I think we should definitely have a legal battle over polygamy. There's plenty of legal arguments that it's an unjust infringement to prohibit it, but there are definitely issues over its use, given the precedent of pushing underage girls into coercive marriages. But that, of course, is how the polygamy argument differs from the SSM one. The underlying problem with polygamy is its use in undermining consent.
I don't honestly see a problem with three people (that is, consenting adults) entering into a marriage in principle. There are definitely complex legal issues that would need to be sorted out (suppose the two other spouses want to make different decisions as medical proxy, how would that be arbitrated?), but that's just details. Also, what would be the upper limit. 50 is certainly too many for a single marriage. These are details that would need to be sorted out. But we should have this discussion and sort them out, rather than cite them as barriers. But more than anything else, we would need to ensure that consent is being protected. Girls not really having a say in their marriages to older men is a serious concern with not only the Mormon traditions of polygamy, but with a lot of fundamentalist religious movements without polygamy, too. Protecting consent is something that we have to take much more seriously and would need to be top priority when dealing with polygamy.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Seems to me that it was a topic that people wanted to debate over. I already acknowledged to TED many pages ago that I probably botched the OP. Finally, the intent of the thread was met ie viewing polygamy through a lens that no longer has DOMA in the purview.
Sangha, you continue to claim that DOMA still restricts some marriages. Please post a reference to that because I can't find it. Section 3 was struck down. The only thing left in that bill is that states don't have to recognize gay married couples from other states. Also, you still avoid the friggin question I've asked you twice of if our justice system depends heavily on precedents to rule on current cases. You continue to avoid this because you know the answer and it supports my view. That's why debate with you is like slamming my head against a wall. You rail against Tea Party types who never compromise or admit fault and yet you continually do the same. Make your mind up.
TED, I wasn't attempting to say anything about your views other than showing Sangha that I misled you in to thinking the article contained a reference to DOMA. That's it. So get your panties out of a bunch. I wouldn't have apologized to you if I had an issue with you.
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
The verdict in DOMA wasn't about what kind of marriages to recognize. It was removing the barriers to getting federal benefits for marriages that were recognized as valid by the states.
This decision was about allowing cohabitation. Again, nothing to do with marriage - the judge specifically said that marrying more than one person was still bigamy.
Whether or not the cohabitants are having sex with each other or not - should not be the business of the courts (until issues over kids result or property disputes or whatever bring people into court, which may or may not happen)
So can we all agree to drop DOMA as part of this discussion? any chance?