So is the EPA setback comparable to the FCC setback that led to the (re-)re-classification of broadband as telecommunications services? Like, the courts recognized what was trying to be accomplished but had to point out that, as it currently stood, the agency didn't have the authority to do what it wanted to do... but it should totally get changes made so it can do it?
From my reading of reporting (rather than the ruling, so take this with salt) no. They still have the authority to do the regulations they want to do, and always have. They just have to make sure that their process to arrive at those regulations goes in the proper order so that the appropriate regulations are promulgated. Basically saying that the EPA went AXDCZ and the Clean Air Act requires them to go ACDXZ (which the arguments for both sides have merit, this really is a fairly technical issue about implications rather than a philosophical thing. It could have gone either way, and if the issue really boils down to Republican appointees being generically more pro-cost benefit analysis as integral to process) So the EPA is going to have to go back and redraft the regulations with cost/benefit analysis at the very beginning. Seeing how they did do cost/benefit analysis in there anyway the same rules will basically be written, but now they have to go through the whole damn thing again. Which, for this, means a years long process.
If they just took the existing studies and reconsidered them starting with the cost-benefit, could they argue they had in fact followed all regulations and put it into effect anyways? Basically, would they be able to say "public comment happened" and such regardless?
Everything I've heard about this case makes it sound like the exact kind of shit that gives lawyers a bad name - find legal technicality to let you get away with crap when anyone with half a brain can tell you're just trying to weasel out of something.
So is the EPA setback comparable to the FCC setback that led to the (re-)re-classification of broadband as telecommunications services? Like, the courts recognized what was trying to be accomplished but had to point out that, as it currently stood, the agency didn't have the authority to do what it wanted to do... but it should totally get changes made so it can do it?
From my reading of reporting (rather than the ruling, so take this with salt) no. They still have the authority to do the regulations they want to do, and always have. They just have to make sure that their process to arrive at those regulations goes in the proper order so that the appropriate regulations are promulgated. Basically saying that the EPA went AXDCZ and the Clean Air Act requires them to go ACDXZ (which the arguments for both sides have merit, this really is a fairly technical issue about implications rather than a philosophical thing. It could have gone either way, and if the issue really boils down to Republican appointees being generically more pro-cost benefit analysis as integral to process) So the EPA is going to have to go back and redraft the regulations with cost/benefit analysis at the very beginning. Seeing how they did do cost/benefit analysis in there anyway the same rules will basically be written, but now they have to go through the whole damn thing again. Which, for this, means a years long process.
If they just took the existing studies and reconsidered them starting with the cost-benefit, could they argue they had in fact followed all regulations and put it into effect anyways? Basically, would they be able to say "public comment happened" and such regardless?
Everything I've heard about this case makes it sound like the exact kind of shit that gives lawyers a bad name - find legal technicality to let you get away with crap when anyone with half a brain can tell you're just trying to weasel out of something.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
So two women getting married should be what? Double illegal?
So is the EPA setback comparable to the FCC setback that led to the (re-)re-classification of broadband as telecommunications services? Like, the courts recognized what was trying to be accomplished but had to point out that, as it currently stood, the agency didn't have the authority to do what it wanted to do... but it should totally get changes made so it can do it?
From my reading of reporting (rather than the ruling, so take this with salt) no. They still have the authority to do the regulations they want to do, and always have. They just have to make sure that their process to arrive at those regulations goes in the proper order so that the appropriate regulations are promulgated. Basically saying that the EPA went AXDCZ and the Clean Air Act requires them to go ACDXZ (which the arguments for both sides have merit, this really is a fairly technical issue about implications rather than a philosophical thing. It could have gone either way, and if the issue really boils down to Republican appointees being generically more pro-cost benefit analysis as integral to process) So the EPA is going to have to go back and redraft the regulations with cost/benefit analysis at the very beginning. Seeing how they did do cost/benefit analysis in there anyway the same rules will basically be written, but now they have to go through the whole damn thing again. Which, for this, means a years long process.
If they just took the existing studies and reconsidered them starting with the cost-benefit, could they argue they had in fact followed all regulations and put it into effect anyways? Basically, would they be able to say "public comment happened" and such regardless?
Everything I've heard about this case makes it sound like the exact kind of shit that gives lawyers a bad name - find legal technicality to let you get away with crap when anyone with half a brain can tell you're just trying to weasel out of something.
Nope. Start over.
Could Congress authorize them to go ahead with the regulations? I mean, obviously the current Congress wouldn't, but if the issue is not following the process set by statute this seems like a case Congress can negate a SCOTUS ruling by virtue of amending the offending laws.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
So is the EPA setback comparable to the FCC setback that led to the (re-)re-classification of broadband as telecommunications services? Like, the courts recognized what was trying to be accomplished but had to point out that, as it currently stood, the agency didn't have the authority to do what it wanted to do... but it should totally get changes made so it can do it?
From my reading of reporting (rather than the ruling, so take this with salt) no. They still have the authority to do the regulations they want to do, and always have. They just have to make sure that their process to arrive at those regulations goes in the proper order so that the appropriate regulations are promulgated. Basically saying that the EPA went AXDCZ and the Clean Air Act requires them to go ACDXZ (which the arguments for both sides have merit, this really is a fairly technical issue about implications rather than a philosophical thing. It could have gone either way, and if the issue really boils down to Republican appointees being generically more pro-cost benefit analysis as integral to process) So the EPA is going to have to go back and redraft the regulations with cost/benefit analysis at the very beginning. Seeing how they did do cost/benefit analysis in there anyway the same rules will basically be written, but now they have to go through the whole damn thing again. Which, for this, means a years long process.
If they just took the existing studies and reconsidered them starting with the cost-benefit, could they argue they had in fact followed all regulations and put it into effect anyways? Basically, would they be able to say "public comment happened" and such regardless?
Everything I've heard about this case makes it sound like the exact kind of shit that gives lawyers a bad name - find legal technicality to let you get away with crap when anyone with half a brain can tell you're just trying to weasel out of something.
Nope. Start over.
And then insert public grumbling about how bureaucratic and pedantic government regulators are.
Then lobby Congress to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome red tape.
:hydra:
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
+3
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
Jesus.
Yeah, he's righteous on gay marriage, but that opinion is kiiiiiiiind of gross!
The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a maneuver they were experts at.
That was part of his reaction to Obergefell on Friday.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I feel like I don't think I'll ever be able to get past the idea of marriage, even civil marriage, being a union of more than two adults.
I guess that's why my grandkids will think I'm a bigot.
+4
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
Jesus.
Yeah, he's righteous on gay marriage, but that opinion is kiiiiiiiind of gross!
The chief justice criticizes the majority for “order[ing] the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?” We’re pretty sure we’re not any of the above. And most of us are not convinced that what’s good enough for the Bushmen, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs should be good enough for us. Ah, the millennia! Ah, the wisdom of ages! How arrogant it would be to think we knew more than the Aztecs—we who don’t even know how to cut a person’s heart out of his chest while’s he still alive, a maneuver they were experts at.
That was part of his reaction to Obergefell on Friday.
um, we do that all the time?
And these days we can even put one back in and the person will stay alive.
Could Congress authorize them to go ahead with the regulations? I mean, obviously the current Congress wouldn't, but if the issue is not following the process set by statute this seems like a case Congress can negate a SCOTUS ruling by virtue of amending the offending laws.
It seems like they could. But, there are only 22 power plants in the U.S. that the regulation applies to- and the EPA has a year and a half left in Obama's administration to Speedy-Gonzales the new and SCOTUS-friendly regulation through the approval process, so I don't think it's as big a deal as people are claiming.
As far as the religion+taxes thing goes, my beef with it wasn't the beliefs/parties (the Church of Satan is a thing, after all), but that it is explicitly a business masquerading as a religious establishment for the sweet sweet no-taxes benefits. Once you start allowing that nonsense to happen, expect The Church of Walmart with deceased prophet Sam Walton to open up their new megachurches in every city, with daily Worship of Savings happening 24/7.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
I really didn't take it that way. It was much more an argument that polygamy causes problematic math for a place where gender breaks down evenly. And it does. Unless it exists solely at the fringes of a society or in negligible numbers.
He used rich men as the example, but that was mostly just for ease of communication with gendered pronouns and the historical practice of polygamy meaning rich men have multiple wives. But regardless, if 5% of spouses are married to 20% of eligible partners that means 95% of spouses are competing for 80% of remaining potential mates. That tends to end poorly. For a microcosm of this, look at places where the ratio of men/women are significantly out of proportion and how fucked up it tends to get there. And that's before getting into the difficulties of a non-amicable divorce/separation within a poly-cule. These aren't necessarily insurmountable problems that couldn't be overcome, but they're a hell of a lot more thorny than letting gay people be gay together in marriage. I certainly don't have problems with polyamory, but it really is just a completely different thing and the fact that the dissents were pointing to it as a reason to ignore Loving v Virginia was really just sad.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
It's gross absent the context of the fact that actually is a serious issue in actual polygamist enclaves.
The best definition of it is in the reverse in that, "Gross old men with wealth and political power deliberately sabotage boys so they can get increased access to women, including underaged girls, so as to maximize the extent of their depravity."
I support decent polygamists and polyamorists who feel like that is the structure that makes them happy, but I've always been wary of polygamy in general because it seems like polygamy in real world practice consistently skews towards abuse of women, patriarchy, and Sodom/Gommorah like sexual depravity rather than a small number of consenting adults doing what makes them happiest, in such a way that best benefits them and is (barring prudishness) compatible with society.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
It's gross absent the context of the fact that actually is a serious issue in actual polygamist enclaves.
The best definition of it is in the reverse in that, "Gross old men with wealth and political power deliberately sabotage boys so they can get increased access to women, including underaged girls, so as to maximize the extent of their depravity."
I support decent polygamists and polyamorists who feel like that is the structure that makes them happy, but I've always been wary of polygamy in general because it seems like polygamy in real world practice consistently skews towards abuse of women, patriarchy, and Sodom/Gommorah like sexual depravity rather than a small number of consenting adults doing what makes them happiest, in such a way that best benefits them and is (barring prudishness) compatible with society.
Well right, that's the argument I use against it, not some numbers game.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+2
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
It's gross absent the context of the fact that actually is a serious issue in actual polygamist enclaves.
Not to mention that every single one of Warren Jeff's extra wives got food stamps and their bajillion kids got free lunches. They've even got a name for scoring as many benefits out of the government as they can- "bleeding the beast". Polygamy -really- isn't something we should encourage, because it eventually ends up in a Big Man situation like it has in almost every society it's been practiced in.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
It's gross absent the context of the fact that actually is a serious issue in actual polygamist enclaves.
The best definition of it is in the reverse in that, "Gross old men with wealth and political power deliberately sabotage boys so they can get increased access to women, including underaged girls, so as to maximize the extent of their depravity."
I support decent polygamists and polyamorists who feel like that is the structure that makes them happy, but I've always been wary of polygamy in general because it seems like polygamy in real world practice consistently skews towards abuse of women, patriarchy, and Sodom/Gommorah like sexual depravity rather than a small number of consenting adults doing what makes them happiest, in such a way that best benefits them and is (barring prudishness) compatible with society.
This. My father is originally from Nigeria and is one of 25 children produced in a polygamous marriage. Things were effin terrible. There was barely enough food to go around and sibling rivalry went golden due to animosity between the wives. It's been twenty years since they all lived together and there's still a lot of hate in his family.
I know these types of relationships can work but my instinct warns me to shy away. If there's going to be any polygamy then we're going to have to figure out how as a society that we can face these problems.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
Going on a tangent here:
If polygamy is legalized then how will we deal with child custody cases where one partner splits off? What about divorce? Can one polygamy partner be entitled to alimony and if so who pays it? What about in instances of death? Say one member of a polygamous arrangement dies and the remaining survivors start fighting on how to have the funeral? Who gets the deciding vote on this?
EDIT: I'm pretty certain we might have to add a whole new body of law just to deal with polygamous marriage if it ever becomes the law of the land.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
No, its not. Because you have to be specific as to how agency and inheritance and debt obligations operate. Because these things can operate on a single issue basis when there are multiple parties to the contract.
Additionally being married confers benefits from third party actors beyond the state(such as hospitals and employers)
Here is a list of things being married entitles you to
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
Jesus.
I think his implicit point was that the state has an interest in keeping the supplies and demands of straight men and women balanced so that the population will not collapse.
Which does not make sense, but is a bit less offensive.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Richard Posner (Appeals Court Judge, and probably the most famous non-SCOTUS/TV Judge in the country) had a kind of gross legal argument why polygamy should remain illegal which is that it reduces the supply of women and thus discriminates against men. Which gets into dudes being entitled to a woman.
Jesus.
I think his implicit point was that the state has an interest in keeping the supplies and demands of straight men and women balanced so that the population will not collapse.
Which does not make sense, but is a bit less offensive.
Not to keep the population from collapsing but to keep things from turning into the horrible conditions of a North Dakota oil town.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
marriage is nothing more than an amalgamation of contracts
nearly all of contract law is about what to do when some or all of the people involved break it (or want to)
so to even start making an argument for polygamy is to work out how it works during divorce. How people enter into the contract and how it works while everything is hunky dory is trivially easy. Working out the divorce problem is probably NP complete.
marriage is nothing more than an amalgamation of contracts
This is not true. Marriage includes third party obligations for which those third parties receive no consideration, which makes it fundamentally not a contract.
There are some things you can do with contracts which simulates marriage agreements. But writing a boilerplate contract for that is neither simple nor does it get past the fact that marriage includes third party obligations.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
On average even with gay marriage grossly 50% of people are in partnership with the other 50%. It evens out. Make a partnership with whole bunches of people, while it could work once the gender politics are weaned out, is fundamentally flawed from a logistics standpoint because there's no controlling the proportions.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
No, its not. Because you have to be specific as to how agency and inheritance and debt obligations operate. Because these things can operate on a single issue basis when there are multiple parties to the contract.
Additionally being married confers benefits from third party actors beyond the state(such as hospitals and employers)
Here is a list of things being married entitles you to
On average even with gay marriage grossly 50% of people are in partnership with the other 50%. It evens out. Make a partnership with whole bunches of people, while it could work once the gender politics are weaned out, is fundamentally flawed from a logistics standpoint because there's no controlling the proportions.
This assumes that the number of gays and lesbians is equal and that bi people split in such a way as to even things out. I think that's unlikely. (also that the number of people interested is equal)
On average even with gay marriage grossly 50% of people are in partnership with the other 50%. It evens out. Make a partnership with whole bunches of people, while it could work once the gender politics are weaned out, is fundamentally flawed from a logistics standpoint because there's no controlling the proportions.
This assumes that the number of gays and lesbians is equayl and that bi people split in such a way as to even things out. I think that's unlikely. (also that the number of people interested is equal)
They are minorities and only take up 2 per set, negligible.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Polygamy should be illegal because it causes harm and because multi person legal unions break the intent and structure of unifying assets and simplifying legal agency and inheritance and so forth. Marriage is a set of benefits which do not function beyond 2 people
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
No, its not. Because you have to be specific as to how agency and inheritance and debt obligations operate. Because these things can operate on a single issue basis when there are multiple parties to the contract.
Additionally being married confers benefits from third party actors beyond the state(such as hospitals and employers)
Here is a list of things being married entitles you to
Most of these things simply do not work for multi-party marriages. And you can't just boilerplate them to do so.
And this is on top of the negative social dynamics.
I'll admit to skimming that page, after the first half, but I'm not noticing anything that can't be boilerplated to work for multi-party marriages.
3,6,7-13 and I stopped there because that is half the rights to that point.
Edit: Gay people aren't in the straight dating/marriage pool to begin with. You cannot make an argument that such marriage casusss gender imbalance because it would be there regardless.
Posts
If they just took the existing studies and reconsidered them starting with the cost-benefit, could they argue they had in fact followed all regulations and put it into effect anyways? Basically, would they be able to say "public comment happened" and such regardless?
Everything I've heard about this case makes it sound like the exact kind of shit that gives lawyers a bad name - find legal technicality to let you get away with crap when anyone with half a brain can tell you're just trying to weasel out of something.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Nope. Start over.
So two women getting married should be what? Double illegal?
Could Congress authorize them to go ahead with the regulations? I mean, obviously the current Congress wouldn't, but if the issue is not following the process set by statute this seems like a case Congress can negate a SCOTUS ruling by virtue of amending the offending laws.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Jesus.
And then insert public grumbling about how bureaucratic and pedantic government regulators are.
Then lobby Congress to eliminate the unnecessarily burdensome red tape.
:hydra:
Causes harm in some cases.
Currently doesn't function beyond 2 people.
These are not unsolvable problems.
I would like polyamory to become more mainsteam acceptable though. I feel that would be a nice first step.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Yeah, he's righteous on gay marriage, but that opinion is kiiiiiiiind of gross!
That was part of his reaction to Obergefell on Friday.
I guess that's why my grandkids will think I'm a bigot.
um, we do that all the time?
And these days we can even put one back in and the person will stay alive.
Suck it Aztecs.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
he also works at nintendo
It seems like they could. But, there are only 22 power plants in the U.S. that the regulation applies to- and the EPA has a year and a half left in Obama's administration to Speedy-Gonzales the new and SCOTUS-friendly regulation through the approval process, so I don't think it's as big a deal as people are claiming.
As far as the religion+taxes thing goes, my beef with it wasn't the beliefs/parties (the Church of Satan is a thing, after all), but that it is explicitly a business masquerading as a religious establishment for the sweet sweet no-taxes benefits. Once you start allowing that nonsense to happen, expect The Church of Walmart with deceased prophet Sam Walton to open up their new megachurches in every city, with daily Worship of Savings happening 24/7.
I really didn't take it that way. It was much more an argument that polygamy causes problematic math for a place where gender breaks down evenly. And it does. Unless it exists solely at the fringes of a society or in negligible numbers.
He used rich men as the example, but that was mostly just for ease of communication with gendered pronouns and the historical practice of polygamy meaning rich men have multiple wives. But regardless, if 5% of spouses are married to 20% of eligible partners that means 95% of spouses are competing for 80% of remaining potential mates. That tends to end poorly. For a microcosm of this, look at places where the ratio of men/women are significantly out of proportion and how fucked up it tends to get there. And that's before getting into the difficulties of a non-amicable divorce/separation within a poly-cule. These aren't necessarily insurmountable problems that couldn't be overcome, but they're a hell of a lot more thorny than letting gay people be gay together in marriage. I certainly don't have problems with polyamory, but it really is just a completely different thing and the fact that the dissents were pointing to it as a reason to ignore Loving v Virginia was really just sad.
It's gross absent the context of the fact that actually is a serious issue in actual polygamist enclaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm
The best definition of it is in the reverse in that, "Gross old men with wealth and political power deliberately sabotage boys so they can get increased access to women, including underaged girls, so as to maximize the extent of their depravity."
I support decent polygamists and polyamorists who feel like that is the structure that makes them happy, but I've always been wary of polygamy in general because it seems like polygamy in real world practice consistently skews towards abuse of women, patriarchy, and Sodom/Gommorah like sexual depravity rather than a small number of consenting adults doing what makes them happiest, in such a way that best benefits them and is (barring prudishness) compatible with society.
Well right, that's the argument I use against it, not some numbers game.
No they really aren't solvable. The only way to do it is to have specific contracts to each specific Union. That is untenable as a structure for a general contract with society; at least one you expect society to conform to.
Otherwise if you want to structure those kinds of arrangements you're free to do so. But that doesn't place any burden on the state to enforce it.
Of course they're solvable.
Why wouldn't they be? Adding extra people on a contact designed to accomadate such changes isn't unmanagable, especially since one would hope all participants are willing.
The abuse issue is harder to solve 100%, but then that is the case in all relationships regadless of status.
Not having the Government involved seems like it would be more open to abuse.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This. My father is originally from Nigeria and is one of 25 children produced in a polygamous marriage. Things were effin terrible. There was barely enough food to go around and sibling rivalry went golden due to animosity between the wives. It's been twenty years since they all lived together and there's still a lot of hate in his family.
I know these types of relationships can work but my instinct warns me to shy away. If there's going to be any polygamy then we're going to have to figure out how as a society that we can face these problems.
If polygamy is legalized then how will we deal with child custody cases where one partner splits off? What about divorce? Can one polygamy partner be entitled to alimony and if so who pays it? What about in instances of death? Say one member of a polygamous arrangement dies and the remaining survivors start fighting on how to have the funeral? Who gets the deciding vote on this?
EDIT: I'm pretty certain we might have to add a whole new body of law just to deal with polygamous marriage if it ever becomes the law of the land.
No, its not. Because you have to be specific as to how agency and inheritance and debt obligations operate. Because these things can operate on a single issue basis when there are multiple parties to the contract.
Additionally being married confers benefits from third party actors beyond the state(such as hospitals and employers)
Here is a list of things being married entitles you to
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Most of these things simply do not work for multi-party marriages. And you can't just boilerplate them to do so.
And this is on top of the negative social dynamics.
I think his implicit point was that the state has an interest in keeping the supplies and demands of straight men and women balanced so that the population will not collapse.
Which does not make sense, but is a bit less offensive.
Not to keep the population from collapsing but to keep things from turning into the horrible conditions of a North Dakota oil town.
What if...
stick with me here...
the marriage became a corporation
Dibs on being head of mergers and acquisitions
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
nearly all of contract law is about what to do when some or all of the people involved break it (or want to)
so to even start making an argument for polygamy is to work out how it works during divorce. How people enter into the contract and how it works while everything is hunky dory is trivially easy. Working out the divorce problem is probably NP complete.
This is not true. Marriage includes third party obligations for which those third parties receive no consideration, which makes it fundamentally not a contract.
There are some things you can do with contracts which simulates marriage agreements. But writing a boilerplate contract for that is neither simple nor does it get past the fact that marriage includes third party obligations.
Then it can emit as much mercury as it wants.
I thought slippery slopes weren't a thing!
Maybe we won't have to be bigots.
they kick their boys out of the community so there's enough girls for the older men
Gay marriage is fundamentally just exactly the same as normal marriage. That's what the fight was all about. It doesn't change anything.
Polygamy is a huge change when it comes to law surrounding marriage.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'll admit to skimming that page, after the first half, but I'm not noticing anything that can't be boilerplated to work for multi-party marriages.
This assumes that the number of gays and lesbians is equal and that bi people split in such a way as to even things out. I think that's unlikely. (also that the number of people interested is equal)
They are minorities and only take up 2 per set, negligible.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Edit: Gay people aren't in the straight dating/marriage pool to begin with. You cannot make an argument that such marriage casusss gender imbalance because it would be there regardless.