The polygamy argument with respect to marriage equality holds no water for a couple of reasons, which have been stated before.
First, the civil institution of marriage recognizes hundreds of legal rights, responsibilities, benefits and obligations that would be frustrated and compromised by recognizing polygamous unions as legally valid. On several occasions I've posted examples of these and don't feel like answering the same question repeatedly. But the marital policy objectives of proprietary rights, joint tax returns, property rights on dissolution of marriage (equitable distribution), Social Security and Medicare (especially for the possibility of long term care, parenting and adoption rights, as well as insurance, pensions, duties of child support and debts of spouses are not achieved by polygamous relationships.
Secondly, there is a huge distinction between the would-be polygamist, who wants several spouses, and the homosexual, who wants one. The polygamist can enter into and receive all legal and financial benefits that legal marriage offers. There is no due process or equal protection argument of merit as he can fulfill the requirement of marriage. The gay person, unlike the polygamist, is barred from the benefits of marriage at the very beginning. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment arguments are available to him.
Also, your argument that the polygamist has a stronger argument for state/legal recognition of his plurality of marriages is ludicrous and underscores a fundamental ignorance of constitutional principles. The state is not required to recognize or validate unions performed by churches. According to the state the marriage is recognized by a civil license. It is not the obligation of the state or judiciary to conform public policy about marriage to include religious views on the topic. Religions are free to perform their wedding rituals, based on dogma, creed or mythology. If a church wants to let a guy marry ten brides, knock yourself out, but the first bride to get the license at the court house is the only one that the state should recognize as a legal wife.
You would have an argument except polygamy is outlawed. The government doesn't just say "We'll recognize one marriage and you can 'church marry' how many others you want." You make all sorts of excuses for why polygamy wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment under freedom of religion (including ignoring the history of how that all came about) but, at the same time, you argue that gay marriage is protected under equal protection. Anyone can see you're entirely driven by your own social and political liberal leanings. THAT'S the filter through which all your legalese mumbo jumbo goes through. You couldn't care less what the Constitution actually says or what those who wrote it actually intended. Sort of like the judges who have overruled state laws in favor of their warped personal views.
The equivalent of Denver's second half td in last year's Super Bowl.
I haven't read the decision but the article suggests that the legislature has a right to define marriage. Nobody has argued against that in the previous court cases. What is also inarguable is that any statute or government action concerning a fundamental right must pass heightened scrutiny on equal protection and due process grounds.
That's just it - a "fundamental right?" Gay people already had the same fundamental rights everybody else did, i.e. those recognized within what was always recognized as a marriage - man and woman. The whole issue is them changing things entirely and arguing that these "rights" apply to them in any form of relationship they want and that everybody is obligated to recognize it as such. And that's a load of hooey.
Last edited by IvyLeague; 09/04/1410:43 AM.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
