• 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

No.

No.

No, not believing in mob rule.

But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.

The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.

Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold and :popcorn:

So society is worse off when the people are more free?

How does 3 people's decision to join in marriage affect you?
 
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!

Let them troll if it makes them feel like they've made some point. It means nothing to anyone else.
 
And another spurious thought:

This scheme seems the kind of thing that would keep a man at home - sounds exactly like what society likes to see!
 
No.

No.

No, not believing in mob rule.

But I am believing that society, and the people living in it, need some sort of expected and accepted constraints imposed by society. Without self restraint the society will collapse into chaos.

The SCOTUS SSM ruling is causing some chaos, but that's the law of the land, so we are left only to hope that this chaos and craziness, such as polygamists wanting equal standing, passes. It may not, and society will be worse for it if this chaos doesn't pass. This chaos may become the new 'normal', and if so, it'll be to society's, and everyone living in that society, detriment.

Whatever's gonna happen is gonna happen, and there's nothing that you nor I can do is going to change that a single farthing. We just get to sit on the sidelines, watch all this craziness unfold and :popcorn:

Gay marriage has been the law of the land in many states and many countries for years now. Look to them as examples for all the chaos and mayhem that has occurred. Make a list, and report back to us with your findings.
 
Now I recognized that the Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873) ruling created the principle under stare decisis that the 14th Amendment did not protect the various privileges or immunities incident to citizenship of a state.


The Slaughter-House Cases had nothing to do with stare decisis. It was the Supreme Court's first interpretation of three clauses in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was only five years old at the time-- "This Court is thus called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles [the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses]."

This is what compels the SCOTUS majority to use Due Process, even when the argument contains a significant basis in State privileges and immunities.

In McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, Justice Thomas provided a long, detailed analysis of the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. He argued for reviving it and using it, instead of the Due Process Clause, to gauge which rights are truly fundamental, and therefore deserving of greater protection, and which are not. He was especially concerned with the fact "substantive" due process is a legal theory which lacks any guiding principle and therefore invites the arbitrary invention of new fundamental constitutional rights. (In Lochner, it was a "fundamental right" to contract that the Court concocted; in Roe, it was a "fundamental right" to abortion; and here, it was a "fundamental right" to homosexual marriage.)

The very narrow interpretation the Court gave the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases has never prevented the Court from reviving that clause and giving it a broader construction. It could have done that at any time, and as Thomas suggested, still could today. It has all along relied on the doctrine of substantive due [/I]process[/I]--a contradiction in terms that distorts the constitutional text--because it offers a convenient way to concoct new "liberties" the state can then deprive no person of, without due process of law. Before long we may be hearing about previously-unknown fundamental rights like going nude in public, or engaging in adult incest.

So, while the decision does state (as you insist) basis under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, reading the arguments show that the support for that use is clearly based in significant amount on state sanctioned privileges and immunities granted married couples but denied to same-sex couples under State laws. Further, the decision categorically includes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the arguments in support of that.

I stand by my previous posts.

If you want to believe equal protection played any part in Obergefell except as window dressing Kennedy threw in to try to shore up an indefensible, lawless decision, knock yourself out.

As for myself, I think the Chief Justice unmasked the equal protection part of Obergefell as the sham it is--which suits it perfectly to the rest of the majority decision:


The majority does not seriously engage with this claim. Its discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow. The central point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases . . . The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis for its holding. (my italics)

Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 197 (2009) [“t is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.”] In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)
 
Last edited:
Just more evidence that government should remove itself from the wedding business altogether.

Gays getting married doesn't really mean they're married. I certainly don't recognize it as marriage (like I don't recognize many heterosexual marriages either). It's nowhere near the equivalent of my marriage.

It takes more than a piece of paper. Marriage is about faith and raising children. It's not a "state" matter. That's why this issue hasn't really mattered to me because it changes nothing.

But if the state wants to get involved with the "freedom" nonsense of it all, then anybody should be allowed to marry anyone, or anything, and as many as they please. I mean, marriage is about equality and freedom, right?

This is what happens when you mess with the fabric of our culture.
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.
 
Marriage is a contract.

Legally recognized contracts require those who enter into them to be of legal age and of sound mind.

Thus, this fallacy of marrying any "thing" is nonsensical idiocy.

