Why isn't there a legal limit on marriages in USA?
400693
Because getting married too many times implies divorces, and divorces are only about money, money to the husband, to the wife, to the lawyer, to the goverment, that's why they don't want to stop it
505207
what i feel is that it is not right for both men or women to marry again.a person with true love for his&#92;her better half will never think about it.in a country like mine,both are considered illegal.one should think hundred times before choosing his&#92;her better half and not after that.marriage is not a trial and error method.these are my thoughts and don't say that these alone are right
917310
I'm a lesbian in a committed long term relationship (over three years and counting!) and of course I wish it were legal.  The only argument against it is a religious one and since marriage is a legal institution and not a religious one, that shouldn't have any bearing on the subject.  Besides which, just because the majority of people feel what I do in my personal life is not for them, does not mean they should be able to make decisions control what I do and feel in my personal life.  This has happened in the past with races and cultures and the majority of people controlled what (for example) the African Americans could and couldn't do (segregation, voting etc.) and we now recognize this as wrong.  I'm hoping that we can overcome this one day as the other races have.
786504
I think it's a particular American prejudice. People in the UK sometimes marry their cousins. It has never been seen as a problem here.\n\nPersonally I was surprised to see the furore among the American contingent!\n\nHere's a link to an American article which confirms that there are no real genetic grounds for forbidding cousins to marry.
185129
The first amendment, among other things, protects the individual's freedom to associate with whomever he chooses.  As far as I'm concerned, if two fellas want to free associate, they can do it as much as they like.  But the day you tell me that marrying another man is mandatory, that's the day when I leave the US.  Nobody's gonna force me to get gay married.
261354
Marriage is not only a religious rite.  Marriage is also a civil proceeding, even where it is done in a church.  (And very often it is not done in a church -- it is done in a hotel, or city hall, and presided over by a judge or clerk, and no religious figures are involved.)  The license comes from the state not the church, and all the legal benefits of marriage come form the state, not the church.  \n\nChurchs are and should be free to define marraige in the church however they want. (And some churches do approve same sex marraige, by the way.)  \n\nThe government, however, should not be free to discriminate against people simply because of their sexual orientation.  And if the principles of freedom and equality enshrined in the Constitution and so bragged about by Americans were actually enforced, the state would not be permitted to bar same sex marriages.  And the world would be a little fairer.
747786
search here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
597667
The only state I know of that allow same sex marriages is Massachusetts.\n\nI hope it helps and congrats!!
626567
Move to California or Massachusetts, etc....  The better question is "why don't we take the government out of marriage altogether?"  Marriage was a religious institution.  The idea of government needing to promote population growth is as outdated as life-long committment is to heterosexuals.  Give marriage back to the churches, they can choose who gets "married" in their sanctuary.  And there are plenty of churches who will bless same sex unions...
242023
Maybe it's because they've never been taught about the consequences.. i mean, so far all i've heard is how we shouldn't stop two people who loved each other from marrying, even if they're the same gender. Or, the relationship is ethically wrong. A majority of people aren't taught about the dangers of it. I don't support this kind of marriage also.. because i was brought up knowing that it ruins the marriage institution (between a man and a woman) and etc. Maybe what you said could come true, but it will take years before others  to open their eyes and see what has happened.
1119301
Probably the same reason a lot of US states won't.  They say it's wrong because God created man and woman to be together.  and the devil created homosexuality.  People in general just don't accept things that they don't understand and what they have been taught and always have thought was wrong.  I think if two people love eachother who cares.  Does the governor or all these protestors or the judge of the courthouse have to go to the wedding or go to their house?  NO they don't.  I think there are bigger issues than this that states and countries should worry about.  This shouldn't even be an issue.  Its not fair that when two people of the same sex want to get married they get a protest outside their wedding but if two people who have a 60 year difference want to get married they can without any problems from the outside world...Its just sad to think that a 80 yr old man can marry a 20 yr old woman and its ok, even though the woman is only marrying him for his money but two people, of the same sex...which shouldn't even matter, who love eachother want to make a commitment to one another the entire world thinks its their right to come in between it just because God says its not right.  Let God do His job and they should do theirs.\n**by the way I'm not a lesbian...I'm married to a man**
1099613
Secular law in most western countries with large Jewish and Christian populations does not recognise polygamous marriages. However, few such countries have any laws against living a polygamous lifestyle: they simply refuse to give it any official recognition. Parts of the United States, however, criminalize even the polygamous lifestyle; these laws originated as anti-Mormon legislation, although they are rarely enforced. Polygamists may find it harder to obtain legal immigrant status
267359
It became illegal in the U.S. territories in 1862, probably because people were very upset that the Mormons were practicing this form of marriage.  The LDS church eventually gave up polygamy in 1890, because the US government came down so hard on them. Utah was allowed to become a state in 1896. \nI think that originally this was something outlawed by each individual state, but not the federal government because hardly anyone was interested in doing it. In the 1800's women had an increasingly louder voice in politics, and they no doubt pushed men to outlaw the practice.
