Page 23 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #221
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,653

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I care. One reason: I don't know that we can afford it.

    What's this going to do to welfare? How do you calculate survivor benefits for SS?

    At this point there are just so many unanswered questions, isn't it foolish not to at least care about the issue?
    Sad to say that the economics of various forms of marriage really doesn't even touch the rational basis test under the 14th. Economics of and by the people wishing to enter into new forms of marriages is not a material disqualifier, Taylor.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Last Seen
    10-12-16 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,849

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.

    What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?
    By not being an actual polygamist family. For example, you could theoretically have numerous individuals (because if you accept a 3 person marriage, then there are no arguments which I can imagine for limiting the number at 3) who obtain marital licenses to each other, but live in different cities or states. These individuals are not living together nor are they even forming a family unit in order to provide benefits to society.

    The same applies to situations of immigration. You could get one legalized individual to apply for a marital license with numerous illegal immigrants under the auspices of a polygamous marriage even though there is no intent to ever form a polygamous family unit.

  3. #223
    Sage


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,029

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.
    I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.


    Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
    The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.

  4. #224
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,891

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.


    The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.
    You are absolutely right!

    If a prospective civil servant cannot perform their assigned duties, they have no reason to be employed by us.

    The work for us, at our pleasure.

    Not the other-way-around ...
    Last edited by Chomsky; 07-02-15 at 02:31 PM. Reason: spelling
    "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)

  5. #225
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 04:36 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.
    Really? So...

    If Joe marries Joan and John,
    and Betty marries Betsy and Bitty,

    Can't SingleGuy then marry Betsy, or Betsy and Joan, without also marrying Joe, John, Betty and Bitty?

    I suppose you might need something like a Facebook page with separate friends and marriages lists to keep track of it all.

  6. #226
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,168

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    More support for polygamy than monogamy in the human species in general, not to mention every other species on Earth, so yeah, one could say that a monogamous relationship, evolutionarily speaking is a relatively new concept.

    Tim-
    Men do tend to have polygamous tendencies for sure. Women, not so much.
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



  7. #227
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,653

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.
    Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #228
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-06-16 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,653

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Men do tend to have polygamous tendencies for sure. Women, not so much.
    Have you met the modern American women? Women are now beating men in infidelity, in the west. I attribute most of that to once they get old enough, and see no inherent danger in infidelity due to no fault, and the win-fall from changing partners, what's to stop them?

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  9. #229
    Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    6,241

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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... "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]."
    And as such created the policy on how to use the clauses in future, i.e. "stare decisis."

    The Slaughterhouse ruling prevents SCOTUS from using the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause because it clearly held that rights granted by individual states to their citizens are not protected by this clause. SCOTUS courts have rarely directly overturned prior SCOTUS rulings because of stare decisis. The most prominent case was Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Fergusson through an unassailable 9 - 0 unanimous decision.

    Now while Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, it was a 6 - 0 decision under 14th Amendment Due Process (5 justices) and a concurring opinion from Sandra Day O'Connor who used Equal Protection rather than Due Process. Since the decisions in both Lawrence and Obergefel did not have an unassailable majority, IMO each Majority was compelled to use Due Process because they could not establish application of the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause without it.


    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    Granted, and one of the few times I've found myself in agreement with his reasoning...

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    ...but here we diverge because IMO such a guiding principal is needed for just such cases as Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefel to protect an individuals inherent (or "natural") rights from the tyranny of the majority. Whether or not you and I personally agree that Due Process is the best vehicle for use, it will continue in this manner until clarified by an unassailable SCOTUS majority decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    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.
    I believe it because the decision clearly asserts is, as I pointed out via direct quote from the decision itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    The majority does not seriously engage with this claim... 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...

    [T]he 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. [“[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)
    As you must know, citing O'Connor's concurring opinion which merely added a sixth vote based on a different legal point to a decision already having 5 votes using Due Process has only persuasive value. It does not bind anyone to the rationale you've have presented in the above analysis. Review of the actual decision shows that although Due Process AND Equal Protection was used in the Obergefel decision, the argument for Due Process fundamental rights was supported by privileges and immunities.

    In any case, despite both your (and Clarence Thomas') concern over the validity of the decision, just as in both Roe and Lawrence, it is now established case law. Just because you don't agree with it does not make it any less the law of the land.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  10. #230
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    37,168

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.

    Tim-
    So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.
    Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?



Page 23 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •