2 U.S. states back legalizing gay marriage; 2 states OK recreational use of pot

A first, gay marriage is approved by the citizens and not the courts.

Now, logically, we can see polygamy and polyamory similarly legalized. I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?

Now, logically, we can see polygamy and polyamory similarly legalized. I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?

The road to making something a law starts with advocacy. Who -- besides yourself of course -- is out there advocating for polygamy and polyamory?

Now, logically, we can see polygamy and polyamory similarly legalized. I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?

That's not very logical.

" I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?"

Is this what Bill Clinton meant when he talked of Republicans defying arithmetic?

Now, logically, we can see polygamy and polyamory similarly legalized. I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?

You really don't get it do you?

If it's okay for a man and a woman to get married, why not a man and two women? Logical enough for you?

For those dope fiends dumb enough to want to do it, maybe a puff of that poison might be "recreational", but possessing an ounce?!?!? That is addiction. Fortunately for everyone, federal law trumps state law. Look for the marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado to be overturned. The sooner the better.

RR

I doubt I'll ever understand why the far right always bring polygamy or even paedophilia to the table as their argument against two people of the same sex getting married. There a lots and lots and lots of gay people in the world, get over it!

Fortunately for everyone, federal law trumps state law.

Hah! - Bit of an unusual argument for a conservative. I imagine you'll turn on a dime on that point of view when it suits your purpose.

Oh - and possession of a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack of beer are also potential signs of addiction. Stick with your point of view, and the US will approach Dubai in fun in no time!

"but possessing an ounce?!?!? That is addiction."*

Meth doses and weed doses aren't quite the same thing ramen.

Now, logically, we can see polygamy and polyamory similarly legalized. I mean, if it is OK for two men to get married, why not three men?

Applying the same logic would mean that the right to bear arms should be abolished on the grounds that it would inevitably lead to private citizens buying their own nuclear deterrent.

I would have though you might have noticed that polygamy and polyandry are practised in countries that do not allow same sex marriage. Perhaps Arab countires are fretting that their polgymous culture will lead to same sex marriage, but somehow I doubt it.

Madverts;

There are also lots of multiple marriages in the world, why should they be denied their rights in the USA?

Good for the Gay rights, but they still have to get the federal government to recognize it and that probably will not happen until 30 or more states make gay marriage legal.

possession of a pack of cigarettes and a six-pack of beer are also potential signs of addiction.

The U.S. federal govenment deem those items legal. Fortunately, marijuana is not.

RR

For those dope fiends dumb enough to want to do it, maybe a puff of that poison might be "recreational", but possessing an ounce?!?!? That is addiction.

And a question of personal responsibility. Or when do we start prohibition again?

Fortunately for everyone, federal law trumps state law. Look for the marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado to be overturned. The sooner the better.

So much for States' rights and the will of the people. Only whenever convenient, eh?

U.S. ban on polygamy is not as theorhetical as VRWC wants to make it. It led to U.S. marshals attempting to arrest Mormons in the 1880s, causing many like Miles P. Romney (Mitt's great grandfather) to flee to Mexico. This struggle is continuing through the present with the feds on the verge of taking over Hildale and Colorado City (FLDS enclaves). The history of militant opposition towards the host country (USA) make the polygamy argument a poor parallel to the gay marriage case.

You may be right TT that the whole "gap toothed patriarch" stereotype of polygamy is repulsive to a lot of people. However, you don't need to go far back in history to find same sex marriage being seen as similarly repulsive. However, you may find that the driving force for polygamy may be from immigrants whose native cultures have been doing it for centuries.

It's really quite simple and rational- if the gender of the participants in a marriage doesn't matter, then why should the NUMBER of participants matter? The popularity of it is irrelevant, when dealing with issues of social justice.

Or when do we start prohibition again?

A prohibition is already in effect at the federal level. Been that way for decades.

So much for States' rights and the will of the people. Only whenever convenient, eh?

Look for this issue to go to the USSC. Unfortunately for the potheads in WA and CO, those states' legalizing marijuana laws will ultimately be struck down.

RR

sales won’t start until state officials make rules to govern the legal weed industry.

Translation: This bad law will be indefinately tabled.

RR

@Vast Defending the preposterous gender/number argument you posited is quite something. How about 4 men and/or a horse? Unfortunately, the dead one you are flogging has missed the chance of marital bliss.

A prohibition is already in effect at the federal level. Been that way for decades

Being purposely obtuse are we? Okay, Prohibition of alcohol (as in the 18th amendment). Alcohol's addictive, far more damaging to society http://alcoholicsvictorious.org/faq/impact.html than pot. Would make sense to prohibit. Federal government did, now it doesn't. Maybe the federal government should let states decide. Sounds like a good conservative position to me.

So much for States' rights and the will of the people. Only whenever convenient, eh?

Look for this issue to go to the USSC. Unfortunately for the potheads in WA and CO, those states' legalizing marijuana laws will ultimately be struck down.

Like Laguna said

Hah! - Bit of an unusual argument for a conservative. I imagine you'll turn on a dime on that point of view when it suits your purpose.

@Laguna: Dubai, can actually pretty fun.

The difference between states that allow gay marriage and those who don't is that those who allow it will simply forget about it and move on with their lives.

@Jimizo

There is nothing preposterous about multiple marriages. They have been part of human culture and society for millenia. From biblical times to Africa to China, the history of polygamy is long and diverse.

I see nothing wrong with 4 men deciding they want to marry and make a family. The horse may be problematic though, as it is hard to prove the horse gave informed consent to signing the marriage contract.

You seem a bit intolerant about it. Mind saying why?

Are you saying you are in favour of polygamy VRWC?

I still don't get your argument that if we allow gays to marry each other then suddenly everyone will be demanding a second or even third spouse.

Polygamy and homosexuality are two different sports. There is nothing to add to that.

And I don't think bringing animals to the discussion, even in jest, really helps us discuss this reasonably TBH...

I'm young and enjoying not being married, but even in the few serious relationships I've had, I'll be damned if I needed a second or third woman playing mind games with me - or the PMT x3 - the more obvious jealousy angle and inevitable falling out between the girls....

Polygamy, if you so insist on discussing this, is only preferred these days in the Western by leaders of nutty sects, and that's only so the middle-aged head honcho can justify penetrating fourteen year old girls.

I'm surprised the mod hasn't zapped most of the posts here. Polygamy, despite your best efforts to make it so, has zilch to do with gay marriage.

@vast I didn't say polygamy was preposterous - I said your logical pathway was preposterous. I just don't get why opponents of same-sex marriage often invoke polygamy ( my feelings about polygamy are the same as same-sex marriage - the government has no business there ). More febrile opponents see same-sex marriage as a green light to legalizing a marriage with your pet labrador. It's the moral slippery slope argument that I find disingenuous and frankly, low.

Good for the Gay rights, but they still have to get the federal government to recognize it and that probably will not happen until 30 or more states make gay marriage legal.

Marriage laws are set by the individual states and the Federal government stays out of it. That's why the Federal government hasn't done anything to the other five states plus D.C. that have legalized same sex marriage. Gay couples married in one state have tried to get the Federal courts to force other states to recognize their marriage and the courts have said, "Nuh uh. We don't tell the states what to do when it comes to marriages. That's something they are allowed to legislate without Federal interference." If a gay couple wants their marriage to be recognized, then they have to live in a state that allows it.

Maryland also passed a resolution allowing full-tilt gambling. MGM has already committed to building a Casino Resort in a Maryland suburb of D.C. if the resolution passed. Look for the construction to start in about three years, and for Congress to be full of gambling scandals a few years after it's built.

The federal government does not want the states to enforce federal immigration laws. So why should they enforce federal drug laws? This would mean all enforcement would have to be by the federal government. Why should drug laws be any different than immigration?

@Madverts

Not in favor of it (polygamy) on a personal level, but if that's what people want to do, I don't have any problem with it. I never said that everyone would want a second or third spouse. Chances are, most people would not. But that's not the point.

And polygamy in the West these days is most assuredly NOT only condoned by leaders of "nutty sects", as you put it. It is a global phenomenon that touches every country that calls itself "multicultural". Not to mention, it's also possible for three gay people to want to marry as well. No "head honchos" or "fourteen year old girls" in the picture.

It seems very intellectually sloppy to say that marriage can be changed to allow gays to marry each other, then to barricade the castle and say "OK, that's all the change that we will allow". Strikes me as hypocritical and mean. Just because it's not YOUR cup of tea, there is no reason to be so disparaging. Love can strike three people just as it can strike two.

It's a matter of personal choice and freedom. There is no logical way to support same sex marriage and yet deny multiple marriage.

@Jizimo. It's not a moral argument at all, and not a slippery slope. Consenting adults should be able to marry other consenting adults. Why does the number matter if the gender does not?

The new pot law in WA will never go into effect. The authorities there are already on record saying the legalized pot law will not start until "regulations are in place" to contol the weed industry. Folks, that's code for it ain't ever going to happen.

For those who don't know, a peoples' referendum was passed in 1976 that would switch all road signs in that state to metric (from miles to kms). Though that law is still on the books nearly 40 years later, I challenge anyone to find a distance marker in the Evergreen State that's in kilometers.

Point being, the WA state politicians will table the new legalized pot law. Yeah, it's on the books; but it will never be enacted.

RR

VRWC: If we take your argument back to the source, then the slippery slope was started when marriage was allowed between men and women.

Perhaps our ancestors had this discussion: "If we allow men and women to marry, then inevitably it will mean that men will want to marry men"

The slipperly slope argument is a useful rhetorical device, but does not hold water in experience. Today's Western society is increasingly finding same-sex marriage acceptable, but not polygamous marriage. I do not see any reason to stop the change of opinion taking place around the former on the grounds that one day in the future, there is a risk that opinions around the latter could change.

Only the hippies living in the Puget Sound area voted for this law. Residents of Eastern Washington, the Columbia Basin and the Olympic Pennisula resoundly said NO to this law.

Fortunately, possessing pot legally will never become a reality in Washington State.

RR

VRWC,

"Strikes me as hypocritical and mean. Just because it's not YOUR cup of tea, there is no reason to be so disparaging. Love can strike three people just as it can strike two."

I'm sorry but I simply do not believe this. I can see the point you are trying to make from one angle, but homosexuality and polygamy are still two totally different things and this is why your argument is so weak.

Neither are my cup of tea to be honest, but I'd like you to pint out for me where I have made disparaging comments to either polygamists or homosexuals.

"It's a matter of personal choice and freedom. There is no logical way to support same sex marriage and yet deny multiple marriage."

It is, but I challenge you to show me the "global phenomenon" of polygamy - just stick to the Western world as I already asked.

If you can show me millions upon millions of polygamists fighting for the right to marry then I'll entertain your theory.

Hi Madverts;

First of all, please tell me how gay marriage and multiple marriage are two "totally different things". Other than just the number of participants, they are the same, aren't they? Ditto traditional marriage and multiple marriage. The only difference is the number of people in the relationship.

Tolerance doesn't stop at the borders of the "Western world". Nor do mere numbers have anything to do with justice or tolerance. My argument isn't based on either of those criteria, purely on logic and decency. It's really very simple: If two consenting adults can get married, then why can't three?

FYI, it is legal in nearly 50 countries. As well, polygamous marriages that were performed in other countries are legally recognized in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.