August 2006 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Prop 8 arguments: Why doesn't this work?
This has been sticking in my craw more and more lately. When DH and I got married we wrote our ceremony using a handfasting book that had several sample ceremonies in it, including same sex and polygamous ceremonies.
The religion permits it, and we can't pass laws abridging that.
Why can't a coven sue? Why can't they just make a plain vanilla 1st amendment argument? Why didn't it work for Mormons and polygamy? Timing?
Am I just blinded by the fact that it's my preferred argument? It wouldn't be the first time. Or the second or third.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Prop 8 arguments: Why doesn't this work?
Are you saying that an argument that says "my religion allows it" should be enough to change law? ?We can pass laws abridging what religion allows. ?Christianity allows for the stoning of whores and disobedient children. ?Should we make that legal? ?What about sacrificing goats? ?What about spousal abuse? ?What about those murderers in Utah that claim their religion told them to do it? ?Why should a religion be treated as higher than our law? ?Why would a religion be permitted to preempt law?
I think we have a lot of precedent for "free exercise thereof" being restricted. ??
The short answer: In Oregon v. Smith, SCOTUS ruled that a generally applicable, neutral law (ie, one not aimed specifically at a particular religious practice) does not have to have a free exercise exception. So if the law applies to everyone and only recognizes hetero marriages, the state is not required to make a free exercise exception for religions that recognize same-sex marriage. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act tried to overrule Smith, but the Court smacked that down in City of Boerne v. Flores.
Actually, now that I think about it, that might not be 100% applicable. A law outlawing gay marriage isn't prohibiting the religions from recognizing same-sex unions in a religious ceremony. Churches, temples, etc. that recognize gay marriages are still free to perform the ceremonies. The law just doesn't have to recognize them because legal marriage isn't a religious institution.
Legal marriage isn't a religious institution - that just brought me right back to my #1 argument in favor of gay marriage. Excuse me for a moment while my head explodes.
Ok, point taken. However, where your examples diverge is that they implicate the rights of third parties. Further, I'm not saying that religion should be treated higher than law, I'm saying that a Mormon agenda (since they bankrolled the movement, I picked them for the sake of this argument) should not be codified over a Pagan agenda by virtue of referendum.
"Legal marriage isn't a religious institution - that just brought me right back to my #1 argument in favor of gay marriage. Excuse me for a moment while my head explodes."
It's crazy making, isn't it? Thanks for the SCOTUS nitty gritty.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand the premise of your argument.
Perhaps it's because I'm knee-deep in a TRO and not thinking about the constitution, but I'm totally confused.
You're right. ?I was just thinking of things off the top of my head the religion permits but our laws don't. ?But, yes, they do implicate 3rd parties.
In general, I don't think that law should permit individual exercise of religion, and consenting adults would be individual, so you make a good point by clarifying the individual vs others effects of the religion. ?
I think I'm all for polygamy, but the problem is that historically, it hasn't been adults. ?And how can you call it consent if a person has been brainwashed in their cult from birth. ?Of course, a lot of the anti-polygamy was rooted in anti-Mormon bigotry, too. ?People on this board have convinced me that legal polygamy just would be a logistical bureaucratic nightmare, so I have to agree I see no reason to legalize it. ?Decriminalize, maybe, but not make it fully legal with the subsequent changes to laws and paperwork.
No, it?s probably me, and now I?m stuck in the catch-22 bridey dangled in front of me.
Say Oregon didn?t apply, because it is a neutral law, and they don?t need a free exercise clause. Aren?t we right back to the codification of a definition that allows 100% of one religions marriages to be recognized, but not 100% of another religions?
Is that not preferential, or am I just back to the catch 22?
I agree that the historical problem with polygamy is pedophilia, and that consent is an issue. I don't think it should be an obstacle, anymore than "that's a lot of paperwork" should be. But take that for what it's worth from a woman who just posted that the metric system is a PITA.
That "paperwork" would be changing a ton of laws like inheritance, tax, and divorce laws. ?It's not just creating a new form.
But, I'm not so sure I can keep talking with someone who's anti-metric. ?Now that's a PITA I can get behind!?
Yeah... there are over 1400 federal rights and benefits that legally married folks are entitled to. Legally recognizing polygamous marriages would require significant changes to every single one of those benefits/rights.
Now you see, 1400 federal rights. That's exactly why it should happen, IMO. I don't think you have to change the rights for monogamous marriage, but you'd clearly have to add clauses for polygamous marriages. Again, here with the 'what difference does it make to your marriage' argument.
It's a lot more complicated that just adding clauses for polygamous marriages. For example, in some FLDS families, the wives don't live together, and the husband rotates among the houses. When income taxes are filed, is the income of the husband and all his wives reported together? But if Wife A doesn't actually share finances with Wife B, she might want to file separately. Do they get three sets of deductions for home mortgage interest because each wife has her own primary residence? How is a husband's estate divided up among his three wives? Most states protect the spouse's right to inherit a portion of the decedent's estate even if the will cuts the spouse out; would there be a law to protect the interests of the first wife? Or could the husband decide to leave his entire estate to only one wife? If a medical or end-of-life decision has to be made, who gets to make it? The first wife? The wife with whom the husband lives most of the time?
None of this stuff has to be changed for gay marriage, but it does for polyamorous marriages. Those are just the complications I thought of in 60 seconds. I only scratched the surface.