Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[Freewill]

It can be made compatible. Why do you hate polygamy ?

It could be. We could, state by state, create a patchwork of brand new precedent to answer questions that are unique to polygamy. It would take decades, but its totally possible. However, the incompatibility with our marriage laws would be a logical reason to not recognize plural marriages if we chose to.

Where with same sex marriage, no such imcompatibility exists. Nor has existed since 2 person marriage was recognized as a joining of equals. The moment men and women were recognized as equals in a marriage.....same sex marriage was inevitable. As all the same rules apply.

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

That all said the SCOTUS ruled exactly like I thought although they had to do some mental gymnastics to do so.

All I wish now if for the victory laps to stop, the color lights at the WH celebrating sodomy to turn white again and the left to STFU already.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...and the left to STFU already.

You lost, they won. You first...

 

[Skylar]

It could be. We could, state by state, create a patchwork of brand new precedent to answer questions that are unique to polygamy. It would take decades, but its totally possible. However, the incompatibility with our marriage laws would be a logical reason to not recognize plural marriages if we chose to.

Where with same sex marriage, no such imcompatibility exists. Nor has existed since 2 person marriage was recognized as a joining of equals. The moment men and women were recognized as equals in a marriage.....same sex marriage was inevitable. As all the same rules apply.

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

 

[Pop23]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

Friday was about the qualifications for who is eligible to marry.

Love seemed to be the only requirement and as sure as one man can love another, one man can love two others.

There is no legal basis now for denial of that "civil right"

Wrong.

The issue concerned whether or not same-sex couples could be denied access to marriage law they're eligible to participate for no other reason than being gay; it had nothing to do with qualifications for who is eligible to marry. Indeed, if same-sex couples weren't already eligible to enter into marriage contacts, they'd have no grounds for their suit: being denied equal protection of (equal access to) marriage law.

Three or more persons aren't eligible to marry, no law exists to accommodate such a configuration, consequently three or more persons have no grounds to file suit; one can't 'seek relief' from a non-existent measure denying them access to a law that likewise doesn't exist.

Stuck on the tradition of 2?

As though it means anything. It is a civil right to marry the person you love. No valid reason to deny that right to anyone unless you can come up with a reason 2 existed in the first place.

 

[Pop23]

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

 

[Freewill]

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

OK, point taken. But again, all laws in every state will need changed to accommodate the new "right" given by a very gay SCOTUS. So even though the change would be not as great the laws still would need changed to allow for gay marriage. But I guess since the ACA ruling words have no meaning and laws are only enforced by intent not the letter.

 

[Pop23]

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

OK, point taken. But again, all laws in every state will need changed to accommodate the new "right" given by a very gay SCOTUS. So even though the change would be not as great the laws still would need changed to allow for gay marriage. But I guess since the ACA ruling words have no meaning and laws are only enforced by intent not the letter.

Imagine if Skylar and Clayton were around when Blacks were granted full rights. They would fully support Jim Crow.

Today's new Bigots are having a tough time granting others their rights.

 

[Freewill]

BTW, does anyone know if the SCOTUS' ruling invalidated marriage laws of all of the states that have not legalized gay marriage? If not why not? How can a license be issued until the law is changed? Or is this another case where words just don't matter?

 

[Freewill]

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window. The SCOTUS is good at changing the meaning of words or just ignoring them. So where divorce laws refer to a woman or man it could mean remaining couple, or gang, instead. Simple to do and the SCOTUS wouldn't even have to make up new language. There is nothing in the PA law I saw that prevents me from marrying two women, any more so then it prevents gay marriage. Your divorce law argument is actually kind of backwards. Kind of like saying that since there is no law governing parachutes then people should not be allowed to fly in airplanes.

The only important part would be that all effected parties would have to agree to the marriage. I guy couldn't have 10 secret marriages because after all now all marriage is is an economic contract.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

 

[Freewill]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

Polygamous marriage sounds absurd, will never happen, just like was said 10 years about about gay marriage yet here we are. And nope, if you are going to treat a married couple as one then any number of people can be counted as one. Oh the torturous path we must follow when the SCOTUS makes laws.

 

[Pop23]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

Polygamous marriage sounds absurd, will never happen, just like was said 10 years about about gay marriage yet here we are. And nope, if you are going to treat a married couple as one then any number of people can be counted as one. Oh the torturous path we must follow when the SCOTUS makes laws.

Doesn't the child of a polygamous relationship deserve the same dignity that USSC said the children of gay marriage deserves?

 

[Skylar]

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

Its not 'tradition'. Its the fact that our marriage law simply cannot answer these questions. Where with same sex marriage, they can. There's no situation in same sex marriage that our marriage laws can't answer. There are situations in plural marriage that our marriage laws can't answer.

And you've already conceded the point. You simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage law and polygamy. Ignore away. The incompatibility remains.

 

[Skylar]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

Polygamous marriage sounds absurd, will never happen, just like was said 10 years about about gay marriage yet here we are. And nope, if you are going to treat a married couple as one then any number of people can be counted as one. Oh the torturous path we must follow when the SCOTUS makes laws.

Doesn't the child of a polygamous relationship deserve the same dignity that USSC said the children of gay marriage deserves?

Children are another issue our laws don't handle in polygamy. Take....child custody. Is child custody something that every member of a poly relationship has with any child born within it? Is priority given to biological parents? Does every participant in a plural marriage owe child support? Is that child support based on the number of children, their biological relationship, or their time in the union?

Our marriage laws have no answer for these questions in a poly relationship. They do in 2 person marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Legally recognized marriage affords hundreds of economic adjustments to the married couple. As such, any two legal-aged people must be permtited to enter into such contracts.

But because of the economic adjustments, allowing multipl incidents of them opens the door to abuse as in theory you could have massive groups of people saying they're married and now pay no taxes, or the federal government winds up paying them. This would be why while polygamy might become legal, it wouldn't result in multiplicative benefits. You'd give such people benefits from the intitial spouse, but not subsequent ones.

But non-economic adjustments like visitation rights and the like, should be afforded to even polyagamous marriages.

That's another issue. Take...social security benefits. If you have a dozen people that are married and one of them dies......do the remaining 11 all get survivor benefits? If so, for how long?

 

[Skylar]

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

 

[Pop23]

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

Its not 'tradition'. Its the fact that our marriage law simply cannot answer these questions. Where with same sex marriage, they can. There's no situation in same sex marriage that our marriage laws can't answer. There are situations in plural marriage that our marriage laws can't answer.

And you've already conceded the point. You simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage law and polygamy. Ignore away. The incompatibility remains.

Bull. The tradition of marriage had been destroyed. To say you have a fundamental right to marry the one you love is an absolute period.

Changing laws to fit a newly recognized right is common. You're stuck with your Jim Crow bigoted mentality.

 

[Pop23]

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

 

[Skylar]

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

Bull, your reliance on tradition is tiresome. As though there are not current multi partner relationships that one leaves and the partnership remains in tact.

Its not 'tradition'. Its the fact that our marriage law simply cannot answer these questions. Where with same sex marriage, they can. There's no situation in same sex marriage that our marriage laws can't answer. There are situations in plural marriage that our marriage laws can't answer.

And you've already conceded the point. You simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility between our marriage law and polygamy. Ignore away. The incompatibility remains.

Bull. The tradition of marriage had been destroyed. To say you have a fundamental right to marry the one you love is an absolute period.

You're just trolling now. I've never so much as mentioned 'tradition'. Its your argument. And your strawman.

And you've conceded I'm right, that polygamy is inconsistent with our marriage laws, and that our marriage laws can't answer fundamental questions that arise under polygamy.

Which is my point.

 

[Skylar]

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

Prior to say 2 years ago there were no provisions for gay marriage in any laws. And for all but a handful of states there is still no provision so I am not even sure I understand you point. In this brave new world I am not sure what difference it would make if one side remained married. Look at it this ways, say there were two women and a man married. The man sues for divorces the other two, who pay alimony? That would be a problem. I wonder how that is going to work in gay marriages when they divorce.

The difference is....there's no question in 2 person marriage that our marriage law can't answer just as well for same sex couples as for opposite sex couples. All the same rules apply.

But the situations that arise under polygamy can't occur in 2 person marriage. So our current marriage laws don't work for polygamy, as our marriage law can't answer those questions. You insist we 'do the same thing'....but we don't have any form of marriage in our laws where one member of a marriage can get divorced....but the other is still married.

Which is why you've never been able to use Pennsylvania marriage law to answer any of the questions I've asked you. As Pennsylvania marriage law can't answer them.

And that's my point.

I hope you are not arguing tradition, cause the SCOTUS threw tradition out the window.

If I were making a tradition argument, you'd find the word 'tradition' in my post. Alas, the only place you can find that word is in your post. Its your argument. Which you're then attributing to me. And arguing against.

We call that a strawman. Its a fallacy of logic. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need it.

Oh my god, what a fool. The word?

You can dance around your words all you want, they are bigoted as were Jim Crow laws were.

The USSC made it a fundimental right to marry those you love. The children of polygamists have as much right to a dignified life as anyone.

Deal with it bigot

Sorry Troll....but you've already conceded my argument. Notice how you won't even touch the incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage law. As you know I'm right. And have helped demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility of polygamy with our marriage laws....by insisting that poly marriage would have to go OUTSIDE of our marriage laws to operate.

Which might explain why you've been reduced to the strawman fallacy. Pummeling an argument only you are making.

Laughing....and there's straw and stuffing everywhere.