Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.
To answer this I'll post what I posted in the US Constitution forum earlier in the week. To wit:
To me, when it all breaks down to its constituent parts, fundamentally marriage is a contract. For some, that contract extends first to God, and then to the person with whom one enters freely, and willingly, uncoerced into said contract. We have always had the right to enter into binding agreements in this country, and absent any manifestly unfair provision, or unfair condition precedent, the contract will stand and be enforced by the power of the court. However, marriage is a bit different than any other contract in the US, it carries with it certain burdens that, regardless of wants and needs, the government has provided must be present, even if not explicitly stated or mentioned in the marriage certificate. Mostly, these government addendums apply when the contract is broken, namely equitable distribution, child support, and various other probative necessities. Interestingly, marriage promises (Nuptials/Vows) made by the parties to the marriage contract have no legal weight, except separate pre-nuptial agreements that inandofthemselves are shaky or breakable, according to government enforcement, so one has to ask themselves, just what is a marriage, legally? The answer is, that legally a marriage is a contract unlike any other contract we have, and follows no legal condition for resolving conflict - not to mention performance like any other contract we have, so is it a contract at all?
If not a real contract, or for sake of argument, not an completely enforceable contract (Vows etc..).. Then exactly how is this marriage a recognizable, and more importantly, fundamental right, if, as we can examine objectively, the government has placed restrictions and provisions condition precedent in order for this fundamental right to be freely entered into?
I see no other fundamental right that requires the degree of governmental interference required with marriage. So one has to ask, just who has jurisdiction over the conditions of marriage? I say that, if one acknowledges that the state or government has necessary involvement in marriage for the purpose of deciding fairness and equity, then where does, or why does the federal government have power over the states to solve legal disagreements?
The answer when closely examining marriage in practice, is that, marriage isn't a fundamental right, or at least
it isn't acting like one. It's a civil matter, like all other civil matters, and has long been established that civil matters are the property of the several states, even civil domestic matters. Justice Ginsberg herself made this claim nary a few short years ago, but ignored it, several days ago when joining the majority.
Tim-