I do have a question for anyone who opposes it to answer....
What is inherently wrong with polygamy? On what grounds do people oppose it?
I am sure you are.
if you believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 women your argument stays consistent even in polygamist marriages.
And herein lies the folly of this whole debacle. The idea that the state should in any way be the arbiter of what a "legitimate" marriage consists of is absurd. If we're just going to let anyone and everyone determine fr themselves what is and is not "legitimate" then why bother having marriage laws at all?
I suspect that after the crazies and the activists and the crazy activists are done with this thing the whole concept of marriage is going to be stricken from law....which, when you get right down to it, is fine with me.
Scripture does not support polygamy for modern man.
There is now no legal basis for prohibiting polygamy, or any kind of marriage for that matter.
Here's something else to consider, two women in the house don't always get along. It takes a very special set of rules and attitudes of acceptance to make it work. But outside of that, the legality is up to society which appears to be in a mood to accept it.
Looks like your hunting around for an excuse to prohibit polygamy. I don't think the Left has a leg to stand on anymore.
Okay I misspoke.The legality should not be "up to society". Thats like saying the legality of Slavery should be "Up to society".
Not allowing polygamy is bigotry, especially from the gay crowd that can also add hypocrisy to that.I'm not searching very hard. Others on this thread have noted the impact on immigration law as another State interest.
Those are some very legitimate state interests and a ban on polygamous marriage is a narrowly defined method to achieve that goal.
And while Obergefell did not reference legitimate State interests in their case, I believe the primary reason is that those arguments were so soundly defeated in the cases leading up to that decision (and specifically in the DOMA case) that the opponents of gay marriage pretty much exclusively pursued a "State's rights to decide" type of argument and thus, the majority opinion did not address (but simultaneously did not reject) the notion that a legitimate State interest can defeat a constitutional right claim as long as that interest is pursued in a narrowly tailored fashion.
I would suggest reading the opinion from Brown v. Buhman, it's a district court case which struct down the cohabitation aspect of Utah's polygamy law, but upehld the general ban on the grounds of State's interests. Essentially, the argument goes that the State provides societal benefits to married couples because those couples provide societal benefits to the State. If polygamy is allowed, then the probability of tax fraud (e.g. people will declare themselves married, but not actually be connected to each other in any meaningful way) goes up. The same types of arguments can be applied to inheritance laws as well.
Not allowing polygamy is bigotry, especially from the gay crowd that can also add hypocrisy to that.
It doesn't matter.....A wild free for all 'self identify your marriage' environment. OK.
Now. The hard part. What about the financial impact to the state and the electorate of being married or not being married? What of the financial difference to the state? (mind you I'm just asking questions, I don't know specifically).
Actually it's not - which wife? The interpretation of one man and one woman was created by the Romans as I already stated after Christ's crucifixion.
What is not allowing polygamy bigotry against? You realizing having multiple wives is not a sexual orientation that you are born with.
And I am saying that despite their ruling, welfare benefits from the state is not a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people.
Ones right should not be subject to the convenience of the government.
And, considering that Bigamy laws were around BEFORE all of these welfare programs.... that argument shouldn't hold water anyways.
I don't give a **** if it's sexual orientation or not, it's a marriage choice.
Would you prefer that there be a legal basis for limiting the rights and freedoms of others? Especially when those rights and freedoms do not effect you in the slightest?
Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.
Yes, benefits supplied from the State are a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people. If, for example, the state provides you with paved roads or water treatment and, in exchange, requires you to pay taxes and the state makes it illegal for you to damage those structures (even when built on your own personal property), then the State has a legitimate interest from supplying their welfare benefits and they can, in exchange, limit your rights and freedoms.
That is a fairly basic concept that is longstanding. And absolutely, your rights should be subject to the interests of the State. That is the entire point of having a Government force - we all give up some forms of freedom to the State in exchange for societal benefits. Drawing the line is the only issue remaining and it is incumbent on the State to prove that (in the scenario where we are dealing with a fundamental right) they have a compelling government interest and that their laws are narrowly tailored in order to accomplish/protect that interest.
The timing of when the polygamy laws came into effect and when the various welfare programs which would be impacted by repeal of those polygamy laws seems irrelevant.
Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.
Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.
No, it couldn't have been accomplished fairly any other way. And it upheld an already existing right, to equal protection, due process, and to marriage, which has been ruled as existing for over 50 years.
Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.
Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.
Im sorry pal...... if all your pathetic mind can come up with is "yooz libruhlz!!"..... Im going to have to stop having a debate with you.
The moment you go off talking about yooz libruhlz and make an unsubstantiated claim like "want to limit rights all the time" but don't give any examples and then call someone a hypocrite....... You are no longer debating, just trying to get into a name calling pissing contest.
I'll be on my merry way.
I don't find it to be irrelevant at all, the timing of the laws that is.
Because as I see it, polygamists were denied the right to have their situation considered as a matter of policy when these "financial benefits" of other married couples were considered, and they were denied this right because their institution of marriage was denied to them based upon....................
Whatever reason it was based upon.
So again I ask, what reason were bigamy laws put in place?
One wife at a time. Are you really basing marriage on the use of a plural versus no plural? We already know polygamy was common in Israel and the surrounding region .... Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only.Um, it states "wife", not, "wives". C'mon man.
Here's something from the OT.
17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
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?