The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[OriginalShroom]

Because so far it hasn't gained approval by the majority of Americans.

When they can convince the majority of Americans that polygamy is "cool" - then maybe they can have that choice, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

They don't have to convince anyone except 5 of 9 Justices on the SCotUS. Shouldn't be too hard considering all they have to do is present the exact same arguments and the Majority decision from the ruling.

The SCOTUS go by majority opinion - I'm sure the SCOTUS would have turned it down some years back because Americans weren't at the same place they are now.

I would highly suggest you go back and re-educate yourself on the Supreme Court of the United States and how they achieve their decisions.

Or at least refrain from making comments about something that you are so plainly ignorant of .

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court hasnt agreed that an individual has the right to marry someone of the same gender either. So what?

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

Government can't pick and choose when it wants to afford equal protection under the law.

The right to brother/sister marriage was always arguable anywhere man/woman marriage was legal,

that is not changed by making man/man woman/woman marriage legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why,

Because so far it hasn't gained approval by the majority of Americans.

These people are also adults that should have that choice.

When they can convince the majority of Americans that polygamy is "cool" - then maybe they can have that choice, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

They don't have to convince anyone except 5 of 9 Justices on the SCotUS. Shouldn't be too hard considering all they have to do is present the exact same arguments and the Majority decision from the ruling.

Didn't this slippery slope of yours begin when the Court ruled miscegenation laws unconstitutional?

 

[Mertex]

They don't have to convince anyone except 5 of 9 Justices on the SCotUS. Shouldn't be too hard considering all they have to do is present the exact same arguments and the Majority decision from the ruling.

The SCOTUS go by majority opinion - I'm sure the SCOTUS would have turned it down some years back because Americans weren't at the same place they are now.

They shouldn't be making decisions based on where Americans are politically. They should be making decisions based on the Constitution and the law.

They do, but you know they can't help their own convictions and those change, too, with time and thought.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Supreme Court agreed that recognizing the rights of married straight couples but not married same-sex couples, discriminates against the gay couple.

The Supreme Court has in effect recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry.

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

Government can't pick and choose when it wants to afford equal protection under the law.

The right to brother/sister marriage was always arguable anywhere man/woman marriage was legal,

that is not changed by making man/man woman/woman marriage legal.

How is it arguable from my understanding it is illegal and not arguable.
20 years ago gay marriage was not arguable.
I guess I don't understand the reason for marriage, why do we get married?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And a brother and sister, or sister and sister, or brother and sister and then throw in some fathers and mothers an it should also be recognized, otherwise it is discrimination.

Government can't pick and choose when it wants to afford equal protection under the law.

The right to brother/sister marriage was always arguable anywhere man/woman marriage was legal,

that is not changed by making man/man woman/woman marriage legal.

How is it arguable from my understanding it is illegal and not arguable.
20 years ago gay marriage was not arguable.
I guess I don't understand the reason for marriage, why do we get married?

Well then since polygamy is illegal it's not arguable, according to you, so why is the OP making an argument about it?

Point is, you're wrong. Laws don't end arguments; laws temporarily pick a winner of the argument.

 

[ModerateGOP]

This is my first post on the board.

I really don't see the validity in that argument at all. How will allowing two human beings (I guess they happen to be of the same sex ... but why do you care?) to marry at all open the door for such activity? You're still only allowed to file your taxes jointly with ONE spouse, you're still only allowed to marry ONE person at a time ... that person can just now be of the same sex. Not a big deal, and quite frankly, it should be burried as an issue now; I'm glad equality has been realized, so let's focus on more pressing issues.

 

[Papageorgio]

Government can't pick and choose when it wants to afford equal protection under the law.

The right to brother/sister marriage was always arguable anywhere man/woman marriage was legal,

that is not changed by making man/man woman/woman marriage legal.

How is it arguable from my understanding it is illegal and not arguable.
20 years ago gay marriage was not arguable.
I guess I don't understand the reason for marriage, why do we get married?

Well then since polygamy is illegal it's not arguable, according to you, so why is the OP making an argument about it?

Point is, you're wrong. Laws don't end arguments; laws temporarily pick a winner of the argument.

I'm not saying that, your point is that one is arguable and one is not, how do you define which is or is not arguable.
And why do we need or feel the need to marry?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is it arguable from my understanding it is illegal and not arguable.
20 years ago gay marriage was not arguable.
I guess I don't understand the reason for marriage, why do we get married?

Well then since polygamy is illegal it's not arguable, according to you, so why is the OP making an argument about it?

Point is, you're wrong. Laws don't end arguments; laws temporarily pick a winner of the argument.

I'm not saying that, your point is that one is arguable and one is not, how do you define which is or is not arguable.
And why do we need or feel the need to marry?

I don't know how/where you got to that from what I said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Laws against polygamy were ruled constitutional in the 19th century.

Much of the ruling was based on the Court's opinion that your right to freedom of religion applies only to your beliefs,

not necessarily to your practices.

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

So ironically, while the OP is using the slippery slope argument for polygamy, the Supreme Court used the slippery slope argument against polygamy.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gem]

ModerateGOP Wrote:

I really don't see the validity in that argument at all. How will allowing two human beings (I guess they happen to be of the same sex ... but why do you care?) to marry at all open the door for such activity? You're still only allowed to file your taxes jointly with ONE spouse, you're still only allowed to marry ONE person at a time ... that person can just now be of the same sex. Not a big deal, and quite frankly, it should be burried as an issue now; I'm glad equality has been realized, so let's focus on more pressing issues.

First and foremost...make sure you aren't confusing someone discussing this topic with someone being for or against gay or polygamist marriages. I know people who are against both gay and polygamist marriage who can argue quite convincingly for why they both should be legalized....and I know people who have not an ounce of anti-gay or anti-polygamist feeling in their body who can argue that legalizing these marriages is a bad idea for our country.

Here's the basic concept as explained to me by my attorney-husband:

The issue at hand is PRECEDENT. Arguing lawyers in the future will cite the fact that we had a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman of the same race for decades. Then it changed as societal norms and cultural acceptance changed to being one man and one woman of any race. It remained that way for another few decades. People who argued for same-sex marriage cite the caselaw that legalized interracial marriages to lend support to their cause even though it is highly probably that the lawyers who argued for interracial marriage had NO INTENTION of their work being used to legalize homosexual marriage. This is because no lawyer, no judge, no court, has the ability to say, "Oh, no no no...I never meant for my decision to be used for THAT!!!"

In the future...as gay marriage becomes commonplace and doesn't destroy the country...polygamists will begin to use the same arguments originally used against homosexuality to validate their lifestyle choice. Hollywood will create characters who are loving and kind and who just happen to be in a loving, committed relationship with more than one person...people who have been in calm, supportive loving polyamorous relationships will come forward to ask for their children to be able to see their parents marriage legally recognized.

And they will go to courts and say..."the definition of marriage, as legally recognized in this country...has been changed multiple times as cultural/societal norms have changed. all we are asking is for the same rights you have bestowed on other citizens...the right to marry the person or persons we love."

And all the arguments against will sounds eerily similar to the arguments people used against interracial and homosexual marriages...and it won't be too long before judges start ruling in their favor...based on the precedent we are setting today. All of the arguments for not recognizing polygamous marriage are nothing more than "but we've ALWAYS done it this way...its ALWAYS been just TWO people," and legally speaking...we've set in motion rulings that show that how it has "always" been...is legally irrelevant.

 

[Avatar4321]

The SCOTUS go by majority opinion - I'm sure the SCOTUS would have turned it down some years back because Americans weren't at the same place they are now.

They shouldn't be making decisions based on where Americans are politically. They should be making decisions based on the Constitution and the law.

They do, but you know they can't help their own convictions and those change, too, with time and thought.

Their own convictions have nothing to do with what the Constitution and the law say

 

[High_Gravity]

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?

 

[Avatar4321]

This is my first post on the board.

I really don't see the validity in that argument at all. How will allowing two human beings (I guess they happen to be of the same sex ... but why do you care?) to marry at all open the door for such activity? You're still only allowed to file your taxes jointly with ONE spouse, you're still only allowed to marry ONE person at a time ... that person can just now be of the same sex. Not a big deal, and quite frankly, it should be burried as an issue now; I'm glad equality has been realized, so let's focus on more pressing issues.

How the heck does it not open the door for such activity? If you argue that we have to change the fundamental element of marriage, the union between a man and a woman) to allow same sex relationships to be marriage, something that's never even been concieved of until the last 20-30 years, how on earth can you argue that a variable such as how many partners are involved can't be changed when there is actually historical precedent for plural marriages?

Polygamy has historical precedent in society. It has the same equal protection argument same sex marriage has. It also has the benefit of being a religious practice to some faiths including Islam. And unlike same sex marriages, these unions can and often do produce children. And since perpetuation of the speices and legitimizing children is the main reason marriage exists to begin with, polygamy has a much stronger argument than same sex marriage ever had.

 

[eflatminor]

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?

Because the central planners know what's best for all of us and they've deemed consenting adults incapable of making their own informed decisions.

Makes you feel are warm and snuggly to know they've made your choices for you, doesn't it?

 

[noose4]

I would guess that most men would admit that they are attracted to more than one woman.

Im sure many women would say they are attracted to more than one man.

So polygamy isnt natural?

Polygamy has existed for thousands of years. Gay marriage for less than 20.

The 'Two-Spirit' people of indigenous North Americans

 

[Gem]

High_Gravity Wrote:

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?
/QUOTE]

Based on the arguments forwarded by the vast majority of same-sex marriage supporters (equality, civil rights, love, adult consent, changing tradition based on changing societal norms, etc.) you absolutely should be able to. Good luck to you and your girlfriends.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?

Probably because of physical violence from one or both of them.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?

Probably because of physical violence from one or both of them.

What do you mean?

 

[High_Gravity]

High_Gravity Wrote:

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?
/QUOTE]

Based on the arguments forwarded by the vast majority of same-sex marriage supporters (equality, civil rights, love, adult consent, changing tradition based on changing societal norms, etc.) you absolutely should be able to. Good luck to you and your girlfriends.

Thank you.