Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Vanity]Marriage Consortium Possibilities & Realities
Self Vanity | 28 March 2013 | Self

Posted on 03/28/2013 12:46:11 PM PDT by mbarker12474

Once marriage between multiple parties is legalized on equal protection grounds, what are the possibilities and realities regarding consortiums of persons getting legally married, in a commercial business arrangement, in order to share some benefit of marriage (such as health insurance, compelled under law to be provided to married parties)?

Could the enterprising businessman, for example, charge a fee and marry himself to thousands of strangers, allowing these customers to share in his health insurance, and any other rights accruing to married parties?

Are there any obstacles to this happening? I see none.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; samesex; vanity
Are there any obstacles to this happening? I see none.
1 posted on 03/28/2013 12:46:11 PM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

There’s one thing I see happening rather quickly if we do indeed go down this road as a nation-any and all employers will drop coverage on all non-employees. No one is going to want to foot the cost of insurance coverage that will be added by the inclusions of these lifestyle choices.


2 posted on 03/28/2013 12:54:28 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Are you kidding?

Talk to some of the people here on FR who’ve been married and divorced. You’ll get an earful.

If all you’re saying is “any obstacles”, you’re not looking hard enough.

Ever heard of “bigamy”?


3 posted on 03/28/2013 12:54:41 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

so then the law will mandage coverage of all sexual fetishes.

homosexual behavior, animal sex, masochists, sadists, leather fetishes,all will be the same.


4 posted on 03/28/2013 12:56:19 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

they can mandate all they want, but there is no law that companies have to provide coverage.


5 posted on 03/28/2013 12:57:45 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

I should write a book.. “The Whoreing of Marriage”..

It’s... Important when marriage becomes not totally for children but a business enterprise....


6 posted on 03/28/2013 12:57:51 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

If I have the right to mary who I want, does the other party need to know? I may need a polygamist relationship with Salma Hayek and Kate Upton.


7 posted on 03/28/2013 12:57:52 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
We are well on our way to having no private insurance in this country. Obamacare got that ball rolling, but the points you raise will give added impetus to the trend.

I have a job. My employer gives me health insurance. Voila! My 27 wives will also get health insurance. Guess what happens? My employer no longer provides health insurance.It's Cloward-Piven for the private sector, you see -- employer-provided benefits are overwhelmed and the private system collapses.

But, don't despair! The federal government will roll out a Single Payer program (this has been the plan all along) that will give everyone in the country -- no matter their status -- equal access to below average health care. And it's all FREE!

The repercussions from "redefining" marriage will be many. Tax law and health care law are just two of the areas affected.

8 posted on 03/28/2013 12:58:00 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
The Death of Marriage

9 posted on 03/28/2013 12:59:51 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

nope, once you establish a principle you can’t keep any one that loves each other from marrying, you can’t rightly oppose any arrangement. You’d have to legalize them all.


10 posted on 03/28/2013 1:02:06 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

Find marriage in the U.S.Constitution. And you’re confusing laws with principles.


11 posted on 03/28/2013 1:04:09 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

You and I both know the word isn’t there just like abortion isn’t, but when did that ever stop the 9 members of the USSC from creating rights out of thin air?


12 posted on 03/28/2013 1:07:48 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL
they can mandate all they want, but there is no law that companies have to provide coverage.

Is this true?

MegaHealth Insurance company provides a current policy for Joe Jones and all the employees of MegaCorp. The policy currently includes spouses and family members.

Is there not law -- not just business choice -- which mandates this?

And compels MegaHealth to allow Joe to add family members?

13 posted on 03/28/2013 1:10:44 PM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
Could the enterprising businessman, for example, charge a fee and marry himself to thousands of strangers, allowing these customers to share in his health insurance, and any other rights accruing to married parties?

MAIL ORDER BRIDES/GROOMS (what difference does it make?)!

Contact XYZ at 123. You receive FREE healthcare and many other 'rights'. Ain't America great?!

Only $999.99. But act now, this offer is limited to the first 1,000!

14 posted on 03/28/2013 1:12:21 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

It’s already been proposed here that parents should “marry” their children in order to avoid inheritance taxes.


15 posted on 03/28/2013 1:13:04 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Well, consummation will limit him to adding a few a day- unless he’s young.

Speaking of consummation: what act is considered ‘consummation’ for perverts’ marriages?
They haven’t the means to consummate their marriages in the way courts have always defined it before.


