Page 21 of 55 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #201
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    No.

    No.

    No, not believing in mob rule.

    But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.

    The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.

    Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold and
    So society is worse off when the people are more free?

    How does 3 people's decision to join in marriage affect you?

  2. #202
    Magic!

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    24,427

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Probably none.
    The point is this: The anti gay marriage folks said that gay marriage would lead to all sorts of things, including marrying animals, polygamy, you name it. Now that a trio has applied for a marriage license for a polygamous marriage, they're seeing their predictions come true. Never mind that said marriage license isn't approved, will never be approved, and that polygamy is not a civil rights issue.


    It's like this:

    See! See! Approve gay marriage, and polygamy is next! Told you so, na na na na na!
    Let them troll if it makes them feel like they've made some point. It means nothing to anyone else.

  3. #203
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,881

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    And another spurious thought:

    This scheme seems the kind of thing that would keep a man at home - sounds exactly like what society likes to see!
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  4. #204
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Pennsalvania
    Last Seen
    03-20-16 @ 01:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    2,171

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    No.

    No.

    No, not believing in mob rule.

    But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.

    The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.

    Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold and
    Gay marriage has been the law of the land in many states and many countries for years now. Look to them as examples for all the chaos and mayhem that has occurred. Make a list, and report back to us with your findings.

  5. #205
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    As an aside -

    The couple (triplet? Triumvirate?) look happy enough in their photos & video:

    Heavy.com - 'Nathan Collier: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know'
    Family. They're a family. And yes they do look happy. I'm all for what they're doing since it seems to work for them. It isn't for me, but I'm all for it if it works for them.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  6. #206
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,984

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    [B]Now I recognized that the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873) ruling created the principle under stare decisis that the 14th Amendment did not protect the various privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.
    The Slaughter-House Cases had nothing to do with stare decisis. It was the Supreme Court's first interpretation of three clauses in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was only five years old at the time-- "This Court is thus called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles [the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses]."

    This is what compels the SCOTUS majority to use Due Process, even when the argument contains a significant basis in State privileges and immunities.
    In McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, Justice Thomas provided a long, detailed analysis of the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. He argued for reviving it and using it, instead of the Due Process Clause, to gauge which rights are truly fundamental, and therefore deserving of greater protection, and which are not. He was especially concerned with the fact "substantive" due process is a legal theory which lacks any guiding principle and therefore invites the arbitrary invention of new fundamental constitutional rights. (In Lochner, it was a "fundamental right" to contract that the Court concocted; in Roe, it was a "fundamental right" to abortion; and here, it was a "fundamental right" to homosexual marriage.)

    The very narrow interpretation the Court gave the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases has never prevented the Court from reviving that clause and giving it a broader construction. It could have done that at any time, and as Thomas suggested, still could today. It has all along relied on the doctrine of substantive due [/I]process[/I]--a contradiction in terms that distorts the constitutional text--because it offers a convenient way to concoct new "liberties" the state can then deprive no person of, without due process of law. Before long we may be hearing about previously-unknown fundamental rights like going nude in public, or engaging in adult incest.

    So, while the decision does state (as you insist) basis under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, reading the arguments show that the support for that use is clearly based in significant amount on state sanctioned privileges and immunities granted married couples but denied to same-sex couples under State laws. Further, the decision categorically includes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the arguments in support of that.

    I stand by my previous posts.
    If you want to believe equal protection played any part in Obergefell except as window dressing Kennedy threw in to try to shore up an indefensible, lawless decision, knock yourself out.

    As for myself, I think the Chief Justice unmasked the equal protection part of Obergefell as the sham it is--which suits it perfectly to the rest of the majority decision:


    The majority does not seriously engage with this claim. Its discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow. The central point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases . . . The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis for its holding. (my italics)

    Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 197 (2009) [“[i]t is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.”] In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)
    Last edited by matchlight; 07-02-15 at 12:52 PM.

  7. #207
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,119

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Just more evidence that government should remove itself from the wedding business altogether.

    Gays getting married doesn't really mean they're married. I certainly don't recognize it as marriage (like I don't recognize many heterosexual marriages either). It's nowhere near the equivalent of my marriage.

    It takes more than a piece of paper. Marriage is about faith and raising children. It's not a "state" matter. That's why this issue hasn't really mattered to me because it changes nothing.

    But if the state wants to get involved with the "freedom" nonsense of it all, then anybody should be allowed to marry anyone, or anything, and as many as they please. I mean, marriage is about equality and freedom, right?

    This is what happens when you mess with the fabric of our culture.
    In an ideal world, that's how it should be.

    However, there is the issue of Social Security spousal benefits, of sharing medical insurance, of inheritance, of community property, filing taxes jointly, and a whole lot more that is in the state or federal government's purview.

    Better to issue a civil union agreement to anyone who wants to share in the above benefits, and leave the term "marriage" up to the individuals and/or their religious institution. Render unto Caesar and all that.
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



  8. #208
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,007

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Marriage is a contract.

    Legally recognized contracts require those who enter into them to be of legal age and of sound mind.

    Thus, this fallacy of marrying any "thing" is nonsensical idiocy.
    Marriage is not a "contract" to a man and woman who are truly married.

  9. #209
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    I'm not searching very hard. Others on this thread have noted the impact on immigration law as another State interest.

    Those are some very legitimate state interests and a ban on polygamous marriage is a narrowly defined method to achieve that goal.

    And while Obergefell did not reference legitimate State interests in their case, I believe the primary reason is that those arguments were so soundly defeated in the cases leading up to that decision (and specifically in the DOMA case) that the opponents of gay marriage pretty much exclusively pursued a "State's rights to decide" type of argument and thus, the majority opinion did not address (but simultaneously did not reject) the notion that a legitimate State interest can defeat a constitutional right claim as long as that interest is pursued in a narrowly tailored fashion.
    What's the compelling state interest in not giving polygamous spouses hospital visitation rights? Child support and alimony? Automatic rights to joint parenting? Exclusion from crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded to monogamous married couples? Etc.

  10. #210
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,029

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Your comparison is apples and oranges.

    Access to a government service due to no employees willing to do their job based upon "religious beliefs" (essentially denying someone's access to government services based upon discrimination) is in no way comparable to the numbers of a group that suffer from that discrimination.

    Just because they may be few in number, does not justify discriminating against them.
    Not sure what you mean....are you saying it's the employees that are being discriminated against....or the Gays.

    Since the government isn't a house of worship or endorses any religious belief.....how about firing those government employees that refuse to do their jobs and replace them with ones who will? Unless you're trying to suggest that your entire state is bigoted, that is.

Page 21 of 55 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •