Could Polygamists Sue To Marry In California Right Now?

[Silhouette]

I don't see any children in those pictures. Why would anyone take their children to one of those events? Children are not the target audience.

​

Read post #364 Child Of Lesbian Couple Speaks Against Same-sex Marriage. Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

Remembering of course that the topic here is about whether or not polygamists have a legal foothold to force California to allow them to marry via California's own very ....seditious stance towards obeying the will of the voters anyway... What grounds would there be to deny them legally?

 

[High_Gravity]

Polygamy should be legal, if I want to have 2 wives whos business is it to deny me?

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy should be legal, if I want to have 2 wives whos business is it to deny me?

If you live in California, you should immediately begin a lawsuit exactly to that effect.

 

[Silhouette]

Is polygamy next in the redefinition of marriage?
That question applies in the US — and possibly in some surprising places elsewhere. Let’s start in the US, where the march of court opinion has moved steadily over the last decade from the inherent right to sexual privacy and choice in Lawrence v Texas to the mandate for government recognition of partnership choices in the emergence of same-sex marriage as an equal-treatment issue. During the latter period of that arc, opponents of SSM warned that the same arguments deployed in that effort could be made to force recognition of polygamist relationships as marriages too, which SSM advocates hotly denied. Now that the courts have made a near-sweep on same-sex marriage, Sally Kohn wonders why polygamy should be any different: ...

...Kohn argues that the push toward polygamy doesn’t come directly from same-sex marriage, but “a general opening up of options,” which is true on one level, but somewhat dishonest. The “opening up of options” springs from disconnecting marriage from its traditional definition of one man, one woman relationships. That was what “open[ed] up the options,” from which springs any number of definitions — which has the effect of making marriage essentially meaningless, except as a revenue source for local governments. That is, in fact, what opponents of SSM argued all along, as Kohn concedes.

I would say that it would save a lot of time and deception to simply make polygamy the CONCURRENT redefinition of marriage.

Putting it "next" is false advertising on behalf of the cult of LGBT. Saying they'll add the "P" later to their moniker is dishonest, shady and quite frankly not the spirit one would want to see in a movement that truly had "marriage equality" in mind.

One could even say the cult of LGBT is being quite bigoted towards their "P" component. Let's add them now...

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy is fine with me aside from the implication of govt tax benefits of said marriages.

Who cares? I thought all this was about the individual freedoms and rights. Now all of a sudden left-liberals are concerned about who gets a tax break?

 

[G.T.]

Polygamy is fine with me aside from the implication of govt tax benefits of said marriages.

Who cares? I thought all this was about the individual freedoms and rights. Now all of a sudden left-liberals are concerned about who gets a tax break?

I speak for myself, and it is about rights - but myself has always said that govt tax bennies for marriage are bunk so --- go bark up someone else's tree.

 

[Silhouette]

Who cares? I thought all this was about the individual freedoms and rights. Now all of a sudden left-liberals are concerned about who gets a tax break?

I speak for myself, and it is about rights - but myself has always said that govt tax bennies for marriage are bunk so --- go bark up someone else's tree.

OK, fair enough. You think it's about rights. So you think that polygamists would win a lawsuit to marry in California?

 

[G.T.]

Who cares? I thought all this was about the individual freedoms and rights. Now all of a sudden left-liberals are concerned about who gets a tax break?

I speak for myself, and it is about rights - but myself has always said that govt tax bennies for marriage are bunk so --- go bark up someone else's tree.

OK, fair enough. You think it's about rights. So you think that polygamists would win a lawsuit to marry in California?

Not unless there's a caveat, that only two of the <however many married> get the tax benefit. Then they should win.

 

[Silhouette]

Not unless there's a caveat, that only two of the <however many married> get the tax benefit. Then they should win.

Or they could make it that polygamists get a head of household with the wives as dependants deduction? Seems reasonable? Or husbands, we're really talking about polyamory here...

 

[G.T.]

Not unless there's a caveat, that only two of the <however many married> get the tax benefit. Then they should win.

Or they could make it that polygamists get a head of household with the wives as dependants deduction? Seems reasonable? Or husbands, we're really talking about polyamory here...

I guess before they get a dependent deduction, they'd have to argue that assistance to support their wives somehow help society as a whole - like the child deduction does.

Other than that, I see no problem with that.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess before they get a dependent deduction, they'd have to argue that assistance to support their wives somehow help society as a whole - like the child deduction does.

Other than that, I see no problem with that.

With as many single mothers out there, a man assuming responsibility for more than one woman would be a boon to society. So we're on the same page then. Polygamy is not only an idea that can concurrently sue with same-sex marriage, it's an idea that might help reduce single motherhood.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's what "lawzilla" has to say about the question:

California law makes it a crime to marry more than one person.
The law, however, has not been tested on constitutional grounds. There is an 1878 U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from Utah that held the First Amendment does not prohibit a statute outlawing polygamy. Other possible challenges to anti-polygamy laws, such as recently seen with challenges to anti-gay marriage laws, remain untested in the courts. For example, challenges per the due process or equal protection clauses of the US Constitution.
Consequently, California law prohibits polygamy, but the constitutionality of the law is unclear.
Application of California law to various situations, as discussed in this guide, are also of untested modern day challenges to their constitutionality California Polygamy and Bigamy Law

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I don't see a problem with polygamy, legally. However, I do emphasize that all parties MUST be consenting adults. No youths having parents agreeing to the arrangement. As for myself, I'm widowed and one wife over the years was more than enough for me.

Obviously it would be consenting. We have laws against slavery. I'll be nice here and assume you already knew that.

So your feeling is that if a polygamy group were to sue California today for the right to marry, they could not be denied that right in the interest of "marriage equality", yes?

When I said consenting, I was referring to a situation whereby "all" parties are aware of the situation, as there have been sistuations where a man will marry a woman in one town and in another town, have another wife, without the first spouse being aware of the second spouse. That would have to continue being illegal.
Yes. There should be marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't see a problem with polygamy, legally. However, I do emphasize that all parties MUST be consenting adults. No youths having parents agreeing to the arrangement. As for myself, I'm widowed and one wife over the years was more than enough for me.

Obviously it would be consenting. We have laws against slavery. I'll be nice here and assume you already knew that.

So your feeling is that if a polygamy group were to sue California today for the right to marry, they could not be denied that right in the interest of "marriage equality", yes?

When I said consenting, I was referring to a situation whereby "all" parties are aware of the situation, as there have been sistuations where a man will marry a woman in one town and in another town, have another wife, without the first spouse being aware of the second spouse. That would have to continue being illegal.
Yes. There should be marriage equality.

If you were a judge hearing this case in California, how would you rule and what would you cite in your ruling: "consenting polygamists vs the State of California"?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's a funny video on "marriage equality" in California. I've gotta tell you, it really is like that out there especially in the young crowd around the Bay Area.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, I know you are ragged by the refusal of SCOTUS to accept the cases so far, thus making marriage equality the law in at least 30 states and D.C.

Marriage law is about two people; it always has been.

There is no slippery slope.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The government shouldn't be involved in this. If two or more people agree to be part of a marriage, how can you argue against it ?

 

[Silhouette]

The government shouldn't be involved in this. If two or more people agree to be part of a marriage, how can you argue against it ?

That's the beauty of the recent SCOTUS decisions and legal limbo. The government of California and many other states now ISN'T involved in marriage and legally, anything can and does go. That's why I'm urging RIGHT NOW for polygamists to begin to marry.. BECAUSE LEGALLY THEY CAN!

I could marry my own mother or father right now. There's nothing stopping "consenting adults in love". The SCOTUS has kicked the barn door open not just for LGBT cultees, but also any other conceivable combination of consenting adults in love. There would be no legal ban because now there are no legal descriptions of marriage in most states. Any and all may marry in any combination they like.

I'd like to see a press conference of polygamists applying for marriage licenses and the ensuing scuffle of a county clerk explaning how the legal limbo and lawlessness in their state works to the benefit of gays only, while others consenting adults are turned away....

...on what legal grounds would they be turned away?

And not only that but talk about an "October surprise"...lol.. Imagine polygamists being legally married by what the voting public would absolutely see and associate with "a mess made by the liberal left"? Sometimes I wonder if not just democratic strategists are asleep at the wheel, but republican ones also...

 

[Silhouette]

Here's how the law is written in California. The SCOTUS muddle has made it defunct. All of it...

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

I have highlighted the important parts of the now-dead non-law as significant to polygamists applying for marriage in California. Other states' dead laws are now in the same boat. "a/a" is now arbitrary as well as "man/woman". If not for laws against slavery and consent, children could even marry now.