Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[JoeMoma]

If one state were to make polygamy legal, then it would have an opportunity to be made legal nationwide under the equal protection clause.

 

[Grandma]

I could do with an extra husband.

 

[Unedited]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Just wait, it won't take long. Polygamy, sisters, brothers, pretty much anything is on the table now.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?"

Because marriage law is written to accommodate two equal, adult, and consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are ineligible to enter into a marriage contract because the law is not written to accommodate such a configuration. Three or more persons aren't being 'denied' access to marriage law, consequently there's no 14th Amendment violation; one can't claim his rights are being 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?"

No.

The settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence that guided the Court to today's ruling is applicable only to state and local governments, not private persons or religious organizations such as churches.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

News flash...people already practice polygamy.

They could give a rats ass about the 14th.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?"

Because marriage law is written to accommodate two equal, adult, and consenting partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)).

Unlike same-sex couples, three or more persons are ineligible to enter into a marriage contract because the law is not written to accommodate such a configuration. Three or more persons aren't being 'denied' access to marriage law, consequently there's no 14th Amendment violation; one can't claim his rights are being 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist.

Until very recently marriage was written for and understood to be for opposite sex partners. Same sex couples were ineligible to enter into a marriage contract because marriage was not written to accomomodate such a configuration.

If person A and B want to marry, and person B is already married to person C, then person A is being denied access to marry the person of his or her choice.

 

[Pop23]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

but they will resort to the courts as the gays did....what will stop them now....?

Well let me ask you this- do you have any argument as to why polygamous marriage should not be married?

If you don't have such an argument- well then that is the problem with your position.

If you do have an argument- well then it still applies regardless of whether homosexuals marry or not.

the same argument as for gays....THE PEOPLE should decide....not a few old lawyers in black robes...

the majority of states, i.e. THE PEOPLE, voted against gay marriage but it was shoved through the courts anyway.....the same will happen now with polygamy......just wait until the Muslims insist on it....they are allowed to have up to 4 wives...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what for supper

Nobody should get to vote on what rights others are entitled to

Sure, but we know that when YOU ARE the wolf you seem to think differently

 

[Pop23]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

but they will resort to the courts as the gays did....what will stop them now....?

Well let me ask you this- do you have any argument as to why polygamous marriage should not be married?

If you don't have such an argument- well then that is the problem with your position.

If you do have an argument- well then it still applies regardless of whether homosexuals marry or not.

the same argument as for gays....THE PEOPLE should decide....not a few old lawyers in black robes...

the majority of states, i.e. THE PEOPLE, voted against gay marriage but it was shoved through the courts anyway.....the same will happen now with polygamy......just wait until the Muslims insist on it....they are allowed to have up to 4 wives...

Do you have any actual argument as to why you think polygamy is wrong?

If not- then nothing has changed- because yesterday you had no argument- and today you had no argument- and if someone goes to court demanding polygamous marriage, then someone has to make an argument why there should be no polygamous marriage.

So do you have any argument other than you are just going along with what you think others want?

There can (could) only be one, that is (was) that marriage is (was) between one man and one woman. That is, afterall why the U.S. Army invade the Utah territory in the 1800s

 

[Pop23]

News flash...people already practice polygamy.

They could give a rats ass about the 14th.

News flash, not in a married relationship.

 

[Pop23]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

 

[Skylar]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

 

[Pop23]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

No different than millions of other corp contracts.

Boilerplate.

 

[Skylar]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

 

[Pop23]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

Funny how you rely on tradition.

There is nothing traditional anymore.

Including a third is simply an extension of the family unit. It is not up to you HOW they proceed into, or out of the relationship.

There is NOTHING UNIQUE about a multi partner marriage that can't be resolved by simple boilerplate contracts.

Traditions no longer apply.

 

[Skylar]

Polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws. As it involves situations that can't occur in 2 person marriage and our law has no answers for.

For example: people leaving or entering a marriage at different times. In 2 person marriage, that's impossible. In 3 or more person marriage.....its probable. And we have no law to deal with it, no answers in our legal precedent to the questions that arise under it.

Where with something like gay marriage, all the same rules apply.

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

Funny how you rely on tradition.

Tradition is irrelevant. We just don't have the precedent in our marriage to deal with polygamy. We can't answer fundamental questions unique to polygamy with our marriage laws. As the situations involved are physically impossible in 2 person marriage.

While gay marriage works perfectly with all the same rules for 2 person marriage. All the same rules apply.

There is NOTHING UNIQUE about a multi partner marriage that can't be resolved by simple boilerplate contracts.

You're only demonstrating how different polygamy is from 2 person marriage. As 2 person marriage isn't defined by 'simple boilerplate contracts'. Its defined by society within the boundaries of individual rights. Society has a say on when a marriage begins, what the terms of the marriage are, what the distribution of resources after the marriage are, child custody, when marriages end, and what must be done in order to exit a marriage.

You've essentially conceded my point, admitting that polygamy would have to go outside legal precedent of our marriage laws. And demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage laws and polygamy.

 

[Pop23]

BS, it is no different than a business partnership, a LLC or any other corporation with partnership agreements.

It's boilerplate.

There are significant differences. An LLC is defined by the agreement of the partners exclusively. Marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no answers for questions that arise uniquely under polygamy. As such occurrences are physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Our marriage laws are fundamentally incompatible with polygamy.

While gay marriage has no problem with the laws of 2 person marriage, working beautifully within them.

You speak emotionally, something the law reacts without.

I speak practically. There are events that occur in polygamy that are impossible in 2 person marriage. For example: people entering and exiting the union at different times. That can't happen in 2 person marriage. And we have no precedent in our marriage laws for one person to leave a union....but the other person to still be married. We don't have any precedent on division of property in such scenarios, if one person leaving dissolves the entire union or only the union between the people leaving and everyone else. We have no conditions for child support, spousal support, etc for multiple partners.

Our marriage laws can't answer these questions.....as in 2 person marriage the union starts and ends for both parties at the exact same time. Always. There's never a circumstance where one person exits a marriage while the other is still married within it. So no have no precedent in our marriage laws regarding such circumstances.

Marriage is simply a contract providing for the property and rights within.

Nope. A contract is defined exclusively by the participants. A marriage isn't. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. A personal contract is over whenever the participants say it is. A marriage is over when the state recognizes that it is. And in many states you must go through trial separations, full separations, and then divorce. You don't decide if you get to skip any of that. The courts do.

As marriage isn't defined by the individual. Its defined by society within the bounds of individual rights. And our marriage laws have no precedent to deal with the unique situations that occur in polygamy.

Funny how you rely on tradition.

Tradition is irrelevant. We just don't have the precedent in our marriage to deal with polygamy. We can't answer fundamental questions unique to polygamy with our marriage laws. As the situations involved are physically impossible in 2 person marriage.

While gay marriage works perfectly with all the same rules for 2 person marriage. All the same rules apply.

There is NOTHING UNIQUE about a multi partner marriage that can't be resolved by simple boilerplate contracts.

You're only demonstrating how different polygamy is from 2 person marriage. As 2 person marriage isn't defined by 'simple boilerplate contracts'. Its defined by society within the boundaries of individual rights. Society has a say on when a marriage begins, what the terms of the marriage are, what the distribution of resources after the marriage are, child custody, when marriages end, and what must be done in order to exit a marriage.

You've essentially conceded my point, admitting that polygamy would have to go outside legal precedent of our marriage laws. And demonstrated the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage laws and polygamy.

Marriage is simply a contract that bestows governmental benefits and allows for the combination of property.

If desolved, the resolution, regardless of the number of partners is as simple as any other partnership dissolution.

Get the idea that a multi partner marriage is unique in that. It's not.

You argue traditional value which is crazy.

Of course multi partner marriage is not traditional. Neither is same sex.

You of all people should realize that.

 

[longknife]

I'm gonna repeat a question:

Why attack Mormons about polygamy and totally ignore the Muslim acceptance and practice of it?

 

[Nosmo King]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

 

[Pop23]

The public opinion -- the political pressure is not there. There are not enough people seeking multi-partner marriage to pressure the courts into accepting it. That being said, most of the same fundamental arguments used to support same sex marriage would also apply to polygamy.

Consider what the marriage contract provides. It provides a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists. It provides the scaffolding for two consenting adults to form essentially a new legal entity.

Polygamy would be a contract between multiple parties. It is, therefore, more of an incorporation as opposed to a two party contract.

So long as marriage is an exclusive contract between two parties, that's how the contract is constructed. Multiple party contracts exist but they are formed separately from the marriage contract.

You again argue tradition?

That's absurd. That concept died yesterday.

You old or what?