ABC analyst suggests polygamy ban unconstitutional. Ping to Today show list.
Soon we will have people marrying their pets so they can get vet coverage.
am I the only one who read that Obama’s daddy was a polygamist of sorts? does it even matter?
Polygamy is unconstitutional because having more than one wife violates the Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
This was actually a Supreme Court case back in the nineteenth century with [i]Reynolds v. United States[/i] and the SCOTUS found the law to not violate the first amendment.
The way the SCOTUS butchered the Constitution to rationalize Roe v. Wade and “affirmative action,” I wouldn’t put it past the Court one day to justify polygamy et al as well.
It only takes five sitting nutcases, and there are plenty of liberal lawyers well-qualified in that regard.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Utah cases challenge whether anti-polygamy laws are constitutional
Polygamy is the practice (usually religious) of having multiple spouses (usually wives). There are two possible lines of constitutional attack on anti-polygamy statutes. One derives from the First Amendment’s religion clauses. The other derives from Due Process “right to privacy” concepts — and in particular, from the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Lawrence v. Texas that adults have a privacy right that extends to private, consensual sex acts.
In the end, neither of these lines of attack will — or should — be successful. Still, it is worth taking a close look at each to examine the extent to which the Constitution allows states to shape — or forbids them from shaping — the definition of marriage, and regulating who can marry whom.
Better not go home to your wives and daughters tonight gentlemen
This polymagy group has been around much longer than even the suggestion of gay marriage. I do agree with the idea that accepting gay marriage would indeed open the doors for polymagy groups and other groups to claim their practice was as valid as gay marriage.
the law professors at GW are nuts....one of them came on DC television during 9/11 and said it was all our own fault because we’re the largest gun dealer around the world....another African-American law professor there said inner city drug dealers shouldn’t be convicted because selling dope in the ‘hood is a crime of “empowerment”...those so called “teachers” love to get on TV and run their mouth talking crap.
Does the Book of Mormon explicitly permit polygamy?
Before Roe V Wade, there was a case in 1965 that MAY have been the precursor to all this, Griswold v CT. It was about the banning of contraceptives.
Anything that helps damage traditonal marriage between one man and one woman, is at the top of the liberal support list.
Even racial stuff is below that.
I haven’t decided if they consider abortion more important than family destruction or less important.
This election has shown that racial politics is higher than feminism on the list. Feminism has been moving down. Animals and environment over people has been moving up. :)
placemarker
The problem is that when the Constitution doesn't address an issue, the USSC has seemingly been known to pull a fast one and, taking advantage of epidemic constitutional ignorance, wrongly legislates special interest agendas from the bench in the name of the Constitution. Indeed, the USSC sometimes seemingly "finds" an issue in the Constitution via a séance, as opposed to honestly saying that the Constitution's silence about a given issue means that the 10th A. automatically makes the issue a state power issue.
Chisholm and Georgia (1793) might have been the first case where the states did catch on to the USSC's tendency to legislate from the bench when the Constitution doesn't clearly address an issue. The states smartly retaliated against the USSC's "unconstitutional" decision against the states in Chisholm v. Georgia by making the 11th Amendment.
As a side note, in a recent New York Supreme Court case concerning gay marriage, the Court decided to allow gay marriage simply because NY's constitution doesn't address gay marriage. But the NYSC has my respect because the judges essentially told the state's legislators to quite sitting on their hands and address gay marriage.
On the other hand, if I remember correctly, a Georgia judge recently gave permission for a lesiban couple to attend a high school prom. Although the high school had problems with that, regardless another Georgia judge had previously decided such a case in favor of gays, state legislators evidently just sat on their hands and did nothing. So Georgia legislators essentially gave the judges the license to legislate pro-gay agendas from the bench on a silver platter.
What a mess!
And the people, the ultimate seat of authority in the USA, are impotent to do anything about this judicial / legislative tangle because ignorance of how the government is supposed to work is epidemic.
http://tinyurl.com/hehr8
Ironically, where I eventually see this going is that the Muslims will have to thank the homosexuals for redefining marriage to the extent that they can have their 14 wives and 42 children in America. Since man and woman is no longer the norm for marriage so too will one man and one woman no longer be the norm.