musings of wrath

“A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDING THAT MARRIAGE CONSISTS ONLY OF THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN; THAT LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED PERSON WHICH IS IDENTICAL OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO MARITAL STATUS SHALL NOT BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN ARKANSAS, EXCEPT THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE FROM ANOTHER STATE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN; AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE CAPACITY OF PERSONS TO MARRY, SUBJECT TO THIS AMENDMENT, AND THE LEGAL RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES OF MARRIAGE.”

Sounds to me like they’re saying they can determine a marriage invalid based on whatever they want.

So if we have an open marriage, and the state decides to make that illegal, they can nullify our marriage.

Right.

I’m voting “No” on that one. The state can go to hell.

although having them pass a bill to say you’re not married would be kinda cool

NOTE: is not a lawyer I only play one on LJ.

That being said, the amendment states the following:

1. That Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
2. That AR does not recognize legal unions from other states that are not one man and one woman (protection from MA).
3. A caveat that AR will recognize common law marriage from other states (if the legislature approves of that).
4. That the Legislature has the power to limit people from getting married (assumed to be under age, familial relations, etc).

That last point is actually already fairly standard. In some states you have to be 18 to get married, in others 16, in others 15 with parental consent. In every state you have to be no closer then second cousins to get married. In every state you cannot practice polygamy. These are all part of the accepted normal restrictions on marriage in the US. THis amendment would not change that, except to define constitutionally that polygamy and same-sex marriages are against the constituation (thus preventing a court from ruling that they must be allowed).

heh.

it would take an act of congress, i tell ya!

you going to be in Raleigh?

doesn’t look like it.
It would have to be a spur-of-the-moment thing and I have no money.
I kinda wish I could though…
still torn

I disagree with the open powers it gives the state legislators to define what’s affected by this act. They could decide that if there’s an age difference of greater than 5 years, your marriage is invalid. It would nullify my marriage. I don’t like that power being in the hands of the state. That should ONLY be in the hands of myself, my wife, and whomever we decide.

If they took off points 2 and 4, I might actually vote for it. Might. And even then, Gay marriage portion aside, it offends my privacy and personal rights.

Because of my religious beliefs, I have to go with “marriage” under God being man and woman. I don’t however, believe anyone has the right to deny others their union out of love. If it’s two people, whatever. Not my problem, I don’t have to share their bedroom.

It’s a cluster-fuck, really. Morality should be only be dictated by one’s personal or religious beliefs. Not by the state. ONLY the rights of others should be the concern of the goverment.

Since when did our country become about taking away rights instead of securing them?

My ideal world is very close to the one envisioned by Robert Heinlein in For Us, The Living.

a man marrying his 3 brothers really scares me…

Well, I’ll be making more trips to dallas, now that my cousin’s said he’ll get me free flights there.. Pays to be related to a pilot.

So, if I don’t see you in Raleigh, maybe I’ll bump into you in Dallas at some point..

Well, lets look at this for a sec. First off. Right now it is illegal in every state for polygamy, incest, underage, and same sex marriages to occur. Additionally, almsot every state places a set of further restrictions on marriage (like 72 hour waiting periods, blood tests, STD tests, etc.) You just don’t hear people complaining about those restrictions.

If this issue were just about two people then I would not really have a problem with it either. IN fact, I am very much for further clarifications of legal unions to allow for issues like inheritance, medical care, adoption, breakups, and a host of other issues that have come about over the few thousand years that marriage law has been developing.

The problem is that this isn’t just about what two people do in the privacy of their own home. It is how the gov’t recognizes that relationship. For instance, a spouse is the official next of kin of a person, and thus legally inherits property/debts of a person if there is no will. Couple that with the common law requirements (6 months cohabitation) and the idea that the number, sex, age, relationship of partners no longer matters and you get into a wierd situation where your roommate would inherit your property because you happened to live in the same apt for a year. There are other odd issues that crop up that also need to be addressed because abandoning the underpinning assumption of a marriage (what it is an what it is for) throws thousands of years of legal predecents out the window.

While it might be nice to think that morality should only be dictated by personal beleif, that is both unworkable and impossible. IN the end civilization is based upon the idea that that culture as a whole decides upon certain standards and then imposes that loss of innate freedom on the individuals in that culture. Individuals then contact voluntarily with the culture and agree to abide by the loss of individual freedoms for the benefit of the common good. Thus when you look at all laws, their goal is for the smooth operation of the culture, and almost every one is based upon morality. Murder and theft are the two easiest examples of activities that are immoral and illegal.

Lastly, two arguments on your second to last comment. One is, there is no right being taken away. Secondly, gov’t’s purpose is to secure the public good and ensure the smooth running of society. Thus, gov’t is all about letting idividuals know what rights they must sacrifice to operate in said society. ONe of the best examples of this is taxation. I know to be a member of society, I must pay taxes, even if I disgree with how they are spent.

Personally, I think maybe the common law marriage should be tweaked anyway (it’s 2 years in AR, I thought?).
Also, if prejudice is seen as a crime (or at least frowned upon) in this country, wouldn’t anti-gay laws be the same as anti-Muslim or anti-black laws?

Just a thought. Besides, you guys are in the South, where the majority practically nurtures prejudice.

…

What was I saying?

I never really understood common-law relationships. In the situation you described, shouldn’t this already be an issue for male/female roomate situations? To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense if for no other reason than a male/female couple has the option of getting married - if they choose not to, why should common-law come into effect?

I would also argue that the nature of marriage has changed already over the years, especially in our culture. Women are no longer regarded as property of their husbands, marriages don’t equal procreation anymore, and then there’s that entire interracial marriage thing (which has a ton of parallels to the same-sex marriage issue).

And on the last point, I think you’re right that no rights are being taken away at least in every state but Massachusetts, which is unaffected by a change to the Arkansas constitution, but would be on a federal marriage amendment. On the other hand, the federal gov’t and ever state that passed a DOMA of their own has quantified the issue and denied the right of anyone but a male and a female to marry, even if that marriage was legal in another state. A marriage in Massachusetts, unless it is a male/female marriage, is not legal in Arkansas - to me, that’s a denial of rights.

Er, homosexuality is not exactly a facet of “standard deviation” within a species, whereas racial differences are.