Page 6 of 55 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 548

Thread: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

  1. #51
    Chews the Cud
    Amadeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Benghazi
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,081

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectStorm View Post
    Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

    Can't see how this can be stopped.
    Polygamy is acceptable in the Bible, so what is your beef this time?

  2. #52
    Actually I am.

    Superfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    East Coast
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,388

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    So that's what marriage is all about? It's just about a bunch of legal "benefits"? Then why was everyone so opposed to civil unions?
    If the right hadn't been so opposed to civil unions at the get-go, the fight for marriage might not have happened.

    People should have given them that very simple option when they were begging for it. But no, people had to be ugly about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky
    It's easy to be a Conservative, until you need help.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug
    Asking Sarah Palin to head up the Department of Education is like asking Hitler to head up a human rights advocacy group.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,268

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Serious question:

    Who cares if three people are married, and why?
    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?

  4. #54
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    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?
    So freedom should be limited to the POSSIBILITY that these marriages may require assistance of Welfare or Social Security?

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Do you have an issue with more freedoms?
    What would be great would be the freedom to elect judges, rather than having them appointed for me by my benevolent government. Democracy is the best kind of freedom.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    What would be great would be the freedom to elect judges, rather than having them appointed for me by my benevolent government. Democracy is the best kind of freedom.
    Only if you are in the majority..

    Democracy is Mob Rule.

    The Republic is the way to go.
    The Republic protects the rights and liberties of the individual. Democracy is subject to the whims of the majority, with the power to remove the rights of the minority upon popular decision.

  7. #57
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by akrunner88 View Post
    Well unlike gay marriage, which is supported by the majority of Americans and most Americans know a gay person, polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue.

    Along with incestuous relationships, and relations between humans and animals, these are unique family set-ups that mostly apply to conservatives in the "car on the lawn states." Most Americans don't know on a personal level incestuous or polygamous couples, therefore the fight for their rights won't be in the forefront of American politics.

    Since it is a uniquely conservative issue and phenomenon, conservatives will have to chalk up the arguments for pro-incest and pro-polygamous marriages. You can start with the OT, which is a unique selling point among our nations most religious and might win you sympathy in the courts.
    Actually, it isn't just a conservative Christian thing. The most common type of polygamy we normally see usually involves conservative Christian types, involving one man with many wives. However, polyamorous people, which is more likely to be a mutually agreed upon group marriage, is generally a much more liberal/progressive concept.

    Now, the interesting thing is that the group marriage thing is much more appealing and acceptable to most people, since it generally doesn't involve cult-like followers or any practices that are seen as skirting the law (such as involving very young girls and shunning young men or simply kicking them out of the community). But out of those actually wanting polygamy legal (not just "supporting" it now because of same sex marriage bans being struck down), one many having multiple wives is the most common and fought for type of polygamy.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I do have a question for anyone who opposes it to answer....


    What is inherently wrong with polygamy? On what grounds do people oppose it?
    I only oppose striking down the bans or repealing them without any changes to marriage/spousal laws because many of the concerns that we use spousal laws to address, are completely turned on their head when a person has more than one legal spouse. Plus, what is to stop someone from using this to their advantage. At the very least, it would cost the government more money. Such a thing would make immigration laws pertaining to spouses a nightmare. And in that one area alone, it could increase some huge costs for investigations almost overnight because a person could just marry 40, 60, 100 other people at a couple of thousand dollars a piece then retire with more money than Bruce Wayne. And all those investigations would cost the US a ton of money to deal with, even if the person didn't get away with it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,683

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I only oppose striking down the bans or repealing them without any changes to marriage/spousal laws because many of the concerns that we use spousal laws to address, are completely turned on their head when a person has more than one legal spouse. Plus, what is to stop someone from using this to their advantage. At the very least, it would cost the government more money. Such a thing would make immigration laws pertaining to spouses a nightmare. And in that one area alone, it could increase some huge costs for investigations almost overnight because a person could just marry 40, 60, 100 other people at a couple of thousand dollars a piece then retire with more money than Bruce Wayne. And all those investigations would cost the US a ton of money to deal with, even if the person didn't get away with it.
    So, again we limit freedom because it will cost us money.

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,988

    Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Oh, really? Exactly which "people" are you talking about? Apparently NOT the majority of citizens who support the decision, (which includes myself). Nor the minority of citizens who, as with any other decision of SCOTUS, might not agree with it but are willing to accept and adapt to it as the price of citizenship.
    I am not surprised that someone who knows as little about the questions of constitutional law involved in this decision as you do would support it. Apparently President Lincoln, unlike you, did not know that accepting any decision the Supreme Court may happen to make is "the price of citizenship." He considered Dred Scott v. Sandford unconstitutional and declined to enforce it, and he spoke in his First Inaugural address of how the people of this country cannot be the subjects of the Supreme Court.

    You must mean that OTHER minority of people, like yourself, who think either your religious-based objections OR non-religious personal prejudices make your claim that this decision is "unlawful," true?
    My objections to Obergefell are based neither on religious belief nor on personal prejudice, but on my strong belief in democracy and the rule of law. It was also clear to four Supreme Court justices that this decision had no constitutional basis--i.e. was nothing more than a lawless expression of several lawyers' policy preferences--and I agree with those dissenters. Arbitrary decrees are not law.

    if opposite sex marriages want to retain all the legal privileges and immunities of marriage granted to them no matter where they reside in the USA, then same-sex couples legally married in one state MUST have those same privileges and immunities protected in ALL states too.
    Obergefell did not involve either the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Art. IV or the one in the Fourteenth Amendment. If you know of any Supreme Court decision that describes the right to marry as a privilege or immunity, please cite it--I'd like to read it.

    The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, sec. 1, does normally require each state to give full faith and credit to "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But the next sentence gives Congress power to make general laws to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effects thereof."

    That is just what Congress did in section two of the Defense of Marriage Act:

    SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

    ‘‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or
    Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act,
    record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, posses-
    sion, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the
    same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such
    other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim
    arising from such relationship.’’

    This provision, which Obergefell has made meaningless, had allowed states where majorities did not want to include same-sex couples in their marriage laws to decline to recognize same-sex marriages which had been performed in other states. So, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, there was no constitutional reason whatever why same-sex couples MUST have their marriages recognized in ALL other states.

    That is a perfect application of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
    Obergefell is a substantive due process decision, pure and simple, with all the faults which have made that doctrine notorious--and then some. Chief Justice Roberts was exactly right to compare it to Lochner, the quintessential case from the Supreme Court's "Substantive Due Process Era," which is usually taken as the period between 1904 and 1937. The only real difference is that in Lochner in 1905, it was an imaginary liberty of contract the Court read into the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, while in Obergefell in 2015 it was an imaginary liberty of homosexual marriage.

Page 6 of 55 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •