Anonymous wrote:How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

The state has an interest in preventing genetic deformities from incest.

How about marrying your parent or sibling? They could consent to it.

However, it should not be done.

I agree with your parents. The traditional definition of marriage is being messed with, and it's a bad idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?

Or, marrying a dog?

The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.

But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?

Animals cannot consent to marriage, whether or not sex is included.

Jeff is right. It just means they won't go to jail. It doesn't "legalize" it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?

Or, marrying a dog?

The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.

But if marriage isn’t only about having sex, what is preventing it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?

Or, marrying a dog?

The problem with marrying a dog, or legalizing or decriminalizing marrying a dog, is that dogs aren't able to give consent. So sex with a dog is, by definition, rape. It's not equivalent to saying that consenting adults should be able to pair or group off as they wish without the law interfering.

Anonymous wrote:So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?

Or, marrying a dog?

So the republicans are against freedom of religion? If the government let's some corporation or person claim that it is against their religious following to supply birth control, why should it stop another from polygamy?

What's a "throuple"?

How would incorporating compare to marriage as a legal arrangement for two or more people cohabiting?

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with throuples or other legal arrangements?

spreads tax code benefits too far.

What's wrong with throuples or other legal arrangements?

They didn't legalize polygamy. They legalized shacking up.

I see nothing wrong with someone having multiple spouses on a religious or non governmental basis. But when it comes to governmental contracts and how those individuals share ownership of property, child rights, debts, health decisions, etc. it becomes a bit muddled.

While it may seem like a purely semantic difference, the ruling decriminalized polygamy, it didn't actually legalize it. I am pretty sure you are not going to be able to legally marry multiple spouses (e.g. nobody will issue you multiple marriage licenses) and you certainly won't get any of the rights normally associated with marriage. It just means the family won't get arrested.

Also, the decision was based on religious freedom. If your Republican parents were happy about the Hobby Lobby ruling, they should love this one as well.

My Republican parents were gloating today. "we told you so!" This, they say, is what happens when you start to mess around with the traditional definition of marriage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736287/Final-ruling-issued-against-polygamy-ban.html

I guess time and the courts will tell whether polygamy becomes - and remains - legal.