The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[Avatar4321]

Because that is what Right and Left have demanded for decades. And they have been quite happy with the arrangement, as long as fags marriages were excluded.

Im not happy with that arrangement. And I dont like people being called fags. It's just rude.

 

[Avatar4321]

Married tax returns were created shortly after WWII, under Ike.

Social Security survivor benefits started in 1939.

We let government into the marriage business a long time ago.

And I am all for getting government out of it.

 

[g5000]

The fact the Supreme Court had to rule on DOMA is irrefutable fact the government is in the marriage business and that the Right is the one that wanted it there. DOMA was their baby.

 

[AmazonTania]

Before today, heterosexuals were given special treatment by the federal government.

That special treatment ended today

I cannot help you if this simple fact is too profound for you to grasp.

Now it's a special treatment? I thought they were 'rights.' Good to know I was able to educate you on the proper use of the term. You're welcome.

And where exactly did this 'special treatment' end, the 12 states which allows recongises gay marriage? That's something, I guess.

Yes, it is special treatment when one group receives cash and prizes and another group is deliberately excluded for no logical reason.

When that special treatment is codified in law, such as DOMA, then it becomes unequal treatment under the law, which is unconstitutional.

I honestly have run out of ideas on how to penetrate your thick skull on this matter.

The logical reason is that an invalid marriage cannot receive benefits or tax breaks from the Federal Government. If I got married outside the country and I still wanted to receive these benefits, depending on where I was married, wouldn't be able to. But somehow, this would become an issue regarding xenophobia.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it is wrong. It is wrong for the Federal Government to provide special treatment based on who they are.

But I suppose we can all be wrong together, all in the name of equality.

 

[g5000]

Married tax returns were created shortly after WWII, under Ike.

Social Security survivor benefits started in 1939.

We let government into the marriage business a long time ago.

And I am all for getting government out of it.

If government was out of the marriage business, there would have been no ruling today.

And this topic would be moot, because a polygamous marriage would have no effect on anyone but those who were involved in the marriage. The government would only be involved in the types of relationships which were harmful in the aggregate.

 

[Londoner]

Marriage has been around a lot longer than any government we have today. The institution doesn't need government support nor does it need to be defined by government. That should be up to the consenting adults involved in the relationship.

Marriage is a contract and any contract can be written to the satisfaction of the consenting adults involved. All we need government for is to provide the court systems should there be a dispute about that contract.

Your version of government is too minimalist for Conservatives.

Conservatives don't want government merely to provide contracts to consenting adults, rather, they want government to play an active role in defining and articulating the positive content of marriage and the larger moral identity of a people. This is very Hegelian whereby the State is bound up tightly with the ethical identity of the people. In the Conservative world, something doesn't fully exist unless it gets the holy imprimatur of Government.

 

[Avatar4321]

Married tax returns were created shortly after WWII, under Ike.

Social Security survivor benefits started in 1939.

We let government into the marriage business a long time ago.

And I am all for getting government out of it.

If government was out of the marriage business, there would have been no ruling today.

And this topic would be moot, because a polygamous marriage would have no effect on anyone but those who were involved in the marriage. The government would only be involved in the types of relationships which were harmful in the aggregate.

The only use i see governments in being involved in marriage is division of property, inheritence, and custody/support issues. IE problems caused by death and divorce.

I don't see why we can't figure out a way to settle those without defining marriage. If a couple living together separate, shouldn't they likewise have a way to divide up property equally even if they aren't married?

Thinking out loud here. I haven't fully considered all the legal rammifications.

 

[Seawytch]

Now it's a special treatment? I thought they were 'rights.' Good to know I was able to educate you on the proper use of the term. You're welcome.

And where exactly did this 'special treatment' end, the 12 states which allows recongises gay marriage? That's something, I guess.

Yes, it is special treatment when one group receives cash and prizes and another group is deliberately excluded for no logical reason.

When that special treatment is codified in law, such as DOMA, then it becomes unequal treatment under the law, which is unconstitutional.

I honestly have run out of ideas on how to penetrate your thick skull on this matter.

The logical reason is that an invalid marriage cannot receive benefits or tax breaks from the Federal Government. If I got married outside the country and I still wanted to receive these benefits, depending on where I was married, wouldn't be able to. But somehow, this would become an issue regarding xenophobia.

Marriages performed in other countries ARE recognized by the Federal government for citizens.

 

[Mertex]

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.

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

Really?? short sighted,if its a right for 2 guys or girls,then its just as much a right for 2 girls and a guy too marry,just because there would be more names on court documents doesn't change anything.

The lid is off,its that simple.

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

gay marriage wasnt seen in the same light five years ago as it is today.

That's not a convincing argument. Besides, I can't see any rational justification to stop it that hasnt been completely ignored to promote gay marriage.

 

[syrenn]

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.

Not only polygamy, but beastiality and pedophilia as well. In reality, all perversions will be legalized. Not only legalized, but forced into public acceptance.

i am sure that is just what they thought in 1896 when blacks were allowed to marry.

 

[Mertex]

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.

Not only polygamy, but beastiality and pedophilia as well. In reality, all perversions will be legalized. Not only legalized, but forced into public acceptance.

Marriage is between two "consenting" adults. Since when would beasts and children be considered "consenting"? As for polygamy, as a society we don't believe in it, it's hard enough having "one" spouse - but for Christians who don't approve of gay marriage due to religious reasons, there was polygamy back in the "Old Testament" days and although not what God intended, was not a reason to be cast out. Moses, David, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, all practiced polygamy. (I'm not advocating it, just pointing it out).

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Not only polygamy, but beastiality and pedophilia as well. In reality, all perversions will be legalized. Not only legalized, but forced into public acceptance.

i am sure that is just what they thought in 1896 when blacks were allowed to marry.

Maybe it is. But it's kind of hard to deny the slippery slope argument when you are down further on the slope. Of course, I disagree that going down the first rungs were bad at all.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Before today, heterosexuals were given special treatment by the federal government.

That special treatment ended today

I cannot help you if this simple fact is too profound for you to grasp.

Now it's a special treatment? I thought they were 'rights.' Good to know I was able to educate you on the proper use of the term. You're welcome.

And where exactly did this 'special treatment' end, the 12 states which allows recongises gay marriage? That's something, I guess.

Yes, it is special treatment when one group receives cash and prizes and another group is deliberately excluded for no logical reason.

When that special treatment is codified in law, such as DOMA, then it becomes unequal treatment under the law, which is unconstitutional.

I honestly have run out of ideas on how to penetrate your thick skull on this matter.

So you are against Affirmative Action?

And you are against policies which benefit women and minority owned businesses when dealing the Government?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't see that happening for several reasons. The legal contract of marriage has become a legal way to sort though many issues. Polygamy could create chaos in terms of probate and healthcare decisions. I also don't see insurance companies or taxing governments extending marriage benefits to an infinite number of people.

A dogmatic child may try to argue that "they have no grounds left to deny it."

But an adult can pretty easily draw distinctions based on the legitimate concerns of society.

Really?? short sighted,if its a right for 2 guys or girls,then its just as much a right for 2 girls and a guy too marry,just because there would be more names on court documents doesn't change anything.

The lid is off,its that simple.

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

Why,

These people are also adults that should have that choice.

 

[Mertex]

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

gay marriage wasnt seen in the same light five years ago as it is today.

That's because the majority of Americans have come to accept it and don't see it as a threat to their marriage, but as a violation of individual's rights. The only way polygamy would be accepted as same-sex marriage, is for the majority of people to approve of it. If the majority approve of polygamy, then who are you to go against it? And it would have to jump through similar hoops to get approval, just like doing away with DOMA had to.

That's not a convincing argument. Besides, I can't see any rational justification to stop it that hasnt been completely ignored to promite gay marriage.

Most of the people against same-sex marriage it's because of "personal" reasons. You don't have to participate in it just because it is accepted. But a minority view isn't more important or powerful than majority view.

 

[Mertex]

Really?? short sighted,if its a right for 2 guys or girls,then its just as much a right for 2 girls and a guy too marry,just because there would be more names on court documents doesn't change anything.

The lid is off,its that simple.

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

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.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I don't think so. To change the law so polygamy is legal would require the idea to go through the same hoops, and I doubt that polygamy is viewed in the same light as gay marriage.

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.

 

[Mertex]

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.

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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