• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Oh, for sure. And I'm rich and have a mansion on my own private island. Claiming to know so and so on the internet is meaningless on a political forum discussion of ideas.

Yeah personal anecdotes are my pet peeve too. You'll see a lot of it on this forum though. Just tell Goshin that you know 5 polygamous families all of which are devout Christians.
 
Oh, for sure. And I'm rich and have a mansion on my own private island. Claiming to know so and so on the internet is meaningless on a political forum discussion of ideas. Fail for you.



Don't know you, never heard of you, never seen you here before... don't much care what you think.


Me, I been here many years, and I'm known for being honest and speaking the truth.... which I am doing this time as I always do.


Your inability to recognize that is of no interest to me.
 
Yeah personal anecdotes are my pet peeve too. You'll see a lot of it on this forum though. Just tell Goshin that you know 5 polygamous families all of which are devout Christians.



Say what you like. I shoot straight and speak the truth. That you fail to recognize and honest man when you meet one is your problem.
 
Don't know you, never heard of you, never seen you here before... don't much care what you think.


Me, I been here many years, and I'm known for being honest and speaking the truth.... which I am doing this time as I always do.


Your inability to recognize that is of no interest to me.

I don't care how long you've been here or your claim of honesty. Who you supposedly know has nothing to do with anything. Often people try to persuade others by claiming to know this person or that person, or they've done this or that. This is the internet where the only thing to back up your points are verifiable facts.
 
Nope. Bigots on the left will try to stop this from happening, but their bigotry will fail. When my sister and I show up looking for a marriage license is when their heads will explode.

Actually, after a lifetime of hearing all the stories of that sort of thing coming out of the South, we're pretty blasé about it by now.
 
I'll be very interested to see how this plays out. There is definitely a point to the idea that polyamorous marriage might be just fine, and that expanding marriage rights maybe should include that. The idea has a point, even if it is being cynically made by pouting homophobes who don't actually mean it. On the other hand, there's a lot of legal untangling to be done before it can proceed. And maybe it oughtn't to be protected because it so often results in the abuse of women. I'd really like to hear the arguments. Arguments made by professionals and scholars, of course, and not sad theocrats who can't stand that society won't cater to their backwards religion and that religious liberty doesn't just mean their liberty, but everyone else's, too.
 
Agree, I don't see how it could be...however don't underestimate the SCOTUS in their ability to legislate from the bench.

They will find a way to bend the law to suit their whims, don't you doubt that

How about the people of this country start finding their backbones, and making the Supreme Court watch its step? Even if they have not done it in a very long time, our representatives can still impeach and try justices. Congress can make laws that frustrate or reverse the effect of Supreme Court decisions. Congress can even remove the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, over cases involving a particular issue. A president can refuse to enforce a decision. States can refuse to comply with a decision.

All these checks are already available to us. And if we don't think they are enough, we can follow Sen. Cruz' suggestion, and amend the Constitution to provide for judicial retention elections, as twenty states have done by law.
 
How about the people of this country start finding their backbones, and making the Supreme Court watch its step? Even if they have not done it in a very long time, our representatives can still impeach and try justices. Congress can make laws that frustrate or reverse the effect of Supreme Court decisions. Congress can even remove the jurisdiction of federal courts, including the Supreme Court, over cases involving a particular issue. A president can refuse to enforce a decision. States can refuse to comply with a decision.

All these checks are already available to us. And if we don't think they are enough, we can follow Sen. Cruz' suggestion, and amend the Constitution to provide for judicial retention elections, as twenty states have done by law.

As soon as a Justice commits a crime, displays mental health issues, or acts in a way that violates his oath to uphold the Constitution, then by all means...impeach him. Otherwise, obey the law.
 
I want to wish them luck, but this isn't a Constitutional issue like gay marriage is. This should be settled in the legislatures.
 
As soon as a Justice commits a crime, displays mental health issues, or acts in a way that violates his oath to uphold the Constitution, then by all means...impeach him. Otherwise, obey the law.

I do not consider flaccid acceptance of unlawful dictates to be obeying the law. And since the Constitution does not specifically define what the "good behavior" that determines tenure for the justices means, I don't see why Congress could not make it mean pretty much whatever the people want. After all, if the people want to impeach a president, their representatives in the House can make just about anything into a "high crime or misdemeanor"--just look at the way the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was contrived.

I would say that all five of the justices in the majority in Obergefell violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. I have read and studied hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, and I understand the nature and history of substantive due process pretty well. This decision is as lawless and arbitrary a dictate as I have ever seen from the Court. It has no authority whatever in the Constitution, but is just a matter of five judges illegitimately substituting their preferred policy for the votes of tens of millions of Americans. It does not deserve to be obeyed, any more than Dred Scott v. Sandford did.

No reason to trouble with impeachment, when simple failure by states to comply would do the job.
 
I suspect that after the crazies and the activists and the crazy activists are done with this thing the whole concept of marriage is going to be stricken from law....which, when you get right down to it, is fine with me.
Can it be stricken from law anymore? The Court has decided people have a fundamental right to a government-recognized marriage.
 
I do not consider flaccid acceptance of unlawful dictates to be obeying the law. And since the Constitution does not specifically define what the "good behavior" that determines tenure for the justices means, I don't see why Congress could not make it mean pretty much whatever the people want. After all, if the people want to impeach a president, their representatives in the House can make just about anything into a "high crime or misdemeanor"--just look at the way the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was contrived.

I would say that all five of the justices in the majority in Obergefell violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. I have read and studied hundreds of Supreme Court decisions, and I understand the nature and history of substantive due process pretty well. This decision is as lawless and arbitrary a dictate as I have ever seen from the Court. It has no authority whatever in the Constitution, but is just a matter of five judges illegitimately substituting their preferred policy for the votes of tens of millions of Americans. It does not deserve to be obeyed, any more than Dred Scott v. Sandford did.

No reason to trouble with impeachment, when simple failure by states to comply would do the job.

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.

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?

IMO you do NOT understand constitutional law, despite your claim to have read "hundreds of decisions," because despite the regretfully flowery rhetoric used by Justice Kennedy in his Majority decision, 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.

That is a perfect application of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.
 
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?

1) Separate but equal
2) Not Actually Equal

That's all marriage is to the government. As for what my hypothetical marriage might mean to you, I refer you to my previous question. Who cares what you think?
 
Why not. How about marrying your horse?

I'm pretty sure the horse couldn't give its consent, but why would you want to?
There is a reason ugly people are sometimes called "horse faced".


EDIT: Oops...I see you've been banned.
Too bad.....I was looking forward to pix of your horse.
 
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.

Please name the "conservative Christian" denominations that practice polygamy today. Go!
 
Were they born polygamous, or was it a choice?

While I do not argue against same sex marriage.....
Not all homosexual individuals were "born that way". And, as many in the gay rights activism groups would agree, the federal government has no business attempting to determine whether one was "born that way" or if they "chose to be that way".

This is a horrible argument against polygamy.
 
yep and now comes the lawsuit.

since marriage is whatever people want it to be.

I am actually quite fine with that.
 
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 don't. Don't care one bit.

That doesn't stop me from being cynical about how our courts will see things. They're gonna do whatever the hell they want, one way or the other. They are our robed overlords, after all.

Do you have an issue with more freedoms?
 
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?

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!
 
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!
If you aren't intelligent enough to determine that an animal cannot sign a binding contract like marriage....... I don't know how to help you.

As they say in the south (where, sadly, gay marriage is less accepted), "You Can't fix Stupid"

I am not being facetious in my question......

I see absolutely no reason why those who willingly enter into a plural marriage should be denied the right to do so....

You didn't take my question seriously.... so I'd appreciate an honest response.
 
Were they born polygamous, or was it a choice?
That depends on whether or not bi-sexuality is genetic or choice. That said, and as I've said throughout the SSM debate, this is a country supposedly of being able to make choices that harm no others, and choosing to married one of one's own gender or multiple of whatever gender should be allowed and accepted between consenting and informed adults. So for example a man married to two women in different areas that are unaware of each other, should not be allowed, ie two separate marriages, ... but one marriage between multiple partners should be, imo.
 
If you aren't intelligent enough to determine that an animal cannot sign a binding contract like marriage....... I don't know how to help you.

As they say in the south (where, sadly, gay marriage is less accepted), "You Can't fix Stupid"

I am not being facetious in my question......

I see absolutely no reason why those who willingly enter into a plural marriage should be denied the right to do so....

You didn't take my question seriously.... so I'd appreciate an honest response.
The last part of that is correct: I didn't take your question seriously. Well, I didn't take your post seriously at any rate. I did, however, answer the question you posed:

What is inherently wrong with polygamy? On what grounds do people oppose it?

and I replied:

Probably none.


So, next time please read my response before calling me names.

As for the rest of my response:

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!

That, too, was meant seriously. Why else would anyone be posting a story about a trio in Montana who applied for a polygamous marriage license?
 
Back
Top Bottom