[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703]Montana polygamist vows to fight for marriage license[/url] | Reuters

I'll be especially interested to see how the LGBT community reacts to what will likely be a wave of such lawsuits. If defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' is discriminatory, surely so is the restriction of 'between two people.' After all, polygamy and polygyny have much deeper historical and cultural roots than gay marriage.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;405253][URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-usa-polygamist-montana-idUSKCN0PD0BQ20150703"]Montana polygamist vows to fight for marriage license[/URL] | Reuters

I'll be especially interested to see how the LGBT community reacts to what will likely be a wave of such lawsuits. If defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' is discriminatory, surely so is the restriction of 'between two people.' After all, polygamy and polygyny have much deeper historical and cultural roots than gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
The "LGBT community" will of course be divided on the subject, consisting as it does of many individuals with their own opinions.

In [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/04/comment-why-polyamorous-marriages-are-the-next-step-to-equality/"]this article[/URL] on PinkNews from a couple of months ago, a man in a three-way permanent relationship explains the problems he and his partners experience from not having their relationship formalised in law. The reactions in the comments are about evenly divided between support for, and rejection of, this legal formalising of polyamorous relationships.

Personally I agree that these relationships should be acknowledged in law on the same basis that two-way relationships are. Three-way (and more) permanent loving relationships are no less valid.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;405261]The "LGBT community" will of course be divided on the subject, consisting as it does of many individuals with their own opinions.

In [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/04/comment-why-polyamorous-marriages-are-the-next-step-to-equality/"]this article[/URL] on PinkNews from a couple of months ago, a man in a three-way permanent relationship explains the problems he and his partners experience from not having their relationship formalised in law. The reactions in the comments are about evenly divided between support for, and rejection of, this legal formalising of polyamorous relationships.

Personally I agree that these relationships should be acknowledged in law on the same basis that two-way relationships are. Three-way (and more) permanent loving relationships are no less valid.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but I suspect a problem in untangling the relevant tax laws...

[QUOTE=ch4;404984]I note that a common theme in conservatives' reactions has been the presumption that Christians have a "right" to force other people to abide by Christian principles (that are not written into law) in secular contexts. In other words, Christian religious liberty is violated whenever Christians are prevented from interfering with the religious liberties of non-Christians (This was also the supposed basis for recent state "religious liberty" laws.)

In particular, there's conservative hysteria about [I]Obergefell[/I] being used to force churches to host same-sex weddings against their will. This is legal nonsense, but it plays very well to the fundamentalists.

- - -

Let me note that my comments about this apply principally to [U]fundamentalist[/U] Christians. There are many Christian denominations that are more tolerant. But the fundamentalists almost always speak as though they represented the entirety of Christianity, so it's hard to keep from slipping into that same framing in response. (Also, I grew up in a hotbed of fundamentalism.)[/QUOTE]



Applause! Applause!

[url]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thomasalberts/lost_documentary_about_homosexuality_found[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;405592][URL]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/thomasalberts/lost_documentary_about_homosexuality_found[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks for this.

[QUOTE]Personally I agree that these relationships should be acknowledged in law on the same basis that two-way relationships are. Three-way (and more) permanent loving relationships are no less valid.[/QUOTE]

And thus we begin to see the effects of making marriage all about the needs of the adults.

What does it matter that if a father divides his time, energy, and financial support among many women, that this will have a cost on children? Nothing, because their "loving relationships are no less valid".

What does it matter that this destroys one of the bedrock principles of marriage in society-- to normalize and promote fidelity and monogamy? Nothing, because their "loving relationships are no less valid".

It's all about me, me, me. Every type of relationship needs to be given validation. Government subsidized validation. The type of validation that if you disagree with it, you are labelled a bigot.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;405603]
It's all about me, me, me. Every type of relationship needs to be given validation. Government subsidized validation. The type of validation that if you disagree with it, you are labelled a bigot.[/QUOTE]
We all have things we disagree with. From my experiences with roomates, I think three adults living together is a bad dynamic because two often gang up on the third.

Disagreement alone does not make one a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry"]bigot[/URL].

I have been unable to discuss global warming with my brother [I]at all[/I] for at least a decade. However, recently he said to me that remediation is expensive. I found myself unwilling to discuss the topic with him. I feel that he has moved off the first stage, denial, and I don't want to hold his hand through bargaining, yada yada yada on the way to acceptance. So now I'm the intolerant one. But that's ok, I'm human.

Bigotry is much uglier than that:
[QUOTE]The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.
In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4][/QUOTE]

Bigotry is, I believe, frequently a result of failing to see things from other people's point of view and imagining that one's own experiences are a blueprint for everyone else's.

You're not a bigot, only_human, (nor are you, Zeta-Flux) so, Ross, I'm quite sure you're not going to use your own "experiences with roommates" to judge anyone else's polyamorous relationship.:cool:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;405609]Bigotry is, I believe, frequently a result of failing to see things from other people's point of view and imagining that one's own experiences are a blueprint for everyone else's.

You're not a bigot, only_human, (nor are you, Zeta-Flux) so, Ross, I'm quite sure you're not going to use your own "experiences with roommates" to judge anyone else's polyamorous relationship.:cool:[/QUOTE]
I not really in the relationship judging business anyway. I just want people to be happy. Happy, honest, ernest people can work out problems as they come along. And society is a moving target. Always has been, prolly always will be.

I miss my sweetheart. The Fourth of July was her birthday.

[QUOTE=only_human;405605]Disagreement alone does not make one a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry"]bigot[/URL].

Bigotry is much uglier than that:[/QUOTE]

I agree. But the Surpreme Court of the United States disagrees with this. Their 5-4 majority ruling makes it clear they believe that disagreement on this topic is a sign that the person is acting out of hatred and bigotry. That's one reason why this recent turn of events is so troubling to me.