MarkMiller

The issue and question raised here is....Why just "Legalise" or Recognise Same Sex partners and not go further to include multiple partners. The simple answer is law. The moral answer is subjecting a single sex to be subject to servitude towards one other. It is moraly wrong to allow that to happen, but American Law backs that up. Civil responsibility-do you want a society that allows legally sanctioned possibilities like Harems. There are ethical questions about a single individual obtaining control over many others, finaincialy, physicaly, emotionaly, and phsycologicaly.

guest1234567

Nobody says it's only multiple wives. It could be any combination of wives and husbands, 2&2, 2&3 ; whatever.

I perceive Harems as dealing with sex slaves. I'm only talking about relationships that are entered maturely and with all of societies rules regarding civility. Money issues could be settled up front by passing laws similar to community property but it would be split up more than two ways. Physical, emotional and psychological needs need to be defined and understood by the parties involved just like any other marriage and relationship. I'm just saying, not all poly-relationships involve cults. And quite a few of them exist now between consenting adults. Different needs for different people.

Cookie

Oh God no! One husband at a time is plenty, thanks.

__________________
Corgi butts drive me nuts.

OldManOnFire

I thought the entire issue of marriage, civil unions, etc. was State jurisdiction??

Today CA can allow marriages of gays and lesbians and this will be fully recognized only in CA...and I suppose in MA.

AZ for example have their own rules and are not bound by AZ rules to recognize CA rules.

If it is a State issue, then I don't understand DOMA's jurisdiction???

Congratulations to everyone who is positively impacted by this decision...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

My old mind is a little more open than this. I guess I draw the line on these issues in determining if the situation, whatever it might be, is consensual...or are they being held mentally or physically against their will??

Now if there were 3-4 women that would not mind cohabitating with me, and it was 100% consensual, why should this be against the law? If we find interest, love, loyalty and longevity in each other, without any duress, why not? Maybe there's no sex involved, maybe it's an orgy...an ugly orgy at my age, maybe some are just wanting close friends while others are nymphs--who cares as long as it's consensual??

Here's a way to understand what I am saying; Imagine one man and four women, due to a plane crash, are marooned on a deserted island. They did not know each other prior to the crash and they will not be discovered for many many years. I can imagine, or assume, that over time these five people will become family; enjoying all the things that come with family, including sex, chores, caring, etc. For years this situation works perfect--except of course for the normal squabbles all of us must endure! Now once this group of close and loving people are discovered, and brought back into our wonderful and non-judgemental society (barfing right now...) this entire perfect family would be torn apart...and I say this is not right.

BTW, if my sweetie was to see what I've written here there isn't going to be any orgies in this house...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

MarkMiller

I don't speak in genders specific with mutliple marriag. Males with many wives and a woman with many husbands. It can become about control .

MarkMiller

Some may see no way that this paves any way but others do. I see a path as possible and probable.

MarkMiller

Here's one way. It gets the subject back on the Presidential campaign. Here is McCain against.

Analysis: Gay marriage back as campaign issue - Yahoo! News

julia

Did not know that the Ca Supremes are considered "conservative".

6 out of 7 were appointed by Rep governors. But heck, maybe we have a diff kind of Rep out here in Ca.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

kaycee

Not just McCain, Mark.

(Congrats, btw! It's about time!)


Giggled at the title of this article, hope that's not too non-PC.

Happy Gays Are Here Again:

Gay marriage in California | Happy gays are here again | Economist.com


An excerpt:


The presidential hopefuls are in a tight spot. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is for federalism. He supported a (failed) proposal to ban gay marriage and domestic partnerships in Arizona in 2006. But he opposes a federal constitutional amendment. Holding to this position could win him pragmatic independents, but deter conservative supporters. Barack Obama faces an inverse predicament. The Democrat and all-but-presumptive nominee favours civil unions, but not the word “marriage”. Many would-be supporters may ask why will he not follow the lead of one of America’s most progressive states, in a year that seems like a rising tide for Democrats.