The SCotUS has cleared the way for Legalized Polygamy.

[NLT]

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.

Gosh I hope so...then I can gay marry Angelina too!

I bet Angelia doesnt go for the sweaty bull dyke types, you might have better luck with Rosie.

 

[Gem]

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.

I definitely see how it could be read that way, but I think you'd be trying to score "gotcha" points rather than understand what I have said about how judicial rulings like these are made. I think, if you are intellectually honest about how judges make these types of decisions...you'd be a fool to deny that they cite precedent, they cite former caselaw and how it supports their decision. Does that mean that their decisions are never overturned? Of course not... But when it goes to how they make decisions...they base their decisions in large part on what other judges have done. Hence...why I stand by my original statement that the overturning of DOMA WILL be used one day as part of the argument for the recognition and legalization of polygamist marriage.

 

[Gem]

Avatar4321 Wrote:

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.

Public support for gay marriage was absolutely needed to get it to the court and get it taken seriously by the court. If you went back 20 or 30 years, arguments over legal gay marriage would have been treated as just as outrageous (if not more so) than this discussion about polygamous marriage. I'm not saying the public needs to WANT it for the court to rule on it...I'm saying it has to be increasingly "mainstream" for it to become part of the national conversation.

 

[Euroconservativ]

Polygamy is a crime against the multiple spouses. Gays don't chose to be gay. End of story.

It seems that liberal elites need another pet minority defined by mental weakness and victimism. So they will save that "poor" people from the claws of reaction

In this case of homosexuality they always say: "they are born that way". A middle-aged actress (i don't remember the name) caused outrage among gay activists because she said that FOR HER it's a choice, so she had to apologize a few days later. That's the thing with collectivists; they get angry so easy

Who cares if homosexuality is a choice? Is it any less legitimate? If you defend personal freedom you should not care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The majority in America and in California do not support Prop 8. Times have changed.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Go for it!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I definitely see how it could be read that way, but I think you'd be trying to score "gotcha" points rather than understand what I have said about how judicial rulings like these are made. I think, if you are intellectually honest about how judges make these types of decisions...you'd be a fool to deny that they cite precedent, they cite former caselaw and how it supports their decision. Does that mean that their decisions are never overturned? Of course not... But when it goes to how they make decisions...they base their decisions in large part on what other judges have done. Hence...why I stand by my original statement that the overturning of DOMA WILL be used one day as part of the argument for the recognition and legalization of polygamist marriage.

So you use two contradictory incompatible points in the course of an argument and I'm the villain for pointing that out?

That's funny.

Then tell us what the legal argument against recognizing civil polygamous marriage is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Gosh I hope so...then I can gay marry Angelina too!

I bet Angelia doesnt go for the sweaty bull dyke types, you might have better luck with Rosie.

Whew, good thing I'm not one of those or I'd have never had my chance with her.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

That was the tone of folks about gay marriage five years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reynolds' precedence has been greatly weakened by SCOTUS decisions' this week on DOMA and Prop 8.

The opponents of polygamy can in no way argue a harm that comes from it when regulated as is monogamous marriage: no child or spouse abuse, reciprocity, property, children, etc.

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

That was the tone of folks about gay marriage five years ago.

No it wasn't. There is virtually no popular support for legalized polygamy. You can't say there was virtually no popular support for same sex marriage 5 years ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then produce the evidence other than your opinion, which you will find is in error.

 

[Seawytch]

Given that the Court is alot more political than most people think it is, and given that legal polygamy has virtually no measurable support, politically, in this country,

I'm quite certain the Court would never overturn Reynolds in our lifetime anyway.

That was the tone of folks about gay marriage five years ago.

No it wasn't. There is virtually no popular support for legalized polygamy. You can't say there was virtually no popular support for same sex marriage 5 years ago.

It's gonna take a lot more shows like "Big Love" before an actual national dialogue is started on legalized polygamy. In the meantime, couldn't they just incorporate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You mean like civil unions, which gays could have done?

Let's not be hypocritical.

 

[Seawytch]

You mean like civil unions, which gays could have done?

Let's not be hypocritical.

No, because those only apply to couples as well. Until polygamist manage to legally get those laws changed, I'm simply offering a solution to protect their family assets.

 

[Seawytch]

And perhaps someone can explain how simply saying the federal government must recognize the marriage laws passed by the states "clears the way for polygamy"? Are there states planning on passing polygamy laws?

Technically, wasn't it really Loving that "cleared the way" for polygamy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then produce the evidence other than your opinion, which you will find is in error.

The Court struck down the DOMA prohibition on legally married (by state law) same sex couples receiving federal benefits attached to 'marriage'.

There are no states with legal polygamy; there are no meaningful efforts in any states to legalize polygamy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then produce the evidence other than your opinion, which you will find is in error.

Why should I when you didn't?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

that is not so far fetched now

considering as part of the ruling the

we must accept the marriage values for

people that came from other countries

i suppose that would include multiple wives

pre arranged marriages

and one with minors