16 posted on 03/28/2013 1:21:41 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Does, er, consummation even matter?

Is consummation required by law? Considered under law only in divorce or annulment cases? Could the IRS or MegaHealth challenge marriage claims on the grounds that the marriage was never consummated? Would one have to produce a bloody sheet?


17 posted on 03/28/2013 1:46:34 PM PDT by mbarker12474 (If thine enemy offend thee, give his childe a drum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

“Bou-vier in his Law Dictionary: “ The first time that the husband and wife cohabit together after the ceremony of marriage has been performed, is called the consummation of marriage.” A marriage, however, is complete without this in the eye of the law, as it is a maxim taken from the Roman civil statutes that consent, not cohabitation, is the binding element in the ceremony; consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias.”

Well! Apparently it’s not required and hasn’t been since the Roman Empire.

I guess I can blame Hollywood...


18 posted on 03/28/2013 1:51:05 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
It’s... Important when marriage becomes not totally for children but a business enterprise....

Not that this justified same-sex "marriage," but until fairly recently, marriage has historically been (to some extent) a "business enterprise," particularly among the upper classes. Marriages were often arranged, and were often arranged for "business" reasons (bring together family fortunes/businesses/properties, etc.).

19 posted on 03/28/2013 1:53:29 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrB

There are far easier ways to avoid inheritance taxes.


20 posted on 03/28/2013 1:54:22 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Such as being poor?


21 posted on 03/28/2013 2:05:48 PM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (I'll stop being a cynic when the world stops giving me reasons to be cynical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL

Facile and soundly based legal arguments before the Supreme Court are important. This past week Justices were dropping clues, but some lawyers are blind, deaf and dumb.

I haven’t studied Roe v. Wade as closely as I have the Natural born Citizen eligibility requirement, but there are states which have tightened up their laws on abortion. As long as a state hasn’t made it flat-out illegal, existing laws allow controls to be applied to minimize the procedure’s occurrence to those instances where it is available only in a hospital and to women whose lives are in grave danger if the pregnancy isn’t terminated. This would go well towards reducing the murders of babies resulting from abortion on demand.

However marriage, like driving vehicles, is regulated and licensed by the several states - NOT by the Federal government. The U.S.Constitution clearly states that powers not specifically assigned to the Federal government are left to the several states, and that is how I perceived some of the comments made by some Justices at SCOTUS this past week.

My personal feelings on this issue is that states should solely issue civil partnerships (a contract), and not marriage licenses. Marriage should only exist as part of traditional religious practices.

This would result in homosexuals and their supporters having to sue religions about marriage, not the states. Religions have First Amendment protections, as do many other groups who are very, very anti-traditional.

I imagine the result would be farcical, homosexual-based churches and synagogues, but those wouldn’t last long.


22 posted on 03/28/2013 2:12:34 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZirconEncrustedTweezers

That’s one way (note that, for estate tax purposes, “poor” means having an estate valued at less than $5.25 million).

Above the exemption there are plenty of estate planning strategies that can reduce or eliminate estate taxes, using trusts and whatnot. Anyone with an estate above the exemption really should have a competent attorney & accountant who can help structure things efficiently.


23 posted on 03/28/2013 2:12:41 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SCHROLL
nope, once you establish a principle you can’t keep any one that loves each other from marrying, you can’t rightly oppose any arrangement. You’d have to legalize them all.

Not at all. You only need to do that if you want to be logically consistent. This is not about logic. This is about "feelings." Right now, those who "feel" they are homosexual and "feel" that society must endorse their "feelings" have screamed loud and long enough that "We, the People" - as defined by majorities in some states and a probably majority on the Supreme Court - are ready to accept it.

Those who have other "feelings" about polygamy and bestiality and pedophilia and whatever else have not convinced "We, the People" that their "feelings" matter enough to throw over historically-validated conditions for state endorsement of their relationships.

That may or may not come for other relationships, because logic and the proof of history is no longer driving the decisions. However, since we've established that what really matters are how you "feel" about a relationship, you can bet that those who want social endorsement of their own "feelings" are going to start screaming as loudly as they can.

The next will be pedophilia. The homosexuals already want the age of consent for homosexual sex to be lowered to 14 (Justice Ginsburg has endorsed this). Because after all, they have "feelings" for young boys.

Your reliance on logic and principle is just irrelevant in our nanny-state society.
24 posted on 03/28/2013 2:33:49 PM PDT by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson