In the 20 states where gay marriage bans remain, what's next?

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

The Supreme Court's decision to sit out the legal battle over same-sex marriage will — for now, at least — leave the future of laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying in the hands of lower state and federal court judges. But it also almost certainly means the couples challenging those laws are more likely to win in the end.

The court said Monday it would not hear appeals from five states whose same-sex marriage bans had been invalidated by lower federal courts. The decision, issued without explanation, will lead to recognition of gay marriages in 11 more states. It also allows an avalanche of legal challenges to the remaining bans to keep going forward in state and federal courts, where gay and lesbian couples have overwhelmingly prevailed.

The court's decision leaves unchanged 20 state laws blocking same-sex unions. Each is already under legal attack, facing challenges in state or federal court, and sometimes both. Challenges to marriage bans already have reached a handful of state appeals courts and in the federal Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh circuit appeals court

Source

This gives me some hope that one day, my marriage may be recognized in Texas and I might be able to get on my wife's health insurance and much more. Currently, even though she works for a liberal institution, they are not allowed to recognize our marriage. So I can't be on her work health insurance, amongst other issues. I'd really love it if this got settled before I moved.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Source

This gives me some hope that one day, my marriage may be recognized in Texas and I might be able to get on my wife's health insurance and much more. Currently, even though she works for a liberal institution, they are not allowed to recognize our marriage. So I can't be on her work health insurance, amongst other issues. I'd really love it if this got settled before I moved.

Good luck. A person should not be judged by who they sleep with and everyone in America should enjoy equal protection under the law.

[GandD 5,966]

~~Title edited to match article~~

[SaharaSunset 165]

Good luck. A person should not be judged by who they sleep with and everyone in America should enjoy equal protection under the law.

Does that include my marrying a second or third husband?

[GandD 5,966]

Does that include my marrying a second or third husband?

If everyone is a consenting human adult, who cares?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If everyone is a consenting human adult, who cares?

Exactly if everyone consents of their own free will why is it anyone's business

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does that include my marrying a second or third husband?

I'd be curious to know why you keep introducing polygamy into the issue of gay marriage. You started numerous threads on this over the past few months - which suggests to me that you have an agenda in doing so.

I know there's some wonky bait and switch argument that they are somehow equivalent - but they are not. The arguments for gay marriage are not equivalent or even at all similar to what has been put forward in support of polygamy or incest. Moreover, the constant attempts to conflate these issues (to me anyway) only underline the idea that someone who is against homosexuality feels that they can only reclaim the moral high ground by suggesting that all of these issues can be grouped.

I don't believe that's a legitimate argument. Nor is it a responsible one.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If everyone is a consenting human adult, who cares?

That isn't the issue IMO.

There's a very clear difference between polygamous relationships in theory and in practice, which is why it tends to be characterised by insular subcultures or cultish organisations. The idea is that legitimising this behaviour effectively legitimises abuse. And that's without touching how a three or four person marriage would massively complicate issues like inheritance, divorce, child custody, income tax etc.

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

Does that include my marrying a second or third husband?

Personally, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to do this if they wish. That being said, there are perceptions that legalizing such will always lead to a power imbalance and eventual abuse and that child brides are the inevitable end point of this. A huge number of laws would have to be changed, up to and including the entire marriage process, in order to make this legal.

As the only thing needing to change to make my marriage equal in the eyes of the law is, essentially, the words 'man and woman' or 'husband and wife' to 'two people, having attained the age legal to marry', I fail to see any problem with it. We deserve to be able to enjoy all the same legal protections as any other two people who have chosen to found a family together.

And before you can say 'it's not okay in my culture or religion' I'd just like to put forth that in my country, we've enjoyed same sex marital benefits since 2005,nationwide and that the diocese I was raised in as well as the religion I practise now both accept same sex unions.

[Teddy B 17,251]

If everyone is a consenting human adult, who cares?

I +1 this by mistake, I am not in favor of polygamy. (sorry G)

[JohnR! 5,495]

I believe that slowly the remaining 20 states will be ushered into the XXI century... Either that or they should no longer recognize any marriages from other states, if they are to mitigate reciprocity with prejudice.

Source

This gives me some hope that one day, my marriage may be recognized in Texas and I might be able to get on my wife's health insurance and much more. Currently, even though she works for a liberal institution, they are not allowed to recognize our marriage. So I can't be on her work health insurance, amongst other issues. I'd really love it if this got settled before I moved.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'd be curious to know why you keep introducing polygamy into the issue of gay marriage. You started numerous threads on this over the past few months - which suggests to me that you have an agenda in doing so.

I know there's some wonky bait and switch argument that they are somehow equivalent - but they are not. The arguments for gay marriage are not equivalent or even at all similar to what has been put forward in support of polygamy or incest. Moreover, the constant attempts to conflate these issues (to me anyway) only underline the idea that someone who is against homosexuality feels that they can only reclaim the moral high ground by suggesting that all of these issues can be grouped.

I don't believe that's a legitimate argument. Nor is it a responsible one.

and your opinion has been noted. again

That isn't the issue IMO.

There's a very clear difference between polygamous relationships in theory and in practice, which is why it tends to be characterised by insular subcultures or cultish organisations. The idea is that legitimising this behaviour effectively legitimises abuse. And that's without touching how a three or four person marriage would massively complicate issues like inheritance, divorce, child custody, income tax etc.

oh yes...so much more complicated than spouses with multiple ex's do now.

Edited October 7, 2014 by SMOKE

[GBCW 397]

That isn't the issue IMO.

There's a very clear difference between polygamous relationships in theory and in practice, which is why it tends to be characterised by insular subcultures or cultish organisations. The idea is that legitimising this behaviour effectively legitimises abuse. And that's without touching how a three or four person marriage would massively complicate issues like inheritance, divorce, child custody, income tax etc.

We have laws in place to deal with abuse. Those laws can be used if the facts of a polygamous or polyandrous relationship warrant it. I see no good reason to ban all polygamy/polyandry just because some (or most) of those relationships are abusive. If individuals A, B and C can make it work, they should have the right to do so.

Edited October 7, 2014 by intheshadows

[JohnR! 5,495]

You can do that already. Famous actress Elizabeth Taylor herself had quite a few husbands.

Does that include my marrying a second or third husband?

Edited October 7, 2014 by JohnR!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We have laws in place to deal with abuse. Those laws can be used if the facts of a polygamous or polyandrous relationship warrant it. I see no good reason to ban all polygamy/polyandry just because some (or most) of those relationships are abusive. If individuals A, B and C can make it work, they should have the right to do so.

I think there are practical, legitimate reasons for why polygamous marriages are not a good idea.

The first is abuse - as it legitimises the sort of things that go in cults. The second is fraud.