The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[Gem]

NYCarbineer Wrote:

So you use two contradictory incompatible points in the course of an argument and I'm the villain for pointing that out?

That's funny.

Who made you a villain? Sheesh. All I said was that its an indisputable fact that the Supreme Court uses previous decisions as precedent for their current decisions - but yes, they also occasionally overturn previous decisions - hence why I don't think the anti-polygamy decision is any bigger of an impediment than the anti-sodomy laws were on the road towards legally recognizing gay marriages. I don't think it will be an overnight change...but I think the door has been opened.

Then tell us what the legal argument against recognizing civil polygamous marriage is.

Against? Well, personally, I don't think there is a great legal argument against recognizing civil polygamous marriage if we legally recognize civil homosexual marriage. If we have recognized civil marriage as a contract between consenting adults to receive certain state and federal privileges than I think the argument that providing those rights and privileges to two people but not three is discriminatory is fairly convincing. What do you think the legal argument against it is?

 

[Katzndogz]

Polygamy has no popular support because the media hasn't given it popular support. Same sex marriage had no popular support until the media started making a point of giving it popular support. There was no state with legal same sex marriage nor were there any meaningful efforts in any state to legalize same sex marriage, until there was.

That is beginning to change.
The case for polygamy | The Daily Caller

Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages | News with Tags

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage | CitizenLink

Not only polygamists, but polyamorists have hope that this decision helps them open the door to legalization. In fact, it does. There is no reason why a husband may not have more than one husband, or more than one wife either.

Polyamorist Group Wants Legal Recognition For Multiple Marriages | The Colorado Observer

 

[NYcarbineer]

NYCarbineer Wrote:

So you use two contradictory incompatible points in the course of an argument and I'm the villain for pointing that out?

That's funny.

Who made you a villain? Sheesh. All I said was that its an indisputable fact that the Supreme Court uses previous decisions as precedent for their current decisions - but yes, they also occasionally overturn previous decisions - hence why I don't think the anti-polygamy decision is any bigger of an impediment than the anti-sodomy laws were on the road towards legally recognizing gay marriages. I don't think it will be an overnight change...but I think the door has been opened.

Then tell us what the legal argument against recognizing civil polygamous marriage is.

Against? Well, personally, I don't think there is a great legal argument against recognizing civil polygamous marriage. If we have recognized civil marriage as a contract between consenting adults to receive certain state and federal privileges than I think the argument that providing those rights and privileges to two people but not three is discriminatory is fairly convincing. What do you think the legal argument against it is?

The ruling on DOMA doesn't affect polygamy issues because polygamy isn't legal anywhere. DOMA prohibited federal benefits to legally married same sex couples. The Court ruled that unconstitutional. That does not make legalizing polygamy state by state any easier;

it has no effect whatsoever on any form of marriage that isn't currently legal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Polygamy has no popular support because the media hasn't given it popular support. Same sex marriage had no popular support until the media started making a point of giving it popular support. There was no state with legal same sex marriage nor were there any meaningful efforts in any state to legalize same sex marriage, until there was.

That is beginning to change.
The case for polygamy | The Daily Caller

Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages | News with Tags

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage | CitizenLink

Not only polygamists, but polyamorists have hope that this decision helps them open the door to legalization. In fact, it does. There is no reason why a husband may not have more than one husband, or more than one wife either.

Polyamorist Group Wants Legal Recognition For Multiple Marriages | The Colorado Observer

The ruling in DOMA doesn't affect the prospects of legalizing polygamy at all. Any state that wanted to pass a state civil law creating legal polygamous marriage could have done so before the Court's ruling,

and nothing in the Court's ruling makes that process at the state level any easier.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And perhaps someone can explain how simply saying the federal government must recognize the marriage laws passed by the states "clears the way for polygamy"? Are there states planning on passing polygamy laws?

Technically, wasn't it really Loving that "cleared the way" for polygamy?

It doesn't, and there aren't.

The polygamy card is just a hail mary by the gay haters because they have no rational relevant argument to make against same sex marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The straight haters do not realize that polygamy is real and not going away.

The bigotry of straight haters will be called out as necessary.

Stop the vocalization of it now or be outed.

 

[Gem]

NYcarbineer wrote:

The ruling on DOMA doesn't affect polygamy issues because polygamy isn't legal anywhere. DOMA prohibited federal benefits to legally married same sex couples. The Court ruled that unconstitutional. That does not make legalizing polygamy state by state any easier;

it has no effect whatsoever on any form of marriage that isn't currently legal.

It seems that you're saying DOMA doesn't affect polygamy issues...because it hasn't affected polygamy issues yet. While you are absolutely right...DOMA wasn't about polygamy, that still has absolutely no bearing on how future courts will look at it and how they can use it.

So when one state, in the future, uses the precedent set by arguments and decisions legalizing gay marriage in their state, to decide to legalize polygamy...those couples and others can then use the precedent set by DOMA to have their polygamous relationship legally recognized federally. Will it be a lengthy process? Sure...but it will take less time than recognizing gay marriage will take...because the precedent will be there.

Don't forget that many decisions regarding recognizing gay marriage cite the Interstate Commerce Clause...do you really think that the Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution while saying to one another, "and hey...if one day this is used to legalize gay marriage...I'm totally ok with that!"

 

[NYcarbineer]

NYcarbineer wrote:

The ruling on DOMA doesn't affect polygamy issues because polygamy isn't legal anywhere. DOMA prohibited federal benefits to legally married same sex couples. The Court ruled that unconstitutional. That does not make legalizing polygamy state by state any easier;

it has no effect whatsoever on any form of marriage that isn't currently legal.

It seems that you're saying DOMA doesn't affect polygamy issues...because it hasn't affected polygamy issues yet. While you are absolutely right...DOMA wasn't about polygamy, that still has absolutely no bearing on how future courts will look at it and how they can use it.

So when one state, in the future, uses the precedent set by arguments and decisions legalizing gay marriage in their state, to decide to legalize polygamy...those couples and others can then use the precedent set by DOMA to have their polygamous relationship legally recognized federally. Will it be a lengthy process? Sure...but it will take less time than recognizing gay marriage will take...because the precedent will be there.

Don't forget that many decisions regarding recognizing gay marriage cite the Interstate Commerce Clause...do you really think that the Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution while saying to one another, "and hey...if one day this is used to legalize gay marriage...I'm totally ok with that!"

Heterosexual marriage was used by same sex marriage advocates to get equal rights for same sex couples.

By your 'logic' heterosexual marriage rights created the slippery slope to same sex marriage rights,

which means that by your 'logic' it was wrong to ever legalize and give benefits to heterosexual monogamous marriage.

 

[Avatar4321]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

I would have said the same about Bowers.

 

[Avatar4321]

The straight haters do not realize that polygamy is real and not going away.

The bigotry of straight haters will be called out as necessary.

Stop the vocalization of it now or be outed.

Who is hating polygamy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your slippery slope arguments should start with the Courts striking down anti-miscegenation laws.

Legalizing interracial marriage and giving it equal rights to heterosexual same race marriage was the original 'redefinition' of marriage in this country,

wasn't it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

I would have said the same about Bowers.

There is no state in the Union that is even within a mile, politically, of legalizing polygamy.

btw, in Sharia law, if my memory from awhile ago serves me correctly, a man can have 4 wives if he is able to support them and if he treats them fairly.

I personally can't object to that in principle, assuming it was adequately enforced.

 

[Katzndogz]

Polygamy has no popular support because the media hasn't given it popular support. Same sex marriage had no popular support until the media started making a point of giving it popular support. There was no state with legal same sex marriage nor were there any meaningful efforts in any state to legalize same sex marriage, until there was.

That is beginning to change.
The case for polygamy | The Daily Caller

Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages | News with Tags

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage | CitizenLink

Not only polygamists, but polyamorists have hope that this decision helps them open the door to legalization. In fact, it does. There is no reason why a husband may not have more than one husband, or more than one wife either.

Polyamorist Group Wants Legal Recognition For Multiple Marriages | The Colorado Observer

The ruling in DOMA doesn't affect the prospects of legalizing polygamy at all. Any state that wanted to pass a state civil law creating legal polygamous marriage could have done so before the Court's ruling,

and nothing in the Court's ruling makes that process at the state level any easier.

Quite right. There is nothing in striking DOMA that legalizes polygamy but using this case as a precedent, there can absolutely be the legalization of polygamy or polyamory to be more precise. After all there was absolutely nothing about the Loving decision that legalized same sex marriage either.

 

[Gem]

NYCarbineer Wrote:

Heterosexual marriage was used by same sex marriage advocates to get equal rights for same sex couples.

By your 'logic' heterosexual marriage rights created the slippery slope to same sex marriage rights,

which means that by your 'logic' it was wrong to ever legalize and give benefits to heterosexual monogamous marriage.

You are absolutely right...the state and federal government's recognition of heterosexual marriage has absolutely been used by same sex marriage advocates to fight for the legal recognition of same sex marriage.

Logically, then...yes. There was a 'slippery slope' created when gov't got involved in marriage. (BTW, the sarcastic 'logic' was noted...and is unhelpful in this argument considering that I have not said anything that is a leap in logic. Courts use previous rulings to make their decisions. Future courts could use DOMA to require states to recognize polygamous marriages. This isn't 'my logic,' its just plain logic.)

Where you take the argument...maybe due to your own personal biases? Is that it was therefore "wrong" to legalize and incentivise heterosexual monogamous marriage. I'm curious why you would claim that based on the discussion I've been having about legal precedent - you would come to this conclusion?

 

[francoHFW]

People who are for gay marriage are, if anything, less approving of polygamy than conservatives. Polygamy is unfair to the multiple spouses in way too many cases, if not all, a relic of third world primitive values on their way out.

This is about 2 consenting adults period. Give it up, hater dupes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Polygamy has no popular support because the media hasn't given it popular support. Same sex marriage had no popular support until the media started making a point of giving it popular support. There was no state with legal same sex marriage nor were there any meaningful efforts in any state to legalize same sex marriage, until there was.

That is beginning to change.
The case for polygamy | The Daily Caller

Polygamists See Gay Marriage Ruling Opening Door to Multiple Marriages | News with Tags

Polygamy Waiting in the Wings While Supreme Court Addresses the Definition of Marriage | CitizenLink

Not only polygamists, but polyamorists have hope that this decision helps them open the door to legalization. In fact, it does. There is no reason why a husband may not have more than one husband, or more than one wife either.

Polyamorist Group Wants Legal Recognition For Multiple Marriages | The Colorado Observer

The ruling in DOMA doesn't affect the prospects of legalizing polygamy at all. Any state that wanted to pass a state civil law creating legal polygamous marriage could have done so before the Court's ruling,

and nothing in the Court's ruling makes that process at the state level any easier.

Quite right. There is nothing in striking DOMA that legalizes polygamy but using this case as a precedent, there can absolutely be the legalization of polygamy or polyamory to be more precise. After all there was absolutely nothing about the Loving decision that legalized same sex marriage either.

The striking of DOMA does not help polygamists at the state level. Essentially, the court said that IF a state recognizes legal marriage for both opposite and same sex couples, then the federal government cannot single out the former for federal benefits.

That in no way impacts the argument of polygamists to pass legal plural marriage legislation state by state.

Same sex couples in states where same sex marriage is not legal don't even benefit from the DOMA ruling, correct?

 

[deaddogseye]

As I have predicted in the past, I will now say that the ruling this morning to legalize Gay Marriages as a "Right" will now be used to erode the reasons used to keep Polygamy illegal.

Let us know when a SOLID legal reason can be presented for polygamy. Ok?

wouldnt that reason be the same as for gay marriage or even homosexuality to those who still would condemn it -- that such personal conduct among consenting adults is a matter of personal privacy and should not be prohibited by the government. If 3 adult people want to engage in 2 marriages - what good reason does the state have to stop it.

I guess Id ask for one solid argument for gay marriage that doesnt apply to polygamy (and im not using this to argue against gay marriage; i just think if one should be legal so should the other and the only reason one gets a lot of media support and the other doesnt is pure politics and nothing else - well and polygamy is associated with a religion that is also associated with political conservatism and so they also dont support it for that reason).

 

[Seawytch]

Your slippery slope arguments should start with the Courts striking down anti-miscegenation laws.

Legalizing interracial marriage and giving it equal rights to heterosexual same race marriage was the original 'redefinition' of marriage in this country,

wasn't it.

No. The first slippery slope would be the first legislative actions on marriage...letting women own property inside the marriage instead of being the property. There's your "slippery slope".

 

[Katzndogz]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law follows no morals, there is not a single argument against polygamy.

Polygamy was morality dictated by the faith in the Mormon religion, which considers itself to be a Christian sect.

Are you saying that the State should have the power to dictate to the church what is or isn't moral?