Thread Rating:

rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10295
June 26th, 2015 at 8:33:04 PM permalink
Polygamy might force some rewrites to the welfare system. I don't see that as a bad thing, because I'm pretty sure the majority of legislators won't favor a family with 50 babies on welfare.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
June 26th, 2015 at 8:44:49 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

It won't matter, it's a done deal. It's here,
just not legal yet. Today marriage was
opened to every possible combination
of people.

Correction: every possible combination of two people.
Quote: Today's ruling: 576 U.S. ____ (2015) at 28

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The Court has previously ruled on polygamy:
Quote: Mormon Church v. U.S., 136 U.S. 1 (1890) at 49-50

One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief, and therefore under the protection of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophistical plea. No doubt the Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. The practice of suttee(1) by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one, on that account, would hesitate to brand these practices, now, as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and practiced.


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/136/1.html

If you believe, as Chief Justice Roberts apparently does, that polygamy is still a "crime against society" then the 125-year-old reasoning above would still hold true today. So why is everyone freaking out? It's not like today's ruling opens the door to generation-spanning line marriages. (Have you read any Heinlein? You should.)

(1) Suttee is the ritual self-immolation of a recently-widowed woman on her husband's funeral pyre.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 433
  • Posts: 25291
June 26th, 2015 at 8:48:29 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

How much would you be willing to wager on the government recognizing polygamous marriages as equal to two-person marriages within the next year?



Year? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
June 26th, 2015 at 9:29:00 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Polygamy might force some rewrites to the welfare system. I don't see that as a bad thing, because I'm pretty sure the majority of legislators won't favor a family with 50 babies on welfare.

In case you haven't heard, "legislators" don't count any more. The guy with a pen and a phone and nine unelected people in robes are doing all the deciding.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
June 26th, 2015 at 9:31:22 PM permalink
Quote: terapined

Are you telling me Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will be forced to vote for polygamy simply due to precedence in this just decided case.

At least they're consistent in reading and following the Constitution. They don't have to contort into crazy back bends to rationalize their political decisions.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
June 26th, 2015 at 9:38:15 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Polygamy is quasi-legal and has been quasi-legal anyway for a long time as far as I'm concerned. Will you be prosecuted for living with two or more ladies in every sense of the word as married (but unmarried), if you want?

Exactly. Polygamy is in the same status as same-sex marriage was 10 or 20 years ago. LBGTQ people were living in relationships that were tighter than many straight marriages. It is just a matter of the state's approval, and that is an extremely strong argument to remove all governmental participation in betrothals. After all, if society has changed so radically so quickly, that surely changes the need for the supposed protections in the traditional marriage process.
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 214
  • Posts: 4422
June 26th, 2015 at 9:38:42 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

So why is everyone freaking out? It's not like today's ruling opens the door to generation-spanning line marriages.



Because that's what THEY do. Fear-mongering, doomsday scenarios, like Obamacare = death panels, when they can't make a rational argument.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 10295
June 26th, 2015 at 9:42:50 PM permalink
Quote: SanchoPanza

In case you haven't heard, "legislators" don't count any more. The guy with a pen and a phone and nine unelected people in robes are doing all the deciding.



If this decision is such a bad idea a Constitutional amendment should be convincing.
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3489
June 26th, 2015 at 9:43:46 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If you believe, as Chief Justice Roberts apparently does, that polygamy is still a "crime against society" then the 125-year-old reasoning above would still hold true today.

I'm not sure how "apparent" Roberts is in considering a "crime against society." But if he is equating it with murder and suicide, as cited in your 1890 case, he is way off base and being intellectually dishonest.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 226
  • Posts: 12403
June 26th, 2015 at 9:47:15 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Year? Try 5 years at least. But it's inevitable,
only a matter of time. So what, who cares
if 5 people want to get married. How does
it effect me.



It will probably be 5-10 years. Most likely it will be started among not LDS members but muslims. And guess what! The liberals who are saying today's ruling does not open the door will be the ones who will lead the charge, defenders of islam that they are. Because of today's ruling, lower courts will be far, far more likely to agree that marriage means anything. Public opinion will be easier to sway because many folks like myself know the USA lost the battle today and say who cares.

The whole gay marriage thing took about 20 years start to finish. The next thing should take half or less that time for both legal and social reasons. It is coming, no doubt in my mind. Any student of history should see it clearly.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: