• 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

And so... I ask again..... rights and liberties of the individual are contingent upon the convenience of the government?????

In some ways, yes. State interest is equivalent to government interest. It is part of the scrutiny that SCOTUS uses to determine if a law is violating the 14th Amendment. It doesn't take much to satisfy the "government/state interest" test. It is just that those for same sex marriage bans couldn't show even a legitimate state interest involved, since the only thing that striking down those bans could legitimately be shown to do that was different than two people of the opposite sex getting married on a legal level was they wouldn't use husband and wife on the marriage license, but rather spouse 1/2 or a/b or wife/husband marrying wife/husband (please circle as applicable). There are no legitimate studies showing any sort of increase in government funds being likely to be spent on same sex couples getting married. There is nothing that will likely cost the government money, but instead plenty to show that an increase in money in the government coffers is likely with same sex marriage legal, even if just by a little.

The same statements cannot be said about polygamy. It is not going to be a simple transition like same sex marriage so easily (relatively speaking, within the context) is.
 
In some ways, yes. State interest is equivalent to government interest. It is part of the scrutiny that SCOTUS uses to determine if a law is violating the 14th Amendment. It doesn't take much to satisfy the "government/state interest" test. It is just that those for same sex marriage bans couldn't show even a legitimate state interest involved, since the only thing that striking down those bans could legitimately be shown to do that was different than two people of the opposite sex getting married on a legal level was they wouldn't use husband and wife on the marriage license, but rather spouse 1/2 or a/b or wife/husband marrying wife/husband (please circle as applicable). There are no legitimate studies showing any sort of increase in government funds being likely to be spent on same sex couples getting married. There is nothing that will likely cost the government money, but instead plenty to show that an increase in money in the government coffers is likely with same sex marriage legal, even if just by a little.

The same statements cannot be said about polygamy. It is not going to be a simple transition like same sex marriage so easily (relatively speaking, within the context) is.

Government/State interest and Government Cost Effective/Convenience are not the same thing......

Tell a slave that he can't be free because it is more convenient on the government.
Tell an old man he can't marry a young girl because it is convenient on the government.

Rights and Liberties of the Individual should not be subject to what makes the government's job easier.
 
It was pretty clear that the ruling applied to two people getting married. This won't go anywhere.

You think that it will be left to fester? It wasn't good before. Now it's outright rotten.
 
Look.... maybe you haven't been to North Carolina.... but pretending that every county has 2-50 Civil Magistrates working on any particular day is a stretch of the imagination.

In Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro, Durham.... yeah maybe.

But we should NEVER base law on the MOST availability, but on the LEAST availability.
Many counties in North Carolina have 1 magistrate that handles both Civil AND Criminal matters at the same time.

Pretending there is a long line of Magistrates just sitting around waiting for work, rather than a long line of citizens waiting patiently (and impatiently) for their opportunity to come before one is laughable.

Also, pretending that in the rural parts of North Carolina (which is most of it) that there will be a Magistrate who DOESN'T have this "deeply held religious belief" is also quite laughable.

Does North Carolina have a large Gay population?
 
And herein lies the folly of this whole debacle. The idea that the state should in any way be the arbiter of what a "legitimate" marriage consists of is absurd. If we're just going to let anyone and everyone determine fr themselves what is and is not "legitimate" then why bother having marriage laws at all?

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.
Well, let's be honest...same sex marriage isn't legit either. Sure there's a fancy piece of paper, but it's not a real union they way Jenner isn't a real woman. It's like installing a wheelchair ramp on your building, the person is still disabled, you're just accommodating them for the sake of everyone getting along. We call Jenner a woman so that "she" can function better within society, but Jenner isn't really a woman. We call gays "married" so they too can function better within society, but they aren't really married, just on paper. The state doesn't have the power to decide legitimacy no matter how badly it wants to pretend.
 
And herein lies the folly of this whole debacle. The idea that the state should in any way be the arbiter of what a "legitimate" marriage consists of is absurd. If we're just going to let anyone and everyone determine fr themselves what is and is not "legitimate" then why bother having marriage laws at all?

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.
Yes, it does beg the question...

why is the government involved with who consenting adults are allowed to love and why are "small government" conservatives constantly trying to legislate what happens in the bedroom.
 
You think that it will be left to fester? It wasn't good before. Now it's outright rotten.

Despite one obscure polygamous couple in Montana asking for recognition, polygamy is not nearly as popular for same-sex marriage, and there is no large push for it, so I don't see anything coming of it.
 
I'm a "bigot on the left" and I don't give a **** who you marry or how many people you marry as long as they are of legal age and carry human DNA. It's none of my business if one of you hicks from Mississippi want to marry your sister-aunt. It's the southern conservative states and Mormon strongholds (also conservative) where cousin ****ing, animal ****ing and polygamy occur the most anyway, so consider it a win for the south.
If it's not your business then feel free to leave the thread. Many of us do consider public policy our business, though, seeing as how we pay the taxes that fund it.
 
Despite one obscure polygamous couple in Montana asking for recognition, polygamy is not nearly as popular for same-sex marriage, and there is no large push for it, so I don't see anything coming of it.
You just wait until the natives down a Pine Ridge get ahold of this one....
 
Yes, it does beg the question...

why is the government involved with who consenting adults are allowed to love and why are "small government" conservatives constantly trying to legislate what happens in the bedroom.
It's not about love. It's about pooling resources and and property inheritance.
 
Despite one obscure polygamous couple in Montana asking for recognition, polygamy is not nearly as popular for same-sex marriage, and there is no large push for it, so I don't see anything coming of it.

I was not thinking of that primarily. But even causes throws up quite a few legal questions and has led to new regulation in Germany. Even after that it is still problematic in not treating everyone the same. The real problem is the separation ie prohibition of state involvement in religiin and its practice.
 
I was not thinking of that primarily. But even causes throws up quite a few legal questions and has led to new regulation in Germany. Even after that it is still problematic in not treating everyone the same. The real problem is the separation ie prohibition of state involvement in religiin and its practice.

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

You do know about social secutity spousal benefits, correct?
 
If conservatives and want join liberals in coming up with a means of preventing polygamy without demonizing gays, and without citing Biblical scripture (which supports polygamy), I'm totally on board.
 
I'm a "bigot on the left" and I don't give a **** who you marry or how many people you marry as long as they are of legal age and carry human DNA. It's none of my business if one of you hicks from Mississippi want to marry your sister-aunt. It's the southern conservative states and Mormon strongholds (also conservative) where cousin ****ing, animal ****ing and polygamy occur the most anyway, so consider it a win for the south.

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.

You are both wrong. this is neither a Christian nor a southern/Utah thing. Poly, in all its many forms cross all the boundaries and is practiced by Christians, pagans, Jews, Muslims and atheists alike. It is across the country and around the world. It is one wife with her husbands and multiple wives and husbands as well as the stereotypical husband with his wives (which is polygyny not polygamy). Look at sites like Loving More, Polyamory Society, and alt.Polyamory to see that this is nowhere near limited to the FLDS nor the Muslims. Nor is it limited to, as I pointed out, men having multiple wives or any geographic region.

that is discrimination I thought you hated discrimination.

I don't see how removing restrictions equates to discrimination. Could you explain that?

Now the Mormons can return to their everlasting covenant of polygamy, which was outlawed on the condition of Utah statehood.

They never really left it, they just stopped applying for the legal status. I'm living in a poly family right now and we don't have legal status nor can the government come after us because of it.

Why not. How about marrying your horse?

When your horse can communicate intelligently enough to give consent then yes you can marry your horse.

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?

Because the civil unions were not getting all the same benefits nor carry the same legal weight as marriage in most cases. While there was a small amount that would settle for nothing less than the word itself, most of the LBGT community would have been fine as long as the only difference was literally a word.

Typically polygamous societies favor the wealthy. Imagine a society in which Donald Trump is married to 5000 models and Miss America contestants, while lower-income young men typically go unmarried.

Again with the misconceptions. You are referring to polygyny and yes that is what the FLDS are practicing exclusively. Same for ME Muslims. But the rest of us polys are not so limited. We have our polyandry and polygamy families. I'm in one with a husband and two wives.

And maybe it oughtn't to be protected because it so often results in the abuse of women.

Another misconception that results from the excessive media coverage of the FDLS. The question that needs to be asked is would a given man in a polygynous marriage abusing his wives also be abusing his one wife were he monogamous? And given the number of abusive monogamous men out there, it is a correlation/causation fallacy to associate polygamy to abuse.

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".

With that said there are some of us who do feel that we were "born that way". Our natural instinct is towards poly. Others have a natural instinct towards monogamy, even if it is serial monogamy. And then there are those who can be in a monogamous relationship of a poly one and be fine with 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!

Of course the argument was the allowing interracial marriage was leading to SSM, poly and bestiality. So we're just continuing along the older track
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?

That didn't truly answer the question. You addressed legal complications based upon current law structure, an issue that most of the poly community wants to see addressed before we push for legal acceptance. Note I said most.

If anyone wants to get married they should- be it man, woman, multiples, plants or beasts. I dont see how its anyone's business but themselves.

When you talk about the type of marriage that polys and gays have been getting until now, i.e. social/religious and not legal ones, then I agree with you. But a legal marriage is fully within the purview of the government since it is about their recognition of the marriage for the legal benefits and rights.

As far as I am aware, no mainstream Christian group has ever advocated polygamy or tolerated it among their followers. That's about 2,000 years of history we are talking about.

Yes, polygamy did appear in OT times and perhaps we could have a Biblical exegete explain to us the development of Christian and Jewish doctrines on monogamy, in the light of OT history.

Less actually. If you look at Pau'ls words in Romans, which is usually the basis for arguing monogamy, he would rather you not marry at all, and if you must and are a leader in the church then only one. Thus if you were not a leader, polygamy was still allowable. The church itself, based upon the no marriage preference, didn't get into controlling marriages until Pope Innocent III (well one of the Innocents) in about the 12th or 13th century, when they decreed for the first time that all marriages must go through them. So the conversion from poly allowed to poly forbidden was probably around the same time. But there isn't a full 2000 years worth of being against it.

All of them!

You need to back that up. Unless you are playing a word game, which I can come up with one possiblity to cover your statement, last I knew the Catholic Church along with many others do not allow polygamy in any form.
 
I don't see how removing restrictions equates to discrimination. Could you explain that?

that isn't what was posted or what I responded to.

The poster said that sure they can get married but the restrictions on benefits would still be in place.

that is still discrimination. if they have a legal marriage then that would open their 2 or 3 or even 4th wife or husbands
up to the same benefits.

equal protection would then apply to their other marriages as well.

this is where the proponents of gay marriage are going to get themselves in trouble by supporting one type of marriage but not all types of marriage then
well they are just as bigoted and close minded and all the other horrible names that they called people that didn't support gay marriage.

if you believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 women your argument stays consistent even in polygamist marriages.
 
If conservatives and want join liberals in coming up with a means of preventing polygamy without demonizing gays, and without citing Biblical scripture (which supports polygamy), I'm totally on board.

This is a common misconception. everywhere you see marriage or anything about marriage it is between 1 man and 1 women. the men that did have polygamist marriages also ran into many issues and other marital problems. when it came to leaders it was even worse. kids when they grew up were constantly fighting over the throne.

if God did give a pass it was for one reason only procreation. war and disease took a huge toll on the population more so the men. by allowing a man to have more than one wife he could keep his line alive if his sons were called to war and killed. however every time you see the bible reference marriage more so in the new testament wife is always singular not plural.
 
polygamy is a uniquely conservative Christian issue. .

Wut? Polygamy is embraced by and practiced by most Muslim religions as well. If you stepped up from your mother's basement once in a while, you would possibly know this.
 
Back
Top Bottom