- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,463
- Reaction score
- 7,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So society is worse off when the people are more free?
How does 3 people's decision to join in marriage affect you?
No.
No.
No, not believing in mob rule.
But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.
The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.
Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold andopcorn:
Probably none.
The point is this: The anti gay marriage folks said that gay marriage would lead to all sorts of things, including marrying animals, polygamy, you name it. Now that a trio has applied for a marriage license for a polygamous marriage, they're seeing their predictions come true. Never mind that said marriage license isn't approved, will never be approved, and that polygamy is not a civil rights issue.
It's like this:
See! See! Approve gay marriage, and polygamy is next! Told you so, na na na na na!
No.
No.
No, not believing in mob rule.
But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.
The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.
Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold andopcorn:
As an aside -
The couple (triplet? Triumvirate?) look happy enough in their photos & video:
Heavy.com - 'Nathan Collier: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know'
Now I recognized that the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873) ruling created the principle under stare decisis that the 14th Amendment did not protect the various privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
This is what compels the SCOTUS majority to use Due Process, even when the argument contains a significant basis in State privileges and immunities.
So, while the decision does state (as you insist) basis under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, reading the arguments show that the support for that use is clearly based in significant amount on state sanctioned privileges and immunities granted married couples but denied to same-sex couples under State laws. Further, the decision categorically includes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the arguments in support of that.
I stand by my previous posts.
In an ideal world, that's how it should be.Just more evidence that government should remove itself from the wedding business altogether.
Gays getting married doesn't really mean they're married. I certainly don't recognize it as marriage (like I don't recognize many heterosexual marriages either). It's nowhere near the equivalent of my marriage.
It takes more than a piece of paper. Marriage is about faith and raising children. It's not a "state" matter. That's why this issue hasn't really mattered to me because it changes nothing.
But if the state wants to get involved with the "freedom" nonsense of it all, then anybody should be allowed to marry anyone, or anything, and as many as they please. I mean, marriage is about equality and freedom, right?
This is what happens when you mess with the fabric of our culture.
Marriage is a contract.
Legally recognized contracts require those who enter into them to be of legal age and of sound mind.
Thus, this fallacy of marrying any "thing" is nonsensical idiocy.
What's the compelling state interest in not giving polygamous spouses hospital visitation rights? Child support and alimony? Automatic rights to joint parenting? Exclusion from crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded to monogamous married couples? Etc.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.
Not sure what you mean....are you saying it's the employees that are being discriminated against....or the Gays.Your comparison is apples and oranges.
Access to a government service due to no employees willing to do their job based upon "religious beliefs" (essentially denying someone's access to government services based upon discrimination) is in no way comparable to the numbers of a group that suffer from that discrimination.
Just because they may be few in number, does not justify discriminating against them.
What's the compelling state interest in not giving polygamous spouses hospital visitation rights? Child support and alimony? Automatic rights to joint parenting? Exclusion from crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded to monogamous married couples? Etc.
I'm a "bigot on the left" and I don't give a **** who you marry or how many people you marry as long as they are of legal age and carry human DNA. It's none of my business if one of you hicks from Mississippi want to marry your sister-aunt. It's the southern conservative states and Mormon strongholds (also conservative) where cousin ****ing, animal ****ing and polygamy occur the most anyway, so consider it a win for the south.
Were they born polygamous, or was it a choice?
I think you are missing my point. Please see below.Gay marriage has been the law of the land in many states and many countries for years now. Look to them as examples for all the chaos and mayhem that has occurred. Make a list, and report back to us with your findings.
So society is worse off when the people are more free?
How does 3 people's decision to join in marriage affect you?
Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.
Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.
Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.
Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.Since the government isn't a house of worship or endorses any religious belief.....
Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.how about firing those government employees that refuse to do their jobs and replace them with ones who will?.
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 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.
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.
Not the problem of the court, or of the people. Does one now have a fundamental right to a partner? Good luck floating that one by even this court. I suppose Kennedy could say that human dignity requires that we preserve the herd for the less endowed among us..
Tim-
I care. One reason: I don't know that we can afford it.
What's this going to do to welfare? How do you calculate survivor benefits for SS?
At this point there are just so many unanswered questions, isn't it foolish not to at least care about the issue?
Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.
What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?
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.Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.
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. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
You are absolutely right!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.
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. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.
Really? So...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.
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?