Re: If gay marriage is legalized...

by truthbetold Sun Jun 26, 2011 7:36 am

Kris/Charvaka,

In my understanding, there are three main strands of thought:

(a) Civil rights to gays

(b) Obstruct Gays ability to live in society as gays by placing as many hurdles as possible (Religious right). Opposition to gay rights is part of it.

(c) Use Gay rights issue to modify marriage laws. The purpose could be to change marriage law forever or give gays the social standing of regular marriage. (liberal and gay activist line of thought).

I support (a). It will make gays do lot of work. They should lift the rocks if they feel they need it and they have the responsibility to convince their new idea of Gay union is OK for the society. That is the burden of all new ideas and demands for change. This can be done through a law that give Gay unions some name like "civil union" . Then for adminstrative ease, create a rights equivalent law and provide the marriage law protection. As we learn more about gay unions over a period of time, society can add, change the civil union law to help that activity. If that activity gains moral stature, then it can be co opted to marriage by society (not by govt).

The current activity seems to be more for creating a social legitimacy for gay union by using the cover of civil rights. The repeated use of the idea that Govt created marriage laws is false. Most modern govts merely incorporated an existing system into their constitution. Unlike democratic rights, it was not a principal issue in any major nation's birth. In fact, if there was a discussion on marriage laws at that time, the laws would have been more conservative and restrictive.

World wrote Chemical weapons laws in early 20th century. When a new idea of Nuclear weapons came in 1940s and 1950s, they wrote another law to suit its requirements. They may have barrowed from earlier law and used similar process but they recognized them as different animals.

IF we can do that for weapons, why not spend time and energy for a set of laws for Civil union.

by charvaka Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:39 pm

truthbetold wrote:The current activity seems to be more for creating a social legitimacy for gay union by using the cover of civil rights.

I don't think passing same-sex marriage laws gives social legitimacy to gay couples. The law doesn't grant acceptance; it just grants an administrative license to get married. The law doesn't specify how others have to treat the couple; the only specifies how the government treats the couple. In other words, if someone holds the personal belief that gay couples are not "legitimate," same-sex marriage law does not force that person to accept the "legitimacy" or gay marriages.

truthbetold wrote:The repeated use of the idea that Govt created marriage laws is false.

Government did not invent marriage, but government currently regulates who can get married to whom. They did not simply use the ideas from the past; they improved on them considerably (e.g. laws against child marriage.)

by charvaka Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:47 pm

truthbetold wrote:they have the responsibility to convince their new idea of Gay union is OK for the society.

In terms of how historical political processes work, you are right. Women had to convince people that their voting is OK for society, and black people had to convince society that desegration is OK. But if you look at the principle of the thing, I disagree that gay people have anything to prove. The burden of proof is on those who argue that gay unions harm society. Just like the burden of proof is on anyone who might suggest that women make bad voters or black people's equal rights somehow harm society.

by charvaka Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:47 pm

In the spirit of the thread-opener... New Yorkers should start playing soccer and dancing the samba. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/brazil-judge-approves-what-appears-to-be-countrys-first-gay-marriage-between-2-men/2011/06/27/AGYN2znH_story.html

In other news, New York City is looking to welcome some new tourists: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/28/78817/

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:14 pm

charvaka wrote:In the spirit of the thread-opener... New Yorkers should start playing soccer and dancing the samba.

How does polygamy that has to do with marriage laws equate to samba and soccer?

You know what is legal in Nevada? You get bombarded with fliers on the strip. That is another sure way to attract tourists too.

by charvaka Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:23 pm

Hellsangel wrote:How does polygamy that has to do with marriage laws equate to samba and soccer?

I think it is only fair to say that nothing equates to anything that's different from it.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:09 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:How does polygamy that has to do with marriage laws equate to samba and soccer?
I think it is only fair to say that nothing equates to anything that's different from it.

Ha ha ha! The fun begins.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/06/28/ia.same.sex.couples.face.deport.cnn?

by charvaka Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:08 pm

Hellsangel wrote:You know what is legal in Nevada? You get bombarded with fliers on the strip.

Yes, I know. One of the very first discussions I had with Sevaji on old CH back when I was still a young man was on the topic of prostitution. I argued for legalizing it. I even fell for the tactic of self-reverential self-references, but in the end agreed to disagree with him. Something tells me you may like reading that discussion.
http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men/prostitution.htm#186135

Hellsangel wrote:That is another sure way to attract tourists too.

I know lots of people who go to Vegas, but none who go there for the hookers. I guess I am not hanging out with the right crowd.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:24 pm

charvaka wrote: Something tells me you may like reading that discussion.
http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men/prostitution.htm#186135

Later...

charvaka wrote: I know lots of people who go to Vegas, but none who go there for the hookers. I guess I am not hanging out with the right crowd.

It is not a question of the crowd you or I hang out with. But people do frequent strip clubs and more especially when it is legal in Nevada. Yes, even married men. Maybe that was what created the saying - What happens in Vegas...

by charvaka Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:59 am

Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote: Something tells me you may like reading that discussion.
http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/wo-men/prostitution.htm#186135
Later...
charvaka wrote: I know lots of people who go to Vegas, but none who go there for the hookers. I guess I am not hanging out with the right crowd.
It is not a question of the crowd you or I hang out with. But people do frequent strip clubs and more especially when it is legal in Nevada. Yes, even married men. Maybe that was what created the saying - What happens in Vegas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Brown#R.26R_Partners

by charvaka Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:21 pm

Moves are being made to test the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 in the courts... the Obama administration has halted the deportation of a gay man married legally to a US citizen.

Henry Velandia, a 27-year-old professional salsa dancer from Caracas now living in New Jersey, legally married U.S. citizen Josh Vandiver, 30, in Connecticut last year, but due to the Defense of Marriage Act
-- a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a
woman -- Vandiver was not allowed to sponsor Velandia for a green card
in the same way a heterosexual person could for his or her spouse. The
Department of Homeland Security nevertheless decided to drop deportation
efforts against him Wednesday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/01/expert-halt-deportation-citizens-same-sex-partner-abuse-authority/#ixzz1QsKNjzaA

by charvaka Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:41 pm

DOMA, the law that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed legally in the various states, is being challenged on multiple fronts. Here is another angle.

Opponents of same-sex marriage usually advocate federalism and states' rights; they argue that the states should have the right to define what marriage is. For true states rights when it comes to marriage, the federal government needs to rely on the definitions by various states, rather than competing legislatively with the states by coming up with its own definition of marriage. That is precisely what DOMA is. Without DOMA, the federal government can leave marriage rights totally up to the states; if any marriage is legal in the state it is performed in, the feds would recognize it. This approach would allow some states that are favorable to gay marriage to have that pass, while allowing the others to not allow gay marriage.

http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/06/30/couple-asks-ninth-circuit-to-rule-on-gay-marriage-ban/
Just days after the Justice Department filed an appeal of a ruling
declaring the federal ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, lawyers for a
same-sex couple at the center of a bankruptcy dispute upped the ante by
asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take the case.The Justice Department appealed the bankruptcy-court ruling
Monday that declared the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.
Such appeals of bankruptcy-court decisions would be heard by the U.S.
District Court.But lawyers for the couple involved in the bankruptcy case are seeking to skip that step and go right to appeals court.“Because no ruling by the district court can establish the
authoritative guidance—one way or the other—that judges, practitioners,
debtors, creditors and interested parties need on this important issue,
the debtors seek certification of this appeal directly to the Ninth
Circuit,” according to papers filed by the couple’s lawyers.A decision by the appeals court to take the case could put the issue
of gay marriage on track for a hearing by the Supreme Court in 2012, an
election year.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:37 am

Charvaka,

Why is there requirement for the govt to include gays in marriage act? Marriage as historically defined only involved people of opposite sex. If people of smae sex wants to have some law for themselves, why don't they agitate for that right instead of asking to change something that is historically defined.
Govt cannot change history.

If guys want to stay together, want civil rights, and want property rights , they should work for that. It is something new and society needs to be convinced. Marriage acts have nothing to do with gays.

The arguments presented so far by Charvaka and Kris have not answered the fundamental question of how civil union and marriage are the same? They are not the same. Marriage is historical institution and it may evolve into other forms in future but to make it same as civil union(to make it easy for gays to get equal rights) is careless social engineering.

My feeling is the whole gay thing will peter out in few more decades and nations will be stuck with meaningless marriage laws.

by charvaka Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:48 am

truthbetold wrote:Why is there requirement for the govt to include gays in marriage act? Marriage as historically defined only involved people of opposite sex. If people of smae sex wants to have some law for themselves, why don't they agitate for that right instead of asking to change something that is historically defined.
Govt cannot change history.

Before 1996, there was no "definition" of marriage as far as the federal government was concerned. States decided what marriage meant in their laws on the topic. Congress enacted DOMA in 1996, "changing history" by creating a definition at the federal level. I think that definition needs to go.

truthbetold wrote:Marriage acts have nothing to do with gays.

