It's time to legalize polygamy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...

I find it funny that this case was about superseding states rights on marriage yet she invokes states rights "a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage"...

I don't think the decision removed the regulation of marriage from the states. It merely subjected them to the restriction that, in their regulations, they treat every individual the same regardless of gender. States regulate the licensing of drivers, but they cannot, for example, say that licenses for trucks shall be limited to men, and pink cars may only be driven by women, because everyone knows that truck-drivers are traditionally male and pink is a traditionally feminine color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...

I find it funny that this case was about superseding states rights on marriage yet she invokes states rights "a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage"...

I don't think the decision removed the regulation of marriage from the states. It merely subjected them to the restriction that, in their regulations, they treat every individual the same regardless of gender. States regulate the licensing of drivers, but they cannot, for example, say that licenses for trucks shall be limited to men, and pink cars may only be driven by women, because everyone knows that truck-drivers are traditionally male and pink is a traditionally feminine color.

What the SCOTUS did through this precedent was to call into question whether states have that right anymore and a reasonable conclusion is no, they do not.

I also found Justice Kennedy's statement less than amusing as the premise is obsolete...

"“Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers,” he wrote, “their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.”

Approve same sex marriage...but do you have any idea how many couples in this nation aren't married and have children in the home? It's a growing demographic btw and last I saw 22% of births had two in the home but not married. What he wrote was right out of the 50's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Yup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Not condemning. If they all want to live together as consenting adults, have at it.
But when you want legal recognition as a spouse, that means something in terms of inheritance, next of kin, probate, etc. etc. Polygamy creates an impossible morass, legally, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund.

Maybe if they file a prenup, sort of like articles of incorporation, prior to the marriage, that spells out all the typical legal problems and how they will be addressed. That could solve the challenge for the state.

Agree, and you can easily impose special taxes or fees on these unions to cover the anticipated court costs...

[Anonymous]

If you assume that the state should encourage marriage by legally recognizing it, then the state should provide marriage licenses to both (a) heterosexual couples and (b) gay couples. Both will increase the number of marriages.

By contrast, recognizing polygamous marriages would actually reduce the total number of marriages: One man with ten wives means nine men with none.

This is a major distinction and a logical reason for licensing gay marriages but not polygomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just another view of children from same-sex couples. It isn’t all rainbows and roses for them.....

But four adult children of gay parents — acting as a “quartet of truth,” according to their lawyer David Boyle in Long Beach, Calif. — have submitted briefs to the 5th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals opposing same-sex marriages, with several saying that growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant. The court, which is considering whether to uphold the man-woman marriage laws in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, will hear arguments in New Orleans on Friday.

Dawn Stefanowicz said her gay father was so preoccupied with sex that when she was in high school and brought home a male classmate, both her father and his lover propositioned him for sex.

B.N. Klein said her mother and lesbian partner disdained heterosexual families completely, and she didn’t have a clue about the daily interactions of a husband and wife until she went into foster care.

Robert Oscar Lopez said his two lesbian mothers were conscientious about his upbringing, but he became so emotionally confused that he turned to gay prostitution as a teen and gay and bisexual relationships as an adult.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/#ixzz3eSxY5dTD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The offspring are irrelevant. Triads, throuples, and other arrangements are being denied their fundamental right to marriage equality whether they have issue or not.

And the argument about "social costs" or "social policy" is extremely weak when compared to the body of law governing our fundamental legal and human rights - including the right to marry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there is no legitimately negative impact on the state in gay marriage. With polygamy, there is.

Explain.

I can't help laughing at people who celebrate gay marriage but condemn polygamists. Really?

Yup

Gays are afraid of being lumped in with polygamists/ beastiality types and the consentual incest crowd. But they will be , eventually .

I'm sure they'll rue the day. Or dumbasses like you will soon be old and senile.

[Anonymous]

Why would gays be lumped in with polygamists? The only polygomists I've heard of have all be heterosexual. By the way, there is a very logical policy reason for granting licenses to couples for marriage (gay or straight) but not for polygamy: see 15:49 above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would gays be lumped in with polygamists? The only polygomists I've heard of have all be heterosexual. By the way, there is a very logical policy reason for granting licenses to couples for marriage (gay or straight) but not for polygamy: see 15:49 above.

Why? Why not?

Equality.

[Anonymous]

It's not a slippery slope, people.

A constitutional right to polygamy no more follows from Obergefell than it did from Loving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a slippery slope, people.

A constitutional right to polygamy no more follows from Obergefell than it did from Loving.

I don't get this. Can u please explain. Not being silly, just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

"I think OP is right. In late 1800s there was constitutional decision by Supreme Court that found Mormon polygamous marriages were illegal and not protected by freedom of religion clause. In light of today's decision on gay marriage, that ruling would not stand.

A person who claimed religious reason for marrying more than 1 person would survive a legal challenge. That is why Utah and western states aren't prosecuting polygamists now"

It is worthwhile to note that the issue was not only religion. The Supreme Court held that plural marriage was indistinguishable from slavery. Perhaps in our enlightened age it would be wonderful freedom, but I can't imagine why. People are still people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a slippery slope, people.

A constitutional right to polygamy no more follows from Obergefell than it did from Loving.

I agree.

We set random cut offs all the time. You can drive 55 but not 56. You can drink at 21 but not 20. Two people can "marry" but three cannot.

I think this discussion of polygamy must now be legalized is disingenuous and alarmist. Next you are going to say we can marry our dogs and pedophilia should be legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I think OP is right. In late 1800s there was constitutional decision by Supreme Court that found Mormon polygamous marriages were illegal and not protected by freedom of religion clause. In light of today's decision on gay marriage, that ruling would not stand.

A person who claimed religious reason for marrying more than 1 person would survive a legal challenge. That is why Utah and western states aren't prosecuting polygamists now"

It is worthwhile to note that the issue was not only religion. The Supreme Court held that plural marriage was indistinguishable from slavery. Perhaps in our enlightened age it would be wonderful freedom, but I can't imagine why. People are still people.

There's a difference between not prosecuting polygamists and giving such unions legal status.

[Anonymous]

WRT the numbers issue, I have countless female friends who can't find a husband. When you add the men who are gay (more gay men than gay women), and the ones in jail, and the ones who die earlier because that's what men do, you have an imbalance. If only 5% of men practiced polygamy! it would help that imbalance and improve prospects for women.