Polygamy Next Marriage to Legalize?

[Vandalshandle]

Why in the hell would anyone want to marry TWO women? That would destroy the age old institution of having a mistress.

 

[HenryBHough]

More likely a woman seeking a second husband after she found the gay liberal democrat she married is only good for keeping the home well decorated and then her sexual urges inspired her.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

More likely a woman seeking a second husband after she found the gay liberal democrat she married is only good for keeping the home well decorated and then her sexual urges inspired her.

Don't get married if you want a lot sex...

 

[Vandalshandle]

More likely a woman seeking a second husband after she found the gay liberal democrat she married is only good for keeping the home well decorated and then her sexual urges inspired her.

Don't get married if you want a lot sex...

I can confirm that!

 

[dilloduck]

More likely a woman seeking a second husband after she found the gay liberal democrat she married is only good for keeping the home well decorated and then her sexual urges inspired her.

Don't get married if you want a lot sex...

Normal or queer sex ?

 

[Syriusly]

So what you are saying is you can't think of any reason why polygamous marriages should not be legal?

I am saying I can't see the anti-polygamy laws surviving this Supreme Court, after the gay marriage ruling.

Why?

How do you think the Obergefell v. Hodges decision would apply to polygamy? Be specific.

If the 14th A means every person is entitled to the benefits of every other person regardless then there is no argument against anything that calls itself marriage. Love is love.

The SCOTUS ruling does not include the statement "The 14 Amendment means every person is entitled to the benefits of every other person regardless".

Exact wording of Clause one of the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.<Birth Right and Citizenship clause> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;<Privileges and Immunities Clause> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law <the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (also in the 5th Amendment)>; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. <Equal Protection Clause>"

The equal protection clause is what will be used, but courts utilize case law precedent to formulate their rulings. I can't see how this court would not utilize the same reasoning to plural marriage.

The 14th Amendment was used when resolving Loving v. Virginia- yet amazingly we did not end up with polygamous marriage once mixed race bans were ruled unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds.

You- and by you I mean everyone who seems determined not to understand what the Supreme Court ruling actually says- do not understand how Courts have addressed the question of much States can regulate Marriage.

The courts have said that Marriage is a right we all have- and like all rights- States can only restrict those rights with a compelling reason.

Like banning gun ownership of convicted felons. The 14th Amendment says that we all have equal right to own a gun- but the States have a compelling reason to ban convicted felons from owning guns- so that is Constitutional.

States were not able to make any compelling argument why mixed race couples or same gender couples should be banned from legally marrying.

When it comes to Polygamy/marriage- the same standard will apply- can the State provide a compelling reason for banning polygamous marriage- and by extension- can you?

If you cannot think of a compelling reason to ban polygamous marriage- then that is your problem- not gays being able to get married.

 

[JakeStarkey]

More than one mother in law is daunting.

Imagine having Foxfyre and Koshergrl and PoliticaChic as your mothers-in-law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

More likely a woman seeking a second husband after she found the gay liberal democrat she married is only good for keeping the home well decorated and then her sexual urges inspired her.

Don't get married if you want a lot sex...

Normal or queer sex ?

Either as far as we can tell.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th Amendment was used when resolving Loving v. Virginia- yet amazingly we did not end up with polygamous marriage once mixed race bans were ruled unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds...
.

1. Race isn't legally the same as deviant sex behaviors

2. Neither you, nor the SCOTUS get to pick your favorite deviant sex behaviors; the new amendment the Court made to the Constitution last week (unconstitutional infringement upon the legislature's duties) applies to ALL deviant sex behaviors or none of them.

3. You appear to be bigoted against Polygamist-Americans.

4. I think it's funny the OP put a question mark in the title. It's a done deal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you don't get to pick anything out.

Are you Pat from SNL?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

4. I think it's funny the OP put a question mark in the title. It's a done deal.

Link to Supreme Court ruling? Oh right, you're lying again...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know the antigay marriage crowd says the slippery slope will lead to adults marrying children, but if you now the case law on children consent, you know that it won't go there. Minors don't have the mental capacity to consent to such a relationship. But I digress.

