- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
More support for polygamy than monogamy in the human species in general, not to mention every other species on Earth, so yeah, one could say that a monogamous relationship, evolutionarily speaking is a relatively new concept.
Tim-
The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.
Men do tend to have polygamous tendencies for sure. Women, not so much.
The Slaughter-House Cases had nothing to do with stare decisis. It was the Supreme Court's first interpretation of three clauses in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment... "This Court is thus called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles [the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses]."
In McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, Justice Thomas provided a long, detailed analysis of the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. He argued for reviving it and using it, instead of the Due Process Clause, to gauge which rights are truly fundamental, and therefore deserving of greater protection, and which are not.
He was especially concerned with the fact "substantive" due process is a legal theory which lacks any guiding principle and therefore invites the arbitrary invention of new fundamental constitutional rights.
If you want to believe equal protection played any part in Obergefell except as window dressing Kennedy threw in to try to shore up an indefensible, lawless decision, knock yourself out.
The majority does not seriously engage with this claim... The central point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases...
[T]he majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. [“t is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.”] In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)
Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.
Tim-
Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.
Tim-
So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.
That's an interesting point.The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.
Not sure, but something like that would be the territory of the states to regulate.
Tim-
So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.
These are the arguments advanced, and affirmed, as recently as 2013. Brown v. Buhman, Utah District Court
:lol: Might make some men question the wisdom of polygamy. My wives are divorcing me... they're taking 2/3.
No - you see, buildings don't have constitutional rights, people do - which explains the presence of crosses and stars dangling from chains around the necks of government employees inside government buildings and on the court house lawn.I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the "FIRE THEM!" mobs wielding torches and pitchforks that would see those rights stripped away...The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired.
That's a district court, and although I have not read that decision, I would argue that, especially with this most recent decision, the two would not confer the same meaning.
Tim-
The fundamental right is the right to marry. These are benefits of marriage.Those are not fundamental rights, so the standard necessary for a State to prove is lower. Again, in order to uphold a law which infringes upon a fundamental right (marriage), the State has to prove that is has a compelling interest and that its law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In the scenario of polygamous marriage, the State has managed, in every case thus far, to meet that burden.
What language from the new holding would you point to as your reason?
Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.Sad to say that the economics of various forms of marriage really doesn't even touch the rational basis test under the 14th. Economics of and by the people wishing to enter into new forms of marriages is not a material disqualifier, Taylor.
Tim-
Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.
Family. They're a family. And yes they do look happy. I'm all for what they're doing since it seems to work for them. It isn't for me, but I'm all for it if it works for them.
In an ideal world, that's how it should be.
However, there is the issue of Social Security spousal benefits, of sharing medical insurance, of inheritance, of community property, filing taxes jointly, and a whole lot more that is in the state or federal government's purview.
Better to issue a civil union agreement to anyone who wants to share in the above benefits, and leave the term "marriage" up to the individuals and/or their religious institution. Render unto Caesar and all that.
Marriage is not a "contract" to a man and woman who are truly married.
The gays will be the ones to be discriminated against....... as this legislation is clearly a result of the gay marriage debate, and the striking down of our state's laws refusing legal marriage recognition to same sex couples.Not sure what you mean....are you saying it's the employees that are being discriminated against....or the Gays.
Since the government isn't a house of worship or endorses any religious belief.....how about firing those government employees that refuse to do their jobs and replace them with ones who will? Unless you're trying to suggest that your entire state is bigoted, that is.
Only when that lowered personal restraint violates ANOTHER person's rights. If it does not violate another person's rights, then society is not "worse off".I think you are missing my point. Please see below.
No, society is worse off when there's less personal restraint.
And that is the result of freedom. I enjoy freedom... do you? Is freedom okay as long as it follows along with only YOUR traditions?No, not state imposed, personally or society imposed. The expectation of self-imposed restraint.
It's pretty clear that we, as a society, are losing that, if we haven't lost it already.
As I recall history, the Roman Empire fell around the same time Roman Catholicism came around.....Think back to the Roman empire and their excessive hedonism that was partially responsible for their downfall. The parallel is pretty clear. Unfettered, unrestrained hedonistic societies don't last long.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?