So Polygamists must also be protected by this new SCOTUS ruling, right?

[Silhouette]

So Polygamists must also be protected by this new SCOTUS ruling, right?

Actually, the Brown family formerly of Utah were waiting with their lawyer Jonathan Turley to do just that. Their case will be coming before SCOTUS probably within the next two years.. SCOTUS will have no grounds to deny them.

 

[Pop23]

W will see incest, bestiality, transsexual changing rolls each other, otherkins, etc.

The liberals have gone insane.

You are wrong on beastiality. Animals cannot consent.

With incest, at least the traditional meaning is at risk. One of marriages uses was to keep relatives that were too closely related from breeding. That simply does not apply to gay brothers, gay sisters does it?

But how about two straight sisters marrying so they can share insurance and tax benefits? Traditional incest when neither are sexually attracted to each other?

Polygamy is a slam dunk in my opinion also.

Trannies, that's just too damn confusing.

 

[EverCurious]

I've actually always felt it was unfair to Mormon's to limit their religious freedoms on Polygamy to be honest. I've worked with quite a few Mormon's, and while I find them total religious nuts, I can't say that I've ever heard any of them complain about polygamy, or even talk about having more than one wife in their family unit. I think even if the SCOTUS rules polygamy is legal, I'm honestly not sure how many Mormon's would deviate. One of the biggest non-religious based complaints against polygamy I've heard is that it's seen as sexist by women. Outside the Mormon religion I've known a few people who had multi-partner relationships, though I can't say that they were wanting to be married; it was mostly a... Mistress and her lovers type relationship... eh basically it was about sex and feminist power - not to say they didn't proclaim they loved each other, but as I understood the woman's position neither of her 'boyfriends' had earned the right to even be called her boyfriends, much less be married to her. I think even made legal we might have a few scattered incidences of polygamy, but I don't think it'll be all that wide spread; the majority of women get jealous far too easily to allow another chick into their husbands bed and most men are not keen to share their wives either.


The Otherkin thing was actually fascinating to study into. I have to admit I went into my research, (as a bit of a psychological hobbyist,) considering these folks had screws loose and I ended up having a "holy shit, self, can you seriously follow that premise to it's conclusion?!?" moment because of it. It took my husband and friends a good deal of time to calm me down from the mental "expansion" of my openness to the concept...

Long story short, it turns out it has it's roots in Native American and other ancient religions that were repressed by Christians in the past; spirit animals and such. Otherkin apparently do not feel they are biologically part animal as the oppressive Christians want to portray here, but rather that they are spiritually connected to their animal based half. One of the other largely held beliefs was that they were reincarnated from animals in a "third life" kind of situation; the idea being they were originally human, but failed in a past life and were reborn an animal, and this was their third reincarnate and "chance for redemption." Now on that premise, and given the accepted psychological assessment that those who believe in other "spiritual" beings [ie God] are not crazy, merely seeking a "higher power" to guide them, I found that I could no longer label Otherkin as crazy.

Worse though was my assessment of those who proclaimed to be fantasy animals or races; Elfkin, Dragonkin and the like. Taken in the context of why people follow religion at all; life path guidance and the hope for a better life/afterlife, I found myself unable to honestly stick to the narrative that Bibles were the /only/ fictional work of man that could fulfill the role of a persons desire for a written 'better life'. Fantasy books are in essence merely portrayals of a 'different world', akin to Heaven from the bible, and the desire of a person to live to those fantasy ideals cannot psychologically be condemned anymore than those who believe the fantasy of the bible to be truth. If one is to believe that faith is based on a sound psychological mental state, as I do, then I found I could no longer label those who believe in another fantasy telling as crazy (as I very much wanted to do.)

The final blow to my closed mindedness however, was the parallels found within beliefs. I could not honestly dismiss their fantasy world as "wrong," "immoral," nor "unworthy" of obtaining; Elves do have a very nice written world, as do dragons surprisingly. In fact, I then had to admit to myself that I too have desired aspects of the worlds presented in fictional works; I had no choice because I had hoped that the UN could be akin to the global human government of fictional works like Star Trek and Babylon 5. (Another personal viewpoint I've never been too fond of in myself for it's inclination toward socialism and it's ties to communism, however I found the benefits undeniable; to shorten the whole of the concept here - the removal of the link between human survival and money.)

My ultimate psychological assessment resulted that the human psychological need for a long term goal, and thus a need for a "religion" of sorts, is in fact not limited to the sheep of the world, but in fact may be a universal human need... Basically, these Otherkin, do not follow a "typical" religion, but rather they have replaced the human psychological need for "religion" with a fantasy that they can align themselves to. Which means that I can no longer honestly proclaim that I am in some way any more mentally stable or "strong" than our religious believers, because I do in fact subscribe to an end goal "fantasy" that does not currently exist; which boils down to my being "religious" in a way - while the title is different, the underlying psychological need for it is not.

So basically unless I adopt a damn Otherkin practice and inherit myself partial claim to some other fantasy race that /doesn't/ suffer this human frailty, I'm just as "weak minded" as the religious believers of the world. (Not to say such weak mindedness is a "bad" thing, merely that I thought myself above that "need.") Thanks to whomever had brought this crap to my attention, my nerdy geek circle has progressed from their joking that I'm an Elf/Vulcan to a less joking prod for me to "stop denying my Elf/Vulcan side." I hate my friends >.<

 

[Noomi]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

Tell me how you think it applies to them?

 

[Andylusion]

I have no problem with Polygamy. I think it's terrible for the women... but... if they are good with it, fine with me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

Read the Obergefell decision and you will have your answer

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have any of you people on here that are promoting the slippery slope fallacy of having to allow polygamy even bothered to read Obergefell? If you did you would know how utterly stupid that notion is:

__________________________________________________________________________
Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion--majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus--but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. The slip opinions collected here are those issued during October Term 2014 (October 6, 2014, through October 4, 2015). These opinions are posted on the Website within minutes after the bench opinions are issued and will remain posted until the opinions for the entire Term are published in the bound volumes of the United States Reports. For further information, see Column Header Definitions and the file entitled Information About Opinions.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significantmaterial costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in theliberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5

 

[Silhouette]

Have any of you people on here that are promoting the slippery slope fallacy of having to allow polygamy even bothered to read Obergefell? If you did you would know how utterly stupid that notion is:

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3

So this Obergefell Ruling is God's word eh? Seems a bit arbitrary. Who passes judgement on the sacredness of two? Why just same-sex couples? Why especially when the Opinion goes on to address the intrinsic nature of children to marriage? Doesn't same-sex marriage deprive children in them of either a father or a mother 100% of the time? How is that sacred when a mother and father are provided in polygamy? Actually, several of them to give a clan-like protection to a child?

You know...heh...Opinions can be overturned. And I have a feeling the push for polygamy is going to accomplish that...if Congress doesn't impeach Ginsburg and Kagan sooner than that..and retry the case..

 

[hadit]

One notes that, prior to the SC decision, EVERY American marriage law assumed that a marriage was composed of one man and one woman. These assumptions were completely erased by the SC. It is obvious, therefore, that the law is no impediment to polygamous "marriages".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Long story short, it turns out it has it's roots in Native American and other ancient religions

Huh... so you feel that we should follow policy embraced by extinct cultures?

Oh now that's fascinatin'.

Do you also find yourself drawn or otherwise 'open to', the financial policies of bankrupt individuals, company and cultures?

 

[Syriusly]

Have any of you people on here that are promoting the slippery slope fallacy of having to allow polygamy even bothered to read Obergefell? If you did you would know how utterly stupid that notion is:

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3

So this Obergefell Ruling is God's word eh? .

Silhouette- the Supreme Court is not the same thing as a fairy tale.

The Obergefell ruling is a legally binding ruling by the Supreme Court- and that decision doesn't support any of your nutball claims.

 

[Syriusly]

One notes that, prior to the SC decision, EVERY American marriage law assumed that a marriage was composed of one man and one woman. These assumptions were completely erased by the SC. It is obvious, therefore, that the law is no impediment to polygamous "marriages".

It is obvious only to the idiots who have not actually read the courts decisions.

 

[Marianne]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

We opened Pandora's box and now we have to figure out how to close it. I fully expect polygamy will be legal by 2016. One polygamist has already applied for a license for his second wife and has vowed to fight all the way to the SCOTUS.

 

[Syriusly]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

We opened Pandora's box and now we have to figure out how to close it. I fully expect polygamy will be legal by 2016. One polygamist has already applied for a license for his second wife and has vowed to fight all the way to the SCOTUS.

Conservatives sure do seem to be rooting for polygamy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

One notes that, prior to the SC decision, EVERY American marriage law assumed that a marriage was composed of one man and one woman. These assumptions were completely erased by the SC. It is obvious, therefore, that the law is no impediment to polygamous "marriages".

What !! How can you say that??!! Did you not read the opinion or at least that excerpts that I posted in #27 above. You assertion is ridiculous, absurd. You really should know what your talking about before you bloviate about it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

We opened Pandora's box and now we have to figure out how to close it. I fully expect polygamy will be legal by 2016. One polygamist has already applied for a license for his second wife and has vowed to fight all the way to the SCOTUS.

Care to provide a link to that case and explain how it is a direct result of same sex marriage sine that is what you seem to be saying? I would also like to know how many such cases there have been over the last ten years -and what the outcomes were- since the first states had legal same sex marriage.

This is not to say that I'm taking a position on polygamy one way or the other. If people want polygamy, they can build, support, create organizations and mount a legal campaign just as gays have. The states would then have to articulate, at minimum a rational basis for maintain bans on polygamy. As you know they failed miserably at doing that with respect to same sex marriage. This might be different, or not. Try to avoid the histrionics. It's not good for you.

 

[rdean]

Gays never asked to be married in groups.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the SCOTUS used the 14th Amendment as the basis for this decision on Gay marriage then they have implicitly given the same rights to Polygamists since they are entitled to the same privileges as Gays or any other citizens under the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, then tell me why that would not apply to Polygamists.

READ the opinion. The excepts in post #27 here should help you out with that. The court EXPLICITLY said that the ruling applies to same sex COUPLES

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Have any of you people on here that are promoting the slippery slope fallacy of having to allow polygamy even bothered to read Obergefell? If you did you would know how utterly stupid that notion is:

(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3

A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3

So this Obergefell Ruling is God's word eh? Seems a bit arbitrary. Who passes judgement on the sacredness of two?

God has nothing to do with it. This is a constitutional republic and a secular society. For most people marriage is primary a civil matter

Why just same-sex couples? Why especially when the Opinion goes on to address the intrinsic nature of children to marriage?

What about children and parents? . This makes NO SENSE.

Doesn't same-sex marriage deprive children in them of either a father or a mother 100% of the time?

That is just stupid! Same sex marriage does not deprive children of anything. The children that are in the care of gay couples were already deprived of a mother or a father, or both. They come from prior failed marriages, they may have lost a parent to death, they may have been abused and neglected and now a ward of the state. Is it possible that you don't get that. And as I've pointed out here before, people like you don't really care a whit about the children. You can't even acknowledge that fact that there are many children already in the care of gay people, married or not, and marriage can only make life better for those kids. You and your ilk also refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that children do just fine with two parents of the same sex and having two married parents is far more important than their gender. Prove me wrong on that or cut the bull shit.

Yes there are an unknown number of children who have been and will be conceived by same sex couples, perhaps because they are married. But those are children who would not have been otherwise born at all. Isn't all life sacred?

How is that sacred when a mother and father are provided in polygamy? Actually, several of them to give a clan-like protection to a child?

So now you favor polygamy over same sex marriage. Do you even know what the hell you believe in?

You know...heh...Opinions can be overturned. And I have a feeling the push for polygamy is going to accomplish that...if Congress doesn't impeach Ginsburg and Kagan sooner than that..and retry the case..

Impeach them for what? Being opinionated and outspoken about marriage equality? In that case Thomas and Scalia should go down too. Do you really hate America and our system of law and justice so much that you would destroy it because you don't like a SCOTUS decision.?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We stepped on the slippery slope.

Yea, the slippery slope to hysteria and inanity....


Polygamy is an anachronism. It does not make sense to even be talking about it. Where in western culture , aside from an occasional religious cult is it found? To oppose polygamy while supporting same sex marriage is not a double standard, it is not hypocrisy because they are very different animals. Same sex marriage is about an equal relationship between two consenting adults. Polygamy is a form of male domination over multiple females who do not themselves have the option of having multiple spouses. Often, the females are younger than the male and emotionally vulnerable and the arrangement is inherently unequal and sexist. That is not acceptable. Opposition is indeed morally defensible

The same is true of anything involving children or anyone else who is not legally or emotionally able to consent to sex or marriage. I don’t think that I need to say more on that. You cannot compare it to a relationship between, or among mature and mentally fit adult. I also feel that a charge of hypocrisy for opposing incest-particularly between a parent and an offspring- is inappropriate. Aside from the issue of genetic defects is offspring of people closely related, this too often involves coercion and exploitation, and at the very least will upend the concept of family well beyond the effects of same sex marriage.

I won’t even get into the more bizarre issues that have been brought up. There are those who have said that if we allow same sex relations, why not also with a corps. There are those who have said that they should be allowed to marry their gun or their dog. Serious or not, it’s all an attempt to undermine the discussion of marriage equality and homosexuality.

Now group marriages, among consenting adults, on an equal basis is another story. I would agree that one cannot legitimately oppose such an arrangement while defending same sex one on one marriage. However, I also maintain that it should not be part of the same conversation as same sex marriage.

The question of other alternatives to traditional marriage is an interesting one but irrelevant to the current discussion of marriage equality for gays. This question obfuscates the real issue of marriage equality and stokes fears of what might come next, when gay couples want nothing more than to have the same rights as hetero couples. I submit to you that these discussions of other alternative sexual lifestyles is a logical fallacy, an argumentative slight of hand know as Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. It is also a false analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations which is another favorite trick of people trying to win an argument when there argument is inherently weak. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one.

When, and if the issues of further changing the definition of marriage comes up, it will be an entirely different discussion. Why? Because it won’t just concern gays but rather everyone who engages in or wishes to engage in marriage, not to mention society as a whole. It will not simply be a matter of one group-gays-wanting what another group has. It will be a group-plural marriage advocates- wanting what no one else has and therefor much more difficult to claim discrimination.



If anyone thinks that marriage equality as it is currently being discussed will upset the applecart of society think what that would do. AGAIN, it is not now an issue. Those using as an issue are engaging in scare tactics ….the old slippery slope argument- another argumentative transgression-and it’s bogus. Even if you can make the argument that to redefine marriage will embolden others to further alter it down the road, you can not penalize people who want something now, because of what it may lead to later.