Polygamy is getting challenged as we say and I have no doubt it will be legalized fairly soon. Should it be? Do you have an issue with it? No doubt there will soon be mail order 2nd wives from Easter Europe starting soon.

I don't see how with the gay marriage supreme court ruling that the courts can deny this. So is America ready for polygamy? Personally I wouldn't mind a 2nd 20 something wife!

Why could they deny it before same sex marriage was legalized?

Courts will look to that precedent when going forward. If it ever makes it to the supreme court, then it will be the law of the land.

It wasn't a polygamy precedent. The SCOTUS polygamy precedent was set in the 19th century.

 

[dilloduck]

I know the antigay marriage crowd says the slippery slope will lead to adults marrying children, but if you now the case law on children consent, you know that it won't go there. Minors don't have the mental capacity to consent to such a relationship. But I digress.

Polygamy is getting challenged as we say and I have no doubt it will be legalized fairly soon. Should it be? Do you have an issue with it? No doubt there will soon be mail order 2nd wives from Easter Europe starting soon.

I don't see how with the gay marriage supreme court ruling that the courts can deny this. So is America ready for polygamy? Personally I wouldn't mind a 2nd 20 something wife!

Why could they deny it before same sex marriage was legalized?

Courts will look to that precedent when going forward. If it ever makes it to the supreme court, then it will be the law of the land.

It wasn't a polygamy precedent. The SCOTUS polygamy precedent was set in the 19th century.

No problem. SCOTUS does whatever they want.

 

[Silhouette]

The 14th Amendment was used when resolving Loving v. Virginia- yet amazingly we did not end up with polygamous marriage once mixed race bans were ruled unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds...
.

1. Race isn't legally the same as deviant sex behaviors.

2. Neither you, nor the SCOTUS get to pick your favorite deviant sex behaviors; the new amendment the Court made to the Constitution last week (unconstitutional infringement upon the legislature's duties) applies to ALL deviant sex behaviors or none of them.

3. You appear to be bigoted against Polygamist-Americans.

4. I think it's funny the OP put a question mark in the title. It's a done deal.

Link to Supreme Court ruling? Oh right, you're lying again...

You want the link to the Supreme Court ruling that says a sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against? Are you serious? What planet were you on last Friday that you missed that one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

STFU, Sil. SCOTUS decided marriage is open to all consenting adults without sexual orientation be a defining characteristic.

 

[Silhouette]

STFU, Sil. SCOTUS decided marriage is open to all consenting adults without sexual orientation be a defining characteristic.

So an adult brother and sister can marry, and no state may disallow that. OK. Gotcha. You're the legal expert after all.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment was used when resolving Loving v. Virginia- yet amazingly we did not end up with polygamous marriage once mixed race bans were ruled unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds...
.

1. Race isn't legally the same as deviant sex behaviors.

Race is not the same thing as Religion is not the same thing as Gender is not the same thing as Sexual orientation.

So what?

The 14th Amendment does not say "but only for race"- it protects all persons.

 

[Syriusly]

STFU, Sil. SCOTUS decided marriage is open to all consenting adults without sexual orientation be a defining characteristic.

So an adult brother and sister can marry, and no state may disallow that. OK. Gotcha. You're the legal expert after all.

'without sexual orientation as the defining characteristic'

As usual you just lie Silhouette.

You keep telling us that brothers and sisters can now marry- but of course that is not true.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment was used when resolving Loving v. Virginia- yet amazingly we did not end up with polygamous marriage once mixed race bans were ruled unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds...
.

2. Neither you, nor the SCOTUS get to pick your favorite deviant sex behaviors; the new amendment the Court made to the Constitution last week (unconstitutional infringement upon the legislature's duties) applies to ALL deviant sex behaviors or none of them.
.

Friday's ruling has nothing to do with sex behaviors.

Not even mentioned.

Nor was there any amendment to the Constitution.

Just more of Silhouette's continued psychotic meltdown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is really coming apart emotionally.