Somerville, Massachusetts? Isn’t that where Nambla is headquartered? What next adults marrying children?
Towns can legalize things like polygamy? How about allowing ten year-olds to drive?
ML/NJ
Being married to more than one person would be it’s own punishment. Love my wife, but 2? Hard pass.
Rush warned about that several years ago.
You are right, of course, but the real danger arose from LBJ’s feral government welfare policy that intentionally attacked the nuclear family such that three fourths of black Americans are raised as fatherless feral amoral pavement primates.
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right all the time.
I said this when gay marriage first came about. Opens the doo up for anything that you think you want. I want to marry my dog and she gets equal rights to everything.
This is a Great Idea, we should all demand to MARRY Our Congressional Rep in Absentia, regardless of theirs or our own marital status so we can collect their Retirement Package and Benefits also.
I can’t imagine having more than one wife.
Unless they’re all really hot.
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2621-22 (2015) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
I guess he could say "I told ya so." But based on his reasoning in the recent abortion case, this probably means he is of the opinion that stare decisis demands a holding now that laws against polygamy are unconstitutional.
I just married my horse!!
I wonder how the Somerville council would respond to the assertion “I love my mother, and she loves me; certainly you would have no objection to the two of us marrying”.
And there’s no reason to say 3 men can’t marry 5 women.
Oh .... the definition of man and woman ....
I get it
thanx
There is not one single person anywhere on the planet that could have seen this coming.
-PJ
The claimed relevance is superficial--a diversion from the real case for traditional functions. (A tactical mistake.)
Who didn’t think this was the next step? Next up is pedophilia. Sick SOB’s.