531012
Right now, a lot of the state (so-called) defense of marriage acts (DOMA) say that they won't recognize same-sex marriages in other states. \n\nHowever, I think there will be a good case under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution to recognize a valid marriage when the couple moves to another state, even thought that's what currently being used to support the federal DOMA. \n\nCurrently, a same-sex couple, married or recognized as domestic partners, are granted only state rights. They don't have federal rights. The GAO has found 1,138 federal benefits granted when a couple marries; all of these are denied to same-sex couples (link is on this page: http://www.thetaskforce.org/community/marriagecenter.cfm). So, if a couple of 18-year-olds go on a bender, go to Vegas and get married by Elvis, they've got those rights that a gay couple who've been together for decades, own property together, raise kids together, etc., will always be denied. \n\nIn some states, I believe Ohio, Utah, and Virginia among them, state law goes as far to say that couples can't contract in a way that suggests a marriage. That would mean wills and other estate planning, power of attorney or advance medical directives, etc.\n\nI really don't see the benefit to the state in denying all of this to a small percentage of the population. Especially since marriage and property ownership are shown to be good overall for a stable population, property transfer, etc.\n\nAs for the analogy to marijuana, over the last few years the federal government has definitely been going after the medical marijuana growers. (What's easier to find, a street dealer or a cancer patient at a pot club?) Again, seems like a lot of effort for the gain. Not that I want people driving around high, but it seems like something akin to how we treat alcohol is in order.\n\nFull Faith and Credit (US Constitution Article IV, Section 1): \nFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. \n\nThe Federal DOMA text:\n1 USC Sec. 7\nIn determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. \n\n28 USC Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof\nNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
536589
I think it should  not be illegal. Why should it be illegal? Is there any good answer? The government and the churches claim that it would be against the sanctaty of marriage. Can marriage be anymore damaged than what it is today? Should marriage be sanctified at a drive up window? Should marriage be desolved because they decide that they are not compatable. Should a woman divorce her husband so that the state will give her more public assistance. Should marriage be desolved so that a couple can keep their SSI benifits? Should a marriage be desolved so that a woman can keep her children? All of these and more are the downfall of marriage, not that the two involved are man/man. Should a man's male spouse loose everything they have both worked for because he is not legaly married to him? How can the sanctity of marriage be anymore damaged than it is already? My mother was married three times. My sister was married three times. My brother was married twice. Is there any sanctaty in that? It's all trying to be controled by a bunch of homo-phobics, and a bunch of self serving politicians. And I'm sure that the insurance companies have their paws in the till somewhere too. What matters is that if two people love each other and want to make it a permanent connection, then who has the right to stand in their way? And what gives the government the right to say anything anyway? Marriage is a church matter, and the constitution clearly states that the church shall not interfere with the operation of the government and the government shall not interfere with the operation of the church. The government should only have the power to refuse Gay marriage if the marriage is performed by a judge. Church marriages sould only be controlled by the church.
916879
This has NOTHING to do with protecting marriage. It is all about denying a class of folks basic human rights. No one in the cries about the "sanctity of marriage" ever offers the solution of outlawing divorce. And most folks who are shouting the most have divorced once or twice.\n\nMarriage is an institution created by government so that partners have legal rights and responsibilities.\n\nFolks who are married less than 2 minutes (think Las Vegas weddings) have more legal rights than a gay/lesbian couple who've been together for more than 15 years.\n\nThe fact that we cannot be married denies us, and our families, to over 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted upon marriage. A few of these are:\n\n- The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship. \n\n- The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.\n\n- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. \n\n- The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. \n\n- The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. \n\n- Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. \n\n- The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. \n\n- The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.\n\nAnd there are many more! A dear friend of mine lost his partner after 15 years. My friend was the primary breadwinner and paid for his partner's life insurance and some income property. When his partner died, and he inherited it, he had to pay taxes, whereas a married couple would not. Why?\n\nThe argument that marriage is for procreation is hogwash. One does not need to be married to have children. If that argument is held up, then why allow folks past child-bearing age to marry? Or those who are impotent or sterile?\n\nThe majority of hippocrites claim that gay marriage would erode the "institution of marriage." Unlike those marriages that last about a week and are dissolved.\n\nIf that was their true belief, then why not outlaw divorce? Because they want, and need, an out.\n\nWhether or not you want to be married is your choice. But do not deny me a choice -- with rights, responsibilities and benefits -- because my family does not resemble yours.\n\nIf you don't want a gay marriage, don't have one.
247399
One marriage at a time - no limit to sequential marriages as long as the previous marriage has been legally terminated by divorce or annullment.