Posted on 07/06/2015 6:15:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Supreme Court's landmark decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right brought out an avalanche of commentary about the possibility of polygamy. Indeed, a Montana threesome is already suing for the right to marry.
This shouldn't be surprising. But what is surprising is just how weak the arguments against legal polygamy are. They rely on class and religious prejudices, as well as on rationales that were deemed illegitimate when launched at same-sex couples.
Jonathan Rauch, who did more than almost anyone else to mainstream the cause of same-sex marriage, finds the argument for polygamy an unfortunate distraction. Rauch's main argument is that polygamy will hurt the ability of low-status men to marry, thereby limiting marriage opportunities rather than broadening them:
Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. [Politico]
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Muzzies can have 4 wives. Coming to you soon!!
Yup. Pointed thus out months ago. It’s all part of the Obamabastard’s plsn.
Another rung on the downward ladder of civilization.
He misses an important point. The important point he misses is that we have changed the definition of marriage, and the Supreme Court has said that the previous definition violated the constitutional rights of people who wanted to change the definition of marriage.
Now that we have established that the definition of marriage can be changed, what will stop it from being changed again???
If I have two wives in a polygamous marriage and divorce wife # 1 she gets half of the assets leaving only half for myself and the spouse I retain. Then if I divorce wife # 2 she gets half the remaining assets so I am down to 1/4th of what I had with the two wives. If I divorce both at the same time do they each get 1/3 or do we have a catfight over who gets 1/2 and who gets 1/4?
A lawyer’s dream.
There were champagne bottles popping the day “gay marriage” was affirmed. Don’t kid yourself.
so what? In the Bible polygamy was big
Yes. Given the “reasoning” of our idiot Supremes, there is no logical reason that “marriage” couldn’t be between absolutely anything at all.
- Two men and five women
- a man and his dog
- a lady and her parrot
- the Minnesota Vikings
- you and yourself
- you and the spirit of somebody who died a century ago
And on and on. This decision to destroy marriage was insane and the whole court should be impeached and expelled.
Great Idea. That means I can marry a rich dead woman and as the surviving spouse I get all the inheritance.
How can anybody take the supreme court of the United States of America seriously anymore.
If I marry myself am I taxed at the married rate for both my income and my spouses (me) income? Double taxation, anyone?
Not to mention a marriage between a person and an otherwise legal entity - Ross Perot could marry IBM with a board vote to approve. Think of the privileges: can’t be forced to testify against or disclose communications with a spouse; real estate sale tax exemptions for married couples. Corporations could marry each other- even multiple corporations or corporations and PACs could marry. Nonprofit corporate marriage could reduce your family income and property tax burdens by 50%-100%.
.... The community I speak of is the "Bi-Sexual" community. If it hasn't happened already .... I believe a person who is also in love with both a man and a woman will fight for their freedom to marry.
...... To me I think this angle would be a more likely path of least legal resistance and garner the acceptance and support of the gay activist community. Standard Polygamy is already associated mostly with the Mormons and thus has created a lot of intolerance to most.
Rauch completely ignores the possibility of one woman with multiple husbands.
See the movie “Paint Your Wagon”. It’s a hoot (really)!
Sodomite “marriage” is a muslim thingee-—they hate women and they are all homosexuals and use males/boys/goats whatever.
Once “marriage” is meaningless-—doesn’t involve two halves of the reproduction system it can be anything-—as Dostoevsky stated.
The biggest evil ,though, besides that you have to teach children that vile, dehumanizing behaviors are “Good” and Satanic ethics are “good”-—you have to normalize buying and selling babies and deny them their biological parent which is extremely evil and denies them their Natural Birth Right.....which is a TRUE Natural Right from God.
It is dehumanization on a major MARXIST scale-—the start of destroying ALL BIOLOGICAL connections.....it should be unconstitutional-—which it is.....to install Stalin’s constitution and ethics in our “Justice” (virtue) System.
The new husband of the wife/wives that divorce you will get a share - everyone knows that a woman who is willing to share a man with others can't get along on her own and needs a man desperately.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.