If that's what you believe, then you should be against DOMA -- it was specifically enacted in the context of gay marriage.

truthbetold wrote:My feeling is the whole gay thing will peter out in few more decades and nations will be stuck with meaningless marriage laws.

It will always be a small minority of the population, and it won't peter out any more than left-handedness will peter out with time. Homosexual behavior has been observed throughout history, and it is observed in many animal species as well in nature.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:02 pm

Yes. I am opposed to DOMA and all the efforts to restrict and mistreat gays. I have encountered a few of them in my work life and found them as normal as the next guy/girl.

The fading part is in reference to the Gay marriage movement. I recognize that multiple preferences existed in human society for ever. I heard my share of Khan saab and elephant jokes.

The small group of gays could accommodated in more ways than fiddling with marriage act.

P.S. Heterosexual marriages are no perfect heaven. Let them deal with their own mess.

by Kris Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:17 pm

truthbetold wrote:Charvaka,

Why is there requirement for the govt to include gays in marriage act? Marriage as historically defined only involved people of opposite sex. If people of smae sex wants to have some law for themselves, why don't they agitate for that right instead of asking to change something that is historically defined.
Govt cannot change history.

If guys want to stay together, want civil rights, and want property rights , they should work for that. It is something new and society needs to be convinced. Marriage acts have nothing to do with gays.

The arguments presented so far by Charvaka and Kris have not answered the fundamental question of how civil union and marriage are the same? They are not the same. Marriage is historical institution and it may evolve into other forms in future but to make it same as civil union(to make it easy for gays to get equal rights) is careless social engineering.

My feeling is the whole gay thing will peter out in few more decades and nations will be stuck with meaningless marriage laws.

>>>> TBT,

Just to re-state my POV, I am saying the gov't needs to get out of defining marriage altogether. Its concern should be only the legal aspects of unions via-a-vis property rights, passing down of wealth, how assets/liabilities are divided in the vent of a split up. There are laws on the books already for this and my suggestion is rein in the governmental definition to these. This in a sense would be the civil union definition for everyone who wants to co-habitate. Above and beyond this, as to what people want to accept or not accept, let them vote on it.

The judiciary getting involved in this as the final arbiter poses serious problems as it sets a precedent. There is a case in germany that involves siblings wanting to get married. Let's say a similar situation hits the courts in the US or closer to home, polygamy among certain mormons, if the precedent is set on judicial decision-making, by what right can the courts refuse to hear these cases? This is a veritable pandora's box.

Kris

by truthbetold Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:24 pm

Kris - "the civil union definition for everyone who wants to co-habitate. "

US govt 's DOMA is not a requirement. Historical experience is clear and no confusion there.

Now you have reduced marriage to co habitate by equating it to civil union. While co habitation is a fact of marriage but it is only one aspect of marriage.

to simply put, keep civil union and marriage different because they are different in principle and practice.

So DOMA is just a side trick. it's existence does not give the right to gays or their supporters to demand gays to be included in marriage.

"that involves siblings wanting to get married."

If gays can form a civil union, what is wrong with sibling civil union. There is no direct pro creation involved in any gay union any way.

by Kris Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:41 pm

Now you have reduced marriage to co habitate by equating it to civil union

>>>> No, I am not. Marriage = CU + something else (whatever that is, be it religious/tradition/ social acceptance). I am saying let the judiciary/gov't stick to defining CU legally and limit itself to that. Let society decide on the balance of the equation. Gay marriage or marriage between relatives or polygamy then become issues for the overall society to sort out then.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:49 pm

" let the judiciary/gov't stick to defining CU legally and limit itself to that"

Marriage as we agreed repeatedly is a product of history. US govt's DOMA is a small insignificant trick in the process. So history defined marriage.

Civil union should also be defined by history. But with current day's omnipresent govt, it may have a role for practical reasons of day to day legal issues and enforceability. Still Gays have to help shape that discussion and they will be more effective if civil union focuses on Gay unions without confusing it with marriage.

by Kris Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:14 pm

TBT,

Mine is more of an issue of power grab on the part of the judiciary. Maybe that is an overstatement in the context of the marriage- definition issue, as the original definition (by law) was not a deliberate step. It is further complicated by english common law not necessarily (presumably) beholden to church/state separation concerns. In the american context, the more I think about this, the more this needs to be peeled back, historic precedence notwithstanding. That is a radical step and I am not sure this is going to be examined altogether, but seems to be this is one way of dealing with future issues on alternative marriage scenarios, whereby society's buy-in becomes a necessary condition At a broader level, I am leery of judicial overreach on any issue. The burden should be on the part of the judiciary branch to establish the necessity of such a reach, rather than this becoming the default option automatically.

by truthbetold Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:59 pm

Kris,

"Mine is more of an issue of power grab on the part of the judiciary."

I sensed that. I am not aware of the facts on CA referendum and its follow up issues. So I am learning about those details through Charvaka's and other people's comments.

Whatever may be our disagreements, US as a nation is becoming more tolerant of Gay unions (or marriages if one prefers that term). That is leading more sensible civil rights responses to Gay union issues. Many other countries in Europe and Asia (ex: India) look towards USA on these complex issues. India may not copy US laws but its legal community will take serious view of American progress on Gay civil rights.

by Kris Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:48 pm

http://blackstoneweekly.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/a-marrying-kind/

Not to bore you guys with legal minutiae, but the above link takes you to a reference on Blackstone's commentary on marriage. But for the usage of the term "marriage", I was surprised to find the differentiation even in common law as to the contract law aspect of a union and the "religious law" aspect. This is basically my point. The law of the land required certain basics to be met i.e. competence to enter into contract, being of age of consent etc, but defers to religious courts on what they would consider objectionable. Looks like the church could demand the dissolution of a marriage after the fact on religious grounds, but not pre-empt such a marriage from taking place. In middle age England, of course, they would have operated hand-in-hand in practical terms, but in the US with its separation of state/church, I see the voting public filling in for it finds acceptable instead of the church, beyond the 'contract' aspect. Let's see how this plays out. The supreme court does go back to Blackstone's work quite a bit from what I understand.

by charvaka Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:56 pm

Read something interesting today... now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, employers are requiring gay employees to get married, if they want to keep claiming benefits for long-term partners. I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either. Immigration complications make this difficult for some couples though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/some-companies-want-gays-to-wed-to-get-health-benefits.html

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

by Hellsangel Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:09 pm

charvaka wrote:Read something interesting today... now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, employers are requiring gay employees to get married, if they want to keep claiming benefits for long-term partners. I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either. Immigration complications make this difficult for some couples though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/some-companies-want-gays-to-wed-to-get-health-benefits.html

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

And so it begins. The great battle of our time...

by Silhouette Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:55 pm

charvaka wrote:Read something interesting today... now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, employers are requiring gay employees to get married, if they want to keep claiming benefits for long-term partners. I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either. Immigration complications make this difficult for some couples though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/some-companies-want-gays-to-wed-to-get-health-benefits.html

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

Unless state amendments to marriage acts revoke benefits for common law unions or domestic partnerships, I'm not sure how companies could force employees to pick marriage over domestic partnership or threaten denying benefits otherwise.

This could restrict movement for gay couples even further. Now, gay couples may move states and take their domestic partnership benefits with them since several states recognize such forms of benefits. But the same can't be said for gay unions formed through marriages because many states explicitly don't recognize that.

BTW, straight couples do get benefits without marrying in states that recognize common law marriages and opposite-sex domestic partnerships. Traditional marriages are an option for them too.

This could be another lawsuit waiting to happen.

by Mr. T Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:00 pm

Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:Read something interesting today... now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, employers are requiring gay employees to get married, if they want to keep claiming benefits for long-term partners. I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either. Immigration complications make this difficult for some couples though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/some-companies-want-gays-to-wed-to-get-health-benefits.html

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

Unless state amendments to marriage acts revoke benefits for common law unions or domestic partnerships, I'm not sure how companies could force employees to pick marriage over domestic partnership or threaten denying benefits otherwise.

This could restrict movement for gay couples even further. Now, gay couples may move states and take their domestic partnership benefits with them since several states recognize such forms of benefits. But the same can't be said for gay unions formed through marriages because many states explicitly don't recognize that.

BTW, straight couples do get benefits without marrying in states that recognize common law marriages and opposite-sex domestic partnerships. Traditional marriages are an option for them too.

This could be another lawsuit waiting to happen.

Your first point is true, Employers who are bringing about this amendment are facing the exact same argument you have put. The second issue though, benefits for domestic partnerships are available but are only a subset of the benefits that a married couple get.

by Silhouette Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:20 pm

Mr. T wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:Read something interesting today... now that same-sex marriage is legal in New York, employers are requiring gay employees to get married, if they want to keep claiming benefits for long-term partners. I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either. Immigration complications make this difficult for some couples though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/some-companies-want-gays-to-wed-to-get-health-benefits.html

Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.

On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.

Unless state amendments to marriage acts revoke benefits for common law unions or domestic partnerships, I'm not sure how companies could force employees to pick marriage over domestic partnership or threaten denying benefits otherwise.

This could restrict movement for gay couples even further. Now, gay couples may move states and take their domestic partnership benefits with them since several states recognize such forms of benefits. But the same can't be said for gay unions formed through marriages because many states explicitly don't recognize that.

BTW, straight couples do get benefits without marrying in states that recognize common law marriages and opposite-sex domestic partnerships. Traditional marriages are an option for them too.

This could be another lawsuit waiting to happen.

Your first point is true, Employers who are bringing about this amendment are facing the exact same argument you have put. The second issue though, benefits for domestic partnerships are available but are only a subset of the benefits that a married couple get.

On common law marriages, I was addressing Carvaka's particular point on equality that, "I like this -- equality runs both ways. If straight people can't get benefits without getting married, gay people shouldn't get them without marriage either."
There are benefits for common law marriages, even if the extent of coverage may differ depending on the specific benefit and specific employer (private, public or government). My point to him was, even opposite sex couples have tiers to their partnership. Marriage isn't the only option.

by charvaka Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:31 pm

Silhouette wrote:BTW, straight couples do get benefits without marrying in states that recognize common law marriages and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

I see; in those cases obviously gay people should be able to get those benefits too without having to get married. I don't know what the situation is in New York.

The one certainty in all this of course is that law suits will come out of every aspect of this issue. It's difficult to keep track of all the angles from which people are suing each other... between Prop 8 in California, various challenges of the federal DOMA, and issues like this one, you need to be a lawyer in order to understand what's going on.

by Silhouette Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:02 pm

charvaka wrote: It's difficult to keep track of all the angles from which people are suing each other... between Prop 8 in California, various challenges of the federal DOMA, and issues like this one, you need to be a lawyer in order to understand what's going on.

You think so? afaik even judges are scratching their heads in confusion 'coz so many aspects to the rules are uncertain now. Yeah, I have followed the various tiers of entitlements for same sex couples in california. It's quite absurd. Since Congress won't act, until Supreme Court speaks I guess things will remain chaotic.

Unless the new marriage act changed things, NY recognizes common law marriages but doesn't sanction it. i.e. if you move from a state or country where it's validly formed, you retain your benefits but you can't form the union in NY. But many private employers are under no such compulsion. However, I do know that most private universities in NY offer(ed) benefits on equal basis to same sex and opposite sex common law couples. OTOH if you were are an opposite sex couple in a common law marriage and your common law spouse dies, now since the state gets involved in order to dispose that spouse's property, private employers fall under different regulations that are construed generously towards the surviving common law spouse. I would think gay couples risk losing those advantages too if they were forced to marry or lose common law status.

by Hellsangel Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:29 pm

On a different note. The current 'consensus' is that among the LGBT community, only the last part is a disorder.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:35 am

Talking of polygamy. Is this unequal?:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/12/reality-tv-sister-wives-to-challenge-utah-anti-polygamy-law/?hpt=hp_bn1

by charvaka Wed Jul 13, 2011 12:08 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Talking of polygamy. Is this unequal?:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/12/reality-tv-sister-wives-to-challenge-utah-anti-polygamy-law/?hpt=hp_bn1

Yes, if a man can marry multiple women but a woman can't marry multiple men.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm

charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Talking of polygamy. Is this unequal?:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/12/reality-tv-sister-wives-to-challenge-utah-anti-polygamy-law/?hpt=hp_bn1
Yes, if a man can marry multiple women but a woman can't marry multiple men.

Does India recognize polygamy under the Sharia personal law?

by charvaka Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:46 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Talking of polygamy. Is this unequal?:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/12/reality-tv-sister-wives-to-challenge-utah-anti-polygamy-law/?hpt=hp_bn1
Yes, if a man can marry multiple women but a woman can't marry multiple men.
Does India recognize polygamy under the Sharia personal law?

It does. I think India should have a uniform civil code that does not recognize Sharia rules for marriage and divorce that institutionalize gender discrimination.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:47 am

And here we go:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14244012

by charvaka Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:55 am

One more marker of inequality and institutionalized discrimination is finally done away with: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obama-Certifies-End-to-Ban-on-Gays-in-Military--126046783.html

by Sponsored content