one's partners' body and/or spirit, seems to be a core part of identity and is quite possibly biologically hard-wired. I've known numerous people who desperately *wanted* to be one way and were the other by nature, on both sides of the equation, including my own ex-husband.

Because the injury (or perceived injury) is *so* grievous and close to the bone when two people who love each other fall out on opposite sides of this issue, many people who are monogamous by nature (or aren't, but have strong religious/cultural strictures against nonmonogamy and associated guilt/shame) react very violently to the suggestion of accepting multiple partner relationships, even when it doesn't involve them, much as is the case with some individuals and homosexuality. Would anyone else care to share their feelings on the issue? Yes, I'm in final exams and procrastinating writing one as we speak... ;)

Regards,
Nydia

Is there anyone on this forum who actually has a problem still with non-traditional "families" as long as they're not conceived in some sort of forced "Mormon" breeding-factory? Does Adam and Steve scare anyone still? Does Ted and Bob and Carol and Alice actually bother anyone?

In my experience there is a fairly laissez-faire atttitude about Adam and Steve even among the truly homophobic. However, from my discussions with people over anti-marriage reactions, the "problem" has to do with legitimizing that union to the point that it might be considered socially acceptable for raising children. Think of the children, and all.

They aren't Mormon, they have no connection with the church...Elemak - I've been quite careful to use "Moron" in quotes when discussing the northern Arizona, southern Utar polygamists. They are clearly not part of the CoJCatLDS - but they are, for discussion's sake, "fundamental Morminists," who believe in further teachings of Jesus Christ as found in The Book of Mormon.

Nydia - while I've certainly been in relationships where I was having sex (openly) with more than one person, I've never been in any sort of real polyamorous relationship where three or four of us woke up in the morning and kissed and shuttled the kids off to school. But, I have known a good number of people who were in committed 3-way (or more) relationships [mostly MFF] - and, frankly, good for them.

If any number of people are together happily of their own free will, more power to them.

Ok, I'll give you a small concensession there, *some* but not all, loosely base their bullshit off the church. Most have never at any point even been members of the church. but as you can tell this is kind of a hot point with me, I don't like those ass clowns even being remotely "related" to me and my beliefs in any way. And the reason I beat the horse is not because you put it in the quotes which is further than many will do, but because these people are really in no way related, other than name

Oh, I understand, I do. It sucks to have those ass-clowns tarnishing your flag.

Sure, I think Mormonism is wacky (not much more so than, say, Catholicism) - but I don't brand mormons in general as polygamist child-rapists becuase of a few idiots any more than I think most Catholic priests are pederasts.

If it weren't for mormons, I wouldn't be able to chase white-shirted bicycle-riders off my lawn with a hose :)

Elemak, I didn't mention this, but, as many of you know, I live in Phoenix. Mesa Arizona (a large suburb of Phoenix) is the #1 mormon per-capita city of any sigificiant size outside of Utah, and only ranks behind Provo when you include Utah. Sure, there are probably some hamlets with 100% Mormon residents, but Mesa is pretty much Mormon large-city heaven - chruches next to EVERY school.

I'd actually be a bit curious to know the answer to that as well - yours and my points of reference may be a bit skewed, Max, as we both have been, shall we say, free spirits for most of our lives and know a fair number of folks who have less-than-cookie-cutter relationship webs. Would anyone else care to share their feelings on the issue?

Regards,
Nydia

I have a pretty free spirit, but find that I end up on the more traditional path as I raise my children and prepare for my future. My relationships and friendships with straight/bi/gay men/women have taught me that lust has no boundaries, passion is only a heating element, and love is just too precious to spread so thin. I have experienced both the three way relationship (MMF), and the large group unidentified person orgy (+30 attendees). The orgy was much easier. :p

There is a reason that we have catch phrases like "three's a crowd" and "odd man out".... For me, I find real application in multi-partner relationships to be complicated, and riding a tricycle is not my vehicle of choice when I'm trying to get somewhere emotionally with someone I love.

Good luck to anyone who can do it successfully, but I believe that polygamy is best suited for other cultures/circumstances- not for me. Also, not for scary fundamentalist 'circle the trailers' baby-making communes.

Posted by Malse:

However, from my discussions with people over anti-marriage reactions, the "problem" has to do with legitimizing that union to the point that it might be considered socially acceptable for raising children. Think of the children, and all.

I think that this a big part of why some folks are against *any* sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, even though there are hundreds of thousands of them already raising their families, either from previous relationships or conceived through an arrangement once the partnership has formed. Certainly, laws on the books in Florida and a few other states expressly forbidding adoption by homosexuals, regardless of any other measurement of their suitability to be parents would suggest this, although one law (allowing civil same-sex partnership) doesn't *necessarily* render adoption laws such as Florida's invalid - just even more clearly based in bigotry than they appear now :).

In response to Flashcube, while I've never cohabited with more than one partner that I was involved with at a given time, I wouldn't have specifically ruled it out - it, however, never suited the temperments of the people that I was involved with, and truthfully, I prefer a bit more privacy than such a situation would afford independently of the relationship status - I barely manage living with another person as is :). As far as childrearing within a gay/lesbian or multipartner relationship goes, I found that, curiously enough, although I never had an interest in bearing a child, I was quite willing to be the secondary parent to one of my girlfriends' three year old son. Unfortunately, although she genuinely cared for me, the internal pressure she felt to be conventional with regard to parenting (she was also Jewish, which played a role) proved to be the decisive blow ending our relationship, and she threw me for a nearly completely worthless drug-addicted part-time bricklayer because he provided a (cough) 'male role model' for little Chris. I'm so glad that she managed to find someone to teach him how to watch TV and smoke pot! All I can say is that I hope he managed to find a decent one somewhere else, as the child was extremely bright (I'm not bitter, really :) ). I do know a few folks who are in a multipartner relationship and raising children (in particular, a MMF triad in the Phoenix area, she has one child by each of them, they are of 14 years standing now), so it *can* work, but I think that all three partners have to be extremely devoted to the stability of the unit - and wouldn't it be nice if more conventionally married penis/vagina couples raising children were as well?

In reference to the other issue that you bring up, I find that, as far as my own character goes, that whether I am in *practicing* terms monogamous or nonmonogamous at a given time has more to do with what other things are going on in my life and whether I've encountered someone I was sufficiently intrigued by, or thought I was capable of learning something from, than whether I was involved in a 'primary' committed relationship at the time. I've been completely celibate for years at a time, and have had as many as three fairly involved relationships going on simultaneously - I find that if the interest is mutually there, I'm capable of 'growing' the necessary psychosocial limbs to meet that demand. With the exception of a fairly recent experiment, I find that I generally don't have an interest in truly casual sex or orgy type encounters, although I wouldn't absolutely rule it (an orgy) out either if the stars aligned and it seemed right one of these days before I get *too* much older :).

Ack, this was probably way off in the TMI for a lot of folks, and it's after 10pm and I have a hungry Faervas waiting in the car on me. Have a good evening all :)

Regards,
Nydia

Hehehe.

"What's your problem, honey? I was monogamous freaking YESTERDAY! What do you want from me?"

Notice your use of interchangable terms.

To me, a marriage denotes a legal union between persons. A Civil Union is a marriage not conducted within a religious framework. As I said before, we all have to agree on the terms and what they mean before this issue can even move forward.

Also, what happens when companies who have operations nationwide transfer their employees around, as they frequently do? Does one quit ones job, or face retaliation at work, for refusing that transfer to Dallas?

Yes, one does if it means having to move to a state where one's lifestyle isn't accepted as legal. What is acceptable to people in New York need not be acceptable to people in North Daokota and vice versa. Otherwise, we might as well just erase all of the lines dividing the states and pick something new to call ourselves, like the "Big Ass North American Country In Between Canada And Mexico" or something. Life is a bitch, eh?

We *are* a nation, not simply a confederation of states,
That is a whole different topic, and it is far from a certainty either way.

However, from my discussions with people over anti-marriage reactions, the "problem" has to do with legitimizing that union to the point that it might be considered socially acceptable for raising children. Think of the children, and all.
Funny, isn't it, when there are some schools of thought that hold homosexuality might have had some early evolutionary benefit to those that were breeding.

Ah, I can just see little Johnny Neanderthal and his "funny uncles" out hunting for game and learning how to camoflage himself.