The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[bodecea]

High_Gravity Wrote:

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?
/QUOTE]

Based on the arguments forwarded by the vast majority of same-sex marriage supporters (equality, civil rights, love, adult consent, changing tradition based on changing societal norms, etc.) you absolutely should be able to. Good luck to you and your girlfriends.

Thank you.

Let us know how they get along.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

so blacks should still be slaves according to you huh.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why can't I marry my 2 girlfriends?

If you love them and you can't help but love them both, why should you be stopped?

 

[g5000]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize those marriages. This sounds like a ringing victory for the 10th amendment.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing. That door will have to be opened by a state.

And then if someone can demonstrate polygamous marriages are harmful in the aggregate, a compelling case to ban them can be made in court.

Polygamous marriages do seem to be harmful in the aggregate. They lead to the abuse of women, and carry a mathematical certainty that younger and younger females will be compelled into marriages.

 

[Gem]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize that marriage.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing.

Since tone does not translate well when written, please believe me when I say that my response is not meant in any insulting, smarmy, or demeaning way to you...I think you represent a large number of intelligent individuals who either do not understand precedent or who have never studied how judges use previous court decisions (often ones that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the current cases) to validate their current decisions.

Your statement here is wrong. While the Supreme Court did not say anything about polygamy yesterday what they did was open the door widely for individuals who want to marry more than one person to be able to legally pursue that option using this case and the states that have legalized gay marriage as PRECEDENT.

A Supreme Court case many years before Roe v. Wade granted MARRIED COUPLES ONLY the right to go to their family doctor and ask for birth control. None of the Supreme Court justices who made that ruling thought that what they were deciding had ANYTHING to do with abortion...but that case was used, along with others, to legalize abortion. This isn't a pro-choice or pro-life statement...just fact. Precedent often takes turns that the judges who made rulings did not anticipate.

In this case however, it is clear that individuals seeking to marry not one, but two or more people can utilize the cases in which people fought to redefine the previous definition of marriage in order to have their own definition of marriage recognized as well.

Precedent doesn't mean that our current Supreme Court wants to legalize polygamy. It means that the ruling they made can be used to fight for legalized polygamy.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Spot on Gem.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

Acceptance? Hell, they'll make us pay them taxes for welfare and medical expenses so they can rest up all day after playing all night.

Lucky us.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's a sad prejudice the wrong headed Right holds for homosexuals. These isolated, ignorant and hate filled Right wingers hold up the sky is falling call in response to the Supreme Court's decision to eliminate state sanctioned suspicion and fear.

But suspicion and fear are part and parcel of the wrong headed Right's diet. Their very existence is dependent on the fears and suspicions they alone hold. But they want the rest of us, those of us who know and love and call homosexuals friend, brother, sister and co-worker, to join them in their dark ignorance.

It's a tough sell. Join the wrong headed Right in a canard based on fear or side with liberty and equality. The same wrong headed Right wanted us to believe that giving Blacks equal opportunity in schools and workplaces would result in the erosion of society. Then it was inter racial marriage that was to burn the gates of the fortress. Now it's homosexuals. But most of us understand the plight of the homosexual. We are not easily lead into ignorance after seeing the light of truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize that marriage.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing.

Since tone does not translate well when written, please believe me when I say that my response is not meant in any insulting, smarmy, or demeaning way to you...I think you represent a large number of intelligent individuals who either do not understand precedent or who have never studied how judges use previous court decisions (often ones that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the current cases) to validate their current decisions.

Your statement here is wrong. While the Supreme Court did not say anything about polygamy yesterday what they did was open the door widely for individuals who want to marry more than one person to be able to legally pursue that option using this case and the states that have legalized gay marriage as PRECEDENT.

A Supreme Court case many years before Roe v. Wade granted MARRIED COUPLES ONLY the right to go to their family doctor and ask for birth control. None of the Supreme Court justices who made that ruling thought that what they were deciding had ANYTHING to do with abortion...but that case was used, along with others, to legalize abortion. This isn't a pro-choice or pro-life statement...just fact. Precedent often takes turns that the judges who made rulings did not anticipate.

In this case however, it is clear that individuals seeking to marry not one, but two or more people can utilize the cases in which people fought to redefine the previous definition of marriage in order to have their own definition of marriage recognized as well.

Precedent doesn't mean that our current Supreme Court wants to legalize polygamy. It means that the ruling they made can be used to fight for legalized polygamy.

How does expanding monogamy have anything to do with opening any doors to polygamy?

They are two very different forms of marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And after all the babbling for eight plus full pages, so what?

 

[eflatminor]

Do your own googling.

Didn't think so. More unsubstantiated bullshit. Getting old.

Funny how you skipped over the post that was a reply to.

Not funny that you cannot seem to back up your bullshit claims with even a modicum of evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize that marriage.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing.

Since tone does not translate well when written, please believe me when I say that my response is not meant in any insulting, smarmy, or demeaning way to you...I think you represent a large number of intelligent individuals who either do not understand precedent or who have never studied how judges use previous court decisions (often ones that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the current cases) to validate their current decisions.

Your statement here is wrong. While the Supreme Court did not say anything about polygamy yesterday what they did was open the door widely for individuals who want to marry more than one person to be able to legally pursue that option using this case and the states that have legalized gay marriage as PRECEDENT.

A Supreme Court case many years before Roe v. Wade granted MARRIED COUPLES ONLY the right to go to their family doctor and ask for birth control. None of the Supreme Court justices who made that ruling thought that what they were deciding had ANYTHING to do with abortion...but that case was used, along with others, to legalize abortion. This isn't a pro-choice or pro-life statement...just fact. Precedent often takes turns that the judges who made rulings did not anticipate.

In this case however, it is clear that individuals seeking to marry not one, but two or more people can utilize the cases in which people fought to redefine the previous definition of marriage in order to have their own definition of marriage recognized as well.

Precedent doesn't mean that our current Supreme Court wants to legalize polygamy. It means that the ruling they made can be used to fight for legalized polygamy.

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

 

[OriginalShroom]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize that marriage.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing.

Since tone does not translate well when written, please believe me when I say that my response is not meant in any insulting, smarmy, or demeaning way to you...I think you represent a large number of intelligent individuals who either do not understand precedent or who have never studied how judges use previous court decisions (often ones that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the current cases) to validate their current decisions.

Your statement here is wrong. While the Supreme Court did not say anything about polygamy yesterday what they did was open the door widely for individuals who want to marry more than one person to be able to legally pursue that option using this case and the states that have legalized gay marriage as PRECEDENT.

A Supreme Court case many years before Roe v. Wade granted MARRIED COUPLES ONLY the right to go to their family doctor and ask for birth control. None of the Supreme Court justices who made that ruling thought that what they were deciding had ANYTHING to do with abortion...but that case was used, along with others, to legalize abortion. This isn't a pro-choice or pro-life statement...just fact. Precedent often takes turns that the judges who made rulings did not anticipate.

In this case however, it is clear that individuals seeking to marry not one, but two or more people can utilize the cases in which people fought to redefine the previous definition of marriage in order to have their own definition of marriage recognized as well.

Precedent doesn't mean that our current Supreme Court wants to legalize polygamy. It means that the ruling they made can be used to fight for legalized polygamy.

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Just as other rulings were deemed no longer valid in the light of other rulings since, this one has seen it's day.

 

[bodecea]

Since tone does not translate well when written, please believe me when I say that my response is not meant in any insulting, smarmy, or demeaning way to you...I think you represent a large number of intelligent individuals who either do not understand precedent or who have never studied how judges use previous court decisions (often ones that, on the surface, have nothing to do with the current cases) to validate their current decisions.

Your statement here is wrong. While the Supreme Court did not say anything about polygamy yesterday what they did was open the door widely for individuals who want to marry more than one person to be able to legally pursue that option using this case and the states that have legalized gay marriage as PRECEDENT.

A Supreme Court case many years before Roe v. Wade granted MARRIED COUPLES ONLY the right to go to their family doctor and ask for birth control. None of the Supreme Court justices who made that ruling thought that what they were deciding had ANYTHING to do with abortion...but that case was used, along with others, to legalize abortion. This isn't a pro-choice or pro-life statement...just fact. Precedent often takes turns that the judges who made rulings did not anticipate.

In this case however, it is clear that individuals seeking to marry not one, but two or more people can utilize the cases in which people fought to redefine the previous definition of marriage in order to have their own definition of marriage recognized as well.

Precedent doesn't mean that our current Supreme Court wants to legalize polygamy. It means that the ruling they made can be used to fight for legalized polygamy.

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Just as other rulings were deemed no longer valid in the light of other rulings since, this one has seen it's day.

Well, when Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down by Brown v. Board of Ed, there was an awful lot of compelling evidence presented that "separate but equal" wasn't equal. Maybe someone can bring a lot of compelling evidence to strike down Reynolds v. United States. Is anyone working on that?


BTW....Fascinating read: Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gem]

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Of course not. That being said...the Supreme Court didn't think there was much value to 1986's Bowers v. Harwick that supported Georgia's anti-sodomy law when it struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court reverses itself as it sees fit...and it cites new cases (precedent) and changes in our society as the reason for it.

If public opinion supports it...anti-polygamy laws will fall just as anti-homosexual laws have fallen. And...given the arguments the pro-marriage equality supporters have put forth...they will be hard-pressed to explain why TWO people have rights to love whom they choose...but THREE people don't.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Of course not. That being said...the Supreme Court didn't think there was much value to 1986's Bowers v. Harwick that supported Georgia's anti-sodomy law when it struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court reverses itself as it sees fit...and it cites new cases (precedent) and changes in our society as the reason for it.

If public opinion supports it...anti-polygamy laws will fall just as anti-homosexual laws have fallen. And...given the arguments the pro-marriage equality supporters have put forth...they will be hard-pressed to explain why TWO people have rights to love whom they choose...but THREE people don't.

Gem..

Public support isn't needed. Just the support of the Majority of the Court.

If Public Support was needed, they would upheld Prop 8.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Just as other rulings were deemed no longer valid in the light of other rulings since, this one has seen it's day.

Well, when Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down by Brown v. Board of Ed, there was an awful lot of compelling evidence presented that "separate but equal" wasn't equal. Maybe someone can bring a lot of compelling evidence to strike down Reynolds v. United States. Is anyone working on that?


BTW....Fascinating read: Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Been a while since I read the decision.

First, Reynolds decision was based on a determination of whether polygamy/bigamy is protected by the First amendment. I tend to think it would be. But the Court disagreed.

Second, Lawrence v US invalidated sodomy laws that were established for moral reasoning. If I had to argue for Reynolds to be overturn, I would likely cite that case to make my argument.

Third, The arguments for same sex marriage are based on Equal protection and Due process. The Court never made a decision on polygamy based on Equal protection and Due process so it's still an open decision of the court.

Fourth, there is no logical argument to prevent polygamy that hasn't already been discounted by those arguing for same sex marriage.

Personally, I think Reynolds is a bad decision. I can't see it being upheld if challenged. If it is, it will likely seriously be distinguished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you claiming there is no 'precedent' value to Reynolds v. United States, which ruled anti-polygamy laws constitutional?

Of course not. That being said...the Supreme Court didn't think there was much value to 1986's Bowers v. Harwick that supported Georgia's anti-sodomy law when it struck down Texas's anti-sodomy law in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court reverses itself as it sees fit...and it cites new cases (precedent) and changes in our society as the reason for it.

If public opinion supports it...anti-polygamy laws will fall just as anti-homosexual laws have fallen. And...given the arguments the pro-marriage equality supporters have put forth...they will be hard-pressed to explain why TWO people have rights to love whom they choose...but THREE people don't.

So one minute precedent matters, when that supports your argument, the next minute precedent doesn't matter, when that supports your argument. lol, not the best way to argue.

 

[dilloduck]

The Supreme Court did not redefine marriage yesterday. In fact, they said the federal government could not define it differently than the states. If a state legalized same sex marriages, then the federal government had to recognize those marriages. This sounds like a ringing victory for the 10th amendment.

Since no state has legalized polygamy, then it is a logical fallacy to say the Supreme Court opened the door to it.

They did no such thing. That door will have to be opened by a state.

And then if someone can demonstrate polygamous marriages are harmful in the aggregate, a compelling case to ban them can be made in court.

Polygamous marriages do seem to be harmful in the aggregate. They lead to the abuse of women, and carry a mathematical certainty that younger and younger females will be compelled into marriages.

What's this women crap ? I want to marry my softball team.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just as other rulings were deemed no longer valid in the light of other rulings since, this one has seen it's day.

Well, when Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down by Brown v. Board of Ed, there was an awful lot of compelling evidence presented that "separate but equal" wasn't equal. Maybe someone can bring a lot of compelling evidence to strike down Reynolds v. United States. Is anyone working on that?


BTW....Fascinating read: Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Been a while since I read the decision.

First, Reynolds decision was based on a determination of whether polygamy/bigamy is protected by the First amendment. I tend to think it would be. But the Court disagreed.

Second, Lawrence v US invalidated sodomy laws that were established for moral reasoning. If I had to argue for Reynolds to be overturn, I would likely cite that case to make my argument.

Third, The arguments for same sex marriage are based on Equal protection and Due process. The Court never made a decision on polygamy based on Equal protection and Due process so it's still an open decision of the court.

Fourth, there is no logical argument to prevent polygamy that hasn't already been discounted by those arguing for same sex marriage.

Personally, I think Reynolds is a bad decision. I can't see it being upheld if challenged. If it is, it will likely seriously be distinguished.

I tend to believe the reasoning behind Reynolds is flawed. The Court takes the position that freedom of religion is protected, but not all religious practices are protected, for example, you're not going to be granted the right to practice human sacrifice just because it's considered part of your religion.

That is fine so far, but since that reasoning is based on the fact that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the people from harm etc. in considering what may be exercised as a right,

it never really shows what the harm of polygamy is.