Page 25 of 55 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #241
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    Those are not fundamental rights, so the standard necessary for a State to prove is lower. Again, in order to uphold a law which infringes upon a fundamental right (marriage), the State has to prove that is has a compelling interest and that its law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In the scenario of polygamous marriage, the State has managed, in every case thus far, to meet that burden.
    The fundamental right is the right to marry. These are benefits of marriage.

  2. #242
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,652

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    What language from the new holding would you point to as your reason?
    Mainly that of substantive due process and an individuals right to dignity, liberty free of government interference, and the pursuit of happiness, absent a compelling state interest.

    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

  3. #243
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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-
    Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.

  4. #244
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 06:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    11,271

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    I love it when CONs try and call Liberals bigots when it comes to marriage.

    Not that CONs are any more would be onboard for multiple than they are for SSM, they just think they have a gotcha moment.

    Now about polygamy- the horse is behind the cart on this one. A few 'religious' types recognize the multiple partner marriage- it is majority convention that keeps it illegal in courts (the same thing CONs claim they have on their side when it comes to SSM). SSM now has social convention and the law on it's side- it is a few 'religious' types who refuse to accept SSM.

    Now I'm all for legal, out in the open polygamy... as it stands now the 'sister' wives draw welfare as single moms- they call it feeding on the beast. Let's get them out in the open and the husband having to support his harem rather than taxpayers.

    Justa thought....

  5. #245
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 04:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,652

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.
    To answer this I'll post what I posted in the US Constitution forum earlier in the week. To wit:

    To me, when it all breaks down to its constituent parts, fundamentally marriage is a contract. For some, that contract extends first to God, and then to the person with whom one enters freely, and willingly, uncoerced into said contract. We have always had the right to enter into binding agreements in this country, and absent any manifestly unfair provision, or unfair condition precedent, the contract will stand and be enforced by the power of the court. However, marriage is a bit different than any other contract in the US, it carries with it certain burdens that, regardless of wants and needs, the government has provided must be present, even if not explicitly stated or mentioned in the marriage certificate. Mostly, these government addendums apply when the contract is broken, namely equitable distribution, child support, and various other probative necessities. Interestingly, marriage promises (Nuptials/Vows) made by the parties to the marriage contract have no legal weight, except separate pre-nuptial agreements that inandofthemselves are shaky or breakable, according to government enforcement, so one has to ask themselves, just what is a marriage, legally? The answer is, that legally a marriage is a contract unlike any other contract we have, and follows no legal condition for resolving conflict - not to mention performance like any other contract we have, so is it a contract at all?

    If not a real contract, or for sake of argument, not an completely enforceable contract (Vows etc..).. Then exactly how is this marriage a recognizable, and more importantly, fundamental right, if, as we can examine objectively, the government has placed restrictions and provisions condition precedent in order for this fundamental right to be freely entered into? I see no other fundamental right that requires the degree of governmental interference required with marriage. So one has to ask, just who has jurisdiction over the conditions of marriage? I say that, if one acknowledges that the state or government has necessary involvement in marriage for the purpose of deciding fairness and equity, then where does, or why does the federal government have power over the states to solve legal disagreements?

    The answer when closely examining marriage in practice, is that, marriage isn't a fundamental right, or at least it isn't acting like one. It's a civil matter, like all other civil matters, and has long been established that civil matters are the property of the several states, even civil domestic matters. Justice Ginsberg herself made this claim nary a few short years ago, but ignored it, several days ago when joining the majority.


    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

  6. #246
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    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.
    Exactly....

    But there are those among us who believe that everyone must be like them... must worship like them..... must have the exact same moral code as them..... must have the exact same sexual orientation as them..... etc.

  7. #247
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    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.
    So we are back to crying over the "term" marriage.

    Well my religion allows for same sex marriage, polygamy, and monogamous heterosexual marriage as well.

    So therefore.... People may refer to their marriages as such.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Marriage is not a "contract" to a man and woman who are truly married.
    But, in the eyes of the law it is.

    And that is what the constitution considers.....

  9. #249
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    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.
    The gays will be the ones to be discriminated against....... as this legislation is clearly a result of the gay marriage debate, and the striking down of our state's laws refusing legal marriage recognition to same sex couples.

    You clearly didn't understand my comments, as I was saying that the amount of gay people in the state is not a reason to allow discrimination just because they may be few in number.

    The few in number magistrates, however, will create a situation in which, under this "religious freedom" bull**** law, allows for a greater number of same sex couples to be discriminated against because if the one magistrate available claims this "deeply held religious belief", same sex couples are now denied access to marriage.

  10. #250
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    I think you are missing my point. Please see below.


    No, society is worse off when there's less personal restraint.
    Only when that lowered personal restraint violates ANOTHER person's rights. If it does not violate another person's rights, then society is not "worse off".
    No, not state imposed, personally or society imposed. The expectation of self-imposed restraint.
    It's pretty clear that we, as a society, are losing that, if we haven't lost it already.
    And that is the result of freedom. I enjoy freedom... do you? Is freedom okay as long as it follows along with only YOUR traditions?


    Think back to the Roman empire and their excessive hedonism that was partially responsible for their downfall. The parallel is pretty clear. Unfettered, unrestrained hedonistic societies don't last long.
    As I recall history, the Roman Empire fell around the same time Roman Catholicism came around.....

Page 25 of 55 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •