• 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

Hey, you spend the next 50 years campaigning for your right to have three wives, including your sister, and get the law changed, and change majority opinion, and get it ruled constitutional, and fight discrimination, go ahead. Knock yourself out, but don't try to hang onto the coat-tails of LGBT people's struggles, martyrdom and victories.
once again, someone tries to falsely connect incest with polygamy. If that is all you have give it up now. The two are as related as incest and homosexuality
 
Sounds like an argument for incest marriage.

Remember that sex and marriage are not one in the same. While they often are together , each can exist without the other
 
once again, someone tries to falsely connect incest with polygamy. If that is all you have give it up now. The two are as related as incest and homosexuality

I have no interest in whether they are or not. Not my battle. I know that neither have anything to do with SSM and can take no precedent from recent LGBT victories.
 
They provide all of the same benefits to society as monogamous heterosexual and homosexual marriages do........ so I am confused on how you can claim that it has to be shown.

Tell you what, since I am apparently ignorant to this vast bit of knowledge that is obviously known to you regarding the benefits of monogamous homosexual and heterosexual relationships to society.... provide me a list of these benefits and we can see which of these same benefits apply to polygamous relationships as well.

In light of the recent USSC decision, which didn't seem to focus very much on the BENEFITS of homosexual marriage as it seemed to focus on the equal protection of them, I am confused on how polygamy must somehow prove itself when homosexual marriage didn't.

SCOTUS has already addressed how marriage between two people benefits both the couple and society at large in a number of previous decisions so they did not need to make a thorough review of those benefits in this one (though they did reference them). Experience has shown that married couples make more money, are less likely to be victims of domestic violence, have greater social mobility, longer life expectancies, provide a more stable environment for their children which results in them having higher levels of academic achievement, greater income, less likely to commit crimes or be abused, as well as a number of other benefits to society.

Plural marriages have been shown to be strongly associated with a number of social ills such as arranged marriages, child abuse, and involuntary servitude. Even in its' most benign form, it tends to create a situation where wealthy men get to marry a disproportionate share of the available women leaving many men unable to enjoy the benefits of marriage due to a lack of available partners which leads to a number of social ills, most notably prostitution
 
Why not just see where this goes? The people who are arguing hardest for it are social conservatives who do not want it but are angry with same-sex couples having the right. Are they going to make all the arguments for those who want polygamy until it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy?

The polygamists are inspired by the dissent to the ruling, that should tell you something. Justice Roberts makes it seem like there is no discussion or debate to be had on polygamy since same-sex couples were recognized to have the right to marry and his rhetoric sets this stage. If history will blame anyone for polygamy becoming legal, it will be him because he refused to acknowledge that there are significant differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy and that set the precedent for similarly simplistic thinking for other courts and political leaders.

No need to "worry" about Roberts. Should a polygamy case come before him, I'm sure he'll find many legal justifications for denying legal recognition of their marriage(s)
 
Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.

What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?

The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny. But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.
 
The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny.
You have a point but recent changes in citizenship now simply require a birth to take place on US soil so marriage for citizenship can be skipped altogether. Yes some will use a multi-person marriage to defraud the government but some will not. That then opens an investigative procedure as well as a door for yet more bureaucracy to interfere in people's lives and it would be open a yes or no to a marriage based on the interviewers biases and interpretations. That's not a very consistent nor efficient methodology - unless of course the government would charge the couple for the interview, assessment and any appeals as well as tax approved polygamist marriages at a higher rate as a way of compensating those who slipped through the review process.


But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.
A mass marriage will happen sooner rather than later... either the laws will have to be modified to accommodate or the restriction will be seen as yet another restriction of rights making some unequal in the case of the law.

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.
It may be legitimate but not without state recourse to subvert the possible fraud potential. Changes in law, changes in society have to accommodate those with which the changes affect - the civil rights movement and equal opportunity actions of the 1960's and 1970's required laws both civilian and criminal to be modified in all states to be compliant to the changes in the federal laws. That would not change in this case either.

Quite the pandora's box that's been opened.
 
You have a point but recent changes in citizenship now simply require a birth to take place on US soil so marriage for citizenship can be skipped altogether. Yes some will use a multi-person marriage to defraud the government but some will not. That then opens an investigative procedure as well as a door for yet more bureaucracy to interfere in people's lives and it would be open a yes or no to a marriage based on the interviewers biases and interpretations. That's not a very consistent nor efficient methodology - unless of course the government would charge the couple for the interview, assessment and any appeals as well as tax approved polygamist marriages at a higher rate as a way of compensating those who slipped through the review process.


A mass marriage will happen sooner rather than later... either the laws will have to be modified to accommodate or the restriction will be seen as yet another restriction of rights making some unequal in the case of the law.

It may be legitimate but not without state recourse to subvert the possible fraud potential. Changes in law, changes in society have to accommodate those with which the changes affect - the civil rights movement and equal opportunity actions of the 1960's and 1970's required laws both civilian and criminal to be modified in all states to be compliant to the changes in the federal laws. That would not change in this case either.

Quite the pandora's box that's been opened.

It hasn't been opened at all, so long as restrictions on numbers remain in place and there is nothing in the same sex marriage ruling that requires restrictions on numbers of spouses to be struck down.

People don't seem to understand that there is a difference between striking down restrictions in the law and removing them through other methods. I personally think these restrictions should slowly be removed, taking these things into account, so that having multiple spouses would still not cause "undue hardship" to the government, society, or our court system. Or even the spouses. Afterall, there is no protocol in place for whether or not a person taking on additional spouses would have to get permission from their existing spouses or tell any of their spouses about the other spouses. These are all things that would be argued by the state in the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS would take these things into consideration.

Honestly, does anyone really believe that the SCOTUS we currently have would strike down restrictions on polygamy, on number of spouses because of this? It just doesn't work like that, no matter what people think of the same sex marriage ban ruling.
 
Even in its' most benign form, it tends to create a situation where wealthy men get to marry a disproportionate share of the available women leaving many men unable to enjoy the benefits of marriage due to a lack of available partners which leads to a number of social ills, most notably prostitution

Waaaaah, it's just not faaaaaaaaaiiiirrrrr.

That is not a valid argument for anything.
 
It is only a sin for the spouse that broke vows to cause the divorce.

I'm just reading through this thread and almost laughing at what is being called progress. This country is getting so effed up, it's unrecognizable.

It would be funnier if it didn't foreshadow the inevitable undoing of our union. I'm glad I'm too old to have to really watch it unravel.

So, this country is effed up because its citizens have more freedom????

And...

Our country is falling apart because duh gheyyzzzz can get married?

People said the same **** about the abolishment of Jim Crow, and about Loving vs. Virginia.


THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
 
Why not just see where this goes? The people who are arguing hardest for it are social conservatives who do not want it but are angry with same-sex couples having the right. Are they going to make all the arguments for those who want polygamy until it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy?

The polygamists are inspired by the dissent to the ruling, that should tell you something. Justice Roberts makes it seem like there is no discussion or debate to be had on polygamy since same-sex couples were recognized to have the right to marry and his rhetoric sets this stage. If history will blame anyone for polygamy becoming legal, it will be him because he refused to acknowledge that there are significant differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy and that set the precedent for similarly simplistic thinking for other courts and political leaders.

Can you tell me why polygamists shouldn't have the right to marry?
 
I have no interest in whether they are or not. Not my battle. I know that neither have anything to do with SSM and can take no precedent from recent LGBT victories.

Actually the incest argument can, where as the pedophile, beastiality, and polygamy arguments cannot. Interracial, same sex and incest marriages all have in common a consenting adult wishing to marry another consenting adult. Indeed all three can be combined in some shape or form in any combination. Polygamy becomes a different argument because we are changing the number of participants. With pedophilia and beastiality, one of the participants is incapable, on a legal basis at least, to consent. Thus incest is the only form which can still ride on the coattail soft interracial and same sex marriages.
 
The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny. But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.

Well, if there are two things we have been told we should not care about it is other people's marriages and illegal immigration. So it's touching to see people suddenly care about both, even if it is purely in a cynical, illogical and spinning way.

If the SCOTUS decision is to be adhered to there is nothing to stop people from entering into any manner of marriage because "Love Wins" don'tcha know.
 
So how long did you think about spinning that before you gave up? :2razz:

Not long. It was just another example of the "mob rule" mentality which some people use, when it is convenient for them. When they are on the other side of the debate... the minority.... that is when the rights and liberties of the individual suddenly seem to matter.
 
Well, if there are two things we have been told we should not care about it is other people's marriages and illegal immigration. So it's touching to see people suddenly care about both, even if it is purely in a cynical, illogical and spinning way.

If the SCOTUS decision is to be adhered to there is nothing to stop people from entering into any manner of marriage because "Love Wins" don'tcha know.
What business of yours is it to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from legal recognition of their union/marriage????
 
Oh I see now. I was curious why this was breaking news but its posted on the false narrative the equal rights for gays now paves the way for this. Moving on.
 
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?
Really? Spending a trillion dollars on a fighter plane that barely works and we don't need, and you're worried that the .01% of the population that might choose to be polygamous will break the bank? Laughable.
 
Oh I see now. I was curious why this was breaking news but its posted on the false narrative the equal rights for gays now paves the way for this. Moving on.

It paves the way for incest marriage, just not more than two people marriage.
 
Well, if there are two things we have been told we should not care about it is other people's marriages and illegal immigration. So it's touching to see people suddenly care about both, even if it is purely in a cynical, illogical and spinning way.

If the SCOTUS decision is to be adhered to there is nothing to stop people from entering into any manner of marriage because "Love Wins" don'tcha know.

There seems to be an implied strict scrutiny standard now, but that doesn't mean any manner of marriage is now required. Your mistake is expanding every argument to absolutes. I can do the same. If we don't allow polygamy, we have to ban heterosexual marriage. Because.
 
There seems to be an implied strict scrutiny standard now, but that doesn't mean any manner of marriage is now required. Your mistake is expanding every argument to absolutes. I can do the same. If we don't allow polygamy, we have to ban heterosexual marriage. Because.
What do you mean by implied? It was altogether ignored.
 
It paves the way for incest marriage, just not more than two people marriage.

No, it simply doesn't. Any arguments based on precedence and rights that people can invent or actually exist can do so if gay marriage never did. It leads the way to exactly ZERO types of other marriages.
 
Well, if there are two things we have been told we should not care about it is other people's marriages and illegal immigration. So it's touching to see people suddenly care about both, even if it is purely in a cynical, illogical and spinning way.

If the SCOTUS decision is to be adhered to there is nothing to stop people from entering into any manner of marriage because "Love Wins" don'tcha know.

I've always cared about both. I don't know why you want to apply certain positions to anyone or any side. Who is this mysterious person or group telling you not to care about "other people's marriages or immigration"? Please tell me why you think that particular position is something that is legal rather than the actual legal arguments made for and against things.
 
No, it simply doesn't.

But it does. The argument made (by SCOTUS) was for any two people, not any two people who are not related.

It is always interesting to see people who claim to be for equality now saying related people cannot have that equality. Really shows you that there is no marriage quality difference in republicans and democrats.
 
But it does. The argument made (by SCOTUS) was for any two people, not any two people who are not related.

It is always interesting to see people who claim to be for equality now saying related people cannot have that equality. Really shows you that there is no marriage quality difference in republicans and democrats.

Marriage sets up a legal relationships. Why would people who already have a legal relationship with each other need to set up a different legal relationship with each other?
 
Back
Top Bottom