• 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

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 would suggest reading the opinion from Brown v. Buhman, it's a district court case which struct down the cohabitation aspect of Utah's polygamy law, but upehld the general ban on the grounds of State's interests. Essentially, the argument goes that the State provides societal benefits to married couples because those couples provide societal benefits to the State. If polygamy is allowed, then the probability of tax fraud (e.g. people will declare themselves married, but not actually be connected to each other in any meaningful way) goes up. The same types of arguments can be applied to inheritance laws as well.
 
I am sure you are.

Yes... As I said... I am fine with it.

I do not suffer from other people's affliction of the need to control other people's relationships that affect nobody but themselves.
 
if you believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 women your argument stays consistent even in polygamist marriages.

And yet, nobody with that belief has been able to prove why their belief should be the law of the land, despite the rights and liberties of others who don't share it.
 
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.

A wild free for all 'self identify your marriage' environment. OK.

Now. The hard part. What about the financial impact to the state and the electorate of being married or not being married? What of the financial difference to the state? (mind you I'm just asking questions, I don't know specifically).
 
Scripture does not support polygamy for modern man.

There is now no legal basis for prohibiting polygamy, or any kind of marriage for that matter.

Would you prefer that there be a legal basis for limiting the rights and freedoms of others? Especially when those rights and freedoms do not effect you in the slightest?
 
Here's something else to consider, two women in the house don't always get along. It takes a very special set of rules and attitudes of acceptance to make it work. But outside of that, the legality is up to society which appears to be in a mood to accept it.

The legality should not be "up to society". Thats like saying the legality of Slavery should be "Up to society".
 
Looks like your hunting around for an excuse to prohibit polygamy. I don't think the Left has a leg to stand on anymore.

I'm not searching very hard. Others on this thread have noted the impact on immigration law as another State interest.

Those are some very legitimate state interests and a ban on polygamous marriage is a narrowly defined method to achieve that goal.

And while Obergefell did not reference legitimate State interests in their case, I believe the primary reason is that those arguments were so soundly defeated in the cases leading up to that decision (and specifically in the DOMA case) that the opponents of gay marriage pretty much exclusively pursued a "State's rights to decide" type of argument and thus, the majority opinion did not address (but simultaneously did not reject) the notion that a legitimate State interest can defeat a constitutional right claim as long as that interest is pursued in a narrowly tailored fashion.
 
The legality should not be "up to society". Thats like saying the legality of Slavery should be "Up to society".
Okay I misspoke.
 
I'm not searching very hard. Others on this thread have noted the impact on immigration law as another State interest.

Those are some very legitimate state interests and a ban on polygamous marriage is a narrowly defined method to achieve that goal.

And while Obergefell did not reference legitimate State interests in their case, I believe the primary reason is that those arguments were so soundly defeated in the cases leading up to that decision (and specifically in the DOMA case) that the opponents of gay marriage pretty much exclusively pursued a "State's rights to decide" type of argument and thus, the majority opinion did not address (but simultaneously did not reject) the notion that a legitimate State interest can defeat a constitutional right claim as long as that interest is pursued in a narrowly tailored fashion.
Not allowing polygamy is bigotry, especially from the gay crowd that can also add hypocrisy to that.
 
I would suggest reading the opinion from Brown v. Buhman, it's a district court case which struct down the cohabitation aspect of Utah's polygamy law, but upehld the general ban on the grounds of State's interests. Essentially, the argument goes that the State provides societal benefits to married couples because those couples provide societal benefits to the State. If polygamy is allowed, then the probability of tax fraud (e.g. people will declare themselves married, but not actually be connected to each other in any meaningful way) goes up. The same types of arguments can be applied to inheritance laws as well.

And I am saying that despite their ruling, welfare benefits from the state is not a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people.

Ones right should not be subject to the convenience of the government.

And, considering that Bigamy laws were around BEFORE all of these welfare programs.... that argument shouldn't hold water anyways.
 
Not allowing polygamy is bigotry, especially from the gay crowd that can also add hypocrisy to that.

What is not allowing polygamy bigotry against? You realizing having multiple wives is not a sexual orientation that you are born with.
 
A wild free for all 'self identify your marriage' environment. OK.

Now. The hard part. What about the financial impact to the state and the electorate of being married or not being married? What of the financial difference to the state? (mind you I'm just asking questions, I don't know specifically).
It doesn't matter.....

What is convenient or cheap for the government should not be a factor in considering what rights and liberties are permitted the people.

Also, the fact that Bigamy laws were in place long before the welfare state we live in today, shows that this was not the reason for creating Bigamy laws in the first place, and thus they should be struck down.
 
Actually it's not - which wife? The interpretation of one man and one woman was created by the Romans as I already stated after Christ's crucifixion.

Um, it states "wife", not, "wives". C'mon man.

Here's something from the OT.

17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
 
What is not allowing polygamy bigotry against? You realizing having multiple wives is not a sexual orientation that you are born with.

I don't give a **** if it's sexual orientation or not, it's a marriage choice. And now that we're redefining marriage, what the hell. Chaff with the wheat, baby, chaff with the wheat.
 
And I am saying that despite their ruling, welfare benefits from the state is not a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people.

Ones right should not be subject to the convenience of the government.

And, considering that Bigamy laws were around BEFORE all of these welfare programs.... that argument shouldn't hold water anyways.

Yes, benefits supplied from the State are a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people. If, for example, the state provides you with paved roads or water treatment and, in exchange, requires you to pay taxes and the state makes it illegal for you to damage those structures (even when built on your own personal property), then the State has a legitimate interest from supplying their welfare benefits and they can, in exchange, limit your rights and freedoms.

That is a fairly basic concept that is longstanding. And absolutely, your rights should be subject to the interests of the State. That is the entire point of having a Government force - we all give up some forms of freedom to the State in exchange for societal benefits. Drawing the line is the only issue remaining and it is incumbent on the State to prove that (in the scenario where we are dealing with a fundamental right) they have a compelling government interest and that their laws are narrowly tailored in order to accomplish/protect that interest.

The timing of when the polygamy laws came into effect and when the various welfare programs which would be impacted by repeal of those polygamy laws seems irrelevant.
 
I don't give a **** if it's sexual orientation or not, it's a marriage choice.

Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.
 
Would you prefer that there be a legal basis for limiting the rights and freedoms of others? Especially when those rights and freedoms do not effect you in the slightest?

Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.
 
Where's the bigotry? That was the question. And of course you don't care about sexual orientation. You think being gay is a choice, like having multiple wives. That's why you parallel homosexuality with polygamy. No doubt you think that bestiality and pedophilia are on the same level.

There's really no point engaging without someone who is trying to allege "bigotry" against the "anti-polygamist" position. It is almost certainly just a method of trolling.
 
Yes, benefits supplied from the State are a legitimate reason to limit the rights and freedoms of the people. If, for example, the state provides you with paved roads or water treatment and, in exchange, requires you to pay taxes and the state makes it illegal for you to damage those structures (even when built on your own personal property), then the State has a legitimate interest from supplying their welfare benefits and they can, in exchange, limit your rights and freedoms.

That is a fairly basic concept that is longstanding. And absolutely, your rights should be subject to the interests of the State. That is the entire point of having a Government force - we all give up some forms of freedom to the State in exchange for societal benefits. Drawing the line is the only issue remaining and it is incumbent on the State to prove that (in the scenario where we are dealing with a fundamental right) they have a compelling government interest and that their laws are narrowly tailored in order to accomplish/protect that interest.

The timing of when the polygamy laws came into effect and when the various welfare programs which would be impacted by repeal of those polygamy laws seems irrelevant.

I don't find it to be irrelevant at all, the timing of the laws that is.

Because as I see it, polygamists were denied the right to have their situation considered as a matter of policy when these "financial benefits" of other married couples were considered, and they were denied this right because their institution of marriage was denied to them based upon....................

Whatever reason it was based upon.


So again I ask, what reason were bigamy laws put in place?
 
Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.

No, it couldn't have been accomplished fairly any other way. And it upheld an already existing right, to equal protection, due process, and to marriage, which has been ruled as existing for over 50 years.
 
No, it couldn't have been accomplished fairly any other way. And it upheld an already existing right, to equal protection, due process, and to marriage, which has been ruled as existing for over 50 years.

There already was equal protection. With all due respect, I am really not interested in your militant attitude towards those who disagree with you.
 
Nope. This could've been accomplished without inventing Constitutional rights or redefining the definition of marriage.

Besides, gimme a break, you libs want to limit rights and freedoms of others all the time. Don't be a hypocrite.

Im sorry pal...... if all your pathetic mind can come up with is "yooz libruhlz!!"..... Im going to have to stop having a debate with you.

The moment you go off talking about yooz libruhlz and make an unsubstantiated claim like "want to limit rights all the time" but don't give any examples and then call someone a hypocrite....... You are no longer debating, just trying to get into a name calling pissing contest.

I'll be on my merry way.
 
Im sorry pal...... if all your pathetic mind can come up with is "yooz libruhlz!!"..... Im going to have to stop having a debate with you.

The moment you go off talking about yooz libruhlz and make an unsubstantiated claim like "want to limit rights all the time" but don't give any examples and then call someone a hypocrite....... You are no longer debating, just trying to get into a name calling pissing contest.

I'll be on my merry way.

Yes, libs do tend to run from the truth. Thanks, I appreciate it.
 
I don't find it to be irrelevant at all, the timing of the laws that is.

Because as I see it, polygamists were denied the right to have their situation considered as a matter of policy when these "financial benefits" of other married couples were considered, and they were denied this right because their institution of marriage was denied to them based upon....................

Whatever reason it was based upon.

So again I ask, what reason were bigamy laws put in place?

I don't follow - why must the initial passage of the law take into account the financial benefits of other married couples in order for the law to be upheld or struck down today? There have been additional State interests enacted (or at least not enumerated at the time) since the anti-polygamy law was enacted. Repeal of the law must take into account the alleged legitimate State interests which exist today.

The same reasoning applies to anti-gay marriage laws like DOMA. Those laws, when reviewed, took into account current State interests and, more importantly for those cases, current research into the field relevant towards addressing the alleged State interests.
 
Um, it states "wife", not, "wives". C'mon man.
One wife at a time. Are you really basing marriage on the use of a plural versus no plural? We already know polygamy was common in Israel and the surrounding region .... Show me where it states in the bible that Gods law is one man and one woman only.
Here's something from the OT.

17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

Yes I already posted Duet 17 as well as Deut 21:15-17. That does not make it Gods law and in Deut 17, God was stating what Israel's KING should and should not do as God was to choose Israels King - this was not a pronouncement for all people, but simply to identify that this King was to trust in God and not in many wives which could lead Israel's King's astray. However Israel's Kings failed to meet these expectations didn't they.... both in women and in riches. 1 Kings 11:1-3.
 
Back
Top Bottom