The state (at a federal limit, unless the citizenry expresses otherwise) does not restrict marriages, it only condones them. It promotes what is perceived by the general consensus as socially acceptable by bestowing perks. It also limits a state-sanctioned marriage on what activities can be performed. Let me state now that I do *not* support any state denying the right to one or more couples being married.. only the recognition thereof. In some states (again, as ordained by the consensus of it's population) discrimination on these matters by making unsanctioned marriage (in regards to the state) illegal and punishable. I am not in support of this.
Your millitary analogy is non-applicable. For one, it serves the state, whereas polygamous marriage service the state(or society) is highly questionable and unlikely in the best. The state cannot know if a couple will be optimal or not, that is up to the couple. The state *can*, and will, refuse to give out perks if the married party violates certain principles. It works much like the tax on luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol. It is not a question of what should be allowed. I am in full support of no penalties. It is a question of what should be promoted, which in this case is government sanction of the union. I'll go off on a slight tangent: As to homosexuals, as it exists they *can* be married. Their union is merely unsanctioned by the government. Personally, I am in support of sanctioning such marriages as these.
If such peoples would bond better in polygamy than in monogamy, they can form a club or cooperative, or do without a government sanctioned marriage. A marriage is not for them, in my opinion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-06-10 05:39 am (UTC)Let me state now that I do *not* support any state denying the right to one or more couples being married.. only the recognition thereof. In some states (again, as ordained by the consensus of it's population) discrimination on these matters by making unsanctioned marriage (in regards to the state) illegal and punishable. I am not in support of this.
Your millitary analogy is non-applicable. For one, it serves the state, whereas polygamous marriage service the state(or society) is highly questionable and unlikely in the best. The state cannot know if a couple will be optimal or not, that is up to the couple. The state *can*, and will, refuse to give out perks if the married party violates certain principles. It works much like the tax on luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol.
It is not a question of what should be allowed. I am in full support of no penalties. It is a question of what should be promoted, which in this case is government sanction of the union.
I'll go off on a slight tangent: As to homosexuals, as it exists they *can* be married. Their union is merely unsanctioned by the government. Personally, I am in support of sanctioning such marriages as these.
If such peoples would bond better in polygamy than in monogamy, they can form a club or cooperative, or do without a government sanctioned marriage. A marriage is not for them, in my opinion.