Local radio in Texas said that there really hasn’t been any big sign that clerks are refusing to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples using the religious objection. I think this really is going to be a non issue and is going to disappoint more than a few of the rabble-rousers.
I suspect very few poly people will want a ‘poly’ marriage, just based on the folks I have known. In some poly relationships, there is a primary one that is a married one, then one or both of the partners have other partners who are secondary. Others live together where the ties are stronger between the people involved, but at least from what I have seen, I don’t think they have any real desire to get married to one another. Among other things, from my admittedly limited view into poly folks, the ones I have known were not particularly strong advocates for marriage or saw they had the need to.
That said, if they want to, then the law simply will have to adapt, as the law adapted to other changes in marriage, like legalized divorce, where all kinds of laws had to be created, precedents set, and so forth, when women gained rights outside marriage, when women routinely started working there were rules involving insurance through the employer and who covers what, you name it. With SS benefits, if let’s say you have a triad, and one of the parties passes on, then the benefits could be divided among the survivors or could be given to ‘the household’, and if they split up, then they would each receive their share…One thing to keep in mind that with any right or benefit, the state has the right to regulate it and how it works. When you get married today, you need a license and have to have a wedding attested to by an authorized representative who signs the license, and you have to file it, and if you want to get divorced, there is regulation around that as well. With poly relationships, the law would have to define the framework, it would not be ‘anything goes’ as idiots like Roberts said, all rights have limitations to them, and if the legal structure is not found to be an onerous burden on the right, it will be legal. Thus they could require that with poly marriage, that to be recognized all the people in the relationship would agree to be married to each other (so you wouldn’t have jon married jane, jane married sally, they hypothetically might require that sally be considered married to jon as well). Likewise, if there were kids in a poly marriage, they would be considered the children of all of them, and if the relationship dissolved, child support and visitation/custody would be among the N members of the marriage to work out, and if they couldn’t, then the law would step in and make the decisions, the way they do with contentious marriages today.
The true history of marriage is something that the religious try to duck, but the reality is that marriage has been first and foremost a legal instrument, to guarantee things like rights to titles, right to the dowry of a bride, legitimacy of offspring and so forth. From everything I have read, in most societies, few common people bothered to get formally hitched, and in the case of western Europe, until the 16th-17th century, most common people did not bother because they had nothing to secure, in feudal Europe what did they have to secure? Once people started having property and assets, the rate of marriage went up, again for the legal rights. Most marriage was among nobility and the well off, for obvious reasons, given hereditary titles and wealth. The one immutable thing about marriage has been that, that the prime motivator for it was in fact legal. It is interesting that for example, the Catholic Church did not have formal marriage ceremonies until the 9th century, they didn’t require people to marry in the church until the 12th, and as I pointed out, it would be hundreds of years after that that people bothered to get married. Those who point to the fact that for many centuries people got married in church as proof that marriage was primarily a ‘religious right’ are playing historical footsy with the facts, because thanks to the hegonomy of the church, it was the only place until much later centuries where you could get legally hitched, and if people were dying for the recognition of God, etc, as a prime motivator, common law marriage would not have been needed, it came about from what I have read when you had people who never formally married, who simply got together and lived together and had families, found they needed legal protection.
Not to mention that marriage within the last 200 years has already fundamentally changed from notions in the past, it went from being a property transaction, in effect selling the daughter to another family (or paying them, as with a dowry), and it generally had zip to do with love, despite what the romantics would have you believe, marrying for love is a fairly recent innovation.
You know it’s a slow day when the only thing to discuss is legalized polygamy what-ifs.
The Kochs are mostly supporters of things which will make them even richer than they already are. When I said they’d love to remake the country into the Corporate States of America, I was thinking about tax codes, environmental and labor laws, etc. If they were able to purchase SCOTUS by funding the reelection campaigns which Cruz proposes, they’d be a giant step closer to that remaking. But as far as I can see, there’s nothing inherently inconsistent about supporting both gay rights and plutocracy.
Don’t most people vote their pocketbook?
No, not necessarily. I don’t always. I find that people who do, however, are surprised by the existence of people who don’t.
Don’t most people vote their pocketbook?
No. There are many policies that are way more important to me then pocketbook issues. I also think there are many who do vote on pocketbook issues even though their pocketbooks are very, very small - but they think someday they might strike it rich and need all those tax breaks. JMO.
I don’t always, either. There’s such a thing as enlightened self-interest. And I’d like to think that if I already had more money than I could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes, I might spare a thought for the less fortunate, and for society as a whole. The Kochs aren’t burdened that way though.
Sure, because only poor virtous people are genuine about supporting gay rights, while wealthy people can only support gay rights as a cynical ploy for world domination.
You’ve broken the code.
…
In any case this is absolutely right.
A point starkly highlighted by the left’s angst expressed in “Whats the matter with Kansas”, and other such handwringing about why people aren’t happily willing to accept perfectly good bribes and pandering.
I’m not sure how you got that from what I posted, GT. Wealthy people can sincerely support gay marriage. Why not? I’d guess David Koch sincerely supports it, or why would he go to the trouble and expense of filing an amicus brief?
BTW, I don’t think the Kochs want to rule the world per se. I think they just want to be relieved of having to care about anyone but themselves, and the best way to do that is to make sure that everyone in government agrees with them. SCOTUS elections would save them money, because they’d only have to fund 9 campaigns instead of dozens or hundreds.
When we actually get to a “cynical ploy for world domination,” the thread is lost.
Back on topic: 
[Texas Concedes Legal Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban](Texas Concedes Legal Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban | The Texas Tribune)
and
[Mississippi’s ban on gay marriage officially lifted](Mississippi's ban on gay marriage officially lifted)
Bless their hearts.
Even Bobby Jindal has quit his foot-dragging:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_administration_wi.html
@lasma:
Nope, though of course some ‘libertarians’ like Rand Paul were outright against same sex marriage, which tells you how libertarian they really are. The Koch Brothers filed a brief for same sex marriage the way many other businesses did, they didn’t want the mess of marriage legal in some states and not the other, it completely makes HR management and the like a mess, plus it also stops them from recruiting talent, there are a lot of people who wouldn’t go work in a state where they perceive it to be hostile to same sex couples and Koch has offices all over. It is the same reason the other big companies filed briefs, discrimination stops them from recruiting and hiring the best talent, not just gays and lesbians but those who saw marriage bans for what they were. The Koch Brothers version of libertarianism tends to be economic, ie no taxes, no regulation, etc, socially I doubt they cared about same sex marriage one way or the other, other than as a business need.
Wow, scout. I knew the resistance would crumble, but I didn’t anticipate it crumbling this quickly.
Montana family fighting for poly marriage license: http://time.com/3944579/montana-polygamy-gay-marriage/
Consenting adults, I don’t see the issue.
@LasMa - I know! Bless his heart, he’s still fighting for creationism in the schools but he’s already acquiesced to same-sex marriage.
It is not that unusual for “business conservatives” to take left-leaning positions on social issues when the right-leaning positions are an impediment to doing business.