And only recently has the court ruled on the side of the homosexual agenda. Revamping old laws against sexual behaviors and redefining marriage is a NEW phenomenon in the courts. You're saying that because polygamy hasn't been sanctioned yet, it never will.
My point is simple. We cannot assume that anti-polygamy laws will be held intact by the courts, particularly in light of recent precedent that paves the way for their revocation. You apparently feel a confidence in the good judgment of courts that I cannot share.
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.
This point concedes the danger of Lawrence v. Texas--and, again, presumes that the Supreme Court will not follow its own established reasoning.
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.
There you go again with the stereotypes.
The court will make a decision based on the validity of the arguments made, not on the perceived social stigmas of the parties involved. The argument presented by polygamists will be similar to the one made by homosexuals: "I and this person want to get married, yet the government discriminates against me. My choice in whom I marry is my personal business. The state has no right to forbid me to marry."
In Lawrence, and in MA, the courts have rejected the idea that the morality of the majority factors into the debate. In the absence of that, the court has no legal basis on which to deny polygamists marriage licenses. Indeed, when we remove the moral majority objections to polygamy, there is scarcely an argument against it.
After all, it's just a question about numbers, right? On what basis can the government determine how many persons are suitable for a marriage? Why should the government care? People should be able to marry according to their beliefs and tendencies in a free society, right?
I'd like to hear your legal objections to polygamy, sans the moral majority argument you have obviously rejected.
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.
My point with that remark was show your contradiction. You say polygamy should be illegal because the majority objects to it, yet you advocate homosexual marriage, despite its minority support.
If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!
The lobbying for polygamy is going on before the courts, not in our legislative process. The courts act without regard to what the populace wants, as they force new laws on the public. That's the condition of our legal institutions today.
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.
Again, you assume the issue will be decided legitimately in the legislature. It is not. And again, I fail to see how you can reconcile holding this position while advocating gay marriage under minority support. The people don't want same-sex marriage, and never asked for it. I didn't notice MA court taking a poll when they ruled for gay marriage.
It is a different issue!
The issue is the same. It's about the definition of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment would have prohibited gay marriage and polygamy, and kept the traditional definition.
I just simply don't think it can possibly happen within the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this sentence. And probably for a very long time after that.
If polygamists retain their far-fringe status, and are mentally suspect (in the case of the women) and morally suspect (in the case of the men), they will never attract the consensus needed to do anything other avoid prosecution for a time. As it is, anyone can make any living arrangement they so desire, and if the "sister wives" after number one stay home and raise the brood, they can now legally be claimed as dependents of the man, who already gets a joint filing status with wife #1. As for Social Security benefits, by the time polygamists could put together a coalition to effectively petition the courts for a relief of their grievances, SS will be long gone broke.