Marriage is not a "contract" to a man and woman who are truly married.
 
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.
What's the compelling state interest in not giving polygamous spouses hospital visitation rights? Child support and alimony? Automatic rights to joint parenting? Exclusion from crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded to monogamous married couples? Etc.
 
Your comparison is apples and oranges.

Access to a government service due to no employees willing to do their job based upon "religious beliefs" (essentially denying someone's access to government services based upon discrimination) is in no way comparable to the numbers of a group that suffer from that discrimination.

Just because they may be few in number, does not justify discriminating against them.
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.
 
What's the compelling state interest in not giving polygamous spouses hospital visitation rights? Child support and alimony? Automatic rights to joint parenting? Exclusion from crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded to monogamous married couples? Etc.

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.
 
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.

Who are you to place barriers to love, bigot! :2razz:
 
Were they born polygamous, or was it a choice?

More support for polygamy than monogamy in the human species in general, not to mention every other species on Earth, so yeah, one could say that a monogamous relationship, evolutionarily speaking is a relatively new concept.

Tim-
 
Gay marriage has been the law of the land in many states and many countries for years now. Look to them as examples for all the chaos and mayhem that has occurred. Make a list, and report back to us with your findings.
I think you are missing my point. Please see below.
So society is worse off when the people are more free?

How does 3 people's decision to join in marriage affect you?

No, society is worse off when there's less personal restraint. 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.

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.
 
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.

You seem to have missed the point of the SCOTUS decision in hilarious fashion. The lazy as ess Gay-Marriage lobby fought against the idea of a majority rule on the definition of marriage and in favor of marriage as a right. You have no control over the definition of marriage at this point. If the majority of the country is against polygamy then tough ess. "Love Wins".

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.

Nobody has to fight for their rights anymore, the SCOTUS made marriage a right so the majority can no longer define what marriage is.

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.

Marriage is a right now. You can't refuse it to anyone. Welcome to the crap storm.
 
Since the government isn't a house of worship or endorses any religious belief.....
Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.

how about firing those government employees that refuse to do their jobs and replace them with ones who will?.
Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
 
More support for polygamy than monogamy in the human species in general, not to mention every other species on Earth, so yeah, one could say that a monogamous relationship, evolutionarily speaking is a relatively new concept.

Tim-

The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.
 
The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.

Not the problem of the court, or of the people. Does one now have a fundamental right to a partner? Good luck floating that one by even this court. I suppose Kennedy could say that human dignity requires that we preserve the herd for the less endowed among us.. :)

Tim-
 
The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.

Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.

What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?
 
Not the problem of the court, or of the people. Does one now have a fundamental right to a partner? Good luck floating that one by even this court. I suppose Kennedy could say that human dignity requires that we preserve the herd for the less endowed among us.. :)

Tim-

Oh I agree! I am making an argument for why polygamy will be a problem for society, but based on the SCOTUS ruling there is no way to stop polygamists.
 
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?

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-
 
Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.

What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?

By not being an actual polygamist family. For example, you could theoretically have numerous individuals (because if you accept a 3 person marriage, then there are no arguments which I can imagine for limiting the number at 3) who obtain marital licenses to each other, but live in different cities or states. These individuals are not living together nor are they even forming a family unit in order to provide benefits to society.

The same applies to situations of immigration. You could get one legalized individual to apply for a marital license with numerous illegal immigrants under the auspices of a polygamous marriage even though there is no intent to ever form a polygamous family unit.
 
Nor does the government prohibit the free exercise of religion.
I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.


Typically, the government can't force people to abandon their constitutional rights as a condition of employment.
The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.
 
I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.


The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay an employee's salary if they're being discriminated against by that employee.
You are absolutely right!

If a prospective civil servant cannot perform their assigned duties, they have no reason to be employed by us.

The work for us, at our pleasure.

Not the other-way-around ...
 
Last edited:
The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.
Really? So...

If Joe marries Joan and John,
and Betty marries Betsy and Bitty,

Can't SingleGuy then marry Betsy, or Betsy and Joan, without also marrying Joe, John, Betty and Bitty?

I suppose you might need something like a Facebook page with separate friends and marriages lists to keep track of it all.
 
Back
Top Bottom