Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "It's time to legalize polygamy..."
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Googling showed me that the court asked about this (extending to polygamy) during the gay marriage case, and to my surprise, the lawyer answered similarly to my feelings above. But, I'm sure that you are a legal genius and the lawyer is wrong: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/28/supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-same-sex-marriage-case-obergefell-v-hodges-today/ lito goes there, regarding polygamous relationships 10:20 a.m.: Alito asked what many others have wondered: If the justices alter the definition of marriage by allowing same-sex couples to wed, does this not open the door to demands that polygamous relationships be recognized in this way? No, Bonauto said. Such relationships raise concerns about “coercion” and “consent” and a host of complicated questions that states, which have jurisdiction over marriage, may not be able to answer. For example, in a relationship with more than two people, “who makes the medical decisions in an emergency?” [/quote] Bonauto's argument is designed to win the case and not bring in other considerations...nothing more. Coercion and consent exists in two people unions, albeit in a small number, but it does happen. Arranged marriages still happen in the U.S. and as for coercion...that happens too. But that is minor compared to the real reason she argued what she did and it is as I stated at the beginning...she wanted to keep that out of the discussion. As for who makes the decision in medical issues in plural marriages...a couple can have differing opinions...one could be Jehovah's Witness and want to deny a blood transfusion and the other wants it. Who wins in that case. 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"...[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics