You said any judge who would overturn anti-polygamy laws should be removed. Why aren't you calling for impeachment for the judges who turned the law on its head in Massachusetts?
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy? Unless these revisionist judges are removed, they will be free to make any similar ruling.
Since impeachment doesn't appear to be happening, we must explicitly take marriage-defining power out of the court's hands. THAT is the point of the marriage amendment!
most surveys I've seen are about 30% in favor of full gay marriage
"Will of the majority," indeed!
It would take a LOT to convince a Utah appeals court of the application of Lawrence vs. Texas to the condition of polygamy
The lower courts don't matter. Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
The polygamists are a tiny fringe group that really does want to radically redefine marriage in America
Look at what you are saying. Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world. Gay marriage never has. Even the gay-friendly Greeks never created same-sex marriage.
I agree polygamy redefines marriage, but not so radically as homosexual marriage, which has never existed prior to modern times. If you are against radically redefining marriage, you would be on the side of those of us who want to keep it between only one man and one woman.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" (Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 1992).
I would say that, by a fair reading of these decisions, that polygamy is a SLAM-DUNK CERTAINTY.
I'm not a Massachusetts resident, but if I were, I think that it might well be in order. I would at least persuade my legislators that my state should not be one of only three which does not make its Supreme Court Justices stand for re-election.
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy?
If we ever get a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas was, yes, it might be possible for a rogue Supreme Court of a state to do this. I cannot imagine it happening, however. Can you see Ruth Bader Ginsberg letting a Utah polygamist off the hook, after he parades his subservient "wives" in front of the Court? I sure can't.
"Will of the majority," indeed!"
This was NOT a vote for gay marriage, this was a vote dealing with amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. Check the polls, you'll find uniformly, that there is less support for amending the Constitution than there is for gay marriage.
Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
Justice Scalia's hyperbole notwithstanding, there has never been a SCOTUS decision (or that of any lower court, or even that of a court in another Western civilization) that has ruled in favor of polygamy. It is a different issue! I don't know how to convey to my fellow conservatives that everybody besides them views it as such. Homosexuality has some empathy in this country, polygamists are looked on as manipulative evil little men intent on dominating and subjugating women, while the women are looked upon as mindless brainwashed idiots for going along with polygamist's twisted interpretation of religion. If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!
Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world.
This is the primary reason liberals will never back it, its associated exclusively with patriarchal cultures that liberals condemn. This is one of the areas where liberals and conservatives are united.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.
In order for a change to happen in our society, it needs a sizable (although not majority) constituency. Other than a few religious whackos that keep getting beaten down in court, there is no constituency in favor of polygamy.